What do we want from game reviews?

[Sonic]

The intent of this thread is to discuss what the general console gaming B3D forum goers want when reading or watching game reviews. Is there anything lacking from most reviews today that get neglected that would be of interest to further expand upon? Would it be better to have a breakdown of graphics, sound, gameplay, etc.; each with their own ratings?

Not sure if this thread will get any traction but am curious to read what you guys have to say.

 

[orangpelupa]

Would it be better to have a breakdown of graphics, sound, gameplay, etc.; each with their own ratings?

yups, those and Overall score (not avarage)

btw bugs and glitches also need to be mentioned whether its really bad or did not effect the experience

 

[FarticusMaximus]

I'd like game reviews to talk primarily about how the game plays.

Most game reviews these days are completely useless, going off on rants or spouting pretty prose, pontificating about stereotypes or the state of sequels, corporations or anything but the minute-to-minute gameplay loop. That is the main thing I want to know about.

Obviously graphics, sound, performance and bugs need to be mentioned too, but those elements are only there to support gameplay and need to be rated by how well they support the core of the game.

I don't want to be 'entertained' by a review, I want it to be a tool to decide whether to spend my hard-earned cash on a product.

Eurogamer are the worst offender for this. Their reviews are completely and utterly worthless IMO.

Gameplay: The long-forgotten aspect of modern game reviews.

 

[orangpelupa]

lots of site still have gameplay section in their review. But lots also seems having double standard in "Graphic" section. some reviewer think graphic in absolute term while the other think in variable term, depending on the game itself (e.g. high advanced 3d graphic for shooter vs simple but functional and artistic for side scroller)

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I want the reviewer to tell me if I should play the game based on his social and political views.


He should tell me if I'll become a misogynist from playing Bayonetta or Dragon's Crown. Or if I'll become a violent person from playing GTA.
I don't want to become misogynist or violent, and I don't want to feed rape culture and the patriarchy when I give those wretched devs my money!



Is there a tag for sarcasm?

 

[Sigfried1977]

Whether I agree with the political leanings of certain outlets or not, I'm glad the style of review that pretty much breaks down games like they were household appliances is slowly fading away. I really don't care about resolutions and framerates (unless they actively contribute or take away from the experience) and other such minutiae in a game review. I especially don't care about faux objectivity. If you think the game is terrible just say so. Don't try and explain to me whether I might still like it as you are really just you and have no fucking clue what I might think. Unfortunately I just don't think the majority of writers are good enough to pull off what they are trying without turning their written pieces into their own little politically loaded soap boxes.

That's why I really like Tom Chick. He doesn't give a fuck about what the majority thinks, he's entertaining, and he's fiercly in love with nitty gritty systems which he loves to explain in great detail without sounding like a pr pamphlet.

Quite frankly, reviews aren't supposed to be buyers's guides. They're supposed to be informed personal viewpoints, and ideally they are kick off points for healthy debates.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I want the reviewer to tell me if I should play the game based on his social and political views.


He should tell me if I'll become a misogynist from playing Bayonetta or Dragon's Crown. Or if I'll become a violent person from playing GTA.
I don't want to become misogynist or violent, and I don't want to feed rape culture and the patriarchy when I give those wretched devs my money!



Is there a tag for sarcasm?

Well said lool

 

[FarticusMaximus]

Sigfried, I think what you are describing is a blog, not a review.

There's room for both, but one should not be labelled as the other as they are fundamentally different. Reviews should be objective, blogs are subjective.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Quite frankly, reviews aren't supposed to be buyers's guides.

Then why do almost all game reviews end with a paragraph titled "should you play/buy this game"? Kotaku even goes to the extent of presenting just a big YES or NO in the end.
Apart from a couple of notes with no scores, there's no way to see either the graphics are mediocre/good/great, or sound, gameplay, or whatever. There's just this totalitarian decision from the author telling the reader to buy the game or not, like a judge's hammer falling down with the guilty/not-guilty decision.
A single score in the end that only presents itself as "How much did I like this game based on how I think women are represented in it" is equally worthless to me.

If you prefer to buy your games based on opinion pieces, lazy blog entries, vloggers, comedians and social activists, then by all means, do so. There's plenty to choose from those kinds of approaches.

But for my reviews? No, thank you.

 

[Prophecy2k]

ToTTenTranz I couldn't agree more.

I've become increasing jaded over the years when it comes to most VG site reviewers who try to pass off blog-worthy ultra-opinionated fluff pieces as reviews.

When reviewers spend page after page explaining why game X isn't like game Y, I switch off. Why? Because as a consumer I'm not expecting game X to be like game Y because I have enough money to buy both if need be. I just want to know WTF game X is in its own right.

When a reviewer rambles off on a tirade about what gaming should and shouldn't be, trying to tell me what I should value as a gamer in the games that I buy, I switch off.

When a reviewer prefaces his review with "I don't normally play games in this genre", I switch off. Because FFS if gamers are looking to know if a certain game is good, then it's kinda a given that they are already fans of the genre, and thus your own non-genre-fan opinion is worth diddly squat to them.

Nope, I have no need for ad-supported VG game journalist's hype-corrupted, slanted and far too often jaded opinions. I'm a big boy and I can make up my mind myself what I like. For reviews I just want to know what is in a game and how it's component parts stack up in terms of objective quality.

You wouldn't listen to a food critic's opinion about an italian restaurant, when it's clear he doesn't even like italian food. So why do we need the same thing is gaming reviews?

