What do we want from game reviews?

[deathindustrial]

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

This complaint (about "political views" in reviews) seems to be more about "political views that I don't agree with". There are always implied political and cultural mores in games and writing about games which are accepted without question based on who and where you are. For example, if a game reviewer is covering a new iteration of "Dead Or Alive" and doesn't make any mention of the fan service angle then that is an implied political statement. Same could be said for military games with a settings convenient for propaganda purposes. If you are religious, you likely would feel the same way about a reviewer that didn't mention the LGBT aspect of Bioware games.

Personally what I want from reviews are a detailed enough description to be able to understand what the game is (genre, mechanics and overall length), any show stopper bugs with it plus an opinion unbiased by payola consistent to the reviewer. On IMDB I almost always find the negative reviews better at judging whether I will like a film as they tend to be franker and less prone to astroturfing. If the reviewer is consistent then it is irrelevant whether I agree with them, just that I can understand how their opinion would likely relate to my own.

Cheers

 

[Newguy]

What I want in situations such as these is the information presented to me so I can make up my own mind.

Same could be said for military games with a settings convenient for propaganda purposes. If you are religious, you likely would feel the same way about a reviewer that didn't mention the LGBT aspect of Bioware games.

In that situation show me the facts (you're able to have hetero/homo/bi relationship, whatever's relevant), don't go into a "this shouldn't be happening why is it here this is the work of satan do you want your children to be murderers" or "I love that they've done this they clearly show they love everyone and treat everyone equally they're not sexists", I don't care for that. Perhaps pose a question or two (fan service, propaganda/patriotism?) in different views as is the way of attempting to see things from different perspectives but don't force your views on the reader.​

 

[Cyan]

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.

Eurogamer are some of the worst, I completely agree. They are biased to appeal to the masses, plus some of their views seem to be made to oblige the big spenders.

I kind of trust Metacritic's "Metascore" for game reviews though, as an overall score based on reviews from different sources.

There you can read lots of reviews and gather a consensus. I know enough now that I really know what I prefer pretty well and can tell right away after reading about it, if it is something I'd play my money's worth or not.

Most people cannot do that too well, they let the trailers, graphics..etc fool them. Pretty much like Eurogamer's antics.

I prefer to read this over Eurogamer's reviews, at least I can laguh and not cringe at the same time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...rgically-enhanced-assets.html#reader-comments

 

[Rodéric]

Nohting.
Game reviews are opinion/taste bits and that's it.

(Gameplay is hardly described and even less analysed.)

 

[Arwin]

Oh, I like this topic.

I probably need to rename www.techingames.net as it's starting to be about a lot more than just 'tech'. But it is starting to become what I basically want reviews to give me. Give me information about the aspects of a game I care about. Increasingly, information about how well the graphics look becomes superfluous - we can watch this for ourselves, and all you need to tell us is if youtube does the game justice, or if it is hiding flaws/beauty. It's fine if you want to explain why you like a certain style or think a particular thing is really clever. I want to know things like how does the gameplay feel, is there input lag, is the hit detection good, and lots of other things. How well are the motion controls (no review ever mentioned this for DriveClub, which drove me nuts, but I could find a youtube of someone showing me), or how well is the Thrustmaster Driving Wheel implementation, or are the regular dualshock analog stick controls good and/or remappable. Can you disable the HUD? People care about different things.

To get the information I want, I have frequently had to glean information from ten reviews to get somewhat of a picture of whether the aspects of a game I care about were good enough for me to want the game. We used to always break down review scores into games, graphics, audio, and why I liked Ace magazine is because they not only did 6 page reviews giving loads of solid info, but they also gave projected interest levels and difficulty curves. They also had an 'A-list' - best game in each genre that new games in the genre would be measured against. This is useful and gives a better long-term perspective as well. We increasingly got away from this level of detail, and many reviews turned into blogs and opinion pieces.

Factors that complicate matters further today are issues and updates. Games get new versions released that add and/or fix things, so scores should basically change too. Online was working when the game was reviewed, then broken at launch, then fixed and expanded upon later again, etc. But the review scores are generally only about that first launch. But perhaps in the future I can only get the disc version of a game without the patches.

On www.techingames.net you can track and review everything on the version level and on the feature level, and you can add issues too, the version they were first found in, whether they are now resolved and in what version, etc. Scores are aggregated by feature, category (graphics, controls, etc.) and platform. You can see the differences between platforms at a glance, you can find other games that have a certain feature, you can track values at the user level (do I own it, on disc or digital, did I start it, did I complete the campaign, how much did I pay or did I rent it) and you can even play your own metacritic by choosing to connect 'official' reviews and then correct the scores from publications and/or reviewers to your own discretion.

