What Makes for a Great Game Review?

[digitalpress]

I'm compiling advice and hints for the upcoming game review contest. What are the things you look for in a really good game review? Think beyond the basics. For example, I've always preferred the review that seeks to entertain as well as inform; I like comparisons with other similar games; I like to see historical "lineage" explaining where the game and/or characters came from.

I want to post the contest on Friday, so I'll need your input here ASAP!

Tell me. Tell me now.

[Jorpho]

Indeed, it helps to know what you're talking about. That's what makes reviews of bad games so entertaining sometimes.

I suppose one's ultimate goal should be to demonstrate why the particular game may or may not be worthy of someone's time.

[scooterb23]

The main thing I like is an honest review. Even OMG BEST GAME EVAR!!1231!! games have their downsides...no game is perfect, and even if a game is rated a 10 / 10...there is still something that could have been better, and I like to know about that :)

I also definitely like comparison / contrast versus similar games.

And I am impatient...so I'm looking for critical info about a game FAST!!!

This is one of the main reasons I like GMR magazine by EB...at the end of each review they have a little box that usually goes like this...(just an example not actual text)

Tiger Woods Putt-Putt 7/10

Better Than: Atari 2600 Golf with a broken joystick
Not as good as: Jack Banning's Putt Pins 2004
Wait for it: Sim-John Daly

That kind of info box is more informative to me than a 2-page review...especially if I have played the other games...it gives me a good idea how much I may like this new game :)

Hope that helps some...

[punkoffgirl]

I can tell you what I DON'T like: Ones that are so anal about detail, you fall asleep before you get past the ITEM descriptions.
-_-

[Cafeman]

I never read a review with anal details .. perhaps I'm playing the wrong games ... X_x

A review must be written in a way that each paragraph flows to the next. It should answer the questions that we the prospective buyers would ask: how are the graphics, sounds, load times, is it fun, and if so, why? But that information can't just be listed in bullet form. The reviewer has to explain & persuade me *why* he feels the way he does. Including humor & analogies to other games or previous games in the series, well that stuff isn't necessary but if done in an entertaining and brief way it's a plus.

It all comes down to the writer's skill in conveying his opinion with brevity and in an entertaining way.

[maxlords]

I hate reviews that compare games to other games. "it's a combination of Metal Gear Solid and Chu Chu Rocket crossbred with Madden '93 and a hint of Devil May Cry!" Seriously, what does that tell me?

Also, I hate reviews that focus on graphics. A review should cover gameplay issues, framerate, playability, fun, music....everything major, and not get sidetracked.

[lendelin]

I'm compiling advice and hints for the upcoming game review contest. What are the things you look for in a really good game review? Think beyond the basics. For example, I've always preferred the review that seeks to entertain as well as inform; I like comparisons with other similar games; I like to see historical "lineage" explaining where the game and/or characters came from.

I want to post the contest on Friday, so I'll need your input here ASAP!

Tell me. Tell me now.

All the things you already mentioned, PLUS a touch of "personal experience" the reviewer provides when he played the game; by that I mean surprises of specific gameplay or the lack thereof, the personal feeling about the atmosphere of the game, specific gameplay elements which satnd out, etc.

Objectivity is a must (easy to say, hard to deliver), however, the best gamereviews I read contained descriptions by the reviewer about elements of the game which draws you in, or just appear to be "flat" and not engaging; this way a review 1) replicates what we all experience when we play games, and takes the psychology of the gamer into account, 2) balances out the listed "objective" categories we all know and makes the review more entertaining to read, 3) gives you a btter impression of the game.

[Arqueologia_Digital]

I like the reviews with some quotes of humor and sarcasm, but reallistic, with little details and easy reading...like the reviews i write... :D

[Wavelflack]

I have several grievances/ points of advice:

1. Be succinct.
Internet reviews (not just game reviews, either!) are generally snoozefests, because the writers are not confined by space budgeting and other limitations placed on print media. A good review will not contain a complete itinerary of every event in the game, nor will it contain irrelevant and self indulgent analysis. Roger Ebert doesn't spend three pages reviewing a movie, but you still get a good idea of what a movie is about, if it was successfully executed, a few high points, and a general feeling of whether or not the movie will be compatible with your tastes.

2. Don't bother trying to be funny, unless you actually are.
I know the relative success of "Penny Arcade" tends to defy the above dictum, but they are filling an important void left by the deaths of Charles Shultz and Bil Keane and are exempt from the rest of this paragraph. That said, don't try to spice up your bland review with humorous asides or clever in-jokes unless you truly have a gift in this department!

