When someone explicitly says "it's not a review" do you take it as one anyway?

[StriderShinryu]

TB and other "critics" frequently state that what they do is not review titles but instead offer first impressions and critical commentary. They also often state that they are not really game journalists, at least in the traditional sense. Reading through the currently running topic about why you read/watch reviews and seeing prominent Youtuber TotalBiscuit mentioned, I started wondering what everyone's thoughts on this were.

When watching something labelled as a First Impression or a Let's Look At, do you view it differently than something actually labelled as a Review? Do your agree that there are different criteria in place for the two (FI VS Review)? And, on a more wider ranging note, do you agree or disagree that "critics" are not "game journalists?"

Personally, while I do believe there are different criteria in a review and a first impressions piece (mainly I expect a review to contain impressions of most of if not the entire game), I can't honestly say I walk away from a first impression video much differently from a review. In fact, I'd actually say that a first impression approach to a game is maybe more likely to sway my buying decision. I view full reviews as pieces that take the whole game into account when I, as a player, may not care about the "whole game" if I can't get past the first few hours.

I also find the question of critics as "not game journalists" as something of a murky area. Certainly, many who label themselves as critics are often outside of the standard videogame hype machine, but I don't really see this as something that alters the approach and output I expect from them. To me, it just ends up feeling to me like a label used to distance themselves rather than a meaningful difference in their actual job. It's not so much that a "critic" must be a "journalist" but when you look at the sum of the actual work done, it feels largely the same to me.

 

[Morgoth780]

It really depends. TB's Wtf is series I would consider a review. Although he doesn't finish a game, he does play for several hours and then (I assume) prepares some general outline of what he wants to discuss. Jim's Squirty Let's Plays, on the other hand, I would not consider to be reviews, as he just jumps in the game with no preparation.

In short, I guess the difference between a review and a first impression is that the review involves a certain amount of preparation even if the game is never completed.

Also, on the topic of critics and game journalists, I would say that all are part of game journalism but critics and game journalists are different. Critics seem to have much more opinionated content (Jimquisition, Zero Punctuation, WTF is?, Content Patch) whereas game journalists do a lot more factual reporting, although they can de reviews as well.

 

[Erttheking]

Yeah pretty much. They can say "it's not a review" all they want, but it's still feedback that helps me make a decision.

 

[sanquin]

I don't use any 'review' as reference really. I listen to/read/watch some let's plays or first impressions instead, and bade my purchase choice on that. Let's plays and first impressions often give you 100% uncut footage of a game, which is what a large part of my decision in based on.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Games often don't reinvent themselves every couple of hours, so first impressions do go a long way in determining how you will enjoy the game. That being said, difficulty is often a sticking point and I've often ran straight into a wall 2/3rds through a game due to bullshit tactics by the developer.

In other words, it might not be a complete review of the game, but I think it's still a pretty good indicator of your likely reaction to the product.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the important part is what relevant information you can get out of a certain piece, I will only really care what you call it when you are bullshitting people. When your review has less information in it then TB's first impression you can be damn sure I will clobber you over the head with that fact until it is rectified.

Likewise if you actually intend to call yourself journalist I expect your shit on the level of that profession, if you throw out unresearched nonsense then there will be clobbering.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Does it matter, at all? Surely all savvy gamers source feedback from various points; reviews, LP's, first impressions, word of mouth - preferably all of the above, frankly.

A review is a subjective assessment. A first impressions is a subjective assessment. It's all just feedback to inform you, and in the end, none of it's worth a damn if you happen to buy, play, and loathe it (or love it, if the review/first impressions/word of mouth slagged it off).

 

[Fishyash]

Nah, I consider them very different.

The big difference between a first impression and a review is that a review normally represents the critic's final judgement on the game. This is normally represented as a review score, supported by the review itself.

By saying it's a first impression, you're admitting that you don't really have enough of a basis to judge the game fully, and that your opinion on the game is easily subject to change. Generally, if it's a bad game it (unlikely) means they could warm up to it if they decide to play it more, or if it's a good game, they are (likely) going to spot more flaws within the game. They're still useful in that a first impression can go a long way, and will colour your response to changes within the game as it progresses.

To me, TB humbly calling his WTF series "first impressions" rather than reviews reflects his standards on what a review should be, and he is admitting that he is unable to produce a good review, whether it's due to lack of skill or time/money reasons, or maybe he's done reviews before (if so, could someone direct me to one so I can read it?) but didn't feel he could deliver, like when he tried making a let's play.

It makes me somewhat sad though. His WTF is series is actually quite good, and I'd expect something amazing if he tried to give a full review.

