The Nature of Reviews (ME, GTA4, TH etc)

[Shifty Geezer]

There are different types of reviews for different audiences. You may not like the writing style, and for you there are other reviews to turn to. For a lot of folk, Eurogamer's cavalier attitude is very fun. I like a lot of their reviews on the whole, although I don't take them too seriously and can quite happily ignore their scores in forming my own opinions, but I do find their view on controls, visuals, etc. pretty good. and they paint a good picture of what to expect from the game. It's then down to me to decide if that game sounds my cup of tea or not - as is true of any review.

 

[obonicus]

There are different types of reviews for different audiences. You may not like the writing style, and for you there are other reviews to turn to. For a lot of folk, Eurogamer's cavalier attitude is very fun. I like a lot of their reviews on the whole, although I don't take them too seriously and can quite happily ignore their scores in forming my own opinions, but I do find their view on controls, visuals, etc. pretty good. and they paint a good picture of what to expect from the game. It's then down to me to decide if that game sounds my cup of tea or not - as is true of any review.

But it's not cavalier: it's lacking. Am I being unreasonable to expect that reviewers justify their score, and just not invent some number that is loosely tied into their chosen words?

As for not taking them seriously, well, yeah, I take all scores with a grain of salt, but I do it out of necessity: all review sites are bad (an exception to Eurogamer's graphics round-ups, which are actually objective, and I wish more sites would pick up on similar features). What we have is hardly an ideal state of affairs.

Reviewers tend to hide behind 'subjectivity' as a way to excuse poor reviews, arguing that game reviewing is closer to movie reviewing than writing a consumer report. But here's the thing: I, at least, have zero interest in reading an art critique on games. I want to know if they think a game is worth my money, and they generally fail on that. I don't know if it's because of the deadlines they're under, or because they don't pay for the games they're reviewing, or just because there's no accreditation process to work in gaming press, or maybe even a combination of all of those, but they fail.

They're so useless that nowadays I don't visit gaming websites much. I go to Kotaku/Joystiq to get whatever press releases they've copy-pasted, and use NeoGAF as my aggregator (and I don't even like NeoGAF). I don't even check on reviews, other than scanning metacritic for outliers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But it's not cavalier: it's lacking. Am I being unreasonable to expect that reviewers justify their score, and just not invent some number that is loosely tied into their chosen words?

The score isn't the review. It isn't a marker that determines whether a game should or should not be bought. It can roughly be summed up as the reviewer's gut-feeling score. The 'technical analysis' of the game is, or should be, covered in the text.

I want to know if they think a game is worth my money, and they generally fail on that.

But how can anyone objectively tell you to buy a game and be sure you'll like it? MGS4 is a good game, right? All the objective reviewing in the world can identify it as a good game. Is it a game I should buy becuase I would enjoy it? No! The fact it has a high Metacritic score is meaningless to me. A read of several different reviews, including Zero Punctuations' caustic remarks, painted me a picture of what to expect, which was a game type that wouldn't particularly appeal to me, regardless of how much polish and production values and whatnot went in to the title.

I got more enjoyment from the 68% PS2 version of Justice League Heroes than I have got from the 94% MGS4 game. So tell me, what review system or scoring method would you want to see that can pin down (in a points systems) whether I should or should not buy MGS4 and whether I should or should not buy JLH, which also works for people with completely different tastes to myself?

 

[PARANOiA]

They're so useless that nowadays I don't visit gaming websites much. I go to Kotaku/Joystiq to get whatever press releases they've copy-pasted, and use NeoGAF as my aggregator (and I don't even like NeoGAF). I don't even check on reviews, other than scanning metacritic for outliers.

I have to agree with this. Reading people's opinions is far more useful in choosing a game than reading reviews. It's basically the review system with hundreds of people adding short reviews over longer ones, and all of these "reviews" are open to the community for criticism.

