Hey, I never got a bloody card.Russ Pitts said:SashaNein said:
This might be interpreted as sarcasm if you weren't off being a jerk in another thread.
Banned.
/mod.
How do you read game reviews?
- Thread starter Goofonian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let me say right off the bat I hate people who give 10 or 100 scores. It means the game cures cancer, ok? Because if you give that game a 10, then a game comes out that cures cancer, you're saying Halo 3's gameplay will make you forget about cancer.
I also try to read reviews, but to me it's mainly the score that seems to stick. Which is unfortunate, since games' scoring system is so solidly stuck. The entire numerical range from 0-69 means "really bad"
I've also hated review sites that never re-review games after updates. Hypothetical example:
"Counter-Strike Source is a great game. But it's completely let down by its meager 5 maps, single character model per team, and multitude of bugs. 70."
Great. The game now has 15 maps, 8 total character models, and most bugs complained about were fixed.
Also, I kind of feel far too many reviewers prepare their review in their head before the game actually comes out. I like how IGN has a "longetivity" score, showing they've actually spent some time with it; but most of the time a 3-hour game that looks fantastic and has little gameplay will get higher scores than it deserves.
I also try to read reviews, but to me it's mainly the score that seems to stick. Which is unfortunate, since games' scoring system is so solidly stuck. The entire numerical range from 0-69 means "really bad"
I've also hated review sites that never re-review games after updates. Hypothetical example:
"Counter-Strike Source is a great game. But it's completely let down by its meager 5 maps, single character model per team, and multitude of bugs. 70."
Great. The game now has 15 maps, 8 total character models, and most bugs complained about were fixed.
Also, I kind of feel far too many reviewers prepare their review in their head before the game actually comes out. I like how IGN has a "longetivity" score, showing they've actually spent some time with it; but most of the time a 3-hour game that looks fantastic and has little gameplay will get higher scores than it deserves.
I used to read a lot of reviews back in the day, especially around 1999-2001. I wrote a lot of them, as well. I'm quite embarrassed that I wrote 2000-3000 word reviews of Wild ARMs 2 and Valkyrie Profile, and have since had them removed off the face of the internet.
Over time, I lost interest in reading text reviews altogether. I look at the game's average rating of all popular review site scores at Game Rankings [http://www.gamerankings.com], and then I watch a GameTrailers [http://www.gametrailers.com] video review.
If there's an old game I'm interested in, like, say, Power Blade for the NES, I will skim over some short reviews at GameFAQs [http://www.gamefaqs.com].
Over time, I lost interest in reading text reviews altogether. I look at the game's average rating of all popular review site scores at Game Rankings [http://www.gamerankings.com], and then I watch a GameTrailers [http://www.gametrailers.com] video review.
If there's an old game I'm interested in, like, say, Power Blade for the NES, I will skim over some short reviews at GameFAQs [http://www.gamefaqs.com].
What I'd like to see, and all too often don't, is reviews that respect that users' tastes may differ from each others'. (Including the reviewer's.) I'd be far happier if more reviewers concentrated on letting readers know if the game would be of value to the reader ("This game is for people who enjoy..." "Avoid this game if you're looking for...") and less on trying to create some sort of an objective standard into which all games must be squeezed.
And yeah, numerical scores don't fit into that scheme at all. I wish I was better at ignoring them... and I definitely wouldn't use A+/98% in any review I'd write.
-- Steve
And yeah, numerical scores don't fit into that scheme at all. I wish I was better at ignoring them... and I definitely wouldn't use A+/98% in any review I'd write.
-- Steve
Again, only having my experiences of a few years to go by, I always trued to include in my reviews, even if only in the summary, that the game was recommended for gamers who like whatever type of game it was I was reviewing. For instance, our scoring was set up so that a 7 out of 10 meant that the game a a good game, but strongly recommended only for serious fans of that particular genre. I also always tried to mention what type of gamer I thought a game was best suited for.
Personally I think that my reviews are the best...or not really. Hey if I don't shamelessly plug who will?
Reading reviews is one of my favorite things to do even if I have no interest in the game. Reading the poorer reviews is even better - nothing beats a good mean review. Game purchases usually fall into three categories for me:
1 - The games I'm gonna buy no matter what based on designers (Io, Rockstar, Ubisoft) and subject matter and if the series is worth a damn to me ("Hitman").
2 - A combination of demos & reviews. "Clive Barker's Jericho" is a good example. I enjoyed the demo but I'm gonna wait until the reviews are in before I spend good money.
3 - If reviews are cropping up for an off-the-beaten path game ("Katamari Damacy") then I'll track down the game and give it a shot.
The best reviews - IMHO - are the ones that are honest and fairly straight to the point. If I wanted pseudo-intellectual academic nonsense in my game reviews I'd ask for it. On the other hand I need something intelligently written and not review that consists of "This game is the suckiest suck that ever sucked a suck. Suxxzorz! 10 out of 10 on the Sux scale!"
Reading reviews is one of my favorite things to do even if I have no interest in the game. Reading the poorer reviews is even better - nothing beats a good mean review. Game purchases usually fall into three categories for me:
1 - The games I'm gonna buy no matter what based on designers (Io, Rockstar, Ubisoft) and subject matter and if the series is worth a damn to me ("Hitman").
2 - A combination of demos & reviews. "Clive Barker's Jericho" is a good example. I enjoyed the demo but I'm gonna wait until the reviews are in before I spend good money.
3 - If reviews are cropping up for an off-the-beaten path game ("Katamari Damacy") then I'll track down the game and give it a shot.
The best reviews - IMHO - are the ones that are honest and fairly straight to the point. If I wanted pseudo-intellectual academic nonsense in my game reviews I'd ask for it. On the other hand I need something intelligently written and not review that consists of "This game is the suckiest suck that ever sucked a suck. Suxxzorz! 10 out of 10 on the Sux scale!"
I think anymore I find myself mostly just looking at the trends in the game review scores. Metacritic and Gamerankings help provide a base score that gives me at least an idea of how good the game may be. Where I tend to look carefully are the games that draw like 7 out of 10 or 70% out of 100%. This level seems to be where you find the games that appeal to only a certain type of gamer and sometimes those games can be gems.
I've never been a fan of number scales, so when I write I typically avoid them. Instead, I go for buy/rent/don't touch somewhere in the review. Cost-benefit analyses, whut whut.
As far as reading goes, for movies I hit up Rotten Tomatoes and weigh the aggregate against Ebert's review, since I tend to align with him on taste in movies. For games, I like our reviews (duh), as well as Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/], but some of their reviewers appear in both our publication and on their site, so there's that.
As far as reading goes, for movies I hit up Rotten Tomatoes and weigh the aggregate against Ebert's review, since I tend to align with him on taste in movies. For games, I like our reviews (duh), as well as Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/], but some of their reviewers appear in both our publication and on their site, so there's that.