Gripes about Game Reviews

[squidblatt]

If you've got a pet-peeve or a general rant about game reviews, post it here. Don't worry about whether or not it's significant, just vent.

I've reached the point where most reviews just piss me off. I know I'm being thin-skinned, but I'm sick and tired of the poor critical ability, limited writing skills, and pretentious tone of many reviewers, both on and offline. Reviewers constantly refer to games as art, but the critical standards are so low that I doubt 99% of them are insightful enough to even make that judgment. What you normally get are intellectually lazy people whose judgment is barely suited to evaluate even the simplest pleasures. I'm not talking about every reviewer. I've read the reviews written by some of the members here and have been satisfied. I particularly like the advice on writing in the reviews section here at DP. I'm aware that I am going to come across as petty to some, but we all need to rant now and then.

What set me off was a visit to teamxbox this morning. It's one of the better sites to find news about releases and whatnot for the system, but not much else. As a site dedicated to the Xbox, it obviously has a stake in contributing to the greater success of the system, and there is a rather blatant promotional motive running through the site's entire content. But I'm willing to accept that. What got me was reading a piece they're running on lesser known games of the summer. First off, the author lamely attempts to elicit chuckles by structuring the article as a summer school class. Each game is introduced with a sentence or two about an academic subject that is clumsily forced to segue into the game itself. The writing is too poor to pull this off, but I can overlook that. What annoyed was that the facts are wrong! For example:

"17th century author Thomas Carlyle may have said it best: 'Nothing that was worthy in the past departs…'"

Carlyle lived from 1795-1881, and the quoted (out of context) essay, "Characteristics," was written in 1831, the 19th century. What makes it bad is the prentention with which it was written. Few things make you look worse than failed pretension.

Another example:

"The Medieval Crusades ushered in a thought process that, to this day, is a bit perplexing to scholars; killing in the name of religious beliefs. Just like the abortion clinic bombers of today, the early Crusaders thought killing was part and parcel of salvation."

First, the Crusades did not usher in this "thought process," and scholars are not necessarily "perplexed." Second, to compare medieval (which should not be capitalized, but it often is) crusaders with modern abortion clinic bombers is more than a stretch.

I know people will probably roll their eyes at this post, but it bothers me that just any twerp can become a game reviewer. These sites have influence, and it's a shame that there are such low standards when it comes to game journalism.

[Arcade Antics]

Reviewers constantly refer to games as art, but the critical standards are so low that I doubt 99% of them are insightful enough to even make that judgement.
You spelled "judgment" wrong. :P :)


I know people will probably roll their eyes at this post, but it bothers me that just any twerp can become a game reviewer.
Sad to say, it's not just game journalism where underqualified/unqualified folks have the jobs. It's everywhere. Best to shrug it off and focus on something else. 8-)

[DocRamon]

it bothers me that just any twerp can become a game reviewer

I used to write for one of these video game sites, reviewing games no less. (I'm not going to say names.) I completely agree with this statement. Most of my colleagues were high school students or college freshmen without any prior experience, and over half of all emails sent to the staff were "warnings" about grammatical errors and giving false information.

These sites, in my experience, hire writers based on how much time they'll devote to writing articles. The sites want people who are willing to provide as much content as possible, even if most of it is incoherent.

I've since left that site and started looking for reviews on message boards, where the opinions are more honest.

[diskoboy]

Yeah... I'd like to find the S.O.B(s) at IGN who reviewed Jade Empire and gave it a 9.9, drag him out in the street, and beat him/them with a baseball bat a few times. I bought the damn game and took it back the next day. Complete waste of fifty bucks.

AWFUL GAME!

[RCM]

but I'm sick and tired of the poor critical ability, limited writing skills, and pretentious tone of many reviewers, both on and offline. Reviewers constantly refer to games as art, but the critical standards are so low that I doubt 99% of them are insightful enough to even make that judgement. What you normally get are intellectually lazy people whose judgement is barely suited to evaluate even the simplest pleasures.

I disagree, in many cases of prosites and promags the "writing skills" are up to task. It's just everything else that lacks.

I never got the feeling that most prosites and promags regard games as art. I would say the opposite. Play magazine may be the worst offender for the whole games as art thing. I don't disagree that certain games are fantastic examples of artistic expression, but not every title.

I prefer to play games and judge for myself. Reviewers seem to lack passion, a sense of history, and most importantly taste. My advice is to find a reviewer that consistently shares your taste and follow their work if you don't have time to try every game that developers shit out.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[googlefest1]

I tend almost always disagree with every review I read - so I don’t pay attention to them - many of the ones I here that ive read are ok

The thing that bothers me most about reviews is that they have allot of power controlling games

example I like a game and would like to see a sequel - but review says it sucks so the likeliness people will buy it is lowered and more likely wont have a sequel-- and games that I may think are crap get good reviews and last forever through sequels

I believe many people rather not find out things for themselves and put their trust into some kind of authority and that’s what a game reviewer is too many people - a gaming authority

Personally if a game strikes an interest for me but im not sure about it ill rent (4-5$ is a smaller risk than 50$) it to check it out and make up my own review

some times i think of reviews as being bought off with gifts and such and they make an opinion on which gift they recived was the best

[vintagegamecrazy]

I agree with some of the above comments, I get annoyed with gamefaqs.com a lot, reviewers rate games on that site based on how much they like them, and rap a game with perfect mechanics and story etc. and then praise something that plays and controls aweful, I have actually started writing games for Digital press, and if I don't like a game but it is a good game and I can see beauty in it I will rate it good, I like unbiased reviews. I also like reviewers that have played new and old systems, I tend to see a better sense of judgement with them.

[squidblatt]

Reviewers constantly refer to games as art, but the critical standards are so low that I doubt 99% of them are insightful enough to even make that judgement.
You spelled "judgment" wrong. :P :)

Not anymore. :P

[Gamereviewgod]

RCM said their writing skills are ok, and I completely diagree. Not to rip myself, but my biggest pet peeve is when "pro" sites use "I" or "me." Of course, I've done it, especially when I first started. However, it was the first thing I learned in college. NEVER use I for a review. You're reviewing the game, not yourself.

There are those instances where it works, generally if you're taking a lighthearted approahc it's fine. However, if you're serious about critiquing a game, most of them end up in a rut of "I think the graphics are..." or "You shoudn't play this game because I..." etc. There is ALWAYS a way around this, and unfortunately, most of them don't even try resulting in a stale, dry review. I'm going back and editing each and review here on the site I did and taking out each instance like that. I cringe when i read some of those, and I can only hope some of the pros look back and do the same.