It also helps because you tend to have more of an understanding of gamer's tastes if you read a lot on their forums, so you can see pretty easily whether a certain review is likely to match up to your tastes. Case in point, Kittonwy's comments around Too Human I'd easily gloss over since he's so outspoken against the game - and has been for years (for largely personal reasons when he made false claims against Silicon Knights and was proven wrong). It's hard to take his opinion seriously around it, regardless of how factual his opinion is. And in ignoring a single opinion, I still have dozens more to read, so I don't feel like I'm missing out on a big part of the community's viewpoint... at most, skipping a single poster's review (or in some cases, hundreds of reviews/critiques/gushes on a single game) means I'm missing <1% of overall opinion.

For me, I read gaming site reviews before a game is on the shelf, and gaming forums after the game is on the shelf. Being in PAL-land, I tend to have the "benefit" of having a forced gap between US users playing their games and me being able to buy the game myself, so it's actually quite useful.

 

[obonicus]

The score isn't the review. It isn't a marker that determines whether a game should or should not be bought. It can roughly be summed up as the reviewer's gut-feeling score. The 'technical analysis' of the game is, or should be, covered in the text.

Then it's useless; it's a number they pulled out of thin air. Eliminate scores completely. Give us the pure text; but that'd be too difficult, because then reviewers would have to write something useful, they'd have to actually give us an idea of whether the game is or isn't worth buying without the easy numerical guideline.

But how can anyone objectively tell you to buy a game and be sure you'll like it? MGS4 is a good game, right? All the objective reviewing in the world can identify it as a good game. Is it a game I should buy becuase I would enjoy it? No! The fact it has a high Metacritic score is meaningless to me. A read of several different reviews, including Zero Punctuations' caustic remarks, painted me a picture of what to expect, which was a game type that wouldn't particularly appeal to me, regardless of how much polish and production values and whatnot went in to the title.

I got more enjoyment from the 68% PS2 version of Justice League Heroes than I have got from the 94% MGS4 game. So tell me, what review system or scoring method would you want to see that can pin down (in a points systems) whether I should or should not buy MGS4 and whether I should or should not buy JLH, which also works for people with completely different tastes to myself?

Again, by writing better reviews. Don't be glib; don't wax philosophical. Give me a better idea of what the game is about. Don't you see that the fact that to get an idea of MGS4 you had to read several reviews and watch an animated skit by a guy who's paid to be mean to videogames is a colossal failure of the review system? What exactly is so complex about MGS4, as a game that it can't be described in a single review?

 

[tuna]

Again, by writing better reviews. Don't be glib; don't wax philosophical. Give me a better idea of what the game is about. Don't you see that the fact that to get an idea of MGS4 you had to read several reviews and watch an animated skit by a guy who's paid to be mean to videogames is a colossal failure of the review system? What exactly is so complex about MGS4, as a game that it can't be described in a single review?

One review should be enough for everyone! It seem like you are looking for something more descriptive than a review, and for some games that would be most welcome in my mind as well. I don't know if you have read Famitsu, but for big titles like MGS4 they have like several pages walkthrough of the gameplay showing you the controls and other gameplay features. Would that be something you are interested in?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then it's useless; it's a number they pulled out of thin air. Eliminate scores completely.

That's one of the options for reviews, with pro's and con's.

Again, by writing better reviews. Don't be glib; don't wax philosophical. Give me a better idea of what the game is about. Don't you see that the fact that to get an idea of MGS4 you had to read several reviews and watch an animated skit by a guy who's paid to be mean to videogames is a colossal failure of the review system? What exactly is so complex about MGS4, as a game that it can't be described in a single review?

The game itself was well explained in any one review. You move around and sneak and shoot. Why I needed to read multiple reviews was to see multiple people's subjective take on the same game because different people have differnt tastes in controls etc. If I read one review that explained perfectly the mechanics, and the reviewer ended saying 'I found the controls great and the cut-scene fabulous, this is a must buy game,' it would have mis-sold me the game. If I read several reviews all of which explain the game mechanics, but then give different takes on the content 'I found the cutscenes great/boring/long-winded/beautifully crafted' then I nkow opinion is divided and it's not so clear how I'll respond to the content.

