Writing Negative Reviews - An Exercise in Self-Loathing

[Andy of Comix Inc]

So, as part of my contractual obligations writing for a website (I shan't list it here cos I'm not in the mood for self-advertising), I had to write a review of a game. In the end, the review was supremely negative - I scored it a 4.5 out of 10, I verbally assaulted the game calling it a "failure" and a "joke" and blah blah blah.

...and it felt really, really bad.

I was always under the impression that negative reviews were something that writers liked to write. The idea that you can beat on something for a few paragraphs, with a degree of righteous indignation. But... yeah, no, it kind of hurt me to write it. As I re-read what I'd written, I felt bad. And I realized this is exactly what people like Jim Sterling must go through when they score a game low. It's not a fun experience at all! It's just depressing.

Feels bad, guys. Have you guys written reviews for websites? Did you manage to grasp any enjoyment from badmouthing a game, or was it all just saddening?

Edit: it was an indie game, by the way. I wonder if writing poorly of AAA games is easier because you can spread the hate over a whole team of people, instead of just one guy who poured all his life into a work that ended up not very good. I think I'd still be depressed. Writing reviews and also getting to know the people who make games isn't a very good combination, really.

 

[sextus the crazy]

It depends I think on how much you feel the person deserves hatred for what they produced.
For example, I analyzed Richard Pipes' "the three whys of the Russian Revolution" and I thought it was a horribly misleading and shoddy piece of historical analysis, so I ripped into it with no remorse.
However, in your circumstances, insulting the game itself might be a bit much.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Feels neutral, but that's just how I write.
I don't attack anything unless it happens to be positively stooped in corruption.
If it just happens to be a bad game, I give it a fair (albeit negative) assessment ultimately culminating in me acknowledging that the product enjoys some limited success but a large majority of it could have been done much better or certain mechanics weren't taken advantage of enough.

Like how some games sound great on paper, are at least functional in practice but had the potential to be so much more.

As for reviewing Indie games...well, I do feel a bit worse writing negatively on their behalf because I generally know the ordeals of being an indie dev. If you didn't break out of a studio, you're pretty alone and you spend an awful lot of time/effort/networking into making a personal dream of yours into a reality. If it doesn't work out in the end, I imagine that it's pretty disheartening to read through people analyzing your product with disdain. But, in terms of criticism, it's fair game whenever you decide to put out an entertainment product. The good and the bad.

AAA games are much easier to harshly criticize with a clear conscience, I'll admit that much.
The blame isn't only on the devs, but also the publisher.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I write movie reviews for two websites. One of them has that dubious star rating system gimmick (which I loath, not because it's hard to rate a movie accordingly, but because most people focus on the bloody rating rather than read the piece I worked on). Since I get paid AND go to the press showings for free, movies being good or bad doesn't affect me as much. Good movies are a treat and I'm careful enough to single them out for me; bad movies are also kind of a treat, since I enjoy them in their awfulness (or because I have a sort of sworn duty towards them, like Silent Hill 3D). You know a movie's bad when you're thinking about how you're gonna title your review. Sometimes I relish murdering the movie in a review, sometimes I'm burdened by the fact people will accuse me of being resented towards the movie industry for being sentenced to work on the sidelines of it ("Why don't you go make your own movie?" is a classic). But in the end... it's a fucking job. I write my impressions, which are as valid as any opinion, rate it forcefully and to hell with it. If I'm being honest with myself, then there's no guilt of any kind, regardless of whether the score's low or high.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

When ever I review a game I only care about the end product. Not how small the dev team was, or the marketing and hype, but the end product. If the end product fails to accomplish its goals, whatever the resources put into it, then I have no qualms verbally assassinating it. The best reviews of great albums, to quote one of my favourite books (Kill Your Idols), are not the fawning praises but the brutal thrashings, as they present a new viewpoint for analyzation. The point is, art deserves to be held accountable, if it's good, how is it good? If it's bad, how is it bad? and what did it do wrong that other works do right? If you present your opinion and back it up as much as possible, then you have every right to thrash a game if it deserves it.
for example I had no mercy for Modern Warfare 3: but had a lot of praise for Fez but I was critical of some of the puzzles in Fez and some performance issues, if you have nothing but praise for a game and offer nothing about its flaws, then what use was your review? If a player who read your review encounters something game breaking that you forgot to mention, then you failed at your job. In the end, be as critical as possible and hold nothing back.

 

[Pebkio]

I don't write reviews for anyone. But I don't mind if I have to rake a game over the coals. I only feel badly if I personally was hoping the game was good. But I also would not insult an indy game. Just me, but I only insult when a faceless publisher is involved. If it's just some guys or a small company, I'd rather give constructive criticism. Sit them down on my knee, talk to them like they're new to this, but never outright insult them.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

However, in your circumstances, insulting the game itself might be a bit much.

