Thyroid

Game reviews

Recommended Posts

I thought this was a pretty interesting article, and the first comment on the Reddit page I got it from was interesting too.

Edit: this is an interesting response

I stopped trusting game reviews and reviewers when the Gamespot Kane and Lynch fiasco reared its head, though there's some people I still like, for all the reasons listed in the articles above. Additional reasons:

- I hate that reviewers will grudgingly play game A (say, I dunno, Insecticide) to get to play game B (say Halo Reach) when all they give a fuck about is B and want to get A over and done with. They'll slap it with a low score and move on.

- I hate that some people get certain games to play over and over again. You know, staff member A likes RTS games, so he'll continually review them and be biased. Why not throw the games at someone who isn't particularly a fan of them? Do a double review. This is especially important for "casual" games that strive to convert non-gamers to the dark side.

- Websites that give the same damn reviewers games over and over again for them to just sit there and moan about how it ain't how it used to be. Adventure games get most of the heat for this ("THEY'RE BEING DUMBED DOWN THE CAT MUSTACHE PUZZLE WAS GENIOUS!!!!!!!"), though RPGs come under fire too. John Walker/RPS on Telltale comes to mind as an example.

- Completely uncritical thinking. Slow platforming game clearly inspired by Ico? It's art. David Cage yaps about how emotional his game is? Pulitzer-worthy masterpiece. Reviewers will spit and swallow anything if you ask them to.

- Punishing risk. This is my biggest beef with the games industry. If a game takes a risk that doesn't pay off, you must kill it with fire. If it does pay off, it's brillo and the guy who made it is a genius. Guy, mind you, not team. Gaming is, outside of Valve and Blizzard, one man orchestrating chumps to weave his ingenious idea into a world-changing existence.

Yes.

Edited by Kroms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, that website has a lot of the same philosophies that the original written content of Idle Thumbs had?

I completely agree with the sentiment, it was one of the things that we argued over in the Arcadian Rhythms group email. Whether to score or not, and fortunately the anti-scores arguers won.

Incidentally, when we can we do have people write second opinions (in fact Bulletstorm is about to get a second review as I completely disagreed with the original one). So, yeah, you are preaching to the converted.

I would say, that in some cases it is not advantageous to have some one who doesn't like a type of game review them. After some discussion, we agreed that my original review of Homefront should be relegated to a second opinion - my own piece was too acerbic and clearly biased in my hatred of linear shooters - and have one of the other guys write up a more balanced one. My review went on badgercommander.net and I think that was a better way of handling it.

It is why I enjoy the gamers with jobs and Drunken gamers podcasts (when they talk about games) as it is usually just people talking about how a game made them feel regardless of the mechanics.

And the K&L thing... You mean Gamespot right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say, that in some cases it is not advantageous to have some one who doesn't like a type of game review them. After some discussion, we agreed that my original review of Homefront should be relegated to a second opinion - my own piece was too acerbic and clearly biased in my hatred of linear shooters - and have one of the other guys write up a more balanced one. My review went on badgercommander.net and I think that was a better way of handling it.

Oh, I agree. I don't think it should be a blanket rule. It's just that, sometimes, you need to have several opinions to accurately reflect the quality of a game. Anime fans are more likely to enjoy a JRPG than a non-anime fan, so while the former goes "FFFFFFFFFF this game is so freaking awesome," the latter says something more measured and skeptical. You know, what a jrpg fan considers to be standard the other guy sees as brilliant/ridiculous/stupid, etc.

And the K&L thing... You mean Gamespot right?

Yessir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If arcadian Rhythms becomes more popular then we are hoping to do more stuff like that.

For example two of us are playing Fortresscraft Vol1 (an XBLIG Minecraft homage) and thinking about writing an interview-based review of it. Whereby, I ask the other guy a bunch of questions, based on the fact that I have never played minecraft, and he asks me a bunch of questions based on the fact that he has.

Hopefully it will lead to the readers geting an idea of whether it is any good, either for the newbies or for people that have already plowed hours into MC.