There's also the issue of them not even playing the games. I tore apart a Game Informer review a few months back on Tiger Woods for the DS. His opinion was of course his own and that's fine. However, he didn't even know how to put spin on the ball. There's a giant ball on the bottom screen after you swing you touch in the direction you need the spin. That tells me two things:

1. He never even bothered to play long enough.
2. He didn't read the instruction book.

That's critical. He's being paid to do this. I'm not, and play the hell out of everything I write about to be sure I have enough information. If not, credibility goes write down with the review.


I tend almost always disagree with every review I read - so I don’t pay attention to them - many of the ones I here that ive read are ok

Then you need to find a critic you agree with. If you're reading reviews and finding you don't agree with them, find someone else. That's a mistake a lot of people make. No one is wrong when they write a review for the most part (see Tiger Woods incident above), they're just telling you what they found. If you agree, hey, stick with them.


a sense of history

That's what I find most disturbing. I'd be willling to bet a lot of these guys have never touched a real NES, let alone a 2600.

[RCM]

RCM said their writing skills are ok, and I completely diagree. Not to rip myself, but my biggest pet peeve is when "pro" sites use "I" or "me." Of course, I've done it, especially when I first started. However, it was the first thing I learned in college. NEVER use I for a review. You're reviewing the game, not yourself.

The I and Me doesn't bother me all that much. It might not be the correct way to review something but I feel it can give a more intimate feeling when it's done deliberately. As in the case of my cozy writing style GRG. By the way you suck. Don't flame me members, we're friends!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Zilla]

I decided to start putting up reviews of games on gamefaqs assuming its a game I have beaten or played a lot of. I understand in formal writing you should always write in the third person and never first but I have never minded first person writing in a review. It's a personal opinion unless all you do it give me tech specs of what the game is capable of. Thats how I find a reviewer I like, if he/she got the same impression as me about things in a game I know that I can look at thier other reviews for advice. My reviews are my point of view on a game. I consider myself a novice gamer with a passion for new and old games and hopefully my reviews can be read and related to by someone like me. I hope that that is the intention of all reviews to try to give a solid impression and feel for a game so that people can make an informed choice. I like the idea of being unbiased but I think thats not a possible thing and just a ideal. You will be influenced by too many things such as genre preference, art style, sounds, previous games by a company. I can't forgive a reviewer that doesn't play a game or gives a review without any feeling behind it. That's just my opinion on the subject.

[Mayhem]

"Judgement" looked spelled correctly to me here ;)

As for reviews Squidblatt, have a look over at the ones we do here and tell me what you think:

http://www.ntsc-uk.com

Should fine a variety of different styles, with arguments, even if you don't necessarily agree with the final scores!

[Gamereviewgod]

I feel it can give a more intimate feeling when it's done deliberately. As in the case of my cozy writing style GRG

It completely dependent on the site/magazine. Your site is more blatant in your face. It fits. Gamespot, IGN, and EGM for example, are not. Not to mention they're paid professionals and it's a basic rule of the langauge.

And while I understand the more intimate argument, I don't care about the person writing the review. I care about the game he/she is writing about. It sets up a style that doesn't say much about the game, but how the person felt about it.

I know, I know, that's what a review is. However, there's a way to write one so it doesn't feel that way as you're reading. Such as:

"I think this game has terrible graphics because of the textures and models."

"This game is filled with shoddy textures and blocky models."

See how the second sentence, even though it's pretty bad, has more life behind it? It's stating it like a fact, not just an opinion. Whether or not it's a fact doesn't matter, it's how forceful the opinion is shot at the reader.

[esquire]

I am going to take a different approach as to why I dislike reviews more and more.

First, I see a growing trend to criticize developers who design a well crafted single player game because it either lacks or has a weak multiplayer game. Since when do developers have to do both? I know multiplayer is extremely popular, but no one criticized Battlefield 1942 when it came it due to its craptacular single player mode. Their response, "well that game was meant to be played as an online game only, and single player was just to familiarize yourself with the game." And of course no one would be critical of Everquest as it is meant as an online game only. Why can't there be single player games only? Some people don't always feel the need or desire to go online. I guess it doesn't go both ways. I am fine with games like the original Unreal which had no online multiplayer built in, but provided one hell of a single player game. Perhaps reviewers need to give games two different ratings, one for each version. But the lack of a multiplayer game should not effect a games overall score if it provides a wonderful single player experience.

The other thing I have noticed is that every review is critical of the game if it does not "take it to the next level." Now I am not talking of games like the Tomb Raider series which justly deserve such criticism. But it seems like when there are several games in a certain genre being developed at the same time, the reviews get critical stating they only provide more of the same or don't do anything different. Sometime this may be justified (ala Tomb Raider above), but more of the same isn't always mean its bad. Moreover, sometimes a game reaches a pinnacle where its very difficult to top. Take for instance Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City and San Andreas. I'm pretty sure Rockstar owns this genre, and I think it may be some time before it is surpassed by another developer. Does that mean that all other games that try to replicate the genre are shit because they don't take it to the next level? No. Of course there will always be flops like Driv3r that are justly criticized, but I find it hard to criticize games like Killzone because it wasn't the "Halo Killer" that we thought it would be. Take it for what is, and just enjoy it.

[Daria]

Yeah... I'd like to find the S.O.B(s) at IGN who reviewed Jade Empire and gave it a 9.9, drag him out in the street, and beat him/them with a baseball bat a few times. I bought the damn game and took it back the next day. Complete waste of fifty bucks.

AWFUL GAME!

I hate reviews that use a number scale. Just give me the pros and cons, a numberd value implies an opinion and I think a reviewer should be impartial. But then that's what's wrong with reviews in general.

[Mayhem]

To be honest, we always say read the text, the number at the end is just an indicator. We even considered removing the scores and just having the text, together with pro/cons, but too many people complained about that. Go figure... I guess a lot of people still put credence on a little number.

[Flack]

I edited music reviews for a fairly popular metal site for a while and ran my own movie/music/game review site for a while as well. In both instances, I had to completely rewrite some of the submitted reviews that came across my virtual desk.

One of my biggest pet peeves was when people would use phrases like "in my opinion" or "I thought" or "to me it seems". It's a review; the reader is safe to assume it's your opinion, you don't need to continually state it!

I know what Matt is saying about using "I" and "me" in reviews and I agree to a certain extent. Formal reviews should be written like formal papers. However, most of the places I write reviews for would be considered casual audiences, like here at DP. When I write a review for DP it's almost like I'm writing an e-mail to a friend.

The worst music reviews I ever received were ones that simply listed each track and commented on each song one at a time. You've got to look at the product as a whole and comment on it first before breaking down the individual parts. Once you look at a game as a whole you can then comment on the individual parts such as the graphics, sound or whatnot.