Some corollaries to #2:

2a. Fuck off with sarcasm.
Bleh. I don't know when the sarcasm trend spun wildly out of control, but it must come to a stop. First and foremost, the amount of sarcasm present in recent reviews is just...childish and stupid. It's unimaginative. It's formulaic. Not only is it formulaic ("I'd rather than play this game another [insert small increment of time]!!111"), but these Mad Libs-style insertions are just embarrassing in their simplicity and limited vision. "I'd rather [i]stick my hand in a blender than play this game another microsecond!!(111)"
If you (as the reader) can put aside the cringing embarrassment that unsophisticated sarcasm forces upon you, you are still left with a diluent to the review. How much sarcasm must you wade through to get useful information? How do you know that information isn't tainted by the author's attempts at humor? And why should you trust a person who is so thoroughly unsuccessful in their aims (write good review/be funny/appear knowledgeable), yet so proud of their failed product that they display it for all to see in spite of everything?

2b. Don't rehash other peoples' humor.
Have some pride in yourself. Good grief. It's bad enough that people insist on rehashing "Penny Arcade" text. It's worse to other people cramming in things that were stolen from equally unfunny forum posters. No, I am not referring to anyone here, but I've seen it quite a bit elsewhere.


3. Drop the pseudonyms and cartoon images.
I don't know if Gamefan or Gamepro first started this (probably Gamepro), but it's gotten completely out of hand, especially on the internet. Perhaps if a person had their own name and face next to a review, they would be more careful about their defiance of rules 1 & 2, as well as the overall quality of the review. Come to think of it, no wonder Gamepro instituted this idea of virtual anonymity. They were the originators of shitty, meaningless reviews. I mean that quite seriously.

4. Don't be obvious when trying to show off.
This could be taken as a good rule of thumb, in a variety of manners. What I refer to specifically is the increasing tendency of amateur (and some professional) writers to lace their text with obscure references to "old school" games. We get it. Again, it's more than just annoyance with the videogame analogue of name dropping. It also dilutes the review, and throws doubt upon the integrity of the review as a whole. "This guy obviously wants me to think he's cool, so why wouldn't he just use a game review as a vehicle to spew obscure trivia within?"

5. Use absolute descriptives.
Telling me that Game X is a mixture of [obscure game 1], [obscure game 2], [generic game 1], and [generic game 2] tells me nothing. Describe a game within the confines of itself, as much as possible. If it's a legitimate clone of something else, that's acceptable, but if not, describe it in "unrelated terminology". Just remember Die Hard. Speed was described as "Die Hard in a Bus!", Air Force One was "Die Hard on a plane!", there was a train movie, and plenty of others. What if a person never actually saw Die Hard? How about descriptions that don't rely on a person's prior knowledge of prior games?

6. Be objective.
I know, I know. It's an obvious idea, but one that rarely makes it to execution. I'm not talking about system loyalty, or anything along those lines. More to the point, a review should never start out by telling you what a "fucked up piece of shit" it is. Not if it's supposed to be informative and to be used for purchase decisions (ostensibly the reason for any review).
A review should be able to cover the positives and negatives, and their reasons, followed by a summary impression at the end. A "fucked up piece of shit" style review will only give further reasons (typically sarcastic..) to reinforce the opening statement. Ranting and raving about what a terrible game it is does nothing to inform the reader, and only detracts from the review's credibility and usefulness. Give the reader the high and low points, and let the reader decide based on that information. Maybe a thumbs up or an overall score, but be fair. It's too easy to go "xtreme" and exaggerate everything. Maybe a balanced review isn't as shocking or tart, but it's a more useful tool.

7. Don't bother with fucking decimal points in the score.
Incredibly pointless tendency. It's not going to influence anyone to score in tenths of points. Why not hundredths or thousandths? The only reason why this practice is even around (aside from overzealous, obsessive stat maniacs) is so that reviewers won't have to answer for why game A and game B both got the same score that month.
Go with a common sense approach: Poor, fair, average, good, excellent.


More later...

[Wavelflack]

Incidentally, the best game reviews I have ever read were those in Video Games & Computer Entertainment (vg&ce). Great magazine too. If the reviewer didn't like a game, he would explain (briefly) in a manner such as your father, or an excellent teacher, might take to explain some fact or concept.