(That's not to mention that the majority of professional food, book and film critics i find utterly useless also, for a lot of the same reasons)

 

[tuna]

Then why do almost all game reviews end with a paragraph titled "should you play/buy this game"? Kotaku even goes to the extent of presenting just a big YES or NO in the end.

Because those review sites are stupid and wrong.

 

[tuna]

Quite frankly, reviews aren't supposed to be buyers's guides. They're supposed to be informed personal viewpoints, and ideally they are kick off points for healthy debates.

I totally agree. I also think that the review should try to place the game in a cultural context and position the game against other games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's no official definition of a review that prescribes it as either having to be analytical or personal and subjective. Both are perfectly acceptable takes on providing a review. Neither is wrong - just source the reviews that match your preference!

 

[Sigfried1977]

Reviews should be objective, blogs are subjective.

No such thing as an objective review when it comes to entertainment. Heck, even in a sub segment like, let's say, controls. Does Killzone 2 control like crap, or does it simply feel weighty and realistic? Are Resident Evil's classic controls limiting and awful, or do they ground the character and add to the sense of not being in control? Heck, you could even argue the benefit of resolutions and graphics quality in some edge cases. I think a glitzy AAA remake of original Silent Hill wouldn't be anywhere near as scary as the old, pixelated, texture-warped, low-poly PS1 game for example. A big part of why that game's horror worked is because I never really knew from whatever the the hell I was running away exactly. My mind filled in the blanks and turned 150 polygons into monstrosities far more terrifying than whatever Team Silent could have possibly dreamt up. So are the graphics terrible? Or are they amazing because they work so well?

 

[Sigfried1977]

Because those review sites are stupid and wrong.

It's a simple business reality. People want scores, and lists, and all that other pointless nonsense. Reading takes time. Thinking for yourself is hard. The numbers are simply there because in an ad-supported business model, every last click is important. That means you cannot afford to alienate the lazy, the trolls (who have a much easier time thanks to numbers) and the morons.

 

[FarticusMaximus]

No such thing as an objective review when it comes to entertainment.

Of course there is. You can describe the substance of media without passing judgement.

Does Killzone 2 control like crap, or does it simply feel weighty and realistic?

"It has noticeable controller lag compared to the majority of shooters. This could be to give the impression of weight, but some may not find it tolerable." - There you go. Simple, informative and lets the reader make judgement.

People want scores

I'm with you on that subject. I don't see the point of rating any part of a game. Describe the game and it's constituent parts in a sufficiently detailed but concise way and the reader will know how to rate it on their own personal scale, or it will at least give them a jumping off point from which they can investigate further or ignore.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I think a glitzy AAA remake of original Silent Hill wouldn't be anywhere near as scary as the old, pixelated, texture-warped, low-poly PS1 game for example.

I'm guessing you didn't play P.T.

 

[Scott_Arm]

@Sigfried1977 has written pretty much everything I would have wanted to write.

The idea that reviews should be objective is absurd. Here's Roger Ebert shitting on a movie he hated. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/caligula-1980

You don't have to agree. If you disagree, read a different review. Forget an official blueprint for the perfect review. Like any writing, freedom for creativity is important.

Here's another great, negative and completely subjective review from Roger Ebert. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/deuce-bigalow-european-gigolo-2005

I could read his reviews all day.

 

[Newguy]

I'd like to know things like:

How it plays. What does it feel like, does it work well? Comparisons to others both mechanically and personal opinion (it's similar to and plays like x and y, it does this a bit differently etc, if you like abc you'll probably like this). Is there anything new and unique? Does it evolve on another concept? Do the levels work well? Responsive controls?

Descriptions of the game, its story, characters and pacing. What is it trying to be and does it achieve what it sets out to do? Is it a bit frantic or muddled in pacing? Good dialogue? Are the characters engaging (if it's story focused that is), cliches?

Graphically - fidelity and art style both on their own then as a combo. How is it against competitors (e.g. gritty realistic brown game 1 v grbg 2), what does it do better, what are its shortfalls. Does it fit the game? No point being bright colourful Captain Toad in a WW1 trench game for example (or is that something that should be explored?). LoD, pop-in, jaggies, texture quality etc. Screenshots and video, although YT quality.....

Sound - ambient music, soundtrack, sound effects, voices etc. Any good? Maybe include some snippets to demonstrate your point. Sound sliders?

General performance. Does it hold the framerate well? If not, is gameplay affected? Tearing? PC specific but options menu, how "vital" are settings? Much difference between presets or individual settings? Does it run well on your hardware? SLI/xfire? Keybinds? Menus, mouse control (or a mention when it isn't there). Actually TLoU for example having a framerate toggle so mention when needed. Video demonstrations.

Bugs - "working as intended" or AC:U faces?

Online if it has any. Weapon balance, level balance (anything more bias to another e.g. one spawn point is better than another for capping stuff?), mode variety, fun? Voice options, mutable?

Then overall thoughts, does it work well as a package? Strongest and weakest parts. Try for a bit of objectivity then an opinion on the game as a whole (lots of people say it's better than z but I'm a special breed that prefers that).

Please keep your political/religious/whatever else leanings out of it, thank you.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Tbh one of the only review sites that I think did get the review writing model right is Gametrailers. They just gave you enough info. about the game to make your own mind up and then graded it. They weren't pretentious, they weren't ranting, they weren't spewing eurogamer flowery prose... they were just conscise, to the point and informative.

I dunno if it's still like that there though. Haven't visited the site in ages.