I also agree that numbers in reviews don't mean much but unfortunately a lot of the general public simply wants to see a number, so you've got to put it there for them. It's increasingly meaningless on a site like this where there are multiple reviewers and each one is using their own personal scale.

[googlefest1]

I tend almost always disagree with every review I read - so I don’t pay attention to them - many of the ones I here that ive read are ok

---Then you need to find a critic you agree with. If you're reading reviews and finding you don't agree with them, find someone else. That's a mistake a lot of people make. No one is wrong when they write a review for the most part (see Tiger Woods incident above), they're just telling you what they found. If you agree, hey, stick with them.----



its not like i will agree the next time with a reviewer i agreed with in the past - hit or miss -- besides i have never realy payed any attention to who wrote a review - just read the review - but most of the time i dont even pay attention when they say something is bad or good - ill look for some key things im interested in and then most of the time i will see for my self and make my own jugement and later say "hey he/she was on the money" or " he/she dosent know what he/she is talking about "


edit - i can never get the quotes to work the dashes ----are for the quote

[hezeuschrist]

RCM said their writing skills are ok, and I completely diagree. Not to rip myself, but my biggest pet peeve is when "pro" sites use "I" or "me." Of course, I've done it, especially when I first started. However, it was the first thing I learned in college. NEVER use I for a review. You're reviewing the game, not yourself.

There's also the issue of them not even playing the games. I tore apart a Game Informer review a few months back on Tiger Woods for the DS. His opinion was of course his own and that's fine. However, he didn't even know how to put spin on the ball. There's a giant ball on the bottom screen after you swing you touch in the direction you need the spin. That tells me two things:

1. He never even bothered to play long enough.
2. He didn't read the instruction book.

That's critical. He's being paid to do this. I'm not, and play the hell out of everything I write about to be sure I have enough information. If not, credibility goes write down with the review.

That's the ultimate paradox of gaming. Most sites only have a dozen or so permenant staff reviewers, and reviewing EVERY game with intense depth. You play the hell out of it becuse reviewing is something you certainly enjoy and have a deep interest in. Now when it comes to a game like Tiger Woods for DS, it's pretty obvious that this doesn't have a large target audience, and when it's your job to review likely mediocre to poor games, playing the hell out of all of them would be far more than a chore, it would likely be impossible for the number of games released in current times.

So it's up to the site/mag to either hire more staff, or put out shoddier reviews on average. But I totally agree, when you miss a giant gameplay aspect such as spin on the ball in any Tiger Woods game, that's just a glaring flaw of the reviewers intent to give a valid opinion on the game. They simply didn't give a shit about the game which is becoming more and more prevalent.


Then you need to find a critic you agree with. If you're reading reviews and finding you don't agree with them, find someone else. That's a mistake a lot of people make. No one is wrong when they write a review for the most part (see Tiger Woods incident above), they're just telling you what they found. If you agree, hey, stick with them.

And that's the ultimate. I agree with Gamespot on the whole, so I stick with them. I disagree with IGN quite often (not to mention the horrid site design; more horrid than Gamespot), so I don't really visit them.

As for my own pet peeves about reviews, I don't have beef with the reviews so much as I do with the people that quote them like the bible. Some people put way too much faith the review of some new game, and will link to the gamerankings score for some game to proove that it's a good game. I have my own thoughts about the games I've played, and if asked I'll gladly give my opinion, but when someone comes around and says "Devil May Cry 3 suxx! God of War is teh best game EVAR, look at these reviews, I'M RIGHT!" I'll pretty much ignore that poster as having completely irrelevant views on games.

It's one thing to not like a game, but it's a whole different beast to realize that not every game is for everyone. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it's a bad game, it's simply not for you. Halo takes the cake for the fanboy/anti-fanboy stupidity on this one.

[Daria]

To be honest, we always say read the text, the number at the end is just an indicator. We even considered removing the scores and just having the text, together with pro/cons, but too many people complained about that. Go figure... I guess a lot of people still put credence on a little number.

See that sounds cool, and that's how I read a review. Skim it for the information I need and decide on my whether the game in question sounds exciting to me. Good and bad are subjective, the games I like are not necessarilly going to be the same games you like. Although a real dog's usually recognizable by everyone.

It also kinda bugs me how some reviewers devote entire paragraphs to graphics and sound. Many reviews come off as cookie cutter unless the game really does something dramatically different with these elements. Like REZ. Or handles them so badly they become detremental to the gameplay. I can't imagine that every professional reviewer is an artist or muscian in his spare time, these aren't fields when they're qualified to make too many blanketed statements.

It also rubs me the wrong way when a reviewer starts off by saying: "I hate this genre." Or company- or even system. (Sadly I've really read and seen "professional" reviews like this. G4 tv anyone?) Bias is worse then subjectivity. If this sinply isn't your genre you shouldn't be writing the review. I really don't care to read that everything which is wrong with the game also happens to be everything that makes it an RPG, first person shooter or what have you.

[Flack]

It also kinda bugs me how some reviewers devote entire paragraphs to graphics and sound. Many reviews come off as cookie cutter unless the game really does something dramatically different with these elements. Like REZ. Or handles them so badly they become detremental to the gameplay. I can't imagine that every professional reviewer is an artist or muscian in his spare time, these aren't fields when they're qualified to make too many blanketed statements.

Again, unfortunately that's a side effect of the way most magazines/sites format their reviews. For example, on DP submitted reviews must have scores reflecting the graphics, sound, and gameplay. It's tough to put "3/10" on graphics without justifying it in the review. Some writers simply aren't experienced enough to casually work that info into their reviews, and so as you mentioned those sections end up standing out like sore thumbs.

[Aussie2B]

"I think this game has terrible graphics because of the textures and models."

"This game is filled with shoddy textures and blocky models."

See how the second sentence, even though it's pretty bad, has more life behind it? It's stating it like a fact, not just an opinion. Whether or not it's a fact doesn't matter, it's how forceful the opinion is shot at the reader.

As Flack said, what's wrong with that original sentence is the "I think" part. It's redundant to state in a review "I think", "in my opinion", etc. because that's a given.

However, the "I" all by itself is NOT the problem. Never speaking in the first-person is an elementary rule which only exists to keep dumb kid in line. Once you're able to form a coherent, intelligent paragraph, it should be thrown out the window, just like rules such as "Never start a sentence with 'Because'". The only college professors who continue to push that rule are those who think they're still teaching high school (or they feel their students are so incompetent that it's necessary to regress).

I pay no attention to how often I use "I" and "me" and such in my reviews. I'm sure I've used them plenty. I'm smart enough to not overuse them to the point that I sound like a first grader describing his summer vacation, and I use them enough so my reviews don't descend into "When one plays this game, he or she... blah blah blah" for the entire essay.

