What makes a good game review?

blueshinra

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 think you nailed the basic criteria. Another factor related to bias is that regarding length. Most "professional" reviewers dock games points if they aren't 40 hour epics. The short, but intensely fun games get panned.

I've found The Video Game Critic (link in my signature) has some of the best reviews around for both new and classic systems. One paragraph, short, to the point, the Video Game Critic's reviews give you the perspective of a gamer who has a "real" job and plays video games for fun.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']I hate it when a review is basically non-stop summary of a game and doesn't look at whether or not the game is good or bad. I don't fucking care what you did in the game, I wanna know if it's a piece of shit or not.

Edit: Also, don't do this: http://www.gamespot.com/ps/adventur...=gsreaderreviews&tag=readerreviews;continue;3[/QUOTE]
See, I'm kind of the opposite. I don't care if the reviewer thinks it's good or bad. I just want to know how the game plays, and if it's broken. I know what I like, and I can make my own decisions.

What makes a good review? Me playing the game. That's the only review I care about.
 
[quote name='Gentlegamer']I think you nailed the basic criteria. Another factor related to bias is that regarding length. Most "professional" reviewers dock games points if they aren't 40 hour epics. The short, but intensely fun games get panned.

I've found The Video Game Critic (link in my signature) has some of the best reviews around for both new and classic systems. One paragraph, short, to the point, the Video Game Critic's reviews give you the perspective of a gamer who has a "real" job and plays video games for fun.[/QUOTE]I've often seen the length factor tied into a game's price, which sort of makes sense as console games tend to cost around $50-60 when they're first released. Not to say I don't get sick of the "it's too shooort!" whining either; the fun short games are usually worth every penny.

And I'll have to check that site out :)
 
Gamereivew imo is like a game test. Just play the game check for glitches, camera problems, and any control problems. Give the game good scores for at least being developed well. Meaning if the graphics are good, controls well, then a score needs to reflect that. Also, I think that a reviewer shouldn't lessen a score just because they don't like the story, or the script.

Reviewers should review the game on how well it executes what IT was trying to accomplish. Just because a game doesn't have something another similar game has doesn't mean that it should get a lower review score. No one took anything away from Bioshock for not having a cover system, and that's good.
 
Write something that conveys the feeling of playing the game to me. Sort of like a virtual trial run. Tell me the annoyances, personal or factual. Tell me what obstacles exist to your enjoyment. Tell me what the experience is like.

DO NOT list the "features" like I'm reading a press release or the back of the box. Anybody can do that. Be creative.

And as for completing every game, that's just ludicrous. Some games like FFXII would take over 50 hours to finish. That's more than a full week of work. If you paid someone a whole week just to finish a game for review, plus a few more hours to write the thing, it'd cost around a grand every time a JRPG came out. Those games really don't change that much throughout, so you can get a good feeling for them in about 10-20 hours. Most of them are just padded and bloated artificially anyway.
 
Ah! A bony question. Your list was a very good one. Two things that I must add are...

Showing Vs Telling: This is the difference between saying that the gameplay in Headshot 2: Electric Boogaloo is crappy and actually explaining what's wrong with it. Is the enemy AI bad? Are they unstoppable bullet sponges? Is there horrible weapon imbalance? Use your words, man.

Pay fucking Attention!: At the risk of seeming fanboyish, I'd like to bring up a review of Fire Emblem wherein the reviewer essentially admitted that he didn't actually read any of the text from about the one hour mark on out. This seems like a common sense thing, but I'm sure we can all think of times we've seen a "Did you even fucking play the game?" review. Now let's all forget that review.

...

There.
 
A good review is one that tells you all the good things. You know, what got this game the great score of 8.7/10.

A great review tells you why the game didn't get a 10. Despite it being great, what was wrong with it. That's the stuff I want to hear.
 
Short and to the point. I like EGMs reviews when the reviewer actually uses the space to say what the liked and didn't like about the game, rather than making lame jokes or arguing with the other reviewers.

I just don't care enough about other's opinons on something as banal as games to bother reading the crazy long reviews on IGN or Gamespot etc.

When I occasionally want to get a take on a game I don't know much about, all I want is a quick blurb that helps me decide whether I should bother checking it out. Not a 3 or 4 page review covering every detail of the game.

Most of the time I don't even bother reading a review, just check gamerankings. If it's 85% or higher and in a genre I like, it's probably worth checking out.
 
Generally, I want to know what did and didn't work in the game, in that person's opinion. For example, I know from preview what Assassin's Creed is about, but it took reviews to let me know about the weird controls and repetitive gameplay (in fairness, some previews mentioned the controls).
 
