Thoughts on game reviews

[Aussie2B]

However, if a "writer" is in the business mostly for a paycheck, above all else, then are they in it for the right reasons to begin with? Not to mention it raises questions as to whether the reviewer or publication could have been coerced into upping their scores to please someone.

Besides, talented writers who have already made a name for themselves won't have trouble finding or keeping a paying job regardless of the large number of people who would or could (in their minds) do the same jobs for free.

Yeah, because there are people reviewing games and editing manga to strike it rich. Unless someone already has it made and is only working a job to keep occupied, pretty much EVERYBODY with a job is in it mostly for the paycheck, no matter how much passion and love they may have for what they do. Most people don't have the luxury to offer large amounts of their time and service for free or for a pittance. I don't get this false noble viewpoint that people have about games/manga/anime, as if that, if you're lucky enough to be a professional, it should be about nothing but love for the creators and the fans. As if people in those fields should feel guilty about the money they earn and that they should be content to take in less than those in comparable fields.

Also, you couldn't be more wrong about your second point. You can't throw a rock without hitting a talented writer that's unemployed, underemployed, or underpaid. And who has made a name for themselves? That's next to impossible when no one values talent, and it's hard to foster talent when there's little reward for it.

[bangtango]

Yeah, because there are people reviewing games and editing manga to strike it rich. Unless someone already has it made and is only working a job to keep occupied, pretty much EVERYBODY with a job is in it mostly for the paycheck, no matter how much passion and love they may have for what they do. Most people don't have the luxury to offer large amounts of their time and service for free or for a pittance. I don't get this false noble viewpoint that people have about games/manga/anime, as if that, if you're lucky enough to be a professional, it should be about nothing but love for the creators and the fans. As if people in those fields should feel guilty about the money they earn and that they should be content to take in less than those in comparable fields.

Also, you couldn't be more wrong about your second point. You can't throw a rock without hitting a talented writer that's unemployed, underemployed, or underpaid. And who has made a name for themselves? That's next to impossible when no one values talent, and it's hard to foster talent when there's little reward for it.

Welp, what can I say? You "got" me

This is the part of the script where I fall down like a large oak tree and go boom.

I feel like a dude who gets a brain freeze from the local 7-11 Slurpee.

[PapaStu]

Many reviews are written months in advance, and often written based on review and beta copies of games that are not complete. You see on occasion that magazines either re-review a game or say they won't review it because it was broken.

I'll look at reviews just to see some other takes on the games. If I really want it, I won't be persuaded by it good or bad. But I've gotten games because of reviews that were never on my radar, either because it was reviewed so well, or so poorly.

[Gamereviewgod]

Who says a person has to get paid to review a $10 Wii fishing game or Ford Racing on the PS3? A web site like IGN, Gamespot or somebody smaller will have no trouble finding people who could write a good review, throw up a couple screen shots and do it for nothing just so they can have the opportunity to be published someplace and potentially get noticed.

That could include either an intern or a well-established member of their forums who has a good reputation.

I can understand some people who are there collecting a paycheck only having time to review Duke Nukem Forever, a new Call of Duty/Resident Evil entry, etc. but the lesser stuff on the market could be completed by "regular contributors" not on the payroll.

We may have to agree to disagree but I can't help but find it lame that to find reviews for over 50-60% of the modern games on the market that you have to wade through content with no capitalization or punctuation on Amazon.com or GameFAQ's.

Why have random people review stuff for the site with no training to speak of when the sites you mention already have user reviews? They would be the same ones reviewing it for the site. Those reviews exist because people were willing to do it in their free time. Asking someone to work for free from a site that large? It's should be considered offensive and honestly illegal. Fan sites get away with it based on their nature, and user reviews work more like extended comments. IGN and Gamespot have major dollars behind them. They have taxes, payroll, etc. They're big business.

Never mind that user reviews are beyond warped because people begin to justify their purchases. That's why a lot of reviews have backlash, people offended they bought a $60 coaster so they rant and rave, "It's at least an 8!" In the case of a paid critic who gets the game for free, no, they don't care. They have no investment in it. A bad game is a bad game, something that takes time away from other things.

You seem to have this idea that reviewing games for a living is all cookies and roses. It's not. Very few publications (if any) have dedicated critics, which is another problem all together. You need to be multi-faceted, so your time is split between previews, news, reviews, uploading new screens, reading PR, interviews, etc. How much time is left after that to actually review something? Not much, and as such, only the stuff the site's specific readership cares about gets reviewed.

[bangtango]

Why have random people review stuff for the site with no training to speak of when the sites you mention already have user reviews? They would be the same ones reviewing it for the site. Those reviews exist because people were willing to do it in their free time. Asking someone to work for free from a site that large? It's should be considered offensive and honestly illegal. Fan sites get away with it based on their nature, and user reviews work more like extended comments. IGN and Gamespot have major dollars behind them. They have taxes, payroll, etc. They're big business.

Never mind that user reviews are beyond warped because people begin to justify their purchases. That's why a lot of reviews have backlash, people offended they bought a $60 coaster so they rant and rave, "It's at least an 8!" In the case of a paid critic who gets the game for free, no, they don't care. They have no investment in it. A bad game is a bad game, something that takes time away from other things.

You seem to have this idea that reviewing games for a living is all cookies and roses. It's not. Very few publications (if any) have dedicated critics, which is another problem all together. You need to be multi-faceted, so your time is split between previews, news, reviews, uploading new screens, reading PR, interviews, etc. How much time is left after that to actually review something? Not much, and as such, only the stuff the site's specific readership cares about gets reviewed.

*jab, right cross, uppercut* THUD


*bangtango kisses the canvas and has officially been sent "packing" as he scurries back to the rock he crawled out from under deep in the mists of the woodwork*

[scaryice]

1-10 is a horrible scale. Should be 1-5 max.

[Doonzmore]

One of my bigger gripes with current reviews is that they've rendered a lot of adjectives and phrases meaningless. Isn't there some other way to talk about a game's frame rate other than calling it "smooth"? That's how most reviewers fail to distinguish themselves from one another.