ObjectiveGameReviews.com - A Subtle Journey of Discovery

[JonCole]

I'd like to tentatively put dibs on Puzzle and Dragons (iOS and Android) and The Witcher: Enhanced Edition (PC), if you all please. I'll write them when 1) I'm done with The Witcher and 2) it's not so cold in my house that I can bear to write more than forum posts.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Weird that the Dropbox link is down. I'll just post the text (WARNING THE FOLLOWING IS TOP SECRET DO NOT DISTRIBUTE HER MAJESTY'S EYES ONLY):
 

A NOTE:

What follows are three things. First, a style guide that lays out the house style. Second, a combined formatting and content guide around which to structure your review - I recommend copying an dpasting section two right into a word processor. Third, I include a few tips that talk about what I've found helpful in terms of writing these reviews.

-------------------------------

STYLE GUIDE:

The reviews should actually be objective (aside from the score).

Describe the player as "the player" and as "they." If the player controls someone, refer to that person/thing as "the player's character" or by that thing's name (eg. "Shepard" for Mass Effect).

Use the word "eponymous" if at all possible.

Aim for an "objective" sounding tone. Write simply and straightforwardly but employ occasional complicated diction and/or erudite vocabulary in order to imply superiority and intelligence. You want to give the impression that this is an exact science.

Jokes are good, particularly for games that aren't very serious or that are overly serious. I've found three kinds of jokes work well: non-sequiturs, like out of nowhere listing a feature of the game (see, for instance, the Thirty Flights of Loving review.); stark presentations of narrative tension or ludo-narrative dissonance (see, for instance, the Mass Effect 3 review); straight-faced presentation of something ludicrously naive (see, for instance, the Battlefield 4 China Rising review [the part about unlocking guns for use in the game]). Obviously if you find other ways to tell a joke, tell a joke.

Exceeding 500 words is ill-advised. Exceeding 750 words is almost unthinkable.

Scoring: no 7s are allowed. Objective Game Reviews follows the deplorable industry standard "7 is average" way of doing things, but we refuse to give out any actual 7s. Aside from that just pick the number between 1 and 10 (in intervals of .5) that you think best represents how good the game is. Obviously this is subjective and mostly dumb, like any number rating for a game, but them's the breaks. If feeling unsure, skew towards Metacritic and skew a little high, in that order.

Provide a screenshot that is (ideally) 1037x576 pixels or larger. If you can't get a screenshot, let me know. Good screenshots are either representative shots of the game (they show gameplay, ideally in a pretty location) or funny/weird in some way.

-------------------------------

FORMAT GUIDE AND CONTENT GUIDE:

Genre | [Go by the genres listed at the top of the website - if a genre you need is not listed, let me know]
Developer | [duh]
Platforms | [go by the platforms listed at the left of the website - if there is platform you need that is not listed, let me know]

First paragraph: sum the game up in a few sentences in a simultaneously bland and poignant manner. Capture the true essence of the game without sounding like you are doing anything other than summarizing it. The goal is to be brutal or beautiful by virtue of being so concise. Strike right at the heart of what makes this game the game that it is, or get as close to this as you can in one paragraph.

[insert Jump]

Second paragraph: list boring objective information: what perspective is the game played from (first person, third person, isometric, whatever), how many guns are there, how many levels are there, what are the character classes, how many spells are there, how many party members can you sleep with, whatever. Numbers for numbers' sake. This is a good place for jokes. FAQs and unofficial Wikis can be helpful if the game's manual is not forthcoming.

Third paragraph: this is a good place to introduce or elaborate on a mechanic or multiple mechanics that make the game interesting or unique or fun or terrible. Whatever makes you think the way you think about the game, write that thing here. Alternatively address the narrative or the setting or something similar, if the game is more about than than the mechanics.

Fourth paragraph: describe the music, graphics, the sound, setting, etc. Try to make this sound interesting if possible.

Fifth paragraph: maybe about something weird or unique or fun the game does that seems somewhat out of place in an objective review - describe something touching or disturbing without mentioning that it is touching or disturbing, for instance. Alternatively do something like what you did in the third paragraph, this time about a different mechanic or story point or something. Ending on a non-sequitur here is sometimes good for a joke.

------------------------------

TIPS AND TRICKS FROM MOUNTAIN DEW CODE RED

The way I think about it is this. First, imagine what review you would write if you were writing a real review. What makes you excited about this game? What does this game do that's new or interesting or fun or innovative? Where does this game fail in ways that need criticism? Why bother playing this game, or not playing this game?

Then, once you've got that in your head, figure out what things in the game caused you to feel this way, as in, what bare-bones objective features of the game were responsible for making you conceive of the review you conceived of?

Take those features and write them down. You're effectively thinking up a whole review and writing down half of it.

