What type of reviews do you prefer?

[The Abhorrent]

To be honest, I find the best reviews to be the ones which are somewhat negative. Not to the point of bashing the game, as those are just as nonsensical as the ones which are giving nothing but praise; the ones which criticize the game's actual flaws (which many of the more positive reviews can look over), but at the same time acknowledge strong points.

The added benefits to these types of reviews is that they are usually very informative, and occassionally lengthy as a result; nor do they hype up the game too much (if at all), averting the issues with disappointment (one of the issues with Mass Effect 3; unlike myself, many did not enjoy the ending). The game's good points aren't ignored, but little quirks are usually pointed out; this means you can adjust to them in advance instead of succumbing to frustration.

As a whole, they end up be the least biased and most useful reviews. There's plenty of room for you to enjoy it more than the reviewer, usually in the form of a pleasant surprise rather than a surprising disappointment. They also give you the chance to be more objective with your own viewpoint of the game; no game is perfect, but you'll know why this one isn't and why you're fine with ignoring them.

Humour is a nice addition or diversion, but not always needed.

 

[Eddie the head]

Ones where I know the people who are reviewing it. Not personalty but when Yatzee says something you know what kind of games he likes so if you like that you will likely like it. Or that Jeremy Jahns guy form youtube just anyone who you can get a sense of what games they like.

 

[Ryu-Kage]

Number scores give us a general idea about how much you like the thing you're reviewing, but on their own, they don't tell the listener anything about WHY you like it. What's more important are explaining to us why you liked or disliked that thing or something about it. If it's a game, rating the gameplay on a scale isn't as helpful as pointing out specific things that the developers did right or wrong. The number could very well be just something you throw out randomly, but the comments can actually dig into specifics about the game.

What are some people's takes on a list of Pros and Cons in a review. I think it's kinda brief but probably a little more useful than a number or letter grade.

 

[Dr Jones]

Video reviews do it for me. I love watching the gameplay of the game whilst the reviewer talks about it. To make it extra smooth, if you adress a problem of the game, show it via gameplay in the review, so you can show people how bad the problem is. Most reviews i see nowadays talk of problems, but rarely show them.

 

[Rack]

I see no point of reading a written review when i can just watch a video of it.

Takes 1/16th of the time?

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

Long, informative, and a hint of humor.

 

[sorpaqq]

Reviews should be like noobtoob where the two reviewers give detailed reasons why they did or didn't like the game, I think that people who need scores at the end of reviews probably have a low intelligence quota.

 

[distortedreality]

I only watch ZP for "reviews", and only because I know that he'll highlight the flaws. If i'm interested in a game, I will already know what the good points are and don't really need someone else to tell me what they are.

The humour helps as well obviously.

As others have already said though, honesty is paramount. And don't take yourself too seriously.

 

[TheOneBearded]

An honest review throughout, but leave a bit around the end if you're a fan of the medium to let your inner fan out. This will allow the people who aren't into the medium to get an honest review and also will allow the fans of the piece you're reviewing to know if it is good or not.

Also, try not to put in a number scale (1 - 10). I find that the best reviews don't tell you what to rate the game, but make you decide (like Zero Punctuation). In the end, say if you liked it or not, why, and then leave it there.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

I prefer long video reviews.

They need to cover every aspect of the game with extensive coverage of everything about everything.

 

[Aerosteam]

Any kind of review is fine, but it would be good if review scores were to be removed, all it does is encourage viewers/readers to just ignore everything in the review and just look at the score, judging the entire review just by that.

 

[Squidbulb]

Say enough so that I know if the game is good, but don't go into detail about every single aspect of the game. Also, I don't want a score, I'd prefer short summary at the end telling me if it's worth buying or not.
You also need to give a personal opinion that states what you like about it and a general review that states simply whether it is good at what it does.

 

[Brighton_Game_Trader]

I always like to read a wide mix of reviews - particularly when deciding on a purchase.

I have been writing reviews for games, CDs and films for a little while - anyone got any tips for someone trying to write for an eclectic bunch of media?

Reviews here - comments are really welcome as I'm always looking to improve - [link]http://eclectic-review.blogspot.com[/link]

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I always like to read a wide mix of reviews - particularly when deciding on a purchase.

Me too. I tend to grasp as much information as i can. After reading those i visit forums and if i`m still not sure i rent the game first. I think a wide range of user opinions is most helpfull since there`s not much trust in the big gaming sites and print magazines anymore. I`m still glad i only rented Uncharted 3 and cod:MW3 first. I saved alot of money.