Well I didn't "insult" it. It was a comedy game, though, and I explained on numerous occasions why and how it wasn't funny at all. Which, no matter how I worded out, still comes out insulting. Like booing a bad comedian - I mean, that's a dickish thing to do, even if they full well deserved it, y'know? I was well aware of my position as the heaper-on-er of scorn.

 

[King Billi]

This is why I figure I could never be a critic of any kind.

I just don't have enough passion and love for any particular medium to let myself get so worked up about bad games or films enough to be so harsh in criticising them. I just don't see the point.

As such theres alot of things I really do find distasteful in alot of critics attitudes when I read or watch reviews. Even if I can recognise it as being deserving of a bad review I still often find myself being the guy who says "Oh man come on... Why you gotta be so mean."

I guess I'd just say that if you truly feel the need to lay the righteous smackdown on some terrible game or whatever you'd better be constructive about it and strive to make a point beyond just throwing insults. Another option if you're clever enough is to try and make your review funny or entertaining in some way like Yahtzee or several other reviewers do, that way at least you can get your point across but the whole thing can be viewed as more of a lark to entertain people than a serious critique.

Basically try to have more to offer than just degrading insults and petty contempt otherwise I really don't care what you have to say.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Can't say I write reviews for a website or anything, but I have written them in the past on occasion. I think, if the end product is plainly bad, given the context of the game (sequels, release date, release conditions etc.) then you need to bring those up, but it's usually best to say why. I see so many people write reviews for music and films, saying things like 'this song is great and really adds to the mood of the album' but never saying why it is good, what mood it adds to etc. Also you need to analyse something on its level, for example you need to look into the musical side of music or the film-making side of a film. Not just the overall feel.

 

[josemlopes]

You have to compare it to what other people make with the same prices, it doesnt matter if its a small studio that made a mediocre game if they sell it at 60$, he is trying to play in the big league and will be judge accordingly. If their product isnt as good as what the best 60$ games have to offer then they should have lowered the price.

 

[rebelscum]

I write reviews for a website (though it's hardly professional) and for me writing a bad review is a nice chance to let off steam after having to play through said bad game. While just resorting to name-calling isn't the right way to do it, if something about that game was flat-out terrible then it should be referred to as such. That said, a bad review should be fair, and just saying stuff is terrible isn't enough. I try to give a decent amount of space to the positives as well; I've ever encountered a game with nothing good to say about it. For instance, I reviewed F.E.A.R 2. I hated playing through it, but it looked impressive and the sound design was genuinely great, and those positives demanded to be brought up even if I loathed the rest of the game.

Bottom line is that if a game's bad, you shouldn't feel guilty for saying so, as long as you've said WHY.

 

[saintdane05]

Question: How do you think Angry Joe and Jim Sterling had to feel when they played and wrote the review for Aliens: Colonial Marines?

<spoiler=Angry Joe: Before and After>
<youtube=NOAxAECFuG4>
<youtube=UGX2WE4QUw8>


Jim
Before: http://www.destructoid.com/aliens-colonial-marines-trailer-prepares-to-kick-ass-243085.phtml
After: http://www.destructoid.com/review-aliens-colonial-marines-244276.phtml

OT: The comedy is bad. Okay. Why is it bad? And, more importantly, how can it be improved? Not major ideas, but smaller details that could really bolster a game as a whole.

 

[VoidWanderer]

That's the main problem with reviews and scoring IMO. If you write a review that points out that there are more negatives than positives, by assigning a number, it can reinforce the fact. As long as the review is factual, you should be okay. If you still feel bad, you can always put in the opening paragraph that this is your opinion and should not be taken as gospel. Reviews and critiques are at best, just advice for the consumer.

If the game is bad, make sure your critiques have a constructive criticism, developers can't improve if they aren't told what to improve.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I think negative reviews should, above all, be constructive. I try to do that in my own reviews but I think throwing in some insults and jokes can be a big part of helping creators to find out how the fucked up.

But filling it with insults is not the way to go either. The purpose of the review is to explain what was done wrong. Entertaining your readers is always the secondary goal.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think negative reviews should, above all, be constructive.

There's really no need for a critical review to be constructive. A review is not a communication from a critic to the creator, it's a communication from a critic to a potential audience. You can be as destructive as you please, if you feel the work merits it. Your ultimate goal is to communicate your feelings about the product in question. That doesn't mean you need to spew, but you are quite free to call a spade a spade and not hedge around it trying to be constructive.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I think negative reviews should, above all, be constructive.

There's really no need for a critical review to be constructive. A review is not a communication from a critic to the creator, it's a communication from a critic to a potential audience. You can be as destructive as you please, if you feel the work merits it. Your ultimate goal is to communicate your feelings about the product in question. That doesn't mean you need to spew, but you are quite free to call a spade a spade and not hedge around it trying to be constructive.

Good point, the main thing is the inform the audience. Ok, I agree on that. But I still think that a big part of a review should be exploring what went wrong and, if possible, how.

Sure, you're free to write the most hateful, insulting review you want but it doesn't make it right, in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to do it if you're expecting to make a career out of reviewing, either. Who's going to send review copies to someone who just spews hate and insults?