I think it's an absolutely wonderful, if not necessary, thing to learn about the reviewer through a review. Even if he or she doesn't specifically talked about events in their life or personal beliefs, the review has succeeded if it's given the reader an idea of not only what the reviewer's tastes are but what the reviewer is like as a person. The last thing we need is robot reviews that are dry and lack any bit of personality and creativity.

However, as evident by this thread, a lot of people, if not most, believe reviews are actually supposed to be unbiased and objective. Ha, what a joke. Nothing is more subjective than a review. One person only knows his or her own thoughts and opinions on a game. You can't magically pull out of thin air the opinions of others. Of course, you can always put together a review with a partner or even numerous people or you can take a stab at what you THINK other people with different tastes might feel about the game (which I do from time to time), but in the end, most reviews are 100% you and only you.

If you're using reviews as a purchasing guide, that's when you really have to watch out. You're in big trouble if you only read one unless you REALLY trust and are familiar with that particular reviewer. Generally, it's good to read at least two - one positive, one negative, but it can be helpful to get a "middle-of-the-road" standpoint in there too (too avoid fanboys and anti-fanboys). Judge the quality of the writing, the validity of the "proof" for each statement, and if you can, check out the tastes of the reviewer by browsing other reviews by him or her. It's usually not too hard to determine who is most credible or, at least, who is most likely to have similar tastes to your own.

I could talk about reviews till the cows come home, so I'll leave it at that for now since I already discussed several of my own pet peeves in the "Gamespot or IGN?" topic.

By the way, both "judgement" and "judgment" are correct. I remember a HUGE argument about that on a different message board years ago, haha. Remember, Merriam-Webster.com is your friend. :P

[TheRedEye]

As someone who has been doing this for about two years now, here's my take on some of the points made in this thread:

I think we (meaning printed magazines, for the most part) need to define and differentiate reviews and essays. The argument has been made that games are an active medium, rather than passive. And I think that's pretty obvious. If you and I both watch Citizen Kane, we're going to witness the same piece. We might interpret things differently, we might have different emotional responses, but ultimately we're having the same experience. We are a captive audience.
With games, everyone's experience is going to be different, by the very nature of the medium. And therefore, the argument has been made, "reviews" should be of a personal nature. We should speak in first person, and relay to our audience what our experience with this game, this "piece of art," was like.

And I think that's horse shit. That's not a review, that's an essay. Reviews should be very short blurbs describing only the essentials. Reviews should tell us whether or not this product or service is worth our money, without actually saying as much. You know, the old "show don't tell" philosophy that everyone ought to adhere to. They should look the way album reviews do in Rolling Stone, and much in the same way, they ought to be stuck somewhere in the back of each issue. EGM's review crew is done similarly, and I like it.

The rest of the magazine should consist of - and this may be a shock to some - articles and essays, at which point I heartily encourage some strong first-person journalism.

And I suppose the key word here is "journalism." We can all bitch and moan that there isn't enough of it in the gaming industry, but I think quantity is almost irrelevant. I'm more concerned with quality. I want to see someone like EGM hire an actual JOURNALIST who isn't some kid who plays videogames all day long. Give me someone willing to dig deep and tell me why Acclaim failed. Get someone out there talking to financial analysts about whether or not EA's current business model is working.

And that, I think, is the cause of the OP's concern. You're right, videogame publications don't tend to hire journalists worth a damn. They hire people who enjoy videogames and can write something grammatically correct and captivating. Which, I'll be honest, is just about all I am. And I do believe I serve a purpose, as an entertainment writer or critic or what have you, but pieces that demand journalism should be done by journalists.

Also, someone should give me lots of money so I can launch a magazine that does for videogames what Rolling Stone did for rock and roll, before someone beats me to it.

[Daria]

[Incredibly long article]

And that's the magazine I'd pay to read!

[Haoie]

The biggest issue with amateur reviews is that almost all the marks are biased upwards. The reasoning is simple. You're not going to review something unless you liked it [or alternatively really hated it]. This means far more than half are going to get over the 50% mark margin.

This can be easily seen with 90% of GameFAQ reviews.

[hezeuschrist]

However, as evident by this thread, a lot of people, if not most, believe reviews are actually supposed to be unbiased and objective. Ha, what a joke. Nothing is more subjective than a review. One person only knows his or her own thoughts and opinions on a game. You can't magically pull out of thin air the opinions of others. Of course, you can always put together a review with a partner or even numerous people or you can take a stab at what you THINK other people with different tastes might feel about the game (which I do from time to time), but in the end, most reviews are 100% you and only you.

Yes and no, really. As with movies and music, there are certain intangibles. How are the production values? Does this publisher/developer have a history of positive titles? Does the game work, as in, can you play it?

Graphics and sound are less intangible, but are still pretty easy to judge objectively. If everything looks like washed out trash, then that's fairly evident to anyone looking at a screenshot.

The actual experience is where it's 100% subjective, but as a reviewer you still have to give credit where it's due. Some people hate God of War but it has a very, very solid game engine and has incredible production values. In a review, these things should be mentioned and in the tilt portion of the review, it should be noted that they simply didn't 'click' with the reviewer.

[Aussie2B]

I can't imagine that every professional reviewer is an artist or muscian in his spare time, these aren't fields when they're qualified to make too many blanketed statements.

Oh man, tell me about it. The music section of reviews is often the worst. I don't even want to remember all the times I've heard people claim that the music in Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire, Super Mario RPG, and pretty much any other RPG was composed by Uematsu... (With games like Chrono Trigger and Super Mario RPG, there were a handful of Uematsu tracks, but the entire soundtracks were most certainly NOT composed by him!) Misinformation is just sickeningly prevalent. And when they're not screwing up their info, they're being vague to the point that their words are useless because they don't know the first thing about describing the characteristics and quality of music.

If you want game music reviews by people who REALLY know their stuff, that's what sites like Chudah's Corner are for. However, when you're reviewing a game as a whole, I'm a little more forgiving. I mean, I'm no musician, but I do put considerable effort into both getting my information right and being as descriptive as I can. It also helps immensely if you actually know the name of the songs instead of saying "the theme for so-and-so dungeon is good".

I'm fortunate in that my boyfriend is a musician, a gamer, AND heavily into game music like myself. He helps educate me on the finer points of music analysis, and he can catch some of my mistakes. In my Final Fantasy 7 review, I originally wrote that the soundtrack was CD-quality sound, when it is, in fact, just advanced MIDI.