Alternatively you lose all personalisation and treat the review as an analysis, listing features and such. That would be exact but still not tell you whether a game was fun to play or not, and would also be a pretty boring read.

Tell you what though, the best way to make your argument is to write an example of what you want to see in reviews.

I'm not, BTW, of the opinion that reviews are perfect. I've had long discussion before about them, and they are a mess on the whole, I agree. I just don't see the Eurogamer Eden review as totally useless or contradictory like you do. I'd even say a clear, objective explanation of the game mechanics wouldn't be any use either. Such a review would make the game sound dull. IMO reviews play only a part of the pre-purchase evaluation phase. A lot of game information can be diseminated better in a video, elliminating the need to wax lyrical about it. With free game movies to see, plentiful screen-grabs, lots of forum talk, free demos, etc. the place the review holds isn't the same as it was when a magazine was your only source of information. If they were to revert to older styles, they might perhaps become redundant - Ellie, why are you spending 500 words telling me Eden has me stretch out on string and swing around knocking into sprites, when that much is apparent in the gameplay video? Was the game any fun or not?

 

[obonicus]

One review should be enough for everyone! It seem like you are looking for something more descriptive than a review, and for some games that would be most welcome in my mind as well. I don't know if you have read Famitsu, but for big titles like MGS4 they have like several pages walkthrough of the gameplay showing you the controls and other gameplay features. Would that be something you are interested in?

Possibly. I'd just like something that doesn't rely on crutches quite as much. Reviews are littered with filler; little tricks so that they don't have to, you know, actually write about the game. I'm not saying 'lose all opinion'. That'd be pointless. I'm saying: 'write about the game, don't try to be cute or clever unless it directly has to do with the game'.

That's one of the options for reviews, with pro's and con's.

Possibly pros and cons, but not in list format. Text. Lists are just a different sort of crutch.

The game itself was well explained in any one review. You move around and sneak and shoot. Why I needed to read multiple reviews was to see multiple people's subjective take on the same game because different people have differnt tastes in controls etc. If I read one review that explained perfectly the mechanics, and the reviewer ended saying 'I found the controls great and the cut-scene fabulous, this is a must buy game,' it would have mis-sold me the game. If I read several reviews all of which explain the game mechanics, but then give different takes on the content 'I found the cutscenes great/boring/long-winded/beautifully crafted' then I nkow opinion is divided and it's not so clear how I'll respond to the content.

I'm not asking for total objectivity; that'd be impossible. But the situation for MGS oscillated between 'as a total fanboy I think it's perfect and I give it an 11/10' or 'I hate MGS and I hate Kojima and to upset all his fans I'll give it a 7/10'.

Don't forget that for MGS4 we didn't even know about the actual length of cut-scenes, in part because of the BS embargo agreement (I won't even start on that). We didn't even get a clear idea that after act 3, you'll start to get many more cut-scenes per game-play, many of them 15m+. And here we're still on objectivity! For some people that's a deal-breaker. For others, it's a perk!

Alternatively you lose all personalisation and treat the review as an analysis, listing features and such. That would be exact but still not tell you whether a game was fun to play or not, and would also be a pretty boring read.

This is closer to what I want. I'm not looking to be entertained by game reviews! There are other, better things to read for that. I'm not looking for personalization -- EDGE, though they're not perfect, they're probably the best text reviews out there. I want an analysis. As for fun, it's all relative anyway, isn't it? How would they describe fun in any useful way? Mostly I'm complaining about web reviews. Use multimedia! Don't dump a dozen screenshots in my lap and go 'here, this is what the game looks like'. Use them to back up your assertions. Likewise, make use of video to show the gameplay if words won't do. It doesn't have to be a full video review. Gametrailers is onto something, actually, though their score system is still useless and arbitrary.

I'm not, BTW, of the opinion that reviews are perfect. I've had long discussion before about them, and they are a mess on the whole, I agree. I just don't see the Eurogamer Eden review as totally useless or contradictory like you do. I'd even say a clear, objective explanation of the game mechanics wouldn't be any use either. Such a review would make the game sound dull.

