Reviewing the Reviewer

[righthanded]

Sit behind a keyboard long enough and something strange happens-- you start to think you're a writer.
----
Writing video game reviews has seem to hit an all-time high in popularity while writing an actual review of a game seems to be at a lull. The problem with so many so-called-reviews is that they're not helpful to anyone who hasn't played the game. What I end up reading are a few poorly written specific criticisms, dotted with profanities; if I'm lucky, I get a number slapped on a few specific mechanics without any useful explanation. This is my review of your review.

It seems that the underlying problem starts with originality and it's absence from your review. Please quit copying Yahtzee. I'm tired of reading your Yahtzee-esq jokes and ramblings. I don't want some crude, pointless diatribes, filled with unnecessary verbal punctuation, anymore than I want idiots spout off "I'm Rick James, *****." in an attempt to bite off a laugh from the Chapelle's Show skit bearing that line. Writing should be a creative process, not a derivative one.

Second, typing and talking are about as similar as reading and listening. Do you get the same effect from reading sheet music that you would from listening to the song itself? No? Then please don't try to type out your review as if I, the reader, were listening to you speak. Write reviews that can be read easily. Punctuate. Proof read. Spell check. Sure, some mistakes will be made-- that's part of the casual nature of the internet-- but that's not really an excuse for sloppy, incoherent writing.

Most importantly, why are you writing this review? There are already a lot of video game reviews on the internet and yours doesn't seem to be that much different. You touch on graphics, sound, controls, game play, and replay value-- just like every other reviewer. Give me a perspective that I haven't seen, please. I really enjoy retro reviews because the writer is usually writing about a game that they're passionate about and have been for years. I'm not saying that you shouldn't review current games. I just think that if you're really passionate about a game, you should be able to articulate it in an interesting way.

Remember that reviews are supposed to help enlighten gamers-- to educate them and stir up interest in games you're well versed in. If that's not where your interest lies, by all means, keep writing, just don't call it a review.

 

[PurpleRain]

Then stop readin them if it bothers you so much. That are always people out there that copy or think they're funny. the worst type of people in the world are people who impersonate Borat. But no matter what you will write or do, they will always be there. So just ignor, move on with your life. Find a wife and have children. Plus I like alot of the reviews on this site.

 

[Lance Icarus]

I don't think a review is as serious as you make it. A review is simply an opinion. It's purpose may be anything, but in the long run it's what one person thinks of a game. Sure the goal is to make it a well versed opinion that people will want to read, but the style is completely up to them.

I mean, you'll always have two different opinions to Guitar Hero or Metal Gear Solid, there's no reason they can't be both graded on the same criteria without losing the reader's interest after they've read one review.

However, I do agree that originality is key. Remember, this is YOUR opinion, not Yahtzee's, or Alex Navarro's, or Angry Video Game Nerd's. Make it about your experience with the game. The originality should flow from there.

Oh, that brings me to my last point. Please, don't review a game if you haven't PLAYED IT. If you're reviewing it based on the five minute demo, please state that it was on the five minute demo. It's just helpful to the reader by specifying where your experience came from. Consider it citing the source correctly.

 

[Hey Joe]

Remember that reviews are supposed to help enlighten gamers-- to educate them and stir up interest in games you're well versed in. If that's not where your interest lies, by all means, keep writing, just don't call it a review.

Looking forward to reading some of your reviews then!

Seriously though you do make good points. I think people write a review trying to imitate reviews they've seen with all of the standard jaded gaming journalist humour thrown in, whereas perhaps a suitable approach would be to try and get the review part right. Then, when you're confident and competent with that, try throwing in a little bit of humour. A little bit.

Sadly, this is a public forum, and the problem with posting reviews on a public forum is that the majority of reviewers just want to be told that they're brilliant, rather than inform people of all aspects of a particular game and let them draw their own conclusions. So, of course, they try to imitate a style that does generate a lot of praise...IF DONE RIGHT. Thus, the cycle continues.

P.S- Chek out my wiked awesom3 r3v13ws kthanxbye!

 

[squirrelman42]

you stole my third point from a few threads below, but it's a good point to make.

 

[righthanded]

My little informal-essay was just a critique of a trend in the gaming community and what I think can be done to improve that aspect of the community. I was merely stating that I think that there are three basic ingredients to writing a good review: originality, solid writing mechanics, and focus. Most bad reviews, and bad writing in general, don't have any of those ingredients.