[Mayhem]

Daria... check out NTSC-UK and see what you think. Be honest. Pick a few different reviews by different writers (if you goto "About Us", you can click on profiles for some of them, including me, and it has a list of what we've written inside). We try to be professional, but we are not above some silliness and taking the piss either from time to time (read the Nintendogs "review" for example, or Tonge R).

Haoie... agreed. Though we do review quite a few duffers because we have access to them, and often are available through our affiliations to Videogamesplus and PlayAsia. We mark average as 5/10, whereas a lot of places, average seems to start at 7/10.

At the end of the day (oooo nice cliche there), we're essentially unpaid and doing it in our own time, although many of us are semi-professional and write for paid publications as well. Indeed one of our number was recently recruited by Edge.

[Aussie2B]

Yes and no, really. As with movies and music, there are certain intangibles. How are the production values? Does this publisher/developer have a history of positive titles? Does the game work, as in, can you play it?

Graphics and sound are less intangible, but are still pretty easy to judge objectively. If everything looks like washed out trash, then that's fairly evident to anyone looking at a screenshot.

That's an extreme example, though. As everyone knows, there's PLENTY of room to disagree about the quality of music (and voice acting, but generally not sound effects). And as for graphics, it can be subjective as well. A lot of people look at graphics through rose-colored glasses, and others put down graphics just because they're old. I know that people often disagree with my views on graphics. A lot of people think Star Ocean 3 looks like crap, but I was amazed with the graphics (part of this likely comes from the fact that I was playing it around 2 years before anyone else). A lot of people claim that I trashed the graphics of Final Fantasy 7 just because it's old now, but I actually think the graphics were poorly designed from the get-go. However, I'm not afraid to say that the quality of the FMV was surprisingly sharp and clear for the time. Heck, with pretty much every review I've ever written I can think at least a few people who thought the complete opposite about the graphics. I bet you can even find someone somewhere who thinks Bubsy 3D has good graphics. :P

You can always point out the production values of a game (since the amount spent on a game and amount of people and time spent on the project are all solid facts that cannot be argued) and you can point out the history of the company and such, but in the end, those things wouldn't and shouldn't have an impact on the reviewer's final conclusion of the worth of the game.

[hezeuschrist]

Yes and no, really. As with movies and music, there are certain intangibles. How are the production values? Does this publisher/developer have a history of positive titles? Does the game work, as in, can you play it?

Graphics and sound are less intangible, but are still pretty easy to judge objectively. If everything looks like washed out trash, then that's fairly evident to anyone looking at a screenshot.

That's an extreme example, though. As everyone knows, there's PLENTY of room to disagree about the quality of music (and voice acting, but generally not sound effects). And as for graphics, it can be subjective as well. A lot of people look at graphics through rose-colored glasses, and others put down graphics just because they're old. I know that people often disagree with my views on graphics. A lot of people think Star Ocean 3 looks like crap, but I was amazed with the graphics (part of this likely comes from the fact that I was playing it around 2 years before anyone else). A lot of people claim that I trashed the graphics of Final Fantasy 7 just because it's old now, but I actually think the graphics were poorly designed from the get-go. However, I'm not afraid to say that the quality of the FMV was surprisingly sharp and clear for the time. Heck, with pretty much every review I've ever written I can think at least a few people who thought the complete opposite about the graphics. I bet you can even find someone somewhere who thinks Bubsy 3D has good graphics. :P

You can always point out the production values of a game (since the amount spent on a game and amount of people and time spent on the project are all solid facts that cannot be argued) and you can point out the history of the company and such, but in the end, those things wouldn't and shouldn't have an impact on the reviewer's final conclusion of the worth of the game.

Indeed indeed, I completely agree.

[Daria]

Daria... check out NTSC-UK and see what you think. Be honest. Pick a few different reviews by different writers (if you goto "About Us", you can click on profiles for some of them, including me, and it has a list of what we've written inside). We try to be professional, but we are not above some silliness and taking the piss either from time to time (read the Nintendogs "review" for example, or Tonge R).

I've only read a couple, but I really like the site so far. I'm glad we had this thread. *bookmarks*

(:

[TheRedEye]

Indeed one of our number was recently recruited by Edge.

Well good luck to that person. Those fuckers still owe me money from seven months ago.

[slownerveaction]

Also, someone should give me lots of money so I can launch a magazine that does for videogames what Rolling Stone did for rock and roll, before someone beats me to it.

Serious question: Have you considered really looking around for financial backing for a project like that? Because I've been impressed whenever you've spoken on the subject. I think if you formally wrote down your ideas and started knocking on venture capitalists' doors (maybe pick up a book like this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471398136/qid=1120867185/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-1871466-4819039?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) to guide you), you'd have a decent shot.

[Gamereviewgod]

I think it's an absolutely wonderful, if not necessary, thing to learn about the reviewer through a review.

Right, but if someone is writing 100s of reviews a year, that's going to be redundant. Like I said, there are instances where it's fine. However, for the most part, it drives me absolutely nuts. You can't go into every review and say "Wow, I didn't learn ANYTHING about that guy." If it's someone you trust, then you already know their tastes.


Reviews should be very short blurbs describing only the essentials

Ditto, unlike IGNs nine page marathons that I never make it past the first page of. Yawn. However, I beleive the game maker who spent a year+ devoting their life to making the game you just plowed through deserves more than just 100 words, regardless of what you thought about it.

[Aussie2B]

Reviews should come in ALL lengths. Even very short ones have their place, though they're not my cup of tea. Lengthy reviews are much appreciated by some readers; I should know since I get praise email from people saying that they love how I go so in-depth and provide a wealth of information, along with a good chunk of humor and creative writing. However, I also get people whining and complaining to me because they don't have the patience to read my reviews, but well, every reviewer has a target audience with each review, and they're not mine.

Oh, and getting back to the topic post, there was one thing I forgot to say: I like gimmick reviews. Gimmick reviews that fail are TERRIBLE, but a successful gimmick is a great read. I took a stab at one once with my Stinger review, a Valentine's Day review that presented the game as an infatuation of mine. I think it came out really well, but I suppose some may think otherwise. At the very least, it was well-received on the Review Contributor board at GameFAQs, so at least I know I'm not the ONLY one who liked it. :P

[Daniel Thomas]

The catch about videogame writing is that everyone thinks they can do it, but few can pull it off successfully.

Like most everything else, you have to address the basic questions. Why am I doing this? Who am I writing for? Do I want to share a few opinions with friends, or do I want to speak to a general audience? And is what I want to write worth reading?

I don't know where an 18-year-old would find inspiration today if he or she wanted to write about videogames. When I was 18, I could read Video Games & omputer Entertainment, which was a tremondous influence on me. It showed me that games could be taken seriously, treated with respect.