A description of the game mechanics will make it sound simple, not necessarily dull. You could, of course, elaborate on the depth built into the simple mechanics, or the accuracy of the control scheme. (One big problem with the Eurogamer review, here, is that it's factually wrong. They complain about imprecise controls, but that's definitely not the case.) Most games will seem dull if you describe their game-play in a dull way.

IMO reviews play only a part of the pre-purchase evaluation phase. A lot of game information can be diseminated better in a video, elliminating the need to wax lyrical about it. With free game movies to see, plentiful screen-grabs, lots of forum talk, free demos, etc. the place the review holds isn't the same as it was when a magazine was your only source of information. If they were to revert to older styles, they might perhaps become redundant - Ellie, why are you spending 500 words telling me Eden has me stretch out on string and swing around knocking into sprites, when that much is apparent in the gameplay video? Was the game any fun or not?

Maybe. Get rid of them, then. All you're doing is arguing to their uselessness, which is sort of my point. Videos won't do some games justice, though -- strategy games and RPGs, for instance, would not be well-served by a video. They often have depth that extends beyond something you can show in a few minutes. Text would allow you to describe gameplay features much more concisely (which is important!) while using video to illustrate a point. Of course, writing well is much harder.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Seems to me what you're suggesting is a more structured, consolidated version of the multimedia 'review' system we have. We want people offering their opinions on the game (as PARANOiA above says), video footage, screenshots, etc. We don't have one person pulling all that together into a well structured analysis, describing the gameplay and graphics and embedding video clips to illustrate, like we do on technical hardware reviews. I can certainly see the value in that, but I can't see the business sense so much. The workload would be far higher than the current one, and I'm not sure if the audience is there for it on a large scale. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Perhaps you should start a review site Still, I don't see the current written review as anything different than a better written forum post. If people are willing to accept user reviews on forums, then reviews from a couple of dozen avid gamers (game reviewers) must count for something, assuming their not all on the publishers payroll! And I for one do value the entertainment value of a short but homorous game review.

 

[obonicus]

Seems to me what you're suggesting is a more structured, consolidated version of the multimedia 'review' system we have. We want people offering their opinions on the game (as PARANOiA above says), video footage, screenshots, etc. We don't have one person pulling all that together into a well structured analysis, describing the gameplay and graphics and embedding video clips to illustrate, like we do on technical hardware reviews. I can certainly see the value in that, but I can't see the business sense so much. The workload would be far higher than the current one, and I'm not sure if the audience is there for it on a large scale. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Perhaps you should start a review site Still, I don't see the current written review as anything different than a better written forum post. If people are willing to accept user reviews on forums, then reviews from a couple of dozen avid gamers (game reviewers) must count for something, assuming their not all on the publishers payroll! And I for one do value the entertainment value of a short but homorous game review.

You're right on the money. I don't think hardware reviews are the epitome of good writing, but at least they try, they're going in the right direction. Software reviews should follow them. Regular reviews really aren't better than forum posts. And you're right: it doesn't make business sense, because most people tolerate the terrible reviews we get today. I don't think it'd be too expensive: again, there's the model of hardware reviews. It really depends on users expecting a higher standard in their game reviews.

 

[Subtlesnake]

That's nonsense. All she has for the game is criticism. Just a 'I like it' to justify the score is horrendous reviewing.

Whether or not she was able to express exactly why she likes the game, the perspective she takes in the review (that the game is very frustrating but strangely addictive) is fully consistent with the score given - and that was all I was arguing.

She didn't 'hate' the game, because in spite of its faults it gave her some amount of satisfaction. Now, I agree, she should have been able to better qualify what the redeeming features of the game were. But in general, it's Eurogamer's writing style to focus on what the reviewer felt while playing the game, rather than the core mechanics of the game itself. Take the Braid review for example, which lavishes praise on the game but doesn't describe how it works on a nuts-and-bolts level.

So it seems a bit arbitrary to me to *assume* she didn't really find the elements of the game frustrating as described, that she didn't really die 9 times on the first level - just because her review wasn't fully fleshed out.

