What do you look for in game reviews?

I wish current reviewers would go more in depth into the game why its bad/good.Travatan

That's a dangerous path you got there, since that usually slips deep into the realm of opinion, not review.

As an ex-game reviewer I can tell you the problem with most reviewers ("professional" or otherwise) is that they can't tell the difference between "opinion" and "review".

A good review sticks to the facts and lets the reader decide if the game is good or bad for him/her. A bad review makes that decision for you, based on personal principles that may or may not coincide with the reader's view of them.

This is not to say a reviewer can't have an opinion, and even share it in his/her review, but should make it perfectly clear that it's a personal remark, and not part of the review itself.

GameSpot, in theory, seems to acknowledge that, since you can read in their FAQ:

"Wait, reviews are just opinions. Right?"

Actually, we don't think so.GameSpot

Unfortunately, sometimes that seems to be neglected, and you can clearly tell their personal views have slipped into the review and/or overall score.

What information is lacking in current reviews that you wish were there or that you like to have that helps you create an informed decision?Travatan

Top of the list for me is multi-platform differences.

Here's an example of what I mean, in "Marvel Ultimate Alliance", reviewed by Ryan Davis (no longer working on GameSpot, I'm afraid), he gives a clear description of the differences between PC, Xbox, X360, PS2, PS3 and Wii versions of the game. Fast forward in time to the review of the sequel, "Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2", by Kevin VanOrd... not a single comment about the platforms - you're literally left in the dark on that department.

I'm sure he'd argue with something like "all platforms are the same, so it wasn't necessary to mention it", but that's a cop out. There ARE differences, and even if there weren't, a simple two second comment saying so would go a long way to help people put that question aside.

Most of the time just reading reviews isn't enough unless it's a game I already know I want anyway.

For me, buying a game can often come down to technical things like the quality of hit detection with guns or the depth of customization in an rpg. Most reviews seem to lack this kind of detail.

I look for explanation of how the mechanics of a game work with reference to the game design. I really dislike when reviewers break up a game into sections such as Graphics, Gameplay, Sound ect. Because every game works in a different way and every game plays to it's strengths and weaknesses. For example in Assassin's Creed you could say that it has good gameplay (which is a terribly bland sentence that should never be said) because parts of the game feel extremely satisfying to perform but that would fail to point out the frustrations of the game. I felt that the game was designed to hamper itself by dismissing the most entertaining part, the stealth elements, slowly as the game moved along instead of introduced it in greater degrees. By making compartments in a review it can become very difficult to describe the sucesses and short fallings of a game. I love gamespot's reviews because they seem to stick to this sort of style and seem less interested in any one piece of a game.

I look at much how the reviewer write things. Some reviewers hate some type of games and will show it with their writing including reducing a game strength or focusing on the weakness of it.

For me personally, I want information specific to my platform and detailed out. Information on sound, graphics, online play, game depth, game length, possible issues, etc. Sadly, reviewers have a wash over policy where they really give out no information and really the review just becomes a lolfest so they can copy paste reviews or just not have the time to elaborate on anything. I wish reviewers followed a set policy for every game. I hate seeing one reviewer who gives lots of details on a game then go to another reviewer and its as soft on information as a babies bottom. Concrete detail and professionalism across all reviews by all reviewers with a set standard goes a long way to making a compelling review of a game. Sadly, those days are gone.. Go hunt down some late 90's or early 2000 nintendo power, gamepro's and other magazines and you will see how things were to how things are today... Its really a sad thing to see. Infact, go check the archives of this website in its ps1/n64 days to how reviews are done today... jedikevin2

If it's a game that I enjoy- or think that I will enjoy then I will usually only look for the negative points in a revew to judge whether they will severly impair the gaming experience. In a review of 'Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage' the reviewer was complaining that the Dynasty Warriors formula was broken and stale, yet since I haven't played a Dynasty Warriors game before I thought this wouldn't be a problem...needless to say I really enjoyed the game.