If I drew 2 parallel lines on a sheet of paper, labeled one line Main street and the other South street, and then wrote "people on South St. are rhino-piss junkies," have I made a map? No. I've just thrown a few irrelevancies on some paper as an excuse to ***** about people on South street and make a joke of questionable quality. I wouldn't pass as a cartographer anymore than someone who takes that approach to reviewing games would pass as a writer. A map is a tool-- like a review-- that presents refined data and useful information by filtering out the information the map maker deemed extraneous for purpose of clarity. That doesn't mean that it can't have flair of it's own-- it just needs to create an actual function and serve that function, whatever that might be.

Just like there are many, many varieties of maps, there can be a variety of game reviews-- each with a purpose. I don't believe that calling a game related essay a review makes it so just like a few lines and a rhino-piss junkie joke don't make a map.

 

[ComradeJim270]

The following is addressed to righthanded:

Oh, you read my review, didn't you! Yay!

In all seriousness, though, these are good points. I just think some of them are a bit unclear or need further explanation. Originality, for example. If you write a review and post it in these forums, you're going to step into Yahtzee's shadow at least a little bit, but you don't make it clear what you really think is acceptable in terms of doing so. I'm sure we can all agree that plaigairism is bad, and deliberate attempts to copy someone is lazy and obnoxious, but if you think Yahtzee has exclusive rights to make snide, sarcastic... let's just call it "British" humor for simplicity... if you think anyone using humor like that is copying him, I'm going to have to stop you right there, because it's been around a long time, and it's not unique to Mr. Croshaw by any means. I don't know if this is what you think, so excuse me if it seems I'm jumping to conclusions, I'm just trying to keep all my bases covered.

Now... profanities. I used 'fucking' as an adjective in my Oblivion review. A lot. If people's sensibilities are offended by this, well, sorry. But I think the problem with using them, in this case, is not the potential for someone to take offense, but the tendency to use them as a verbal crutch, most notably, as I said, using 'fucking' or 'shitty' as an adjective, or calling something 'shit'. I used 'fucking' a lot in my review because I felt it best conveyed the message that I intended (one of frustration, exasperation, and a host of other feelings of a similar nature), in the manner I intended (this is going to explode into an all-out rant any moment... wait for it...). That's fine in my book.

What I don't like to see is people pouring F-bombs on a review like McDonald's puts salt on their fries. It's not funny, and it makes you look juvenile. Rubber chickens are inherently funny. 'Fuck' and 'shit' are not. If you want them to be funny, they need to be used properly. I usually don't use them for humor, but, as I said, to convey emotion. Even then, I give it some thought before I turn things over to my inner child for a moment or two.

I agree with you on the topic of using good English. Most browsers now have a spellcheck feature of some sort. Use it. Good grammar isn't too much to ask for either, is it? This is the 21st century, I sure as hell hope most people on these forums are reasonably literate. Again, use what you learned in school if you want people to actually read what you write. Nobody's asking you to write a flawless essay, but who wants to read something that looks like it came from 3rd grade? Also, you should probably make at least one draft, unless you want to go for a chaotic and ranty tone (like me, yay!), and even then, make corrections before hitting the 'post' button.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can tell you why I wrote my Oblivion review, and why I would be interested in writing other reviews: because, as you said, there are tons of reviews out there which are all more or less the same. I reviewed Oblivion so I could point out everything the reviews I've seen didn't, and you can expect me to do the same with any future reviews of games I perceive as over-rated. That's my angle, right there, and what I would hope people will latch onto should more reviews written by me come into demand: ComradeJim270 will point out, nitpick, and criticize everything he feels others have ignored, likely in a harsh but tongue-in-cheek manner, and leave the rest to others... and he may be funny in doing it, too, if you don't mind colorful language here and there.

Of course, that may also be the sort of thing you don't like... nitpicking and such... but I imagine some less objective analyses may be just what some people like, and I imagine I'm not the only one who frowns upon the way a lot of reviews brush things under the carpet.

My reviews, should I write more (damnit, you've inspired me in some bizzare fashion, now I'm going to), are meant to supplement others, I suppose. Make what you will of that. But if you don't like it, well... don't tell me to stop, because I'm not here to please you. That may sound harsh and overly imperative, but so is the final sentence of YOUR post. Sorry.

 

[REDPill357]

I totally agree on the "Yahtzee" point. I hate it when people type out similes that aren't as good as Yahtzee's. Yahtzee's are partly funny because he's saying them with his awesome accent and high-speed delivery.

I've tried to make the two game reviews I've written original. I talk about the atmosphere in the game. Does that count for different perspective?

 

[righthanded]

I don't think a review is as serious as you make it. A review is simply an opinion. It's purpose may be anything, but in the long run it's what one person thinks of a game. Sure the goal is to make it a well versed opinion that people will want to read, but the style is completely up to them.