In other words because it didn't describe why she liked the game, beyond explaining that its innovative control system and difficulty curve, made her want to continue getting better, and that this was completed by the intrinsic beauty of the game.

Nonsense again. Eurogamer has given poorer scores. They're all just gutless; they want to make a stir, but they don't want to really upset the boat.

I wasn't talking about Eurogamer, which is why I used percentages. In Eurogamer's 10 point scoring system, a 7 isn't actually a bad score, and is worth more I think than a 70% from Gametrailers or Gamespot. And if you don't think a rating of 60% is poor, try and find a review on those sites that gives a game that rating, and isn't full to the brim with criticism.

Again, by writing better reviews. Don't be glib; don't wax philosophical. Give me a better idea of what the game is about. Don't you see that the fact that to get an idea of MGS4 you had to read several reviews and watch an animated skit by a guy who's paid to be mean to videogames is a colossal failure of the review system? What exactly is so complex about MGS4, as a game that it can't be described in a single review?

Game reviewing can never be a science, because what makes a game successful or unsuccessful is how it impacts the player on an emotional level; how it stands up against the players' myriad of preferences and expectations.

So on one hand technical analysis of how a games' mechanics work is useful for understanding the game, on the other it doesn't tell exactly you how you'll react to those mechanics: how it will feel to play the game. For example, you could describe extensively how the platforming works in Braid, how the puzzles are structured, but you're not going to know how 'difficult' those puzzles are, until you try to solve them.

That's where describing how the reviewer himself reacted to the game can be more useful, because it at least gives you an approximation of what the experience might be like. As such, I think reviews need to be a mixture of technical analysis and subjective interpretation.

If you spend nearly all your time describing how a game works, then you're not going to have much time to actually assess the game, in terms of the impact it had on you. So it's a trade-off. Eurogamer try to make it clear exactly what they feel about a game, while other review sites devote more of their space to the describing the technicalities of the game's mechanics.

 

[obonicus]

snip

Well, okay. My position is the following: assume that I'm not going to browse around for reviews. Assume that I'm ambivalent on whatever title you're describing... now try and convince me whether I should, or shouldn't, buy a game. That's what I expect, and what I'm not getting. What I'm getting is fluff pieces directed at preexisting fans engorged with hype, or vitriol directed at those same fans, hoping to get them riled up. (I realize I may be asking for too much: people seem happy with what they're getting, and I seem to be the lone voice of cranky dissent.)

Because the moment they start writing with the assumption that I'll make up for the flaws in their reviews by going elsewhere, they have to accept the assumption that I will go elsewhere, instead.

But here's the second thing: I don't want to hear about the 'impact' the game had on the reviewer. Not if it means emotional impact. If they're on a word budget, don't use it for that. Once pure, undistilled 'feel' starts to be used as an argument, once we're at that level of subjectivity, well, opinions just become meaningless. I have no frame of reference, not without doing further research. And if the solution is to do the research, well, again, I can just do that somewhere else. (As I do.)

 

[Scott_Arm]

But here's the second thing: I don't want to hear about the 'impact' the game had on the reviewer. Not if it means emotional impact. If they're on a word budget, don't use it for that. Once pure, undistilled 'feel' starts to be used as an argument, once we're at that level of subjectivity, well, opinions just become meaningless. I have no frame of reference, not without doing further research. And if the solution is to do the research, well, again, I can just do that somewhere else. (As I do.)

There's no way you can reduce the quality of a game to mechanical experience simply by going through a checklist of features, number of bugs, graphical improvements and what have you.

All entertainment is largely emotional, and if you remove the x-factor of "fun" than a review is really meaningless. Unless the person says says they had fun, which is an emotional response, then there's no point in reading the review. They should try to explain why they did or didn't have fun playing it, but you can't explain it with technicalities.

A good example for me would be Geometry Wars. On paper, I probably shouldn't like it. There's no story, no objective other than high score. It looks nice, but the graphics are technically limited. There is no online mode. It's not a sandbox, and it's not even linear, because you stay on the same screen in a little cube for the whole game. The control and general gameplay mechanic is rudimentary and largely an improved clone of games made in what, the late 70s or the 80s? When did Robotron come out? After saying all that, the game is intensely satisfying for me. So, how do I write that review without saying that I sat down and had a blast without basing it on emotion?

