blueshinra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
Warning: this is kind of long...
I don't know if I'm alone, but over time I've gotten somewhat picky about whose game reviews I like and/or where I like to read them. I've started to notice patterns in the reviews I find trustworthy. Here's some things I've come to look for in game reviews:
Is the author biased? Are their biases clear? Especially considering Gerstmanngate and Dan Hsu's recent EGM editorial, but also taking into account more personal biases. Everyone's biased to some degree; it's just a matter of how and why they're biased. When they start off their review, do they admit to being a fan of the series/genre, or hating it? Do they mention the game's promotion/hype level at all, putting things into perspective?
How much of the game was played? This is especially an important factor for games with a lot of gameplay modes, and those with a set ending. This was where most reviews for FFXII let me down: it was, indeed, a brilliant game for the first 30-40 hours, but as more and more grinding became required, it got boring. It's understandable, especially with long games like RPGs, that a writer can't finish a game in a timely manner before reviewing it, but they should have at least played enough of it to call judgement (and to gauge roughly how long it would take to beat).
How much emphasis is placed on each of the game's component parts (story, graphics, etc.)? Is gameplay emphasized above all else? A game could have the prettiest graphics, the most epic story, the most nuanced characters, the best music, and still be a chore to play. Games are for playing more than anything else, and if the mechanics of the gameplay are scarcely mentioned, that's a turn-off. However, that's not to say that graphics, story, etc. aren't important as well. On a related note...
Is fun mentioned? How much fun is the game? How much fun will the game be after several hours? Again, a game could be incredibly shiny on the surface, but if what's inside isn't compelling, then there's no point it playing it.
Are there spoilers? Thankfully, most reviewers avoid this, but others are especially bad about it. I know some people don't care about spoilers, but others (like me) don't want to get exposed to too many of them, if any; just tell me what I need to know.
Anyway, with that said, the game reviews I generally trust the most are from mainstream sources like the NY Times and the Onion AV Club. The weekly Zero Punctuation reviews are probably the best in the gaming media, IMO. Edge's reviews tend to be good as well in terms of discussing gameplay, though a little spoilery at times and lacking much bias transparency at others. I don't read too many other game reviews these days, other than blurbs on Metacritic and the occasional one at RPGamer (which tend to be long, but aren't bad in general).
What does everyone else want out of the game reviews they read? Is there anything I might've overlooked?
I don't know if I'm alone, but over time I've gotten somewhat picky about whose game reviews I like and/or where I like to read them. I've started to notice patterns in the reviews I find trustworthy. Here's some things I've come to look for in game reviews:
Is the author biased? Are their biases clear? Especially considering Gerstmanngate and Dan Hsu's recent EGM editorial, but also taking into account more personal biases. Everyone's biased to some degree; it's just a matter of how and why they're biased. When they start off their review, do they admit to being a fan of the series/genre, or hating it? Do they mention the game's promotion/hype level at all, putting things into perspective?
How much of the game was played? This is especially an important factor for games with a lot of gameplay modes, and those with a set ending. This was where most reviews for FFXII let me down: it was, indeed, a brilliant game for the first 30-40 hours, but as more and more grinding became required, it got boring. It's understandable, especially with long games like RPGs, that a writer can't finish a game in a timely manner before reviewing it, but they should have at least played enough of it to call judgement (and to gauge roughly how long it would take to beat).
How much emphasis is placed on each of the game's component parts (story, graphics, etc.)? Is gameplay emphasized above all else? A game could have the prettiest graphics, the most epic story, the most nuanced characters, the best music, and still be a chore to play. Games are for playing more than anything else, and if the mechanics of the gameplay are scarcely mentioned, that's a turn-off. However, that's not to say that graphics, story, etc. aren't important as well. On a related note...
Is fun mentioned? How much fun is the game? How much fun will the game be after several hours? Again, a game could be incredibly shiny on the surface, but if what's inside isn't compelling, then there's no point it playing it.
Are there spoilers? Thankfully, most reviewers avoid this, but others are especially bad about it. I know some people don't care about spoilers, but others (like me) don't want to get exposed to too many of them, if any; just tell me what I need to know.
Anyway, with that said, the game reviews I generally trust the most are from mainstream sources like the NY Times and the Onion AV Club. The weekly Zero Punctuation reviews are probably the best in the gaming media, IMO. Edge's reviews tend to be good as well in terms of discussing gameplay, though a little spoilery at times and lacking much bias transparency at others. I don't read too many other game reviews these days, other than blurbs on Metacritic and the occasional one at RPGamer (which tend to be long, but aren't bad in general).
What does everyone else want out of the game reviews they read? Is there anything I might've overlooked?