[quote name='The Crotch']
Showing Vs Telling: This is the difference between saying that the gameplay in Headshot 2: Electric Boogaloo is crappy and actually explaining what's wrong with it. Is the enemy AI bad? Are they unstoppable bullet sponges? Is there horrible weapon imbalance? Use your words, man.
[/quote]

Indeed, that's not just an important part of game reviews; that's an important part of writing in general. Showing vs. telling is the difference between great writing and okay writing. Or the difference between okay writing and terrible writing.
 
Here's something that irritates me in video game reviews. Going on and on about how much the reviewer likes or dislikes one aspect of the game. A few examples:

The Beatles Rock Band -- Every review I read about this game devoted AT LEAST the first entire paragraph to masturbating over the Beatles' music. Congrats reviewer, you've just lost a long list of readers who are "Stones." At least the guy from IGN had the courtesy to grab a towel, pick himself up off the bathroom floor, and say, point blank, "...you have to like The Beatles to even bother with the third iteration in the Rock Band series." He then goes on to tell me how this is pretty much a stand-alone RB game. FINALLY, something meaningful about the game.

Fishing games -- I can't tell you how many reviews for fishing games I've read where the reviewer's only experience fishing was this game. For Pete's sake....if you're gonna ask someone to review a game, especially a sim, at least make sure they are familiar with the concept first. It would be really beneficial if said person actually LIKES the activity being simulated.

Racing games -- this is really prevalent with NASCAR titles, but can spill over into other franchises. If you need to have a mechanic in the room with you in order to play the game, give me a heads up. I don't know about, nor do I care to know about spring rates, gear ratios, differences in manufacturers of nitro systems, etc. I'm more like Tom Cruise's character in "Days of Thunder," just make the car so that I can get in and drive the wheels off of it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm more of a Need for Speed guy than a NASCAR 09 (although I enjoy watching NASCAR events as opposed to driving fast in real life. Weird, huh?).

[quote name='RichMeisterMan']A good review is one that tells you all the good things. You know, what got this game the great score of 8.7/10.

A great review tells you why the game didn't get a 10. Despite it being great, what was wrong with it. That's the stuff I want to hear.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more, Rich. I would only add that deducting points because a game isn't much different from it's predecessor (as in sports titles and RPG sequels) is annoying. What if I LIKED last year's model?

I'm sure I can think of more things about game reviews/reviewers that just irritate me to no end, but that's probably enough for now. If y'all can recommend more/better sites than IGN and GameSpot for reviews, I'm SO all ears :)
 
A review shouldn't be opinionated. That should be the goal, albeit an impossible one as there will always be a noticeable slant. Reviewers need to be able to discern between what is a flaw and what's simply a matter of taste.

You'll often see scores from mainstream critics range drastically on certain titles and this is precisely because these people don't know what makes a game good. If they do not personally enjoy it, they cannot help but try to pin this reason on a flaw they will imagine in their head.

This is a hypothetical example but everyone can relate to these types of conclusions in reviews:

"Diablo II has a lot of depth built into its skill trees and collecting items is an endless and enjoyable process, yet the combat itself is literally just the clicking on whatever pops up on your screen and ultimately makes for a dull and repetitive experience."

Stuff like this pops up in "professional" critics' writing all the time. They know games, they don't know gamers. They have a disconnect between them and their readers where they cannot relate with other people's possible views and tastes.

This results in someone purchasing a game that received a high score because they read a review full of nothing but praise, instead of an analytical recommendation. There are dozens of other problems with reviews these days such as terrible writing, bloated or meaningless scoring scales, and an embarrassing occurrence of double standards and contradictions -- I personally just stay away from them.
 
[quote name='rainking187']Wow, just noticed how old this thread is.[/QUOTE]
Yup. And believe me, no one is more surprised to see this thread resurface than I am.
 
Holy thread resurrection.

On that front, has anyone found a good replacement to EGM for short blurb reviews? Does the new EGM follow the same format for reviews as before?
 
Examples of a good game review would be ones found in pc acclerator. They used to give no bullshit reviews in their mag, of course thats what drove them out of business was lack of paying advertisers. I remember they did a review for ultima 9 before anyone else and they ripped it to shreds because of how completely unplayable it was and such, then next page was this gatefold 3 page fold out ad for the same game. They gave honest reviews and no one would advertise with them so they went out of business.

Problem with reviews is no one is truly honest about games, they always spew out the same shit as everyone else does. You will never see a review say he hates gears of war 3 or gran turismo 5, even if he honestly does not like the game and can give valid reasons it wont get published because those are popular titles. If I worked for game informer and put out a review saying how much I hated halo 2 and 3 when they came out I would get fired because those are popular games.

The problem with reviewing is its a business, no one that "professionally" reviews games does so because they enjoy it, they do it because they are being paid to do. So when your getting paid to review stuff you obviously need the most readers as possible so you can continue to get paid to do it, so you cater to your audience. Reviewers know all the millions of internet teen boys love call of duty, shitty games or not they love it so of course they wont bad mouth it even if they do hate it because they want all those kids to buy their magazine or visit their website so those kids can be reassured that they are awesome liking call of duty because the reviewer thinks its awesome to.