I mean, you'll always have two different opinions to Guitar Hero or Metal Gear Solid, there's no reason they can't be both graded on the same criteria without losing the reader's interest after they've read one review.

I don't think that I have a checklist of what a review is. Writing, after all, should be a creative endeavor and I'm not looking to change that. For the most part, I'm not reading someone's well thought-out opinions based on fact and personal taste; I'm reading a collection of disjointed reactionary-complaints.

As far as critiquing Guitar Hero and MGS on the same criteria, I think you're totally off on that point. It's almost as if people see a review as a formula that can apply to every game. I think that's a huge mistake to make and that's where I think so many reviewers go wrong. And worse than that, people seem to use a formula that they didn't invent. If games are you passion, you shouldn't have to wrangle them into a formula just to explain them. And if writing is you passion, you shouldn't even have a formula that you can plug a game into to begin with. Considering game reviewers are supposedly both passionate about games and writing, it's highly confusing to see so many poor attempts at a review.

 

[righthanded]

Looking forward to reading some of your reviews then!

Your FIFA v. CES review was very good. I'm not sure how many other's of your's I had read.

As far as my own reviews go, I'm a bit more interested in game culture and specific game mechanics and writing about that. I'll probably finish one of the one's I have floating around my desktop soon. The only games I've really considered reviewing lately were GoldenEye 007 for it's tenth birthday and Killer 7, an unpopular, weird-for-weirdness-sake game that was not very video game like in the traditional sense.

BTW, is your avatar from Blade Runner?

 

[Hey Joe]

Looking forward to reading some of your reviews then!

Your FIFA v. CES review was very good. I'm not sure how many other's of your's I had read.

BTW, is your avatar from Blade Runner?

I also did a Mass Effect review, and yes, that is the Unicorn from the first directors cut of Blade Runner.

 

[Lance Icarus]

I don't think a review is as serious as you make it. A review is simply an opinion. It's purpose may be anything, but in the long run it's what one person thinks of a game. Sure the goal is to make it a well versed opinion that people will want to read, but the style is completely up to them.

I mean, you'll always have two different opinions to Guitar Hero or Metal Gear Solid, there's no reason they can't be both graded on the same criteria without losing the reader's interest after they've read one review.

I don't think that I have a checklist of what a review is. Writing, after all, should be a creative endeavor and I'm not looking to change that. For the most part, I'm not reading someone's well thought-out opinions based on fact and personal taste; I'm reading a collection of disjointed reactionary-complaints.

As far as critiquing Guitar Hero and MGS on the same criteria, I think you're totally off on that point. It's almost as if people see a review as a formula that can apply to every game. I think that's a huge mistake to make and that's where I think so many reviewers go wrong. And worse than that, people seem to use a formula that they didn't invent. If games are you passion, you shouldn't have to wrangle them into a formula just to explain them. And if writing is you passion, you shouldn't even have a formula that you can plug a game into to begin with. Considering game reviewers are supposedly both passionate about games and writing, it's highly confusing to see so many poor attempts at a review.

I think we've actually got a similar stance on game reviews. I don't think you're agitated because a template is commonly used in games, but that people don't have a full grasp of what that template is. When I say grading Guitar Hero and MGS on the same scale, I was talking about the common Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, etc template. However, there's more to the template than that. People don't all understand that a good review is about balance. Even Yahtzee has something nice to say about a game at some point in the review. If you just relentlessly bash a title, it shows a biased view and possibly that you never wanted the title to succeed.

But again, having a formula isn't a bad thing. It's something people understand and have experience with. It's like with Internet browsers. What if someone released a browser where the back button was a snowman and the forward button was an alligator? What if the back snowman switched positions with Home and the forward alligator was switched with the Stop button? You would be lauded as a retard for needlessly changing around a well established system into something nonsensical. The same can go for game reviews. You have to have some real balls to change the format to your own personal style and still have it make any sense.

Some people don't have that kind of confidence in their writing. They don't want or need to screw with the status quo. This is all I'm saying on that front. I do have to agree though, if you are going to use a well established template, please have a clue what that template is. It's not just the graphics score, it's also talking about an intro, the game's good points, the game's bad points, and your conclusions along with an optional extra rating (aka "don't buy this game", "A must own", etc.).

 

[PhoenixFlame]

I'm a bit like Lance - I am not particularly invested in trying to steer how a review can or should be written because it's at the end of the day an opinion, and one I can disagree with. Reviews that I like to read include those which are informational yet entertaining at the same time. I've never been a fan of the blah-de-dah normal breakdowns when it comes to reviews but if something has a bit of a spark to it I'll read it. At the end of the day, though, aside from agreeing that yes, you should make an effort to be coherent in a review, it doesn't quite matter to me how it is written as long as it is clear and communicated.