If it's a game that I enjoy- or think that I will enjoy then I will usually only look for the negative points in a revew to judge whether they will severly impair the gaming experience. In a review of 'Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage' the reviewer was complaining that the Dynasty Warriors formula was broken and stale, yet since I haven't played a Dynasty Warriors game before I thought this wouldn't be a problem...needless to say I really enjoyed the game.

allthatdown

what i would like in a review is right at the start some info

• length of SP
• is there MP
• split screen
• split screen online
• modes (co-op, SP etc)
• a list of some good and bad qualities (which gamespot already has)

if they had this, then you could get the basics of it, and read the review for more in depth analysis. for me, it is all about the content. unless controls are REALLY bad, i can handle, and play it if it has enough content

what i would like in a review is right at the start some info

length of SPis there MPsplit screensplit screen onlinemodes (co-op, SP etc)a list of some good and bad qualities (which gamespot already has)

if they had this, then you could get the basics of it, and read the review for more in depth analysis. for me, it is all about the content. unless controls are REALLY bad, i can handle, and play it if it has enough content

quaappybla

Game reviews are....frustrating = \ I try to sift through all the "opinion" stuff and find actual information about the game. The only reviews I kinda trust are from reviewers that actually like the genre of game they are reviewing. Even then it's a toss up.

To tell ya the truth, wikipedia serves my purpose for getting info on a certain game way better than a review

Game reviews are....frustrating = \ I try to sift through all the "opinion" stuff and find actual information about the game. The only reviews I kinda trust are from reviewers that actually like the genre of game they are reviewing. Even then it's a toss up.

To tell ya the truth, wikipedia serves my purpose for getting info on a certain game way better than a review

Archendrus

[QUOTE="Archendrus"]

Game reviews are....frustrating = \ I try to sift through all the "opinion" stuff and find actual information about the game. The only reviews I kinda trust are from reviewers that actually like the genre of game they are reviewing. Even then it's a toss up.

To tell ya the truth, wikipedia serves my purpose for getting info on a certain game way better than a review

Travatan

Info about genre elements in the game, is it an RPG with a focus on action or strategy? A platformer with dating sim elements?

A BRIEF intro to the story, I hate it when a review walks you through 75% of the storyline, and what kind of tone the story is in (serious, light-hearted, comedic)

Platform differences, if any

I know most reviews cover these bases, but the opinion stuff irks me sometimes. Let me decide if I think the gameplay "outdated" or "overused". Maybe I like cliche characters and storylines. Linear gameplay does not belong in "The Bad", it's a design choice like any other. Reviewer A thought the graphics were unimpressive, I thought they were just fine and suited the game.

It's just easier for me to get an idea about a game from a wiki article or a youtube gameplay video

[QUOTE="Travatan"][QUOTE="Archendrus"]

Game reviews are....frustrating = \ I try to sift through all the "opinion" stuff and find actual information about the game. The only reviews I kinda trust are from reviewers that actually like the genre of game they are reviewing. Even then it's a toss up.

To tell ya the truth, wikipedia serves my purpose for getting info on a certain game way better than a review

Archendrus

Info about genre elements in the game, is it an RPG with a focus on action or strategy? A platformer with dating sim elements?

A BRIEF intro to the story, I hate it when a review walks you through 75% of the storyline, and what kind of tone the story is in (serious, light-hearted, comedic)

Platform differences, if any

I know most reviews cover these bases, but the opinion stuff irks me sometimes. Let me decide if I think the gameplay "outdated" or "overused". Maybe I like cliche characters and storylines. Linear gameplay does not belong in "The Bad", it's a design choice like any other. Reviewer A thought the graphics were unimpressive, I thought they were just fine and suited the game.