[digitalpress]

Excellent points by all.

I think Wavel has dibs on the "guide to writing good game reviews".

Another thing that would help here: if any of you can remember off the top of your head a review that you really liked and can POINT us to it onilne. Examples are like pictures in the real world - they assist the people who get it when they can see it. Like me.

[Aswald]

1) If it's an arcade-to-home translation, saying whether or not it was a good one. Even Time Killers had some fans.

2) Good pictures.

3) An author who clearly is into games. Otherwise, you end up with "Vidiot."

4) This is subjective: if the reviewer's other reviews generally match your own views of games. In other words, if his reviews of games you already know match your own, chances are you'll like the games he likes.

[RetroYoungen]

I would say just write an honest opinion on whatever you're reviewing, and maybe throw in a short, yet somehow impacting personal story, maybe on what happened (not giving away any major plot, mind you) that made you appreciate or hate the game in the first place.

And Aswald, I thought people who were obsessed with gaming would be called "vidiots." I was wearing it as a badge of honor for a while, was I just fooling myself? :embarrassed:

[jaydubnb]

The one thing that always burns me about reviews is when the writer, ie, hates "2D fighters" but reviews the game anyway. Thats when you start to hear crap like "its pretty good for time and era, but..."

[Oobgarm]

I prefer a review that's got a personal style, and actually speaks to the audience, rather than maintaining a non-personal approach. Personal details as to how one got into said game, etc., really helps to identify with the reviewer and allows the reader some insight as to their gaming habits. Which, in turn, helps build trust.

I've written a number of reviews myself, with my best (so far) right here:

http://www.dustincarter.com/reviews/57.html

[Aswald]

I would say just write an honest opinion on whatever you're reviewing, and maybe throw in a short, yet somehow impacting personal story, maybe on what happened (not giving away any major plot, mind you) that made you appreciate or hate the game in the first place.

And Aswald, I thought people who were obsessed with gaming would be called "vidiots." I was wearing it as a badge of honor for a while, was I just fooling myself? :embarrassed:

I was thinking of that dumb-dumb magazine.

[Arcade Antics]

2. Don't bother trying to be funny, unless you actually are.
I know the relative success of "Penny Arcade" tends to defy the above dictum, but they are filling an important void left by the deaths of Charles Shultz and Bil Keane and are exempt from the rest of this paragraph. That said, don't try to spice up your bland review with humorous asides or clever in-jokes unless you truly have a gift in this department!

Wavel is back! Great to see you again!! :)

FWIW, Bil Keane just called to say that the rumors of his demise are greatly exaggerated. ;)

[Captain Wrong]

I agree with Wave pretty much 100%.


4) This is subjective: if the reviewer's other reviews generally match your own views of games. In other words, if his reviews of games you already know match your own, chances are you'll like the games he likes.

Good point here too. There are reviewers I actually trusted for this reason.

Also, it seems like too many magazines really don't have people who like 2d fighters (for example) yet they review them anyway. That bugs me and it's about as useful as having me review Square's newest "masterpiece". Get me someone who is not just looking for excuses to slam the style of game/developer/console/whatever.

One thing I don't think people have said though is tell me if the damn game if fun or not. Too many reviews waste so much space on the graphics and the story and the characters and all this other shit I really don't care about that by the time I've finished reading I still don't have any idea if the game is worth playing. To me, games are supposed to be fun. If it's not, I wanna know.

[/quote]

[rbudrick]

Basically, a great game review takes a great game reviewer.

-Rob

[ManekiNeko]

Wavelflack did indeed make some good points, but you know, I appreciate a funny review every now and then. Who hasn't enjoyed reading the occasional rant on Seanbaby.com?

JR

[lionforce]

Reviewers need to start letting us know which version of a multiplatform game is the best, gamespot does a decent job of this but I think every reviewer should make this standard in their reviews, if a gamer owns all the current generation systems and is serious about their gaming experience, he or she needs to know which version of the multiplatform game will give them more bang for the buck.

[Gamereviewgod]

Few things:

Cussing: No. The occasional damn or hell, fine. But there is NO need to use the F word repeatedly. I rarely see it in a major magazine or anything, but I see it all the time on fan based sites.

Multi-platform games: Don't simply copy the text, switch a paragraph and tweak the score. Have a few different people review the game, one for each system. This gives 3+ different viewpoints.