Finally, pad it out with a list of objective stuff, like how many levels and guns are in the game and so on.

Make it as entertaining to read as you can, or at the very least, make it a good piece of criticism absent the part where you say what you think (that is, proviont). A good way of putting it is this:

Here is the Rock Paper Shotgun article on Actual Sunlight. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/11/thoughts-on-actual-sunlight/

Here is the objective review. http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/actual-sunlight-review/

Both mention that the game contains a note to the player telling them not to kill themselves after having played the game. The Rock Paper Shotgun article makes a big deal about this, includes contact information for suicide hotlines at the bottom, and so forth. The objective review just notes that the game is serious about this.

They're both making the same point: this game is moving enough to make people literally consider suicide. The difference is that RPS out and out says it and then talks about how this is an example of how great the game is, whereas the objctive review can only imply that this is actually an impressive thing about the game.

I'm better at telling people how I think they should be writing these things than writing them myself, but this means the archives of the site are full of reviews that work and reviews that don't, so my last tip is to suggest reading some of the reviews to get a feel for it.

 

 

 

 

 

[clyde]

Saw something you might appreciate TychoCelchuuu.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/05/live-free-play-hard-porpentines-top-10-of-2013/

[TychoCelchuuu]

Hah yes, I saw that and was going to post about it here but I forgot. Porpentine favorited the tweet about the review of her game, I think, so she's definitely seen the site.

[Merus]

I can write you that Minecraft review, and I am also getting a 404 error.

 

It would be sort of great for two people to collaborate on a review, and then post them separately but with the sentences in a different order.

[TychoCelchuuu]

As noted slightly above I pasted the contents of that document into this thread, so disregard the 404.

[jmbossy]

"Scoring: no 7s are allowed."

 

I cried with laughter when reading this bit.

 

 

I can't guarantee I'll write anything worth note; but I'm unemployed and don't go to school... So chances are I'll write something.

[SilentBtAmazing]

I just wanted to say good luck and I love the site. Also really enjoyed the how-to above. Lulz at trying to make the music paragraph interesting if possible. I wonder if there are in-jokes to be had in some of this formatting, like to highlight if the music includes percussion instruments (or whatever)

[Erkki]

top secret but quite googleable https://www.google.ee/#q=objective+game+reviews+style+guide

 

[edit] seems like a great style guide. I'll try writing something today evening just to see if I can even do it

[TychoCelchuuu]

Well yeah, if you know the keywords.

[Hermie]

The guidelines inspired me, so I'm gonna try to put to getter a Zelda: Link between Worlds this weekend.

 

As far as the attribution goes, I think it's funnier when there's no name attached. It leads credence to the idea that it's a scientific process. Maybe make sure to not call anyone "writer" or "reviewer", but rather "evaluator", "observer" or "tester"?

[Professor Video Games]

Scoring...Obviously this is subjective

 

WHAT THE FUCK

[SecretAsianMan]

I'd love to contribute, but I'm probably not qualified because a) I'm a terrible writer and 2) I don't have enough time to play games and write about them.

[Lu]

Like Hermie, I too would find it funnier if there's no name attached to the reviews.

[Roderick]

This is you now, TychoC!

[Erkki]

Like Hermie, I too would find it funnier if there's no name attached to the reviews.

Yeah, me too

[osmosisch]

I'd love to take on the Dishonored review. I'll try to get one sent in tonight.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Although I can understand thinking that the reviews are funnier with no name, and although I'll give contributors the option of contributing anonymously or just adding credits in alt text on the page (so that it doesn't show up), there's no way I would ever ask someone to write for a website with ads on it then tell them they can't put their name on the copy. I already feel bad having people write for free.

[Ben X]

Could you as a compromise have a separate credits page with all reviewers listed, but without attributing specific reviews so as to keep the hive-mind objective feel?

[clyde]

You could make the score objective. Objective doesn't mean relevant. Maybe just total up the vowels and use a base-10 system. Or just use the last digit of it's file size.

[jmbossy]

I kind of like the idea of having 0 rational for the score. It keeps people guessing about the system the site uses.

[SecretAsianMan]

I think the scores should try to be assigned so that the average of the scores on the site is as close to 7 as possible (without any 7s actually being given) thus maintaining the objective notion that 7 is average.

[Apelsin]

Tachyon The Fringe

 

Hooo... I wonder if I still have the game disc somewhere

[elmuerte]

HA! I knew it! I said it! It's all subjective

[TychoCelchuuu]

Could you as a compromise have a separate credits page with all reviewers listed, but without attributing specific reviews so as to keep the hive-mind objective feel?

That's a good idea, although I think with the way the site design works, it won't really mess with the hive mind feel too much to include the author's credits directly on the review. I'll think about it.