What I suppose might be good for reviews in general is if they were more varied. A lot of the reason why lots of people like the Zero Punctuation reviews is because they have an interesting presentation. The whole "jaded gamer journalist" thing has been done and done to death, but you get a little something extra with Yahtzee that makes it interesting. I suppose that might mean I am agreeing on the point of originality. I don't mind if it's a "rant-view" - just take it from another standpoint or do something with it that will make me want to read more.

I would equate this to movie reviews. Lots of people like to attribute movie reviewers' word as gospel but I'm not one of them. I only read reviews to get a little more information and a second opinion about what I will ultimately come up with as my opinion about something, not to point at it like a little lemming and say "such and such said this game/movie/crack is great and it must be true!". Even Yahtzee and I are on opposite sides of the fence on a few things,a nd you know what? That's ok and that's how it should be.

 

[righthanded]

I just think some of them are a bit unclear or need further explanation. Originality, for example. If you write a review and post it in these forums, you're going to step into Yahtzee's shadow at least a little bit, but you don't make it clear what you really think is acceptable in terms of doing so. I'm sure we can all agree that plaigairism is bad, and deliberate attempts to copy someone is lazy and obnoxious, but if you think Yahtzee has exclusive rights to make snide, sarcastic... let's just call it "British" humor for simplicity... if you think anyone using humor like that is copying him, I'm going to have to stop you right there, because it's been around a long time, and it's not unique to Mr. Croshaw by any means. I don't know if this is what you think, so excuse me if it seems I'm jumping to conclusions, I'm just trying to keep all my bases covered.

Now... profanities. I used 'fucking' as an adjective in my Oblivion review. A lot. If people's sensibilities are offended by this, well, sorry. But I think the problem with using them, in this case, is not the potential for someone to take offense, but the tendency to use them as a verbal crutch, most notably, as I said, using 'fucking' or 'shitty' as an adjective, or calling something 'shit'. I used 'fucking' a lot in my review because I felt it best conveyed the message that I intended (one of frustration, exasperation, and a host of other feelings of a similar nature), in the manner I intended (this is going to explode into an all-out rant any moment... wait for it...). That's fine in my book.

Do I think British humor should be exclusive to Yahtzee? Of course not. If someone wants to make a good and funny review using British humor, I have no real complaints about it, even if they are indeed stealing off of Yahtzee. If it can't be entirely original, at least make it an exceptional rip-off. Do I think that the majority of the poor reviews that make attempts at British humor are a result of Yahtzee's popularity? Of course I do. Comedic writing isn't comedic speaking. I think a lot of the bad writing here is due to this not being realized.

As far as your Oblivion review goes. It actually reads well. I don't really remember any of the humor from it, in spite of having just read it, but I don't think it hurt your review. I felt like I was reading a review; not an attempt to copy Yatzee's humor under the guise of a review-- a complaint I have with most poorly done reviews here.

Also, I wouldn't outright say I take a stance on profanity one way or another. I think profanity has just become a sort of short-hand cliche. Fuck, sucks, and shit don't really carry the punch they once did and their overuse has rendered them impotent. I definitely don't see casual profanity as a sign of good writing-- not to say that it's a sign of bad writing-- it's just a placeholder. As for it's use for comedic effect, it can go either was as well. Comedy is very timing dependent and profanity is a useful crutch when it comes to timing out a joke. Though it's often used as one, I feel that profanity falls flat as a punchline.

In the end, I'm glad that you noticed that I'm not discouraging people from writing reviews, just discouraging them from writing bad ones.

 

[Kermi]

I prefer reviews that mimic a natural flow of conversations. I want to know what they thought and how they felt, not a critical analysis of every last detail. I don't mind the people who are mimicking Yahtzee by posting ramling little anecdotes or making odd jokes. I won't even call them out for their Yahtzee style reviewing, because Croshaw certainly didn't invent sarcasm. What I don't approve of is when people steal his jokes, especially when it's in this very forum, which by now mainly consists of people who joined because of his videos!

But as a review style, it works well provided the people doing the review aren't finding mean/funny things to say for the hell of it. The criticism should not only be constructive, but also valid. Saying that playing COD4 was like Packing your colon with peanuts and sticking your head between the bars of an elephant enclosure offers some wonderful imagery, but please explain why this is the case, or you are simply a bad comedian.

 

[DrmChsr0]

Speaking of reviewing the reviewer, I remember a comic strip that dealt with the issue.

If you have any back issues of EGM, go fish out issue 174 and read the Hsu and Chan comic page. Tons of laughs to be had.