Oh, and Waveflack hit most of the points dead on.....but

I do think that refrencing games that most everybody has played is a bad thing. No, not everyone has seen Die Hard, but I think 99% of people know it's an classic non-stop action flick. Refrencing an obscure game, definitely a no-no. On a site like this especially, the readers of the review will be able to associate the games mentioned. End of rant....

[Kid Fenris]

While I agree with some of Wavelflack’s points, his suggestions remind me of nothing so much as those “Guidelines for Writing Fiction” books frequently sold to would-be authors. Such directives will help you create clear, useful, and annoyance-free prose, but many of them must be ignored if you’re ever to write something of enduring interest.

I don’t see the problem with describing a game in terms of other titles, provided that the reviewer explains why, for example, Dual Blades is like Tattoo Assassins. There’s nothing wrong with assuming some knowledge on the part of the reader, and if you resort to descriptions that anyone can get, you’ll end up with nothing but bland concessions to an audience that probably doesn’t care about your review’s subject in the first place. Game reviews should be intelligible to the average reader, but they shouldn’t be ignorance-proofed to the point of banality.

I also don’t mind when a writer drops a reference to something I’ve never heard of. As long as the review doesn’t hinge on my knowledge of this unknown work, I appreciate the prospect of something new. Indeed, if a reviewer brings up, say, a semi-obscure Heinlein novel during a piece on Persona 2, it’s an assurance that the writer has a decent breadth of experience. Besides, it’s dissatisfying to read a review and learn about nothing but a single game.

For some reason, I prefer reviews that stray from the graphic-this-gameplay-that format and explore stranger, often irrelevant aspects of the game in question. Insert Credit’s (http://www.insertcredit.com) writers can get seriously pretentious at times, but their output is never dull and seldom fails to offer some intriguing pieces of trivia.

I still enjoy helpful, straightforward reviews, yet they don’t seem to stick in my mind as well as the odder specimens. As informative and well-written as the opinions of Next Generation and VG&CE were, they never motivated me to the point of caring about a game. Gamefan, for all of its slapdash production and grade-school writing, frequently had me fascinated by a title that I would have otherwise passed up without a glance. Go figure.

[Daniel Thomas]

Incidentally, the best game reviews I have ever read were those in Video Games & Computer Entertainment (vg&ce). Great magazine too. If the reviewer didn't like a game, he would explain (briefly) in a manner such as your father, or an excellent teacher, might take to explain some fact or concept.

Amen to that. Some of their reviews from around 1989-90 still stick with me.

Most videogame reviews -- and by that I mean professional magazines -- are terrible. They follow the same tired Mad-Libs formula that is 95% hype, ad copy, and hyperactive teenage slang. Oh, and the occasional sex/masterbation joke that's obviously written by virgins. Not to be hard or anything.

For me, I'm more interested in knowing a reviewer's particular quirks and biases. Objectivity is pretty absurd here; this is criticism, after all. My favorite examples, yet again, are the great Digital Press reviews from Joe Santulli and Kevin Oleniacz (I miss him terribly), etc. Pac-Man for the 2600, for instance.

In my own writing, I'm heavily influenced by Pauline Kael, who showed a complete mastery of film history. The woman knew movies inside and out, and knew what made something sing above the usual formulaic junk. I don't think I could trust a game reviewer who doesn't own every old games console or emulator.

A great videogame is more than the sum of its parts (and can we please get away from the Graphics, Sound, Gameplay setup already?) -- there are those countless moments that make any classic memorable. The panic-inducing tension of Robotron, the rhythmic ballet of Ninja Gaiden and Contra, the fun of multiplayer games from Bomberman to MULE. I want to tap into that experience, so you can feel those emotions through my words.

And, it's always great when someone champions an underdog.

[Ed Oscuro]

I agree with Wavelflack's argument for succinct reviews a great deal, but I'd like to point out that the average Retrogaming Roundtable member does like references to other games. Perhaps not obscure games, but I do like to know why, say, Dire 51 gives the Sega Master System port of Shadow Dancer a score for graphics of less than 10 (which is simple: he explained that R-Type simply did a better job of convincing you that you were looking at the arcade game).

I do like the graphics/sound/gameplay format, but only at the tail end of the review, for point totals only.

[Iron Monkey]

Iron Monkey tell How is Best reviews of game now.
Need clear statement of Game.
Not to be "CHOPPY" sentence this.
Also have picture Nikkita in camofage underpants.
HAAAAAAAIIIIIII!!!!