All of it helps to separate fact from opinion. The features database can keep track of actual measurements (pixel counting results, framerate measurements) and allow you to review the results (30fps disappointing for a 2D game or a fast /online first person shooter, decent for an open world game with cutting edge graphics, or surprisingly good for a racer where you normally feel 60 is the norm, say) according to your own tastes.

We should all give this a spin here, who is taking part in this topic, and try to review some of the games, then give feedback here on what's missing or what could be better.

 

[Cyan]

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.

I completely disagree with you --mostly your first paragraph. Gameplay and 60 fps are essential in games these days and I'd love to read more reviews explaining at which framerate does the game run at, because the framerate is very important for me, and I don't care about what Tom Chick -never heard of him before tbh- or Eurogamer say about how bad is this and that, if they don't talk about the technical merits of the game, like a solid framerate. That's why I like Digital Foundry staff because they know their stuff --at least I like them until they try to follow EG steps and talk about superfluous things.

If a reviewer rates a game that I love lower than it deserves they should at least explain why, like "bland gameplay, crappy textures" with a detailed explanation as to why they think that's the case. But no, they prefer to compare and criticise an old classic like Resident Evil Remake like they did on EG's review because of its outdated mechanics, which is why they miss the point.

 

[tuna]

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



"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.

What you want is not reviews of games, what you want is descriptions of games. Like what Digital Foundry does.

 

[tuna]

If a reviewer rates a game that I love lower than it deserves they should at least explain why, like "bland gameplay, crappy textures" with a detailed explanation as to why they think that's the case. But no, they prefer to compare and criticise an old classic like Resident Evil Remake like they did on EG's review because of its outdated mechanics, which is why they miss the point.

I do not understand what you are getting upset about here. Just because you love somehing doesn't mean anyone else will. I love Trails of the Sky, but other people might think it is a boring piece of shit and their opinions are just as worthy as mine.

Also, what is your problem with the Eurogamer RE Remake Remaster review?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

When shopping, I want to know would I like this game.

When relaxing, I want to know did you (the reviewer, pro or amateur) like the game.

 

[MrFox]

Great question!

If the trailers, interviews, or E3 presentations didn't get me interested, I don't even look at reviews, I pass.

Some game studios/series are instant buy. (all Naughty Dog, Gran Turismo, Super Smash Bros)

Some game studios/series are instant pass. (CoD, Battlefield, EA Sports)

Game journalists have a predisposition to give a questionably good or bad review to certain genres or titles (today's game journalists fit a specific demography, there's a lot of group-think), and I take them with a grain of salt. (Knack, 1886)

When I read reviews, I hope they can help me confirm that the game is what I expect it to be, or correct my misconceptions, and that there aren't any obvious problems that would prevent me from enjoying the game. I try to avoid spoilers as much as I can. A review shouldn't go into specifics, it should explain, warn, or correct possible misconceptions. Most reviews suck because they are click bait, unhelpful, biased, irrational, and spoilerific. But it's nice to find a good reviewer once in a while who cares more about explaining what the game is, instead of acting like a judge who is all powerful and decides the fate of the game with his metacritic number. The most helpful lines are usually "if you liked game XYZ, you'll enjoy this", and "if problem X in game Y didn't bother you, it won't be a problem here either", or even "it looks like a classic shooter, but it's an equal part platformer".

When I already bought the game, reviews are extremely important to make me feel good and secure about myself, knowing that I belong, and that I have friends who understand me. We, together, can then bully the naysayers by copy-pasting vitriolic comments we found elsewhere, as if a stranger's opinion somehow justifies the validity of our own.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

This complaint (about "political views" in reviews) seems to be more about "political views that I don't agree with". There are always implied political and cultural mores in games and writing about games which are accepted without question based on who and where you are.

But surely you can tell the distinction between a game such as Bioshock, which is making a political statement that most, except for those that look through the majority of things with a political slant, would miss and Bioshock Infinite, which is making a political statement that you'd have to be severely mentally incapacitated in order to miss? Or, Red Dead Redemption, which isn't out to make any political statement at all?