I am glad that other people feel the same way we do, as that is what we are hoping to nail, most of the time, at AR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note* - I'm kind of just rambling off my own opinions here. I don't really know that i'm responding to anything in particular.

I basically never really read reviews anymore.

There's a small handful of individuals in the critical community whose reviews i will read mostly out of curiosity, but basically my game purchases come down to me educating myself about what the game offers, and deciding if i want that.

I don't need people to tell me if i will like a game, i know what kind of games i like. Or maybe i don't know, maybe i'm taking a risk. I've discovered a lot of great games by being told they're horrible and then playing them anyways out of morbid curiosity. That's just me though, i understand perfectly why most people wouldn't be willing to risk their time and money like that. Which raises another problem, a lot of the kinds of games i've found that i really like almost never score well with the mainstream critics.

You know, mech games, scrolling shooters. When was the last time you saw review mills gushing over anything like that? Or things that are just creatively and intellectually interesting, but kind of busted in some big ways. Really anything with a barrier of entry that isn't building off of some common established norm. The way reviews are written is inherently contrary to people being able to enjoy games like that.

So how many people out there are avoiding games they would probably really like because they're just taking reviews at face value?

Also, i personally find review scores to be really idiotic and tiring, but... god, people are obsessed with them. I even have to catch myself some times when i'm trying to convince somebody that a game is worth playing to not just drag out the metacritic score or something dumb like that. It's just such easy shorthand, but the things it leads to are really horrendous, both for the industry and the consumer.

I mean, but when you have people arguing about why a 8.5 game is worse than an 8.7 game, and seeing the companies making those games start buying into that, it's just horrendous. (And then if somebody tries to take a stand against that, it gets even worse! I remember when CGW tried to drop review scores, and -everybody- flipped their shit about it. They had to apologize and bring back scores.)

Edited by Sno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I still read reviews. I found them worthwhile if they are able to convey an idea, or represent a feeling that the game may have impressed upon the reviewer.

There are several games I have bought despite bad reviews simply because the reviews described things that seemed appealing.

Without reviews it makes it hard for me to figure out what is out there and what a game is like. Previews and Hands On articles are far worse than reviews as they are always buoyed towards the positive and are often so saccharine that they rot my teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reviews, meh. I enjoy watching Gametrailers despite their formulaic approach, simply because you get to see lots of footage from the game which makes it at least entertaining. But furthermore, whenever there's a game I know I'll play, I will make an effort to avoid reading anything about it, I'll want to know as little as possible. In that sense, reviews are actively avoided.

Idle Thumbs, where have ye gone? I do agree heavily with something they said a few podcasts back, that the podcast format of discussing a game is infinitely more useful, insightful and entertaining than the standard 'graphics, gameplay, bugs, grade' stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sno and Rodi, agreed agreed agreed. I too no longer read reviews, unless one gets pointed out as being particularly entertaining or informative. Like Sno, I'm perfectly capable of gathering information about a game and then deciding for myself whether I'm going to enjoy it. If I'm on the fence I might go to RPS or Eurogamer, the two sites that I trust the most after Gamasutra... and here. I'll probably check here first to see what people have said.

In fact these days my time and money is so restricted that my choosing of a game actually works in reverse of what the market assumes to be the norm. I get a hankering for a particular kind of game experience, then I go and see if that game exists. It's like a food craving.

Rare is the game these days that makes me want to play it right away when I wasn't already looking for that type of thing. Obviously there are exciting things on the horizon but I rarely buy games on release any more because my craving and wallet are unlikely to coincide with launch day.

The articles above are good and informative... but nothing new. I assumed everyone with intelligence and interest had come to the same conclusions years ago. At least if there's a 'storm' then change might finally be on the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not really read reviews for a few years. I became sick of terrible reviews on sites that still manage to command a reasonable reputation.