 

[Arwin]

So, how do I write that review without saying that I sat down and had a blast without basing it on emotion?

There's a bunch of factors at play here that prevent you from not having a good time with the game, and then there's a simple set of factors, maybe only two basic ones, that allow you to have a good time with the game. Some of them largely universal, some more personal. You just don't see them. So in your case, you couldn't write a review explaining why you had a blast with the game. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, by anyone, including you if you were willing to learn.

Seriously, even emotion, today, is pretty well understood by science. So if anyone still thinks that science could never replace it, that is nonsense. However, emotion is efficient for some purposes, and even emotionally written reviews can be used sensibly to attain a more objective / valuable impression of a game for any individual reader.

So I maintain that in this day and age reviews could be completely scientific. I have a nearly perfect system developed in my head and partly on paper, and I wish I could find the time to implement and prove it (not to mention use and rely on it ). It would have many applications outside of reviews too. For now, I'm just refining it in my head until it is so well thought out that it won't take me long to build it, or I have crystalised it out into something that can be done incrementally (I'm getting there), or I find some people to set it up with (maybe Eurogamer is interested, I might have a chat with them and they seem to be a proficient bunch - and they recently added a 'Benelux' branch too).

I think I have a lot of the required background (in Language and Literature, Psychology and ICT among others) to set it up by myself, but joint efforts are usually more effective (and faster, important in this competitive world ).

 

[Scott_Arm]

There's a bunch of factors at play here that prevent you from not having a good time with the game, and then there's a simple set of factors, maybe only two basic ones, that allow you to have a good time with the game. Some of them largely universal, some more personal. You just don't see them. So in your case, you couldn't write a review explaining why you had a blast with the game. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, by anyone, including you if you were willing to learn.

That or I could just say that despite it's apparent flaws, or simple nature, I had a lot of fun playing it. Not sure why it has to be more complicated than that. I mean, I can say some good things about it. It's fast, frantic, challenging, looks nice despite being simple. That's pretty much all that comes to mind. Why do I get addicted to trying to top my high scores? Does it really matter?

 

[obonicus]

There's a bunch of factors at play here that prevent you from not having a good time with the game, and then there's a simple set of factors, maybe only two basic ones, that allow you to have a good time with the game. Some of them largely universal, some more personal. You just don't see them. So in your case, you couldn't write a review explaining why you had a blast with the game. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, by anyone, including you if you were willing to learn.

Seriously, even emotion, today, is pretty well understood by science. So if anyone still thinks that science could never replace it, that is nonsense. However, emotion is efficient for some purposes, and even emotionally written reviews can be used sensibly to attain a more objective / valuable impression of a game for any individual reader.

So I maintain that in this day and age reviews could be completely scientific. I have a nearly perfect system developed in my head and partly on paper, and I wish I could find the time to implement and prove it (not to mention use and rely on it ). It would have many applications outside of reviews too. For now, I'm just refining it in my head until it is so well thought out that it won't take me long to build it, or I have crystalised it out into something that can be done incrementally (I'm getting there), or I find some people to set it up with (maybe Eurogamer is interested, I might have a chat with them and they seem to be a proficient bunch - and they recently added a 'Benelux' branch too).

I think I have a lot of the required background (in Language and Literature, Psychology and ICT among others) to set it up by myself, but joint efforts are usually more effective (and faster, important in this competitive world ).

This is it, more or less. I'm not saying that to write a review you must eliminate all emotion. What I'm saying is: don't give some vague emotion as an argument. If you feel a certain way about a game, well, then, show me, don't tell me. Telling me 'you had fun', on its own, is meaningless. It means that for me to have any sort of frame of reference, I have to go look at what other games you've liked, or otherwise look at similar reviews to see if they corroborate your opinion. And I don't see why I should have to do that.