You can tell the distinction between the intent of the game designers, correct? Shouldn't reviews of the game act accordingly? Sure, you can mention that Bioshock is one side's "logical conclusion" to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but it shouldn't be the focus of the review. On the other hand, it's difficult to review Bioshock Infinite without mentioning the politics of discrimination, so it's pretty fair game. Reviews of Red Dead Redemption could be weighed down with political, cultural, and moralistic issues because of the mere time frame and subject matter, but would it fair to bash the game over (or even mention) Mexico being depicted as a poor place for bandits, outlaws, and full of corrupt officials?

Political, cultural, ethical issues are all fair things to review when the game itself purposefully brings them up.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Reviewing Red Dead Redemption as political is 100% fair, because it is most definitely political in nature.

 

[Sonic]

I'm completely uninterested in the political aspects when reading or watching a game review. If a reviewer has personal objections to the content in a game then that's best left for an editorial. To me it taints the review whether I agree with the reviewer regarding the content. If the game itself has a heavy political aspect then give me the details of the story without giving me a thesis of how it makes the game horrible.

In general I would like a game review to include gameplay, graphics, sound, story and content. And last but not least how they all come together to form the overall game. It seems reading many reviews gameplay is skimmed over frequently while graphics has a much higher focus.

But gameplay should be king when it comes to reviews. If there's not a lot of it and it's just a push button cinematic type game then let me know in that review. Let me know that I'll be pushing one or two buttons here and there to advance and watching for a while and then push another button here and there. Or let me know if they game takes some time getting used to the controls but once learned can be very enjoyable or a horrible pain. Framerate goes hand in hand with gameplay as well as graphics, but its relevance to gameplay is of the utmost important. Does the framerate stay consistent or does it slow down in a few places or everywhere making the game unenjoyable or even unplayable? Do the controls feel clumsy? And all that stuff.

Graphics are important to me as well. How does the games visuals immerse m in the environment and give me a generally pleasant experience for my eyes. The technical aspect plays a large role in this being screen resolution, texture res, shaders, AA, and especially poly count. Art is of equal if not greater importance when it comes to graphics. Ehh, and yeah.

Sound and music is important because my sense of sound is a trait that is oft not exploited in ways it could be with games. Are the sound effects out of place or do they fit in with the feel and mood of the game? Is the music good and fit in? And yeah.



Lots of different views here and very enjoyable to read. There's no standard format to review a game, which is cool that each person or site gets to use their own style. If they are consistent in their reviewing process is what matters. But a lot of their review processes people don't seem to like or the focus of those reviews. And yeah that blows.

Is there a format that could be generally agreed upon to act as a blueprint for a game review? What would it look like? Can there be a generally agreed upon format? I really like Arwin's idea.

 

[Cyan]

I do not understand what you are getting upset about here. Just because you love somehing doesn't mean anyone else will. I love Trails of the Sky, but other people might think it is a boring piece of shit and their opinions are just as worthy as mine.

Also, what is your problem with the Eurogamer RE Remake Remaster review?

Eurogamer's review simply misses the point because RE Remake is remake, not an overhaul. They seem to forget the meaning o remake.

(from dictionary.com)
1.
to make again or anew.
2.
Movies. to film again, as a picture or screenplay.
noun
3.
Movies. a more recent version of an older film.
4.
anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt:
The tailor is offering a special price on remakes.

Resident Evil is great, the game is so awesome... gameplay, storyline, atmosphere are pretty epic.. really captures horror and suspense to a standard which I love..

The problem with RE remake is that the reviewer practically trashes EVERYTHING, because he thinks the game should be an overhaul not a remake. Inexcusable error. He wanted an overhaul not a remake. It's just that people don't understand the meaning of the work remake. If you create a remake you are making something again, hence a remake.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I completely disagree with you --mostly your first paragraph. Gameplay and 60 fps are essential in games these days and I'd love to read more reviews explaining at which framerate does the game run at, because the framerate is very important for me, and I don't care about what Tom Chick -never heard of him before tbh- or Eurogamer say about how bad is this and that, if they don't talk about the technical merits of the game, like a solid framerate. That's why I like Digital Foundry staff because they know their stuff --at least I like them until they try to follow EG steps and talk about superfluous things.

Considering how many people couldn't give a shit whether a game runs at 60fps or not, calling it essential is really stretching it. Console gaming has been fine without it for decades. What you are looking for is obviously a product description and not a review.
And nowhere did I say gameplay wasn't important. I totally agree that a lot of sites tend to treat gaming's prime differentiating factor like an unwantend, red-headed step child now these days. That's why I brought up Tom Chick. Sure, you get the juicy prose, but you also get entire paragraphs dedicated to the thrill of taking the perfect corner in Mario Kart 8.