But I didn't say a person can't be constructive AND insulting. I've written pretty mean reviews but at least try to say what's good about it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Good point, the main thing is the inform the audience. Ok, I agree on that. But I still think that a big part of a review should be exploring what went wrong and, if possible, how.

Sure, you're free to write the most hateful, insulting review you want but it doesn't make it right, in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to do it if you're expecting to make a career out of reviewing, either. Who's going to send review copies to someone who just spews hate and insults?

But I didn't say a person can't be constructive AND insulting. I've written pretty mean reviews but at least try to say what's good about it.

It sounds like you're conflating "being objective" or "being fair" with "being constructive". You can cover all points of a game...both good and bad...and still not be constructive. You can even talk about WHY you think something failed and not be constructive. Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of all the colloquial interpretations of "constructive criticsm", but I am given to believe that being constructive entails pointing out problems and then recommending solutions. And it's not a critic's job to do that, really. They're free to do so if that is what floats their boat, but it's not necessarily in their purview. If I'm a critic and I review, say, Colonial Marines, and I use my two pages or twenty minutes or whatever allotment I have to discuss the flaws and warn people off the game, then I can look at myself in the mirror at night and say I've done my duty as a critic despite not being remotely "constructive". I wouldn't feel beholden to either the audience or the developer to sit there brainstorming solutions for every wrong turn.

 

[In Search of Username]

I tend to enjoy criticising stuff that I feel like is in a position of power greater than my own; by which I mean anything mainstream, big-budget, or which other critics have generally been positive about. I can understand why you'd feel bad about bad-mouthing an indie game though, it's because they're in a much more unstable position - the criticism will probably really hurt them. Even if you disliked the game that doesn't exactly mean you hate the person who made it, so you'll probably feel bad about that, yeah.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Good point, the main thing is the inform the audience. Ok, I agree on that. But I still think that a big part of a review should be exploring what went wrong and, if possible, how.

Sure, you're free to write the most hateful, insulting review you want but it doesn't make it right, in my opinion. It doesn't make sense to do it if you're expecting to make a career out of reviewing, either. Who's going to send review copies to someone who just spews hate and insults?

But I didn't say a person can't be constructive AND insulting. I've written pretty mean reviews but at least try to say what's good about it.

It sounds like you're conflating "being objective" or "being fair" with "being constructive". You can cover all points of a game...both good and bad...and still not be constructive. You can even talk about WHY you think something failed and not be constructive. Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of all the colloquial interpretations of "constructive criticsm", but I am given to believe that being constructive entails pointing out problems and then recommending solutions. And it's not a critic's job to do that, really. They're free to do so if that is what floats their boat, but it's not necessarily in their purview. If I'm a critic and I review, say, Colonial Marines, and I use my two pages or twenty minutes or whatever allotment I have to discuss the flaws and warn people off the game, then I can look at myself in the mirror at night and say I've done my duty as a critic despite not being remotely "constructive". I wouldn't feel beholden to either the audience or the developer to sit there brainstorming solutions for every wrong turn.

I think discussing all its features, occasionally saying why it failed here, why it succeeded there, IS being constructive. I don't think anybody should pull the old Captain Hindsight and just say what they should have done. To use your example of Colonial Marines, a good review, I think, would tell someone how bad it is, be funny while doing so, and then explain what makes it bad. "It's terrible, don't buy it" isn't really a review, it's just an opinion. "It's terrible because the aliens are poorly animated, the character are boring, etc" That's informative and constructive.

But I think you've misunderstood my points. I didn't say they HAVE to be constructive, I just said I think it should be a main priority. If you're just gonna spend time telling people how the game could be better, you're just marketing. A review is opinionated but an informative review just has more substance. If I wanted to see insults, a forum would be better.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think discussing all its features, occasionally saying why it failed here, why it succeeded there, IS being constructive. I don't think anybody should pull the old Captain Hindsight and just say what they should have done. To use your example of Colonial Marines, a good review, I think, would tell someone how bad it is, be funny while doing so, and then explain what makes it bad. "It's terrible, don't buy it" isn't really a review, it's just an opinion. "It's terrible because the aliens are poorly animated, the character are boring, etc" That's informative and constructive.

But I think you've misunderstood my points. I didn't say they HAVE to be constructive, I just said I think it should be a main priority. If you're just gonna spend time telling people how the game could be better, you're just marketing. A review is opinionated but an informative review just has more substance. If I wanted to see insults, a forum would be better.

I think we're just having a miscommunication, ninja. You seem primarily concerned with objectivity and fairness, and I don't disagree with you on either point. To my understanding, constructive criticism implies an active effort on the part of the critic to improve what she or he is criticizing. Hence the "construct" part of the equation. They are helping to build it up, and make it better. And I'm not sure that's really in the purview of art or media critics. Important for interpersonal dispute, certainly, or if you were a beta tester. But if you're a third party giving an impression of a finished product? I think it's a little above and beyond.