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

[upnorthsox]

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.

That's exactly how I feel it should be too.

 

[obonicus]

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.

Gamespot used to have something like that. FPS would be reviewed by a lot of people, but very often they'd get Tom Chick or Bruce Geryk to review those impossibly dense strategy games, because they're very familiar with the genre. Erik Wolpaw would review a lot of FPS', though this was back in 1999, so there were just too many PC FPS games for just one person to review. These were actually good days, or they seem like good days in retrospect -- reviews were so on the money that it made Gamespot my primary review source back in the day.

 

[Arwin]

It just struck me that we live in the age of bantertainment.

Mind you, I still like Eurogamer - often pretty well written stuff. I just more and more often disagree with them.

 

[Arwin]

I found my old favorite reviews magazine again, and almost all of it is scanned and online! I was amazed to see the issues again and see how well they held up - including their excellent reviews. I had even forgotten that they sported a 1000 point review system. It worked great too.

I decided the magazine deserved its own thread. Maybe only someone like Shifty will appreciate it as much as I do, but I don't care. If you will do me one favor, then at the very least read the Populous II review - this way you will capture the brilliance of Molyneux best game (imho) and the greatness of ACE's reviews and review system in one go. But you can of course also just try to find a review of a game you remember and read that instead.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=49660