Nowadays I generally have a reliable gut feeling about games based on the odd video. Occasionally I'll write off a good game as uninteresting but they tend to get back round to me when people care enough to still talk about them a few months later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. I read reviews all the time, but mainly 'cos the journo's themselves are good - i.e. I read them for the pleasure and general interest, rather than to find out if the game is any cop. I simply don't have the time to play every game I'd like to. So that narrows it down to RPS really, and sometimes Gamasutra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, as a writer of reviews, that is utterly depressing. The kind of people I would want to read my shit don't really ever bother.

I guess, by contrast, I play a lot of games. I buy in the region of 60 games a year and I am never sure what I am going to like and what I would be in the mood for, so a well written review can inspire me to pick it up (the 6/10 review for mindjack made me buy it today). Sure, I don't just hop onto IGN and see what gets the top score but well received game can swing me to think about trying it out (Portal 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, see, I like your sentiment. Your take aims for a bullshit-free opinion on a game. It's everyone else whose stuff is, for the most part, completely worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, as a writer of reviews, that is utterly depressing. The kind of people I would want to read my shit don't really ever bother.

If the reviews have interesting things to say, and can speak from a place without a lot of pretense, it's something that would get my attention.

When i say i don't read reviews, i specifically mean that i really hate these institutionalized review mills like IGN and Gamespot, that try to establish a uniform voice for the website. You're kind of left guessing about the conditions for a review, if the writer actually knows what he's saying, or had simply rushed through a review. (Gah!) I much prefer when sites allow their writers to be individuals and speak to their own tastes. I really like what the guys at Giant Bomb have been doing, for example. There's a lot of transparency there, i guess. You get to know those guys, and know what it means when they say something. Even when they do something dumb, it still ends up being more valuable to me as a reader.

Still... Reviews, meh.

I wish there was more intelligent discussion about a game, more people really dissecting these things, instead of just passively evaluating their contents. It's a shame so many developers are so tight-lipped about their games, i would so love to see more post mortem-style features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't ever read the reviews before playing a game, but after I will try to go to Metacritic or Gamerankings to see if there are reviews that feel similar to how I did.

Of course those sites are usually unhelpful because I like to read more thoughtful reviews and it's hard to have just a directory of those only. Half the reviews I click on for almost anything tend to written by bro gamer crowd or are just shallow fluff pieces for publications that have nothing to say.

I do tend to read the Eurogamer reviews almost always. I don't know much about the site and I'm not a European. I also have no idea which mass media corporation runs the site (which is always a put off), so I could be making an error, but the Eurogamer reviews seem pretty down to earth and explanatory in general in ways I can relate. This isn't the case 100% of the time, but I find it a good indicator.

Anyways, I'm going to follow your blog from this point on, Twmac. Not sure why I didn't earlier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of what you said makes sense, standardised reviews are pretty useless. They give you no real understanding of the game itself. I don't really care about whether the Graphics are an 8 etc.

The two sites pointed out (Eurogamer and Giant Bomb) are the best for reviews in that you can generally get a good feel for whether you are going to like the game or not. Destructoid also has its moments but Jim Sterling is taking his online persona too far now and it is resulting in his reviews being a bit predictable (obscure Japanese game = amazing).

Sorry if this has almost felt like a cry for help, but really it was meant as a feeler, in that I am worried that the guys on the site (myself included) are writing for an audience that doesn't exist/has already walked away from it.

Also, does idle thumbs still have its written content available. I remember the Crimson Skies and Chronicles of Riddick review both being ace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game reviews are, as a rule, terrible. There is so much content-free weasel language. Sentences like:

"If you love exploring the universe of [brand X], or if you're a huge fan of [Genre] games, then [Game Name] will probably be enjoyable. Other gamers, however, may not find as much here to appreciate."

Really? If I like x, and game y is x, I will like game y? And if not, I might not? THANK YOU FOR THIS VALUABLE INSIGHT.