It's just easier for me to get an idea about a game from a wiki article or a youtube gameplay video

I ignore reviews that rate 9 and above Reason being that those that give a game 9 and above 95% of the time are fanboys (including people blinded by nostalgia) or people with rock bottom standards and expectations. I also ignore reviews that give a game a 1, unless they are very long reviews and thought was put into it. Proper grammar and punctuation is also a must. Finally, the review must be long, and must have proper paragraphs.

Generally though, I tend to only read reviews that rate a game 6 and under. Though sometimes I'll read 7.5 and below reviews. I also find myself ignoring the positives and looking only at negatives. If the problems with the game aren't that bad then I'll get it or try before I buy.

I wish reviewers were far harsher. As it is now, they are far too forgiving and nice.

A very biased opinion that could have been swayed by monetary gain :D

I ignore reviews that rate 9 and above Reason being that those that give a game 9 and above 95% of the time are fanboys (including people blinded by nostalgia) or people with rock bottom standards and expectations. I also ignore reviews that give a game a 1, unless they are very long reviews and thought was put into it. Proper grammar and punctuation is also a must. Finally, the review must be long, and must have proper paragraphs.

Generally though, I tend to only read reviews that rate a game 6 and under. Though sometimes I'll read 7.5 and below reviews. I also find myself ignoring the positives and looking only at negatives. If the problems with the game aren't that bad then I'll get it or try before I buy.

I wish reviewers were far harsher. As it is now, they are far too forgiving and nice.

Vangaurdius

the biggest thing i look for is a consistent and honest take on games. i doubt ill ever find a reviewer that i agree with for every single game, but even an opposing view on a game can be very informative if the author sticks to the facts of the game, gives their honest thoughts, and maintains their standards across many reviews.

another general thing is just how observant the reviewer is. why was the game fun? why was the game not fun? why was it moving? what drew the reviewer in to that particular game? if the review stirs my thoughts, its likely the subject its evaluating will too.

OBJECTIVITY. I like the the author to tell me how the game works, and whether or not it succeeds at what it set out to do. THEN, I like to hear the negative aspects of the game, coming from the reviewers perspective--where it falls short, what might have improved the game, etc. Most "reviews" these days shouldn't even be called that.

OBJECTIVITY. I like the the author to tell me how the game works, and whether or not it succeeds at what it set out to do. THEN, I like to hear the negative aspects of the game, coming from the reviewers perspective--where it falls short, what might have improved the game, etc. Most "reviews" these days shouldn't even be called that.

Heirren

Not much: just more variety in how they're written. They all tend to sound far too similar after a while, I find, so changing up how they're written is nice a change of pace. Reading a critical assessment by someone who's writing in they're own voice than some derivative "professional" voice is much more entertaining, which is why I often make time to always read the work of someone who takes that approach instead.

OBJECTIVITY. I like the the author to tell me how the game works, and whether or not it succeeds at what it set out to do. THEN, I like to hear the negative aspects of the game, coming from the reviewers perspective--where it falls short, what might have improved the game, etc. Most "reviews" these days shouldn't even be called that.

Heirren

An objective view in a review context isn't really possible, though, as the second any sort of judgement is passed -- good or bad -- it becomes a subjective work because you can't assess the quality of something in any sort of objective capacity. The only a way a review can maintain an objective standpoint is to refrain from making any sort of judgement on the item being reviewed, which would essentially make it little more than a glorified fact sheet than a helpful critical assessment of quality, thus rendering they're existence redundant.

[QUOTE="Travatan"]I wish current reviewers would go more in depth into the game why its bad/good.Star_Gem

That's a dangerous path you got there, since that usually slips deep into the realm of opinion, not review.

As an ex-game reviewer I can tell you the problem with most reviewers ("professional" or otherwise) is that they can't tell the difference between "opinion" and "review".

A good review sticks to the facts and lets the reader decide if the game is good or bad for him/her. A bad review makes that decision for you, based on personal principles that may or may not coincide with the reader's view of them.