EGM's writers were nowhere near as skilled, but they were experts on games. They knew everything, and played everything. And it's important to remember that they knew gaming's history, which I think is crucial. The lesson here is: know your stuff.

After that, my major influence were the zines. I was fortunate to come around when this small community was formed (thanks largely to Arnie Katz' columns in VG&CE), and we were all part of something. A group who really wanted to change the way this hobby - games - was perceived.

Games are practically considered a status symbol today. Make of that what you will.

In any case, that's where I came from. If you want inspiration to steal from, you'll have to look around. Steal from DP, steal from me, whatever. Just stay away from the fanboy-ish Mad Libs writing that still plagues the prozines.

[Gamereviewgod]

Why am I doing this? Who am I writing for? Do I want to share a few opinions with friends, or do I want to speak to a general audience? And is what I want to write worth reading?

That's the best way to think before writing anything. Well said.

[lendelin]

I think it's an absolutely wonderful, if not necessary, thing to learn about the reviewer through a review.

Right, but if someone is writing 100s of reviews a year, that's going to be redundant. Like I said, there are instances where it's fine. However, for the most part, it drives me absolutely nuts. You can't go into every review and say "Wow, I didn't learn ANYTHING about that guy." If it's someone you trust, then you already know their tastes.


I'm with Gamereviewgood here, and I go much further.

I'm not interested in the person of the reviewer reading a review. Why should I? The substance of the review and the reasoning for the game's evaluation says a lot about the reviewer already -- namely his intelligence level.

I'm not interested in his 'feelings' (I feel...xyz is anyway a terribly colloqual phrase in any review or essay; I'm interested in thoughts, not feelings) or personal background.

Writing skills are overall pretty good in reviews, but I'm not interested in elegant English (maybe because I'm a foreigner and wouldn't recognize good English when it kicks me in my behind);

I'm interested in substance, information, good reasoning, AND even more in a good analysis; and that is exactly where most reviews fail. I'm not even interested in an entertaining read. All I want is substance, WHY a game is good, bad or mediocre, and it would be great to get some background information about the developer/publisher IF relevant for the review.

The common distinction between garphics, sound, control and gameplay is necessary; at least I don't have a better proposal to compose a review.

What bothers me, however, is that most reviewers cannot put these sections together. A game is more than these sections. The more I understand games, the more I have problems to distinguish between these compartments.

Sound is gameplay, Graphics is gameplay, control is gameplay. They influence and determine each other and result in a multi-media experience. Most reviewers are unable to link them together, to find the reasoning of their imbalance or balance (the latter means we have a great game, as a rule).

Otherwise:

1) Do what I do: when I read a review, the content is more important than the grade given. The content of the review tells you something about the intelligence level of the reviewer, consistencies or inconsistencies with the review grades given, and tells you about the amount of "taste" of the reviewer which necessarily goes into a review; it also tells you simply if you might like the game or not independent of the review content and/or grade.

2) I recognize a good review when I read it. Trust your own brain, and make a question mark behind EVERY review. Never take it at face value. Take it simply as a broad guideline, and enjoy intelligent remarks and analysis.

3) Review scores are necessary. I don't want to go back to 1988 and 1989 when most mags didn't have them. What is necessary is a better quality of reviews in general not tailored towards teenagers; which means that we need better game journalists; which means that we need a better socialization process for them and higher standards than mainstream mags and sites apply today.

[lendelin]

double post

[Aussie2B]

I'm not interested in the person of the reviewer reading a review. Why should I? The substance of the review and the reasoning for the game's evaluation says a lot about the reviewer already -- namely his intelligence level.

I'm not interested in his 'feelings' (I feel...xyz is anyway a terribly colloqual phrase in any review or essay; I'm interested in thoughts, not feelings) or personal background.

Writing skills are overall pretty good in reviews, but I'm not interested in elegant English (maybe because I'm a foreigner and wouldn't recognize good English when it kicks me in my behind);

I'm interested in substance, information, good reasoning, AND even more in a good analysis; and that is exactly where most reviews fail. I'm not even interested in an entertaining read. All I want is substance, WHY a game is good, bad or mediocre, and it would be great to get some background information about the developer/publisher IF relevant for the review.

Well, I think you can find plenty of reviews out there that suit your tastes. However, I don't think anyone has a right to say that ALL reviews should be written a certain way (besides expecting them to be intelligent and informative) because as Daniel Thomas said, as a reviewer you have to ask yourself "who is my audience?" and the answer will NEVER be "every person in existence". The best thing a reviewer can do to truly provide a useful service to someone out there is to write a piece that offers a unique viewpoint or style which no other review on said game contains. It may be the overall opinion of the game that's unusual (like my negative Final Fantasy 7 review) or it could be unique simply in presentation.

For myself, the kind of review you describe sounds really dull and not the type I'd really spend time reading. The reviews that target you as their audience wouldn't be able to reel me in. I need a review to use elegant English, entertain me, and teach me about who the writer is. Now, believe me, I can't stand useless, boring stories like "I went to GameStop and saw this game for $50. It looked interesting, so I bought it. I brought it home and popped it into my PS2 and thought 'Wow, this is pretty cool!'" However, some anecdotes can work extremely well. Usually they work best to get a review rolling in the introduction or to wrap it up in the conclusion. Heck, I included a story about how a pet store hedgehog bit me in my Sonic the Hedgehog review. O_o I'm sure some people thought it was a stupid addition, but others got a real kick out of it. To me, it just flowed naturally into the review, which is how a lot of weird stuff ends up into my reviews. They make my reviews more interesting, I think. They strengthen the force of the review, while at the same time, giving them a light-hearted comical nature to help the reader progress through the entire review, regardless of length. It's the kind of stuff I love to read in reviews, so there must be people out there who like reading it in mine.

[tylerwillis]

I just started writing game reviews within the last few months, so I've found this thread to be an interesting read.

For my own personal observation, I've decided (as of today) to chunk the usage of numbers. I'll still put a number on them for sites that require them (DigitPress and RPGamer are the two that I submit to), but my website will not have any numbers.

I won't rehash the 1000+ words that I used to describe my reasoning (if you want to take a look it's at my website (http://www.tylerwillis.com/2005/07/09/a-simple-note-on-the-reviews/)).

Instead, I'm going with a simple yes or no recommendation. The review is subjective, and it should be obvious (from the review) whether I thought that the game is good enough to recommend out.

I agree about the sections of graphics/sound. I usually write less than 4 sentences combined about both subjects - largely because I don't care unless they are either absolutely stunning or horribly disfiguring. In the end, they have very little impact on whether the game is fun. LOTR:The Third Age is very pretty, but I absolutely hated the gameplay.

[TheRedEye]

Also, someone should give me lots of money so I can launch a magazine that does for videogames what Rolling Stone did for rock and roll, before someone beats me to it.

