Reviewer, Amuse Me!
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I love the way you review: it's simple, entertaining, and actually informative. You talk about what the game is about, what worked, what didn't, and how you could fix that. Then you go on to talk about something that really stood out (like when you talked about Dreamfall's ending, Prey's child-killing, Jade Empire's plot twist, etc). Then it's on to the nitpicks. Sometimes they're petty, as in your Prince of Persia review, sometimes they're a joy to read because they're so many and so severe, like in Fable 2.
The way you include personal anecdotes also helps with the feeling that a human wrote it (let's cook up an example... your Oblivion hardware problems, Neverwinter Nights' "plot door")
Now it sounds like I'm just gushing, so I'll say this was a good read, I liked it a lot more than previous EP's.
I'll just copypaste on your blog to see what your readers have to say about it ^^
The way you include personal anecdotes also helps with the feeling that a human wrote it (let's cook up an example... your Oblivion hardware problems, Neverwinter Nights' "plot door")
Now it sounds like I'm just gushing, so I'll say this was a good read, I liked it a lot more than previous EP's.
I'll just copypaste on your blog to see what your readers have to say about it ^^
Interesting. You know what? I'm going to send this article to my editor in chief. I'm "working" at a PC games magazine, and I did have some of these thing in my mind for a while now.
Especially writing multiple reviews of the same game. I think one voice can not possibly speak for the entire audience of that particular game. Especially nowdays, when games tend to have two or more genre stickers plastered on the box. Action/RPG, tactical/FPS, TPS/adventure, RTS/RPG...etc. It is pretty unlikely that every player likes or dislikes every element in a game, and it's pretty obvious that the reviewer is only one voice in the cacophony. There were many occasions when someone else at the webzine reviewed a game that I played, and I didn't agree with the review at all, but since the "Oracle already spoken", I couldn't do anything.
More than one review means more than one perspective on the same game, and I think it's good for everyone. The publisher gets twice the amount of coverage and the players get two different sides. Win, Win.
Especially writing multiple reviews of the same game. I think one voice can not possibly speak for the entire audience of that particular game. Especially nowdays, when games tend to have two or more genre stickers plastered on the box. Action/RPG, tactical/FPS, TPS/adventure, RTS/RPG...etc. It is pretty unlikely that every player likes or dislikes every element in a game, and it's pretty obvious that the reviewer is only one voice in the cacophony. There were many occasions when someone else at the webzine reviewed a game that I played, and I didn't agree with the review at all, but since the "Oracle already spoken", I couldn't do anything.
More than one review means more than one perspective on the same game, and I think it's good for everyone. The publisher gets twice the amount of coverage and the players get two different sides. Win, Win.
And yet... Shamus and Yahtzee are responsible for my finding - and buying - more good games to play than all the number-crunching ad-copy-writing magazine reviewers combined. Its just a different way of reading it. Just because Yahtzee savages a game for having a ludicrous difficulty curve or something doesn't mean he didn't also enjoy playing it - if it looks like he had fun, and the things he complains about aren't my highest priorities, I'll often pick it up.
Shamus, I think it can be valuable to periodically hand games off to people who wouldn't ordinarily play the game--a reviewer working out of genre can often find interesting things that a regular in-genre person would miss or assume everyone "got" already. That dovetails nicely with "don't be afraid of doubling-up on reviews".
I think it's also beneficial if reviewers don't try to be the first one out with the review--they have time to really look the game over and aren't writing before the New Game Shine has worn off. I often find myself saying something along the lines of "this game is so cool!" and then later realizing that it only seemed cool because I was bored stiff and it was something new to do. Later, the flaws become more glaring.
I think it's also beneficial if reviewers don't try to be the first one out with the review--they have time to really look the game over and aren't writing before the New Game Shine has worn off. I often find myself saying something along the lines of "this game is so cool!" and then later realizing that it only seemed cool because I was bored stiff and it was something new to do. Later, the flaws become more glaring.
I'd name my pony "Biscuit", or maybe "Skittles" :3
This article resonates a lot with me. I can remember times I've scoured the archives of game sites for those reviews of terrible games. To an extent I still do it today. You also remind me of why I like writing up reviews so much myself. It's great not to be constrained to a particular formula and to be allowed to say what I please. It's a shame that so many publications rush to have reviews out so quickly though, but I suppose the good comes out of it when real gems of writers shine out from the rough.