On the subject of journalism: Yes, I consider art criticism and journalism to be different, as they require different skills. I'd say they're barely related. It's just convenient in the video games industry for the critics to also act as journalists too, and generally, you will see art reviews in journalistic publications in any medium.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

If they provide me with information that is relevant to me when I'm trying to decide should I make a purchase or not, I don't care how they call it. The information is what's important.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't consider TB a reviewer at all because he focuses too much on things that don't matter to me.

Joking aside, I'm fine calling first impressions and the like "not reviews." It doesn't bother me any. Reviews should be formatted different from first impressions, and to a similar extent WTF Is videos.

It does, however, bother me when certain people indicate themselves as "not journalists" or whatever to avoid the standards they're demanding in journalism

Yeah pretty much. They can say "it's not a review" all they want, but it's still feedback that helps me make a decision.

Is everything that informs your purchase a review?

 

[Erttheking]

I don't consider TB a reviewer at all because he focuses too much on things that don't matter to me.

Joking aside, I'm fine calling first impressions and the like "not reviews." It doesn't bother me any. Reviews should be formatted different from first impressions, and to a similar extent WTF Is videos.

It does, however, bother me when certain people indicate themselves as "not journalists" or whatever to avoid the standards they're demanding in journalism

Yeah pretty much. They can say "it's not a review" all they want, but it's still feedback that helps me make a decision.

Is everything that informs your purchase a review?

My bad I misread the question. I meant to say something along the lines of "If it gives me an depth look onto someone's opinion of the game, I consider it as useful as a review"

 

[Something Amyss]

My bad I misread the question. I meant to say something along the lines of "If it gives me an depth look onto someone's opinion of the game, I consider it as useful as a review"

Fair enough. I was just curious about your criteria.

 

[Lilani]

I generally see anyone's opinion on what they thought of something as a "review." I guess the distinction is supposed to be that a "review" is objective and everything else is not. But that's a hard measure to go by because there are very few objective criticisms to be made against a game. About the most objective things you can analyze are graphics, aesthetics, ease of play, and smoothness of mechanics. But even then there's a lot of room for tastes and preferences.

I think it's pretty pointless to take anybody at their word when it comes to how "objective" they're being. If you just think about the sort of things they are saying, you can usually spot for yourself when they're being "objective" and when something has to do with their tastes or preferences. Or just go by their summaries of what the game is as opposed to how they felt about it and consider for yourself if it sounds like something you'd like. You're never going to find a reviewer that will tell you if you'll like the game because no reviewer is you, except you. So just find ways to glean whatever you need to know about a game in order to decide if you want to try it and try it. That's just the risk that comes with being a consumer.

As for let's plays and first looks, I would personally say Let's Plays are more like gameplay previews than anything else. Still a review technically, but just a different format. And first looks are along the same lines--yes it's only first impressions, but those first few minutes of the game can be critical and very telling about a game. Or, it could at the very least stand as a standard of comparison when you finish the game to see if it matched up with your own first impressions.

 

[Spearmaster]

A "review", as far as I know, is someone looking back on something they have engaged with and giving their thoughts and opinions on it. "Non-reviews" like the mentioned TB WTF is? videos are not technically "reviews" by definition. A reviewer plays the game then writs the review, WTF is? and lets plays are in the moment thought streams with a real time showcase of the content being played, not a review although really informative, probably more so than a normal review.

TL;DR yes there are non-reviews of games and they are not reviews although just as useful imo.

 

[RavingSturm]

Not really, these "bloggers" or youtubers are already passing judgement while playing the game. Its just human nature.

 

[Fox12]

I divide it into professional and amateur journalism.

TB is a reviewer. So is a random blogger offering his/her opinion on something. These opinions can be valuable, but I do not consider them "professional" journalists, and so I hold them to a lower standard.

Someone who works for a journalism paper/magazine/website is a professional reviewer, however, especially of they have increased contact with the developers themselves. I hold these people to much higher standards. To whome much is given, much is expected.

However, both of these groups are still reviewers. TB and others can deny this in order to try and create a safety net, but they are reviewing a title, and their opinions have weight. Those who give criticism must be open to receiving it, and amateur reviewers are included in this.

 

[Cryselle]

I divide it into professional and amateur journalism.

TB is a reviewer. So is a random blogger offering his/her opinion on something. These opinions can be valuable, but I do not consider them "professional" journalists, and so I hold them to a lower standard.

Someone who works for a journalism paper/magazine/website is a professional reviewer, however, especially of they have increased contact with the developers themselves. I hold these people to much higher standards. To whome much is given, much is expected.

