Game Reviews

[Niniux]

More specifically, what do you think are the major points to go over in the game?

How important are each of the categories to you? Is humour essential to a good review?

I was thinking about these questions and while I find reviews like Zero Puntuation to be entertaining, I'm not sure how much it'd affect my decision to purchase, rent or avoid.

As far as what I like to read in reviews, I tend to enjoy reviews that discuss the more technical and tangible aspects of the games, such as graphics, controls (ESPECIALLY controls, actually), gameplay mechanics (Such as one reviewer here referenced inaccurate hitboxes in their No More Heroes review and I just about splooged), presentation and extras/menus.

I also like sound, music, and art direction to be reviewed depending on how objectively they are reviewed.

I am not sure how I feel about the story being reviewed or how it affects my purchasing decision. I guess for RPGs there is merit in discussing it but I don't think it's an objective enough measurable to reliably rate something on.

What is everyone elses thoughts?

 

[sammyfreak]

For me reviews are just the final layer of aproval to make sure the game in question doesnt have any dark secrets lurking around the corner.

I expect a good review to cover all the normal subjects since they matter to the end product, but to choose one or two where the game is especially good/bad and focus on them.

 

[Gigantor]

I've given this quite a bit of pondering. This is my conclusion, borrowed from Chris from Skins: Fuck it.

There's a lot of game reviews out there. Lots. If I think about buying a game I'll watch a Gametrailers review, look at Gamecentral and EDGE, glance at the Gamespot and IGN reviews, have a gander at Metacritic and grab a PC Gamer if it's applicable. By the time I've done all this I feel quite well acquainted with the game, in spite of having never played it. I don't think it can just be me who does this. It's the internet, it makes these things much easier.

That's why when I write a review, I try to stay clear of ticking the boxes as to what should be covered. The worst reviews are the ones that are compromised by people trying to fulfill all of their reviewerly obligations. As long as what you're writing has a good flow to it, is enjoyable to read, and leaves the reader knowing more about the game than they did when they started reading it...I'd say it's a success. If they want more information on the plot, or the controller setup, or the box artwork...fuck it. They can look at one of the other hundreds of things on the internet. No man is an island, and I can't compete with all these things at once. So do what makes you feel comfortable.

If the music of a game is so unexceptional that it didn't even occur to me to mention it in my review, I'm not going to dedicate a whole paragraph, or even a whole line, to saying 'the music was average, and did not lend much to the overall experience.' Fuck it.

S'what I fink, anyway.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

I rely more on demos than reviews, but I will take reviews, especially metacritic, into consideration when making a purchase.

When I write reviews, I try and cover all the points that stand out for me. I don't think I've quite perfected it yet, but I try to be entertaining while I'm fumbling around.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Story, player input & feedback, game design.

Art, music, or sound if it stands out or works well with the other 3.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

It depends on the game as to what the main focus is for me. Good gameplay is a must, but the others are variable depending on what the game is trying to go for.

 

[WhiskeyOscar]

I'm not a professional writer (though I'd like to be, they get paid for doing nothing! XD) I've written a few reviews in my time (Paradise and others over by way of Ars) and I have to admit I don't really put out a ~view~ on a game more than an entertaining piece. Like the dude from Training Day said (roughly - been a while since I watched it): it's entertaining bullshit.

And I think that's what attracts people to reviews by people like Yahtzee, because he's funny and he's fast and I have to admit that I did my own paradise review after listening to one of his reviews. People like to be entertained and that's what I find is best in a good review; the entertaining bullshit.

Of course, it wouldn't be a review if you didn't focus on the game some, and while there's usually more features in each game than toes between a family of hillbillies (including the extra ones!) it's also important to focus on just a few points in your review, since writing from a negative perspective is nigh-on impossible, it's best to put a personal spin on what irked and pleased YOU in particular.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[Hey Joe]

I'm not a professional writer (though I'd like to be, they get paid for doing nothing! XD)

Yeah, because let me tell you, training to be a journalist is really...really easy!

I think a review should be at first informative, and then entertaining. It should cover things like controls, story, graphics etc, and only if you have enough scope should you veer off into rant territory.

But that's just a straight up review I'm talking about. There's so many more approaches to 'reviewing' a game out there. Just take a look at the review forums here, and you'll see about 200 Yahtzee wannabes, 50 or so people doing straight up reviews and some doing wide ranging insights into the gaming world using a particular game as a jumping off point. I like to do I'm doing a little of everything, but I also like to think that I am your God.