Serious question: Have you considered really looking around for financial backing for a project like that? Because I've been impressed whenever you've spoken on the subject. I think if you formally wrote down your ideas and started knocking on venture capitalists' doors (maybe pick up a book like this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471398136/qid=1120867185/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-1871466-4819039?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) to guide you), you'd have a decent shot.

Well thank you, I appreciate that, but the truth is that I'm 23 years old with no degree, no business sense, and less than two years experience in being paid to write about videogames. I'm not the guy who should be coordinating such a huge project, but I'd be happy to contribute to it.

[Mayhem]

I'm 30, I have a degree, and I'm still not sure whether I could do it either. So go figure. I've spent 85% of my life playing video games and almost half of it writing about them in some form or another.

Partly because from an early age I knew how great it could be, but also how shitty. It's one thing meeting your idols (at the time, the reviewers on a UK magazine called Zzap!64) but also talking to them in detail and learning just what a reviewer (back then) meant. Often long hours and low pay. Plenty of perks, but there's no way I could survive today on what it pays.

Hence I do my job for HP and write in my spare time to fill the ambition I always had, but never wanted to fulful because it just isn't sustainable imo.

[TheRedEye]

Hence I do my job for HP and write in my spare time to fill the ambition I always had, but never wanted to fulful because it just isn't sustainable imo.

Tell me about it. I'm purely a freelancer, so I'm actually moving back in with my mom so I don't starve and die.

I really ought to be packing, the movers will be here in 14 hours!

[Wavelflack]

I think my biggest problem with contemporary reviews is the ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole present in so many of them. How many times have you read a review that says something like "I'd rather fucking kill myself via hydraulic enema than play another second of this game", or "the music made me want to rip my eardrums out and fill the holes with razor blades"?

It's not just Gamefaqs reviews, either. It's everywhere now. Even in print.

Further bitching about reviews may be found here:
http://www.digitpress.com/archives/arc00159.htm

I maintain that VG&CE provided the best videogame reviews ever. Succinct, impartial, informative, and with none of the "cult of personality" injections so prevalent in the majority of reviews today.

[TheRedEye]

I think my biggest problem with contemporary reviews is the ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole present in so many of them. How many times have you read a review that says something like "I'd rather fucking kill myself via hydraulic enema than play another second of this game", or "the music made me want to rip my eardrums out and fill the holes with razor blades"?

I continue to attribute this phenomenon to Seanbaby.com. It will die soon, don't worry.

[Daniel Thomas]

Just try to get away from the whole graphics-sound-gameplay schtick. It's the oldest game review cliche, and frankly it's not that good. Your experiences with games good and bad go far beyond such simple labels.

Ideally, there wouldn't be any ratings or scores, but these things seem to be a necessity on the internets, because people tend to scan when visiting pages. They want instant gratification before they commit themselves to reading something. Whatever.

I say do whatever works for you. Follow your own path. A zine was considered a success if you printed out 100 copies. You can 100 visitors to your website just by accident. Take advantage of the attention. Goodness knows there's a dearth of quality gaming sites right now.

[lendelin]

Just try to get away from the whole graphics-sound-gameplay schtick. It's the oldest game review cliche, and frankly it's not that good. Your experiences with games good and bad go far beyond such simple labels.


Just curious: How would you write a review without the established departments -- graphics, sound, control, story, gameplay?

They are a necessity, however, I think most reviewers are slaves to these departments without pulling them together (see my post above).


Ideally, there wouldn't be any ratings or scores, but these things seem to be a necessity on the internets, because people tend to scan when visiting pages.

A score system is good and necessary -- a starightforward one from one to five or one to ten without using decimals. Why would no score system be ideal?

[lendelin]

I think my biggest problem with contemporary reviews is the ridiculous sarcastic hyperbole present in so many of them. How many times have you read a review that says something like "I'd rather fucking kill myself via hydraulic enema than play another second of this game", or "the music made me want to rip my eardrums out and fill the holes with razor blades"?



I second that. It is childish, dumb, and worst of all...not funny.

[lendelin]

I'm not interested in the person of the reviewer reading a review. Why should I? The substance of the review and the reasoning for the game's evaluation says a lot about the reviewer already -- namely his intelligence level.

I'm not interested in his 'feelings' (I feel...xyz is anyway a terribly colloqual phrase in any review or essay; I'm interested in thoughts, not feelings) or personal background.

Writing skills are overall pretty good in reviews, but I'm not interested in elegant English (maybe because I'm a foreigner and wouldn't recognize good English when it kicks me in my behind);

I'm interested in substance, information, good reasoning, AND even more in a good analysis; and that is exactly where most reviews fail. I'm not even interested in an entertaining read. All I want is substance, WHY a game is good, bad or mediocre, and it would be great to get some background information about the developer/publisher IF relevant for the review.


For myself, the kind of review you describe sounds really dull and not the type I'd really spend time reading...I need a review to use elegant English, entertain me, and teach me about who the writer is.

I don't need elegant English, a review isn't a novel or short story. Good decent English is sufficient. I need good thoughts and an anlaysis about the game reviewed.

Just curious: why would you be interested in the person of the reviewer??

I couldn't care less who writes the thing. If I read the review, I'll criticize the review and read it critically, not the person who wrote it.

Good personal anecdotes relevant to the review can enhance it IF they are used very carefully and and not very often. If they become routine they are as dull as aweapon too often used.

[squidblatt]

Just try to get away from the whole graphics-sound-gameplay schtick. It's the oldest game review cliche, and frankly it's not that good. Your experiences with games good and bad go far beyond such simple labels.


Just curious: How would you write a review without the established departments -- graphics, sound, control, story, gameplay?

Part of the problem here is the lack of a critical apparatus capable of addressing the kind of experience video gaming offers as a medium. I mean, who are the great critical theorists of gaming? Maybe if some pioneering critic examined video games from the perspective of human/computer interaction we would see the establishment of a critical foundation and vocabulary from which games could be better understood.

[Aussie2B]

I don't need elegant English, a review isn't a novel or short story. Good decent English is sufficient. I need good thoughts and an anlaysis about the game reviewed.

Just curious: why would you be interested in the person of the reviewer??

I couldn't care less who writes the thing. If I read the review, I'll criticize the review and read it critically, not the person who wrote it.

For me, elegant English makes a review interesting to read, and it GREATLY assists the writer at painting an image of how good or bad a certain element, or the whole game as a whole, is. I believe review writing CAN be as creative as writing a novel or short story, and I love fellow reviewers who love and respect the art of reviewing as much as I do and see it as far more than a dry, "just-the-facts-ma'am" analysis of a game.