 

[Gerry]

Eurogamer's review simply misses the point because RE Remake is remake, not an overhaul. They seem to forget the meaning o remake.

(from dictionary.com)
1.
to make again or anew.
2.
Movies. to film again, as a picture or screenplay.
noun
3.
Movies. a more recent version of an older film.
4.
anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt:
The tailor is offering a special price on remakes.

Resident Evil is great, the game is so awesome... gameplay, storyline, atmosphere are pretty epic.. really captures horror and suspense to a standard which I love..

The problem with RE remake is that the reviewer practically trashes EVERYTHING, because he thinks the game should be an overhaul not a remake. Inexcusable error. He wanted an overhaul not a remake. It's just that people don't understand the meaning of the work remake. If you create a remake you are making something again, hence a remake.

You see, I think this is essentially nonsensical. Eurogamer reviewed the game on its own merits. If the gameplay hasn't aged well as far as they were concerned then they'd mark it down accordingly. You seem to want them to give the game concessions simply because it's a remake.

And the definition you use above doesn't even help your point. Movies are "remade" all the time and the finished product is vastly different to the original. Using your logic the only remake ever made was Psycho by Gus Van Sant.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The remake can be judged two ways - does it improve notably (or recreate effectively) on the original, and does it stand up on its own against the current range of games someone can buy.

So, repeating once again, there's no such thing as a 'correct review'. There are different, legitimate takes serving different purposes. There's really no point arguing against them being right or wrong!

 

[Prophecy2k]

You see, I think this is essentially nonsensical. Eurogamer reviewed the game on its own merits. If the gameplay hasn't aged well as far as they were concerned then they'd mark it down accordingly. You seem to want them to give the game concessions simply because it's a remake.

And the definition you use above doesn't even help your point. Movies are "remade" all the time and the finished product is vastly different to the original. Using your logic the only remake ever made was Psycho by Gus Van Sant.

Remakes of games are not the same as remakes of movies though. And given that a game remake is usually a classic game that everyone has already played and enjoyed, how the gameplay supposedly stacks up against modern games should be pretty irrelevant to a review, since the only people thinking of buying it mostly already know what they are getting themselves in for.

I honestly wonder at the concept of "gameplay" not aging well too... Sure, if it's a game with controls or mechanics that were odd even at the time of release. But if the gameplay was fun back then, how can it not be fun today? Surely gameplay is one of the only things that doesn't really age or become dated. Otherwise the genres of games of yesteryear simply wouldn't exist now.

I mean the fact that we're still playing FPS's that found their roots in the likes of Doom and Wolfenstien should tell you that great gameplay doesn't really "age". I just think it's a wierd concept.

Anyway, I personaly couldn't care less if the review of a remake scores it lower than the original was scored. I would however be turned off by a reviewer that uses nonsensical and poorly thought out vageries like "dated gameply mechanics" or "next-gen gameplay" as a means to criticise a game. Stuff like that just begs to be ignored, since its not useful in informing me about a game, and most of the time these are things which are inherently subjective (e.g. an FPS with health pickups instead of regen health).

 

[Scott_Arm]

The list of things reviewers aren't allowed to say is growing so long that there'd really be no point in writing reviews if that was the standard. I understand there's a certain personality type common in gaming that wants to order and list things, create rules to perfect and optimize everything, but ultimately I say fuck those people.

 

[Prophecy2k]

The list of things reviewers aren't allowed to say is growing so long that there'd really be no point in writing reviews if that was the standard. I understand there's a certain personality type common in gaming that wants to order and list things, create rules to perfect and optimize everything, but ultimately I say fuck those people.

I think you're misinterpreting the position of some of the people who are contributing to this thread.

The question is about what we as Gamers would want to see or find useful in game reviews. I don't think anyone is saying what reviewers "should not be allowed to write", merely expressing what they do and don't find useful in the articles written by the VG media that are called "reviews".

If you enjoy the status quo, then great for you. There's no reason to come in here and start saying "fuck those people" to folks who have been asked a simple question and are just expressing their own opinions.

Personally, alot of reviews nowadays aren't useful to me as a gamer. I'm actually looking for more of a buyer's guide when I'm looking for a review, whereas you clearly aren't. Why should one person's opinion be accepted and the other have to "get fucked"?

That's not a very constructive attitude in my opinion.