I'm being a touch unfair here, I realize. Not all reviews were as bad as the PJE one. Most actually do try and point out where the fun is. I just don't think they usually do a good job about it.

 

[obonicus]

T
A good example for me would be Geometry Wars. On paper, I probably shouldn't like it. There's no story, no objective other than high score. It looks nice, but the graphics are technically limited. There is no online mode. It's not a sandbox, and it's not even linear, because you stay on the same screen in a little cube for the whole game. The control and general gameplay mechanic is rudimentary and largely an improved clone of games made in what, the late 70s or the 80s? When did Robotron come out? After saying all that, the game is intensely satisfying for me. So, how do I write that review without saying that I sat down and had a blast without basing it on emotion?

Well, here you're ignoring gameplay, or making it into some unquantifiable quality. The lack of story/linearity aren't really cons, neither is the simple aesthetic.

Not sure why it has to be more complicated than that. I mean, I can say some good things about it. It's fast, frantic, challenging, looks nice despite being simple. That's pretty much all that comes to mind. Why do I get addicted to trying to top my high scores?

You can elaborate on all these things. They're not exactly unquantifiable. They're the gameplay.

Does it really matter?

And here we're back to 'reviews are useless'. I agree. I just wish they weren't.

 

[AlphaWolf]

And here we're back to 'reviews are useless'. I agree. I just wish they weren't.

Useless for you (and some others I suppose). But that's only a problem between your respective chairs and keyboards. If I'm borderline on a game I know that I can read a few reviews (well written ones) and get a pretty good idea if I will enjoy the game or not.

If all you do is look at the number at the end of the review, ya you're probably wasting your time.

 

[obonicus]

Useless for you (and some others I suppose). But that's only a problem between your respective chairs and keyboards. If I'm borderline on a game I know that I can read a few reviews (well written ones) and get a pretty good idea if I will enjoy the game or not.

If all you do is look at the number at the end of the review, ya you're probably wasting your time.

Hey, suggest good review sites. Or even good reviewers. I'd like to read good reviews too. ActionButton.net? They're different, but they've really gotten onto the 'film critic' school of reviewing. EDGE? They are better than most. Gametrailers reviews are actually fairly good, excepting the gutless scoring.

But I'd suggest you read this discussion first, before piping in like that. No one is just looking at the number at the end of reviews. In fact, I've already said that if the number doesn't reflect the text, then it might as well not even be there. Even those in support of current reviews admit that reviews just don't help much, and they don't let themselves be overly influenced. One even mentioned that they're not much better than your typical forum review. If that's not an indictment of the current state of reviews, I don't know what is.

 

[dobwal]

It wouldn't be as bad if most game mags and websites weren't the equivalent of an automotive mag that covered everything from go carts to formula 1 race cars with any reviewer reviewing anything in between those extremes.

It would be nice if most gaming mags were structured where each reviewer had a specific favorite genre, which they covered the majority of the reviews. Each review would have two sides, one from the reviewer who is in love with the genre and one from a reviewer thats fairly neutral. A reviewer who's particularly fond of jrpgs would more likely dwell on the nuances of the genre, which would be relatively important for fans of the jrpgs, while the neutral reviewer could give an outside perspective allowing those who may be interested in that particular titles but not jrpg in general some insight. It would provide a level of balance that would allow readers to seperate some of the bias from either side.

Also, a two reviewer system should produce two score weighted differently. The genre expert's score should represent how that title fares against other titles within that genre while the neutral reviewer's score should use a broader range of titles.

I in particular play games in all genre but I would make a relatively poor reviewer for titles like Tekken, DOA or Virtual Fighter because my love only extends to boxing titles. And even though I have own multiple Tekken and VF titles and sat down with a bunch of buddies for hour long grudge matches on infinite occasions, I've never really dove down deep into the gameplay guts of those titles which means my review would mean diddly squat to anyone who had a deep fondness for those types of games.

There is no reason why established game websites and magazines should have not move beyond simple one size fits all review systems to something more sophiscated that is as robust for the mainstream gamers as they are for the genre specific minded gamers.