There are many things that game writing can or could do that are more interesting than simply enumerating facts about a game and then assigning a number. My favorites include:

1) Experiential - Writing that describes the personal impressions and experiences of the writer. (Beyond the obvious: "This game made me feel like a badass spaceman who killed some cyborgs and saved the galaxy because it is about a badass spaceman who kills cyborgs!" or "This game made me think about Ayn Rand because it is about Ayn Rand.") Things like "This moment of the game made me feel this way. I thought specifically about these other ideas not directly addressed or referenced in the game. Is there a connection between this and this other thing?"

2) Analytical - The kind of thing that could pass as an English term paper. "X represents Y, A is in contrast to B, and one of the major themes is Q." These can get formulaic and pretentious, but if done right, I can tolerate.

3) Historical / Comparative - When done well, these are my favorite, though they are usually terrible. If successful, they put the game in the larger context of gaming and indicate what new ideas are being brought forward and what old ideas are being changed or replaced. Comparing how different survival horror series tackle the problem of generating and sustaining fear, and the effects of various approaches. Or how changes in game mechanics across a series also create narrative or thematic changes. This sort of thing. But these are not even reviews, usually.

In conclusion, I give game reviews a 6 out of 10. If you are a fan of reviews, or really into gaming, then you can have fun with them, but otherwise you might want to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If you love exploring the universe of [brand X], or if you're a huge fan of [Genre] games, then [Game Name] will probably be enjoyable. Other gamers, however, may not find as much here to appreciate."

Haha I hate that, especially when they end with it and then give the game some arbitrary score. Then I'm wondering what the hell perspective they are coming from? The type that likes the said genre or are they reviewing outside of the genre they like? Even then, are they racking off scores or basing their reviews partly on how the game reflects to those that don't play the genre they are referring to?

It's just useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure nobody really likes reviews unless they agree with what you think, some people don't want good games, they want to know (or believe) that the game they bought was a good purchase.

I watch "review shows", but I watch them more for the show than for the reviews... Lately they are more show than review anyway.:shifty:

(obscure Japanese game = amazing)

Are you talking about the Warriors games? Those are far from obscure. :erm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you talking about the Warriors games? Those are far from obscure. :erm:

If anything in particular, i think he was probably referring to Jim Sterling's famously/infamously positive 10/10 review of Deadly Premonition.

Eghhhh... Destructoid is not a website i can stand to read, so much dumb shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything in particular, i think he was probably referring to Jim Sterling's famously/infamously positive 10/10 review of Deadly Premonition.

Eghhhh... Destructoid is not a website i can stand to read, so much dumb shit.

Maybe the game wasn't a 10/10, but it was a bloody good small press underdog.

Didn't Giant Bomb or someone else vouch for it too? I could swear a lot of people were excited about the game back then.:erm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the game wasn't a 10/10, but it was a bloody good small press underdog.

Didn't Giant Bomb or someone else vouch for it too? I could swear a lot of people were excited about the game back then.:erm:

Ohnononono. I'm not saying anything like that, I actually adore Deadly Premonition.

I'm more just generally expressing dislike for Destructoid. Heh. :hah:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reviews, meh. I enjoy watching Gametrailers despite their formulaic approach, simply because you get to see lots of footage from the game which makes it at least entertaining.

Yeah, I watch Gametrailers reviews mainly because they require the least amount of effort. They usually offer a decent list of features as well as strengths and weaknesses of the game – and typically little more. The reviews aren't too spoilerific either, although I'd still avoid reviews for things like Portal 2. Giant Bomb Quick Looks give a good sense how the game actually plays and are occasionally quite entertaining.

Furthermore, I use Metacritic to check if I have missed some hidden gems entirely or if some game has been an obvious disappointment. I can't remember when was the last time I have read a written review before my purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the game wasn't a 10/10, but it was a bloody good small press underdog.

Didn't Giant Bomb or someone else vouch for it too? I could swear a lot of people were excited about the game back then.:erm:

Deadly Premonition was the start of it, I really enjoyed the game and am glad I read the review as it convinced me to try it out. The thing is, I noticed his trend of doing this for anything out of the ordinary (his review of Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom was hyperbolic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now