 

[Bostur]

Good ones. Preferably made by someone with experience of the game and the ability to describe why he/she feels that way. A bit of humour never hurts either.

But I usually prefer text reviews, because that makes it easier to skip to the parts that may be relevant for me. Pictures with the text is a plus, especially if they are relevant for the gameplay. Screenshots should show the UI, because it can say a lot about the gameplay that words can't.

For videos I actually prefer them to be longer to show off more gameplay. Full playthroughs or TotalBiscuit's WTF form are the ones I prefer. Less talking more showing.

 

[veloper]

I prefer reviews that
1. are to the point
2. don't waste our time repeating basic info we could have gathered from the trailer already (common rookie mistake in the use review section)
3. do comparisons to previous entries or very similar games in the same genre
4. don't waste many words on graphics (screenshots tell much more and gfx are not that important)
5. really try to look for flaws in a game

 

[Lugbzurg]

It's a balance, really. I often just look for lots of different reviews and see if I can find some sort of pattern.

Take Zero Punctuation, for example. It's entertaining and and can be rather informative. But, sometimes there might be some information missing from time to time. I know I'm not the only one (as he's pointed this out, before), but, I sometimes can't tell if he thinks a game is bad or not. Usually, it's obvious, but there have been a few times where I'm left wondering if I should play this or not. Wost-case scenario, would have to be with Catherine.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/3872-Catherine
I mean, he explained the game in a lot of detail and all. Except for one thing: I couldn't tell from his review what this game even was. I mean, there's something in there about talking to people and pushing boxes around, but what kind of game is it? Is it a platformer? An RPG? A puzzler? A dating sim? A first-person shooter?

It isn't so prominent that it's a problem, though. Not at all. It's a very rare occurrence. He's still one of my two favorite reviewers, and certainly knows a whole lot about what he says. (This is especially expressed in Extra Punctuation.)

The other I look forward to (though, his reviews are fewer and more far-apart) would be none other than Johnny Ortiz of the Super Ga- Oh, wait. I guess I can't say that, anymore. Anyway, his reviews are also full of information and humor. Too much information, though. It seems nearly every one of his reviews contain massive spoilers, which pretty much defeats the purpose of a review, in the first place. Reviews are for people who haven't played the game, yet. Spoilers are for people who have. You can't just put both in there. It doesn't work. However, he does use actual footage (and, sometimes, some kind of skit or animation), so, I can get a really good idea of what I'd actually be doing in this game.

As for what I really don't like, well, obviously, that would be IGN. It's amazing how you can have someone talk on and on and on non-stop and not really say anything of importance.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I prefer reviews that
1. are to the point
2. don't waste our time repeating basic info we could have gathered from the trailer already (common rookie mistake in the use review section)
3. do comparisons to previous entries or very similar games in the same genre
4. don't waste many words on graphics (screenshots tell much more and gfx are not that important)
5. really try to look for flaws in a game

These, plus:
6. well written, with varied sentence structure, word usage and a dash of humor. This applies to text, audio and video. It should be pleasant to read, listen to or watch.
7. subjectivity, by which I mean that whether or not the reviewer enjoyed the game or not should seep through in his review. It's why I like Angry Joe's work so much, even though our tastes differ quite a bit. When he loves or hates something, it shows. When he feels like a game missed a great opportunity, he sounds regretful. Might sound strange, but emotional responses others have to games can be a good barometer for yourself.

 

[Vanilla_Druid]

To be honest, I find the best reviews to be the ones which are somewhat negative. Not to the point of bashing the game, as those are just as nonsensical as the ones which are giving nothing but praise; the ones which criticize the game's actual flaws (which many of the more positive reviews can look over), but at the same time acknowledge strong points.

The added benefits to these types of reviews is that they are usually very informative, and occassionally lengthy as a result; nor do they hype up the game too much (if at all), averting the issues with disappointment (one of the issues with Mass Effect 3; unlike myself, many did not enjoy the ending). The game's good points aren't ignored, but little quirks are usually pointed out; this means you can adjust to them in advance instead of succumbing to frustration.

As a whole, they end up be the least biased and most useful reviews. There's plenty of room for you to enjoy it more than the reviewer, usually in the form of a pleasant surprise rather than a surprising disappointment. They also give you the chance to be more objective with your own viewpoint of the game; no game is perfect, but you'll know why this one isn't and why you're fine with ignoring them.

Humour is a nice addition or diversion, but not always needed.

I would give my two cents, but what you said pretty much coincides with what I was going to say. No need for a thread to be an echo chamber.