However, both of these groups are still reviewers. TB and others can deny this in order to try and create a safety net, but they are reviewing a title, and their opinions have weight. Those who give criticism must be open to receiving it, and amateur reviewers are included in this.

I don't think the whole 'not a review' thing is about a safety net, it's about being honest about the content of the video. TB's WTF series would make for very poor reviews, they don't even attempt to discuss large swaths of the game, don't attempt to 'score' the game, and are explicitly billed as NOT being complete or in-depth. Just because they can be influential on people's opinions doesn't make them a review, any more than a publisher's trailer can be considered a review.

I read a review when I want an opinion on how the entire game all fits together. I watch a first impressions video when I want to see mechanics in action.

 

[Fox12]

I divide it into professional and amateur journalism.

TB is a reviewer. So is a random blogger offering his/her opinion on something. These opinions can be valuable, but I do not consider them "professional" journalists, and so I hold them to a lower standard.

Someone who works for a journalism paper/magazine/website is a professional reviewer, however, especially of they have increased contact with the developers themselves. I hold these people to much higher standards. To whome much is given, much is expected.

However, both of these groups are still reviewers. TB and others can deny this in order to try and create a safety net, but they are reviewing a title, and their opinions have weight. Those who give criticism must be open to receiving it, and amateur reviewers are included in this.

I don't think the whole 'not a review' thing is about a safety net, it's about being honest about the content of the video. TB's WTF series would make for very poor reviews, they don't even attempt to discuss large swaths of the game, don't attempt to 'score' the game, and are explicitly billed as NOT being complete or in-depth. Just because they can be influential on people's opinions doesn't make them a review, any more than a publisher's trailer can be considered a review.

I read a review when I want an opinion on how the entire game all fits together. I watch a first impressions video when I want to see mechanics in action.

I think the line is rather thin, though. TB tends to comment on the quality of a game, and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. It's also clear that he puts thought into his review or commentary before he makes his video. It's usually pretty clear what his overall impression of a game is from his commentary. In this sense he doesn't really need to give a rating, because the audience can infer his opinion. Sometimes he simply states the quality of a game, leaving no doubt, in order to warn consumers about something that he condiders a poot purchase. And thats fine. I like his videos, but I would say that they are much more then a simple first look or let's play. At the very least they are an analysis of the game, or at least it's technical aspects. At the most they're a full blown review, albeit one that's not in depth.

 

[Cryselle]

I think the line is rather thin, though. TB tends to comment on the quality of a game, and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. It's also clear that he puts thought into his review or commentary before he makes his video. It's usually pretty clear what his overall impression of a game is from his commentary. In this sense he doesn't really need to give a rating, because the audience can infer his opinion. Sometimes he simply states the quality of a game, leaving no doubt, in order to warn consumers about something that he condiders a poot purchase. And thats fine. I like his videos, but I would say that they are much more then a simple first look or let's play. At the very least they are an analysis of the game, or at least it's technical aspects. At the most they're a full blown review, albeit one that's not in depth.

I completely agree that the line can be very thin, and there can be a lot of overlap between a first impression and a review, especially if the first impression is done to high standards. The difference, at least to me, is in the amount of background work I expect. With a WTF Is... from TB, I expect very little background work. I expect him to load up the game, play the game, and comment on what he sees and does. Now, TB is a fairly smart guy with a decent amount of experience, so his commentary can be very useful and insightful, but it's still just commentary. I'm okay with TB being outright wrong on how a mechanic works, because if he makes the mistake, there's a decent chance that many other people would as well. Contrast this with a review, where I expect (an am sometimes let down by a lack of) things like fact checking and in-depth analysis. If a reviewer is outright wrong on a mechanic, I'm not okay, because it's their job to research how it works before reporting on it. Reviews I expect to be handled somewhat scientifically, whereas a first impression I expect to be more organic in nature. Both useful, but different.

 

[Jandau]

I think a big deal here is the intent. What is the primary goal of the work?

TB's "WTF is..." series is mainly intended to inform, to provide a look at a game both from a technical standpoint and a gameplay one. The only thing separating it from a full review is that he doesn't finish the game or even pay it all that much. However, it's an excellent series for helping you make informed purchases, and as such comes really close to a review and I tend to take it as one.

On the other hand, Jim's "Squirty Play" or Yahtzee's "Zero Punctuation" have entertainment as their primary goal. It's less about providing factual information and more about poking fun at games for the enjoyment of the viewer. Can you still get relevant information from such content? I suppose so. But not that much, and most of what you get will be intentionally warped for comedic value. As a result, I don't take these as reviews, since they aren't informing me, they are entertaining me. Granted, Squirty Play is pretty much a big catalogue of rubbish on Steam, so I suppose it has value in that regard...