Why do all game reviews sound the same?

Whenever a triple A game's reviews come out, they all sound the same. Like Fox News. Everyone sounds like a parrot.

Is this because critics focus on the game as if it's a toy/product, vs its artistic merit? What's good about the game, what's bad about it, bullet points. Is this the fault of using review scales, like 1-10?

This doesn't make sense, compared to film reviews, because playing a game is surely a more subjective experience than viewing a movie.

Are they all paid for? Or are only the highest rated reviews let out first, like Game Informer?

That's why i enjoy Zero Punctuation. He just picks all the bad qualities in game regardless of how popular it may be.

I believe it's because most review outlets follow the same formula of: introduction, story, gameplay, graphics, sound, and closing. When they all follow the same structure it's inevitable that they would all begin to sound very similar. It also doesn't help that a lot of 'em tend to focus on the same aspects of the game being reviewed. Rarely ever do I find reviews that don't rehash what's been said elsewhere with different wording.

If we were to eliminate those things from videogame reviews altogether, they would probably stop sounding so similar all the time. But since the current system is what the public has come to expect from reviews, I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

I think I know what you mean. The reviewers tone of voice on a 6 score is always the same, a score of 8.5 has that "well developers, you are almost there" undermining feel, and when a game is hyped and it actually meets expectations--well--I know when I watch the reviews it feels like the reviewer always shows some forced level of excitement. The problem with that last one is the excitement comes from only raising the volume of the monotenous dialog. Some of the reviewers are alright, but most of the all sounds like slurring drunks--I think I tend to read the text more anyways.

The trick is to find the right GW.

One of my biggest problems with game reviews is a lot of times they don't actually review the product. They'll review gameplay and story and everything, but they kind of leave the technical aspects in the backseat. For instance, on a few occasions I've read reviews for games and immediately went out and bought them because of their amazing reviews only to find out that the game is glitchy as hell or runs poorly. Things like that should be in reviews. I'm not saying that every review leaves those things out, just the bulk of the ones I read. I'd rather reviewers comment as much on how the game performs as they do on gameplay, story, etc.Canvas_Of_Flesh

I agree. I remember buying Half Life 2 for the original xbox, which received a good score--so I figured it was a semi faithful translation, but as it turned out, it felt like I was playing a broken game. The game is a good game, but the tech behind the game didn't let you see that. It's like going to see The Godfather after Freddie Kreuger spliced it together.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]I think it's because game is much easier to divide into pieces than a movie - gameplay, graphics, sound, multiplayer, etc - so the reviewer will often blow through those sections, add a comparison to similar games or a prequel, and call it a day. I'd love to see more esoteric reviews, but at the same time I don't know if we really have the right kind of personalities to make those sort of reviews useful. I love Ebert's movie reviews, for example, but not because I agree with him - because I've read enough of his stuff that I know where he's coming from and I can get a sense of the movie, whether I would enjoy it, and a good read at the same time. I think we're a ways off that in game journalism, and people have gotten too used to the structured review and numerical score. Even if I'd rather have a much more personal review and a brief 'it sucks, it's okay, it's good, it's awesome' rating at the top. Oh well.digi_matrix

Eh... half of those phrases I don't see (Test Your Might? Whaaaat?) Out of the half that I do see many seem to fit into reviews. Hit Detection is not just a dumb phrase and I hope to god that it's commented on in a fighting game review or a shooter becuase bad hit deteciton could be a really bad issue. some the other phrases are used cause the people reading them are familiar with them. I noticed the article had a problem with summary lines alike "all in all" "at the end of the day". i don't find a problem with reviewers using such a phrase. It also complained about phrases like "to be fair" or other such phrases trying to point out that "well yeah there are these issues but that isn't something that kills the experience for me".

That's why i enjoy Zero Punctuation. He just picks all the bad qualities in game regardless of how popular it may be.