If I read reviews haphazardly, paying no attention to who the reviewer is, I don't think I'd be into reviewing at all. There's so much garbage out there that it's a necessity to pick out good reviewers and stick with them. Since the best reviewers are often interesting people with fascinating ideas and beliefs or sometimes just a great sense of humor, I love to learn a little more about them with each review. Now, I don't mean a bio paragraph inserted in each review somewhere, but just a little bit of their real life and personality seemlessly weaved in. Of course, it has to be relevant in some way, but I think for the best reviewers it's just something that naturally flows into the piece rather than a train of thought like "I want to insert this into my review. How can I make it fit in?"

[lendelin]

I don't need elegant English, a review isn't a novel or short story. Good decent English is sufficient. I need good thoughts and an anlaysis about the game reviewed.

Just curious: why would you be interested in the person of the reviewer??

I couldn't care less who writes the thing. If I read the review, I'll criticize the review and read it critically, not the person who wrote it.

For me, elegant English makes a review interesting to read, and it GREATLY assists the writer at painting an image of how good or bad a certain element, or the whole game as a whole, is. I believe review writing CAN be as creative as writing a novel or short story, and I love fellow reviewers who love and respect the art of reviewing as much as I do and see it as far more than a dry, "just-the-facts-ma'am" analysis of a game.


Reviewing is not an art, it is not a creative process like painting a picture or writing a short story; it is the extreme opposite. It is the rational interpretation of something irrationally created. That is why game designers (writers, directors, painters, etc.) are the worst interpreators of their own products.

A game (like a painting, poem, novel, or social reality) is something disorderly. The task of the reviewer is to identify pieces of the irrational construct and disorder, and put them together again so it makes sense and explanations are delivered how and why the game works. That is why all good reviewers (games, movies, literature, art in general) are good analysts.

Your approach is on the innocent and common-misconception side. You can't interpret something creative with creativity. Elegant English, yeah, maybe, but a good review is always on the rational side of things, explains, analyses, and therefore puts a big wall between the reviewer and the game. The joy and entertainment comes from rational explanations and surprising rational observations HOW and WHY the game works or doesn't work. Good thoughts and explanations aren't dry and boring, they are an entertaining feast.

Look at reviews you enjoy; you'll find that they consist of great explanations sometimes in the clothing of good English; but at the center is always a good analysis, not elegant English or creativity.


Now, I don't mean a bio paragraph inserted in each review somewhere, but just a little bit of their real life and personality seemlessly weaved in.

I still don't get it. Why would you be interested in tiny bits of a reviewer's life and personality reading a review about a specific game? Does it contribute something to the interpretation of the game?

[Aussie2B]

Reviewing is not an art, it is not a creative process like painting a picture or writing a short story; it is the extreme opposite.

Well... I really don't know what to tell you and I don't want to be rude, but... no, you're wrong. I KNOW the thought process that takes place in my head when I write a review. I KNOW I'm using all the creative juices I can muster up when I write a review, and when I am finished, I regard my review just as much as art as I would a drawing of mine. I never sit down at the PC with the idea "I'm going to review this game now. Is it good or bad?" and just start typing. I look for inspiration, and I toy with ideas in my head for days, sometimes weeks. I come up with precise expressions for my words, and changing them, even if it would retain the meaning of the sentence, would feel like I'm compromising my artistic merit. It's not just the words themselves, but the presentation and feeling the give me.

And this is just myself. Much stronger proof can be found in the fact that I've read countless reviews and communicated with countless reviewers who are also extremely artistic and creative with their work. Have you ever read a gimmick review? A review doesn't have to be a gimmick to be creative, but if a gimmick reviews isn't creative, then I don't know what is. Heck, some of them basically ARE short stories, but they manage to be reviews as well. I could direct you to some reviews, but out of lazyness, I'd rather just suggest that you check out some of the reviews by the staff reviewers at Honest Gamers, such as Zigfried.

However, I get the feeling that there's no convincing you even if there were 100 reviewers telling you "yes, I use creativity when I write my reviews!" I get the feeling that you'll stubbornly deny it to the very end because you just can't accept the fact that maybe reviews CAN be art, just as certain people will continue to, till the end of time, claim that video games aren't art because "they're just an entertainment product, and all they are is computer code!"


That is why all good reviewers (games, movies, literature, art in general) are good analysts.

Absolutely true. However, some are good at far more as well.


Look at reviews you enjoy; you'll find that they consist of great explanations sometimes in the clothing of good English; but at the center is always a good analysis, not elegant English or creativity.

At the center, yes, but the other elements ARE there, and quite strong. I've always been into analyzing reviews, even before I started seriously writing my own. I too used to think reviews were JUST an analysis of a game, but then I read a few reviews that just blew my mind because they took reviewing to an entirely new level. Those reviews inspired me to write my own in a similar vein, and I picked them apart to discover WHY they stood above and beyond all others. To this day, the vast majority of the time when you'll see me reading a review it's not because I want to learn about the game or I care about what the person thinks of the game, I want to see what they're doing with their writing - their use of the language, how they back up their standpoint, what creative twists they're putting on their writing, and just other various things I may get inspiration from when I write my own reviews.


I still don't get it. Why would you be interested in tiny bits of a reviewer's life and personality reading a review about a specific game? Does it contribute something to the interpretation of the game?

No, not especially. To me, it's something I want, as it makes the review more entertaining, and it makes it stand out against a crowd of other "faceless" reviews. If I wrote a review on say... the latest Zelda, for example, and somebody was on GameFAQs going through the list, review by review, possibly reading 40+ reviews (maybe a crazy prospect to some, but I occasionally do that sort of thing), what's going to stand out and make the biggest impression? The 40th review that's like "This review is on Zelda-blah-blah-blah. It's a great game! Now let me tell you why!" or a review with a good sense of humor, an interesting anecdote or two, a wide vocabulary and unusual writing techniques, etc.?

[Aswald]

True, but it's happening everywhere.

"Godwin's Law" sounds almost like something valid...except that it's nothing more than a statement (opinion, at most) from an over-glorified techno-nerd. So it's not just video games.

Come to think of it- did anyone else here ever read the comparison between the ColecoVision and the Atari 5200 in that 1983 edition of Video Games Player?

It compared the graphics, saying that the basic measure of picture quality was how many pixels a system could show- and then said that the 5200 won that contest by showing 320 to the CV's 256.

That's right, they only gave the horizontal resolution. And in the case of many systems, the higher the resolution, the fewer the colors.

So while the ads bragged about how the 5200 had "25% better resolution and 256 colors to the CV's 16," they never mentioned that the two could never go together. As a result, people trying to decide would not get an accurate picture of what the two systems could really do.