 

[tendo82]

These discussions can all more or less be tied to back to Chuck Klosterman's question "Where are the Lester Bangs and Pauline Kaels of videogames?" It's all well and good that we agree on some basic principles of what constitutes a readable review, but the bigger flaw isn't being addressed - game reviews don't try to make connections outside the game.

Game reviews are, with few exceptions, consumer purchase guides and not attempts at deciphering the meaning that may be in a game. Game reviewers take their roles too lightly as agents of change. Great reviewers don't look at a work of art and recommend seeing it or not seeing it; rather they explain what a piece means to the larger world. Clement Greenberg defined the importance of Jackson Pollock's work and changed the way the world thought about painting. The Cahiers Du Cinema championed the work of John Ford and then their critics went on to ignite The French New Wave.

We can be so significant and push the industry where it needs to go, if only we can move beyond the borders of this hermetic videogame world.

 

[Hey Joe]

Game reviews are, with few exceptions, consumer purchase guides and not attempts at deciphering the meaning that may be in a game. Game reviewers take their roles too lightly as agents of change. Great reviewers don't look at a work of art and recommend seeing it or not seeing it; rather they explain what a piece means to the larger world. Clement Greenberg defined the importance of Jackson Pollock's work and changed the way the world thought about painting. The Cahiers Du Cinema championed the work of John Ford and then their critics went on to ignite The French New Wave.

I would have thought that examining a video game in a artistic and social context would be the domain of the opinion piece rather than the review. After all, don't people read reviews with the intent on discerning whether or not they'll watch/listen/buy/play?

A review should overview the features of the game and let the reader make up his/her mind about the product in question. After all, what is more annoying than a reviewer going outside the jurisdiction of the review subject matter? A reference in passing to the deeper meaning and context present in a game is all well and good, but any deeper digression doesn't have its place in the review structure and is quite jarring for the reader.

Whereas if you do want to get into the deeper questions presented by a game or it's place within a social/artistic context, the opinion or editorial pen is more apt. Mostly, because you have more room to move within to construct of the piece.

I do agree that the video game industry is somewhat hermetic in appearance to the collective consciousness, but do not lay the blame on the reviewers pen. I lay it squarely on the people making the games, marketing the games and buying the games.

 

[tendo82]

Hey Joe,

I think what you've said is valid, but unproductive in that it adheres to a fairly narrow definition of what a review should be. You speak about games as if they are consumer electronics, as opposed to forms of cultural expression. When looking at a piece of art, assuming the game in question is worthy of that title, the reviewer must move beyond consumer interests because to do any less is to allow the piece of art's meaning to be lost. Perhaps a review is just as you say - a guide advising the consumer to purchase or not purchase - in which case what videogames need are more Critics, and to the term "critic" I assign the responsibility of evaluating games within a larger context because to do so is to take games seriously. It is to believe that they have an importance that goes beyond mere retail cost and "features".

You say that the insular nature of videogames can be blamed on the developers, consumers, and marketers. To a degree that may be true, but reviewers perpetuate the cycle by giving good reviews to games that are mechanically sound but derivative. Reviewers have the enormous power to influence and even define public opinion of games. But to sit complacent - allowing games to be nothing more than a mass market consumable, with no more value than a fast food hamburger , tasty but quickly forgotten - is both slothful and irresponsible. This is how the enthusiast press continues to marginalize itself in the face of videogames' growing acceptance in mainstream culture, and this is how we slow their ascension to artistic significance.

 

[Hey Joe]

Hey Joe,

I think what you've said is valid, but unproductive in that it adheres to a fairly narrow definition of what a review should be...

I agree with you to a certain extent in that we do need to talk in a different way about games that doesn't marginalize gaming in mainstream society, I don't think that should be done in a review. As I've stated, this is perhaps the place of the opinion piece or editorial rant.

It's sad, but games are a consumer product (to the same extent that all media is a consumer product), and reviews have to reflect this. People read reviews to find out what type of features a game has and if it's worth laying down their hard earned green to play it. For example, if you submit a review to an editor of say...Bioshock and it's full of objectivism musing, then your editor will look at you funny and throw you out. It's sad, but we ARE a capitalist society, media IS a consumer product and a review IS a review.

If we want gaming to evolve we have to do 3 things.

1. Write compelling OPINION pieces that make people think about games and gaming in a different way.

2. Stop buying soulless games. Let's use market forces to advantage and buy only the games of artistic merit, then guess what type of game will start to get made?

3. Realize that gaming is a relatively young medium that's been caught up in post-2000 commercialism, and that it will evolve in the future.