Sloan360

I was going to mention zero punctuation as well. Definately a different type of review.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]I think it's because game is much easier to divide into pieces than a movie - gameplay, graphics, sound, multiplayer, etc - so the reviewer will often blow through those sections, add a comparison to similar games or a prequel, and call it a day. I'd love to see more esoteric reviews, but at the same time I don't know if we really have the right kind of personalities to make those sort of reviews useful. I love Ebert's movie reviews, for example, but not because I agree with him - because I've read enough of his stuff that I know where he's coming from and I can get a sense of the movie, whether I would enjoy it, and a good read at the same time. I think we're a ways off that in game journalism, and people have gotten too used to the structured review and numerical score. Even if I'd rather have a much more personal review and a brief 'it sucks, it's okay, it's good, it's awesome' rating at the top. Oh well.digi_matrix

is it sad that i can recognize and agree with all 100 points? :P

I mean, I feel that video games do have objective qualities that need to be considered. Particularly the game's mechanics, as some people may or may not like certain things.

Do games even have artistic merit? I would argue that 999 out of 1000 times, they don't. Just because there are artistic aspects such as the design and narrative don't mean that the game in and of itself is art, or has artistic merit. The "artistic" part of games are subject to compromise by gameplay. Or another way of looking at it is they only exist to facilitate gameplay.

In fact, I think if there is a problem with video game reviews it is that they are TOO subjective, and that they don't just explain the content of the game so people can assess whether or not they like those qualities.

There is a definition of what exactly is quality in a game. Most reviewers follow the pattern, some review it subjectively.

Subjective reviews says nothing about the game, unless you think exactly like the person who reviewed it. Because one person =/= the other, it's all psychology, there are so many variables for example: I had some kind of negative trauma with cats. If that's the case, I will dislike every game out there which contains a cat and give it -1 point in my own scoring system or something like that. A reviewer has to look at the game objectively, so in this case, he or she has to think of the cat as something else, say a dog and try to be as unbiased as possible.

Example of a movie review to get a sense: Twilight:NM review on IGN: basically what she says is it's overall not a good movie. But the fans will like it nevertheless. Obviously she is a fan because 2.5 is way higher than any other review i've seen, and she even says I think, that she is a fan of the series, from a movie standpoint, its something you don't want to see (means, 1/5), but if you are into vampires and stuff (2/5), or love the series (2.5/5) then its a movie for u.

Subjective reviews are boring, that's why I stay away from Giantbomb and other sites like it.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]I think it's because game is much easier to divide into pieces than a movie - gameplay, graphics, sound, multiplayer, etc - so the reviewer will often blow through those sections, add a comparison to similar games or a prequel, and call it a day. I'd love to see more esoteric reviews, but at the same time I don't know if we really have the right kind of personalities to make those sort of reviews useful. I love Ebert's movie reviews, for example, but not because I agree with him - because I've read enough of his stuff that I know where he's coming from and I can get a sense of the movie, whether I would enjoy it, and a good read at the same time. I think we're a ways off that in game journalism, and people have gotten too used to the structured review and numerical score. Even if I'd rather have a much more personal review and a brief 'it sucks, it's okay, it's good, it's awesome' rating at the top. Oh well.digi_matrix

[QUOTE="digi_matrix"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]I think it's because game is much easier to divide into pieces than a movie - gameplay, graphics, sound, multiplayer, etc - so the reviewer will often blow through those sections, add a comparison to similar games or a prequel, and call it a day. I'd love to see more esoteric reviews, but at the same time I don't know if we really have the right kind of personalities to make those sort of reviews useful. I love Ebert's movie reviews, for example, but not because I agree with him - because I've read enough of his stuff that I know where he's coming from and I can get a sense of the movie, whether I would enjoy it, and a good read at the same time. I think we're a ways off that in game journalism, and people have gotten too used to the structured review and numerical score. Even if I'd rather have a much more personal review and a brief 'it sucks, it's okay, it's good, it's awesome' rating at the top. Oh well.Blissmemberment