And I agree that the crappy games are the most fun to write about. I'll always take the opportunity to practice new and painful similes
This article resonates a lot with me. I can remember times I've scoured the archives of game sites for those reviews of terrible games. To an extent I still do it today. You also remind me of why I like writing up reviews so much myself. It's great not to be constrained to a particular formula and to be allowed to say what I please. It's a shame that so many publications rush to have reviews out so quickly though, but I suppose the good comes out of it when real gems of writers shine out from the rough.
And I agree that the crappy games are the most fun to write about. I'll always take the opportunity to practice new and painful similes
It's true: writing about games you dislike is inherently more fun than writing praise-filled recommendations. That doesn't mean that one has to be sterile when writing nice reveiws though: it just makes it harder to work in humor. I try to do my part now and then.
A nice article, well worth reading. I have the same habit of looking up reveiws of games I've played in recent history... but I also enjoy reading reviews of games I've never played just as much.
A nice article, well worth reading. I have the same habit of looking up reveiws of games I've played in recent history... but I also enjoy reading reviews of games I've never played just as much.
I used to like IGN's video reviews because they didn't add a review score at the end, they didn't gratuitously break down the review into sections like 'gameplay' and 'graphics', and it was very personality driven and sometimes humorous. The reviews would talk about the parts of the game that mattered. The latest video review I saw from IGN (Wolverine), seems to have taken a fat step backwards. The review is now separated into sections, and they show the review score at the end. It's become like their text reviews.
I like video reviews like ZP better because the reviewer talks about what's important and makes each review personal.
What I like better is when people talk about games on podcasts. You get more than one opinion, and it's (usually) actually a conversation between more than one person that discuss their experiences with the game and why they like it.
In fact, what's even better is just talking about video games with people. Hmmm.
I like video reviews like ZP better because the reviewer talks about what's important and makes each review personal.
What I like better is when people talk about games on podcasts. You get more than one opinion, and it's (usually) actually a conversation between more than one person that discuss their experiences with the game and why they like it.
In fact, what's even better is just talking about video games with people. Hmmm.
I believe that #2 is the best advice one can give. If you place an action guy in a TBS or TBRPG of course they are going to find it boring and unintuitive, it's the same as doing the opposite and putting a TBRPG guy into Call of Duty or some such stuff, they will write a terribly boring, dry, and unimaginative review because that's exactly how they found it.
The iconic reviewers of our time tend to stick towards genres that they enjoy, and it shows, because we can relate to and connect with the emotion.
The iconic reviewers of our time tend to stick towards genres that they enjoy, and it shows, because we can relate to and connect with the emotion.
If the average reviewer really went to journalism school they should demand their money back.
The review number is a crutch and as much as the need for one is bad it's still nasty to steal a cripple's crutch. Many a reviewer fails to properly convey the level of fun a game is, e.g. spending 90% of the review text on the negatives that showed up gives the reader the impression the experience was 90% negative even though those complaints may be minor (they are perceived as representative, not exhaustive then). I know I use a "sorting order of fun" on stuff I play, some games are simply more fun than others so expressing it as a number (or a word that codifies a number, e.g. good, great, bad, ...) is quite feasible.
While I do enjoy some reviews for their entertainment value I also use them to gauge the quality of a game and how much money it's worth. While ZP is entertaining it's not really useful for finding games to buy, most of the bad stuff was stuff I had already put on my "don't buy" list anyway and the positives are so rare they're no real help for finding things to play. That's where review aggregators come into play and the scores are useful to determine which reviews will likely represent which viewpoints so finding the advantages and flaws of a game is fairly easy.
The review number is a crutch and as much as the need for one is bad it's still nasty to steal a cripple's crutch. Many a reviewer fails to properly convey the level of fun a game is, e.g. spending 90% of the review text on the negatives that showed up gives the reader the impression the experience was 90% negative even though those complaints may be minor (they are perceived as representative, not exhaustive then). I know I use a "sorting order of fun" on stuff I play, some games are simply more fun than others so expressing it as a number (or a word that codifies a number, e.g. good, great, bad, ...) is quite feasible.
While I do enjoy some reviews for their entertainment value I also use them to gauge the quality of a game and how much money it's worth. While ZP is entertaining it's not really useful for finding games to buy, most of the bad stuff was stuff I had already put on my "don't buy" list anyway and the positives are so rare they're no real help for finding things to play. That's where review aggregators come into play and the scores are useful to determine which reviews will likely represent which viewpoints so finding the advantages and flaws of a game is fairly easy.