So, there's been a lot of back and forth for awhile here now about subjectivity's place in reviews: how much is alright?, when is it appropriate?, and what reviews in general "should" be?.
"What reviews should be" seems to differ quite a bit depending on who's talking, and even people on the same side have differing opinions on what makes a good or effective review. Those topics can be useful for finding out, but they tend to be framed around debating about a particular subject, so it feels like people don't have a good idea of what their fellow posters are looking for when they read a review.
Hence the topic, why do you, yes, all of you, read reviews?
What are you looking for when you read a review? What do you like or dislike about what reviewers do? Hell, even let us know what you would like to see more or less of and who your favorite reviewers are (or least favorite), the ones that line up most with what you want to get out of a video game review. While I would prefer this topic doesn't get derailed by another subjectivity vs. objectivity debate, don't be afraid to mention it either if that's what you like or want out of a game review.
For me? A review is about reading a writer's opinion on a game, I want them to tell me what they personally thought about the game, what they liked/didn't like, what worked or didn't work, how they felt about the story and gameplay, and their thoughts on how the game fits into its genre and other recent releases. I'm more interested in an opinion than I am in the nitty-gritty details.
Not that those aren't important, but every reviewer tends to cover the big stuff: what are the graphics like?, did the reviewer have trouble with the controls, or bugs?, does the gameplay work as intended? If that was all I was interested in I would just stick to the big places like IGN, EGM, or Gamespot, as there would be little purpose to having more than a handful of games reviewers at all. It's useful, but it's like a dish with no seasoning, if all you can offer are the basics then I have little interest in preferring your review over someone who can offer me that and a little more.
The only thing that really irks me is if a critic is dishonest about why they are scoring a game, I don't care what reasons a critic has for scoring a game as long as they present those reasons to the reader.
Lastly, For me at least, score is almost worthless, with most sites I barely even bother to look at the score, not that I don't think it can be worthwhile, but the most use I usually get out of a score is using them on Metacritic to look up why deviant scores are much higher or lower than the average. Metacritic itself is something I have a love/hate relationship with; it is a useful tool, but I genuinely think it is having a negative impact on reviews and putting pressure on sites to homogenize scores, and I wouldn't put it past publishers to try and use Metacritic bonuses to influence reviewers.
So, what does everyone here look for when they read a review of a game?
"What reviews should be" seems to differ quite a bit depending on who's talking, and even people on the same side have differing opinions on what makes a good or effective review. Those topics can be useful for finding out, but they tend to be framed around debating about a particular subject, so it feels like people don't have a good idea of what their fellow posters are looking for when they read a review.
Hence the topic, why do you, yes, all of you, read reviews?
What are you looking for when you read a review? What do you like or dislike about what reviewers do? Hell, even let us know what you would like to see more or less of and who your favorite reviewers are (or least favorite), the ones that line up most with what you want to get out of a video game review. While I would prefer this topic doesn't get derailed by another subjectivity vs. objectivity debate, don't be afraid to mention it either if that's what you like or want out of a game review.
For me? A review is about reading a writer's opinion on a game, I want them to tell me what they personally thought about the game, what they liked/didn't like, what worked or didn't work, how they felt about the story and gameplay, and their thoughts on how the game fits into its genre and other recent releases. I'm more interested in an opinion than I am in the nitty-gritty details.
Not that those aren't important, but every reviewer tends to cover the big stuff: what are the graphics like?, did the reviewer have trouble with the controls, or bugs?, does the gameplay work as intended? If that was all I was interested in I would just stick to the big places like IGN, EGM, or Gamespot, as there would be little purpose to having more than a handful of games reviewers at all. It's useful, but it's like a dish with no seasoning, if all you can offer are the basics then I have little interest in preferring your review over someone who can offer me that and a little more.
The only thing that really irks me is if a critic is dishonest about why they are scoring a game, I don't care what reasons a critic has for scoring a game as long as they present those reasons to the reader.
Lastly, For me at least, score is almost worthless, with most sites I barely even bother to look at the score, not that I don't think it can be worthwhile, but the most use I usually get out of a score is using them on Metacritic to look up why deviant scores are much higher or lower than the average. Metacritic itself is something I have a love/hate relationship with; it is a useful tool, but I genuinely think it is having a negative impact on reviews and putting pressure on sites to homogenize scores, and I wouldn't put it past publishers to try and use Metacritic bonuses to influence reviewers.
So, what does everyone here look for when they read a review of a game?