Game reviewers will never be truly honest in their reviews or give ones with any actual thought put into it because the people who pay their bills are the exact same peoples products they are reviewing. They know no company is going to pay them thousands of dollars to advertise a product that they dont like and dont mind saying they dont.

Reviewers get bribed to with nice lunches, private time with the game in some nice classy resort type setting, they get fancy amounts of swag sent to them, get to have private seating at unveilings and so on because developers know if they make a reviewer feel special and friendly they will go easier on their review.

Reviews on games are fundamentally flawed because they are soley based on financial support from the very companies they are reviewing profits for and no one will cut their own throat. Its not like other mediums where they draw money from lost of different places, when it comes to games only other advertisers you see is occasionally mountain and the marine corp, thats about it.
 
[quote name='gargus']
Problem with reviews is no one is truly honest about games, they always spew out the same shit as everyone else does. You will never see a review say he hates gears of war 3 or gran turismo 5, even if he honestly does not like the game and can give valid reasons it wont get published because those are popular titles. If I worked for game informer and put out a review saying how much I hated halo 2 and 3 when they came out I would get fired because those are popular games.
[/QUOTE]

To be fair, most of these popular games are very, very good and well made games.

Reviews should be object and try to criticize the flaws of a game. I couldn't give a flying fuck less what someones personal opinion or enjoyment of a game is, I just want to here about any flaws it has, what it has that set's it apart from other games in the genre etc.

Someone that hate's shooters would hate Gears and give it a low review if they just said what they felt about it because the hate the genre, or I'd do the same with RTS games as I can't stand them.

So while I do think there's bias in game reviews, I think the vast majority of games getting 90% scores or above are truly excellent games with relatively few flaws and the vast majority of fans of a genre will enjoy those games.

You can hate Halo 2 and 3, but it shouldn't get a low review as they are excellent first person shooters. They don't have many gameplay flaws, glitches, AI problems etc. No game is everyone's cup of tea, but reviews should be limited to objective factors.

All a review should do is tell fans of a genre that the game is or isn't worth checking out themselves. All the subjective stuff should be left to the individual to assess when they play themselves, as the only opinion that matters is your own when it comes to that stuff.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']A review shouldn't be opinionated.[/QUOTE]

That's all a review is, nothing but opinion.

[quote name='dmaul1114']To be fair, most of these popular games are very, very good and well made games.

Reviews should be object and try to criticize the flaws of a game. I couldn't give a flying fuck less what someones personal opinion or enjoyment of a game is, I just want to here about any flaws it has, what it has that set's it apart from other games in the genre etc.

Someone that hate's shooters would hate Gears and give it a low review if they just said what they felt about it because the hate the genre, or I'd do the same with RTS games as I can't stand them.

So while I do think there's bias in game reviews, I think the vast majority of games getting 90% scores or above are truly excellent games with relatively few flaws and the vast majority of fans of a genre will enjoy those games.

You can hate Halo 2 and 3, but it shouldn't get a low review as they are excellent first person shooters. They don't have many gameplay flaws, glitches, AI problems etc. No game is everyone's cup of tea, but reviews should be limited to objective factors.

All a review should do is tell fans of a genre that the game is or isn't worth checking out themselves. All the subjective stuff should be left to the individual to assess when they play themselves, as the only opinion that matters is your own when it comes to that stuff.[/QUOTE]

Again, you seem to be confused about the nature of a review, reviews are innately subjective.
 
[quote name='msdmoney']Again, you seem to be confused about the nature of a review, reviews are innately subjective.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I'd hate to read a book review where all the critic talked about was how the grammar was sound, the binding didn't fall apart, and the fonts were easy on the eyes - and as for the content, well, the readers should make up their own minds.
 
Exactly. It's a lot more than opinion if they're done right.

I'm not saying a review shouldn't have opinion in it, but it shouldn't just be nothing but opinion.

It should also cover objective things like whether they're are any technical glitches (, game freezing, stuttering, pop up, slow down etc.), any control problems (laggy, unresponsive etc.), AI glitches etc. etc.

Then you get to semi-objective stuff like whether the game adds anything new to the genre, etc. etc.

Then finally you get to the 100% opinion part of whether they like it or not. And that part I ignore.

I've been gaming 25+ years, I don't give two shits about what others like or don't. I don't care about other's opinions on most things frankly.

The only reason I'll look at reviews are:

1. For a game I'm already interested in, I'll read to make sure the game doesn't have major technical problems, glitches, control issues etc.

2. To identify games to check out that weren't on my radar. If I see something in a genre I like getting 90% or above scores everywhere, I'll probably check it out for myself.

Movie reviews I don't read at all, at most I'll look at the rotten tomatoes score for something I'm on the fence about, and probably pass if it's under 70%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top