This is not to say a reviewer can't have an opinion, and even share it in his/her review, but should make it perfectly clear that it's a personal remark, and not part of the review itself.

GameSpot, in theory, seems to acknowledge that, since you can read in their FAQ:

"Wait, reviews are just opinions. Right?"

Actually, we don't think so.GameSpot

Unfortunately, sometimes that seems to be neglected, and you can clearly tell their personal views have slipped into the review and/or overall score.

PC Zone used to write it's reviews opinion based, which gave you a much better idea of the game. One reason they did this was because it let them add their humor into the review and I know what your thinking, you probably shacked your head thinking "bad form" but no, it actually worked. As I said it gave us a much better idea of what the game was actually like, and because it was done with humor the readercould read with the knowlege that a joke is always half true but taken with a pinch of salt. They could find a flaw with the game, stick a knife in it and twist but they could also praise a game for what it is. It was spoken to gamers from gamers in a language we truly understand.

I dont trust any review. the big sites obviously get pressured and persuaded by the outside companies (the developer for instance) to review the game positively (see any CoD game). Small sites will often say the game is rubbish to get hits. I get my opinions through genuine gaming blogs and peoples reviews. joel_c17

PC Zone used to write it's reviews opinion based, which gave you a much better idea of the game. One reason they did this was because it let them add their humor into the review and I know what your thinking, you probably shacked your head thinking "bad form" but no, it actually worked. As I said it gave us a much better idea of what the game was actually like, and because it was done with humor the readercould read with the knowlege that a joke is always half true but taken with a pinch of salt. They could find a flaw with the game, stick a knife in it and twist but they could also praise a game for what it is. It was spoken to gamers from gamers in a language we truly understand.

Evil_Saluki

You probably misunderstood what I meant in my post.

I said that there's nothing wrong with adding your opinion to a review, AS LONG as it's clear that it's not part of the review itself. If you like to read your reviews with some "flavor" that's nice, and perfectly doable, but the moment you mix opinion (subjective analysis) with a review (objective analysis), all you get is a confusing text that's only useful for laughs, and little else.

You can't really say it gives "us" (you should be saying "me") a better idea of what the game is because you really have nothing to compare it to (pretty much all review sites these days are opinion-based, even GameSpot). A good review will always surpass an opinion in terms of informative content, and clarity. Opinions with or without a side of humor are often left to interpretation, and while you, personally, may enjoy the style and feel you could interpret PC Zone reviews easily, others don't.

Bottom-line is, if you're a professional journalist, you have to start by thinking of the Why behind what you're doing. If you want to entertain, sure, grab a YouTube channel and "review" away but, if you want to inform people, you stick to the facts and if you want to share your opinion, keep it as side remarks. Combining these two aspects in a single text, so it reads like it comes from a human and not a robot - without confusing the reader in the process - is where a reviewer's talent is put to the test.

It works almost like the news, actually. I like watching Jon Stewart and, in fact, I find he's more informative than some so-called professional news networks out there, but when I want to get to the bottom of things, I still take a serious, true to facts, reporter any day, and if he/she can crack a joke every once and a while, without mudding things up (or sounding ridiculous), more power to him/her.

PS: Reviewing isn't easy. Giving an opinion is.

A concise (1000 words or less) look at the game's content. I hate reviews that have to go on and on about comparisons to other games, or are overly hyperbolic and focus on the reviewers preferences, and not the game itself.

A concise (1000 words or less) look at the game's content. I hate reviews that have to go on and on about comparisons to other games, or are overly hyperbolic and focus on the reviewers preferences, and not the game itself.

foxhound_fox

Short and sweet is hard to review certain games I would guess.Travatan

[QUOTE="Travatan"]Short and sweet is hard to review certain games I would guess.foxhound_fox

I don't even read reviews anymore. I watch vids on youtube. If it looks cool I buy it.

Why not just read a wikipedia page?Travatan