Reviewer, Amuse Me!

[Hey Joe]

Well I think part of the problem is that it's considered okay to come up with witty hyperbole to describe how bad a game is but when it comes to praising games, any direction in the other direction has to be temperate.

People have this wierd thing, whereby they like to kick a game while it's down but as soon as a game is praised just a touch too much that word 'biased' starts to make an appearance. Reviewers, especially those who work in videogames, have really bred a climate of scepticism and negativity. It's almost as if they look for things to bag before they look for the positives. When a reviewer goes against this, it triggers cynicism in the reader and therefore the writer subconsciously measures their praise but bagging a game fits into the mould.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

One of the things that I loved about Consolevania was that they could make a review of a game that they enjoyed funny.

 

[Ray Huling]

Professional reviewers are generally journalists

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I'm pretty sure it's not true.

 

[zoozilla]

I think GiantBomb follows a lot of the points that Shamus made.

They use a five-star system, have entertaining reviews, and makes sure that the reader knows who wrote the review.

Of course, the Escapist does a good job as well.

 

[Mromson]

Loved how you wrote the article, and I'll certainly be back to read the next one.

 

[redsteven]

well done

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

I want a pony too, Shamus

 

[KDR_11k]

I think GiantBomb follows a lot of the points that Shamus made.

They use a five-star system

Stars, shines, numbers, etc all amount to the same thing.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The only real hang-up I have with this whole article is that...pretty much everyone does this. The only reason there is any variation in gaming magazines is that most of them are terrible at it. I appreciate the sentiment of having a review be funny but it always just turns into snide jokes and crude comments. It's fine for entertainment but at some point you do expect a critic to actually do something for the artistic medium besides sell themselves.

Have you ever looked back at one of those reviews a year from now? Even a month? They're utterly worthless if you need actual information about the game or what it meant. The damn problem with game writing in general is that none of it ages, it's just topical and entertaining for that week and then it drifts away.

 

[BonsaiK]

I really try NOT to read reviews before I play the game these days because they're always so spoiler-packed and full of juvenile stupidity. If it's a game I have no intention of playing, or one I already have played, then I'll check it out. But if it's something I might buy soon I'll steer clear because I know that the reviewer is usually going to do these things:

1. Fill the first part of the review with needless plot exposition, wrecking at least 50% of the game's story
2. Crap on and on (and on, and on, and on) about graphics like they even matter a shit
3. Waste a lot of space with stupid smartassing bollocks, pretty pictures and other fluff instead of getting down to the actual info that I want to know, like if the reviewer thinks the game is any good or not and why/why not
4. Generally be a dickhead
5. Ignore a great deal of the game's content (like not even looking at the multiplayer component of an online game for example)
6. Assign a score which will not be any less than 8 out of 10 unless the game development company didn't pay their advertising fees to the editor on time, or the game company foolishly neglected to take out ads with the reviewer's publication.

The reviews on this site are more often than not an exception and actually reasonably good on average, one reason why I continue to hang around on this site and annoy you all. In fact I would say generally that online sites are slightly better at reviewing games than magazines. The days when a magazine review of a game was anything other than complete fluff are long gone. I agree with most of the points in the original article. I particularly agree with the abolishment of scores. By the way you should give me a job here. I'll buy you a pony.

 

[Sewblon]

Pretty good but the wish list needs some additions. Silicon Nights will finish eternal darkness 2 right now, and a trained hippopotamus named Blazing Blubber will abduct hookers and bring them to my basement.

 

[Clemenstation]

I enjoy the current trend of self-reflexivity that's sweeping through games journalism right now.

I'd just like to point out that some of the best writing about games has been a no-nonsense account of how someone's play session went - a narrative, if you will. I learned more about what Galactic Civilizations II was about from this guy's space adventures:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=195920&site=pcg

than any formal review.

 

[Anaphyis]

If all you want is a number then fire the interesting and witty J-school grad and get yourself some dice that only roll sevens, eights, and nines. Use them to fill out a chart with attributes like "gameplay", "graphics", and "audio". Post that sucker and take the rest of the day off. If you're going to produce something worthless then you should at least not spend money doing it.

QFT. Thank you for condensing this whole tedious discussion into a few witty sentences and giving me further ammunition to convince some extremely moronic friends what kind of a farce this is. To what adress can I send your pony?

 

[ReverseEngineered]

While I agree that bittingly-sarcastic reviews like those that Yahtzee does are quite entertaining, I don't think focusing purely on entertainment is going to fix reviews.

Current game reviews have two problems. First, they are down-right boring. Yes, entertainment counts for something; most reviewers sound like coroners taking notes during an autopsy. It wouldn't hurt for the reviewers to add a personal touch -- some character -- to bring their reviews to life.

The other problem is that most reviewers never actually review the game. Either they read off a list of features, or regurgitate the developer's PR releases, or describe in generalities what the game is about, but they rarely give their honest opinions about what worked, what didn't, and why. That's what makes Yahtzee's reviews useful; besides being hilarious, he often states quite clearly what he thought was bad and why. This kind of feedback is helpful to customers who want to know if they will like or hate it for the same reasons. It's also useful to the developer, who can get a better idea of what the industry expects of them.

Instead, most current reviewers just give a glossy overview of the game and leave the opinions to the customers, who still have no idea what it's like to experience the game. They give arbitrary scores, but since they vary so little, they have no comparative value: is an 8 really that much better than a 7? Subjective opinions like, "It was a very enjoyable, if short, experience," mean a lot to the reader. It sets their expectations and gives them a better idea if the game is right for them; after all, some people like it quick and intense, while others want something to relax to for a dozen hours or more.

The biggest thing reviewers can do to make their reviews worthwhile is to add some life to them. Give us your own take on the game, your opinion, your reasons. You don't have to judge it objectively or consider it from the point of view of "the average person"; we will take several subjective reviews from different personalities and align those with our own tastes and judge it based on that. Besides giving us a more well-rounded body of research material, it will make the reviews more personable and entertaining, as oppossed to the textbook entries that current reviews are.

 

[Miral]

4) Don't worry about skipping a game. If everyone on your staff is brimming with apathy towards Kane & Lynch or Haze, then maybe that should tell you something. Odds are good that your audience doesn't care either. And if Eidos Interactive really wants your readers to know about the game, let them know that they can simply send you whatever they like and you'll be happy to print it at normal advertising rates.

... as long as it's clearly labelled as advertising, not a real review. Otherwise that's too close to the whole Gerstmann-gate fiasco.

 

[DYin01]

Shamus! This might be the first time you heard this, but you must wish you were Dutch. We have a great magazine called Power Unlimited which has been around for over 10 years. The reviewers actually have personality, pictures and a few clever one-liners on any given subject every month. They even got their own show a while back (two years, I think) which really shows the personality of the reviewers. I rarely read the magazine nowadays, but I think I should. It's genuinely funny, and they usually glue some funny captions to the screenshots as well (as a matter of fact, I think that's what got them 'famous' amongst Dutch gamers to begin with).