I write about games for a living and i've done my fair share of reviews.
the thing Jim brought up about the rush to be on metacritic first isn't really true with smaller sites, like the few i write for.
i try to take my time with a game and play it as I would normally if I'd have just bought it.
yes, our review gets out later than everyone elses but it's a better, more honest review than those that have rushed to get on top

The problem with reviews is "the checklist." Does a game have multiplayer? Is it online? What kind of story is going on here? Is there innovation? Is there also cocks? Are their graphical issues? Does the camera get me killed? Do the controls work when I push my buttons? Is this game challenging? And whatever else you want to add to the list.

If I was to consider a game for a review, I'd rather NOT give it a numerical score. What makes one game great will make another one be scene as derivative and stale. What determines what nocks a point off or adds a point on? Why isn't this written out somewhere for everyone to see.

Another thing that bothers me: Storylines shouldn't factor into a game review. Basic premise and characters are ALL a reviewer should consider, unless a game has a really good story or a really awful one. If its just there it shouldn't knock a game or put its score up. Some games feature story throughout and shouldn't. I end up skipping cutscenes in games where the story bores me, but I still can find SOME fun to have with a game. Only a handful of games I'll play for their storylines, most of the time: I just want to play video games.

I also think a reviewer should say how much time they spent with the game and certainly how far they made it into the game. Some games don't get really memorable until there are the would you kindly revelation moment. I get the feeling with role playing games, they never sink the time into finishing all the sidequests and sometimes even the main story. Its hard to figure out a way to review a story other than good or bad; "I liked it," "Well I didn't." Another concern that some people have is spoilers. A video review for Persona 3's special edition gave away the ending. Seriously go take a look if you want to see for yourself. They spoil it like they were daddy warbucks! I wanted to play the game, but knowing how it ends now changes that experience. Since ya know, a role playing game like Persona 3 is generally focused on story you would think they wouldn't talk about the ending without at least saying "we might talk about the ending, just a heads up." Some courtesy and professional is appreciated.

An image to break up paragraphs as I keep going on and on.

I hate reviews. I'd rather just read some "professional" thoughts and opinions without a score. Point out some of the faults, but try to stay within the lines of constructive criticism. One thing destructoid does that I like is the rent it or buy it recommendation system. I like that over a traditional score. Its an easy message that is quick to deliver and is appreciated. Also I think just hitting the basic gamepro five for every game isn't going to work. That is fun factor, story, graphics, audio, and control. Those are things to consider, but shouldn't be the same template over and over again. Please don't write six paragraphs, everyone feels like typing TL;DR. I generally skim reviews, so if you could highlight stuff for the lazy (and face it most of us gamers are lazy) that would be appreciated. Just keep this stuff in mind and you too could be a decent game reviewer. I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak from my own experiences and thoughts. I for one, don't like how reviews are done for games. I see no real alternative, but I thought I would offer some opinions.

I might comment further if I feel the need to do so.

One final thought -

I want to know whose reviewing games. I don't mean talk to them or hang out. I want to know their credentials. Do they have a journalism degree? Have they been playing games since the days of Duck Hunt/Mario Bros? Were they Sega or Snes supporters back in the 16-bit wars? What kind of collection of games do they own? How much money do they actually make talking about games? Did they research the game on Wikipedia or the flash official game websites? Does that money come from advertisers for the products they are reviewing? Do they care what randombullseye or other non-staff gamers have to say? What kind of games do they enjoy playing? What kind of games do they personally detest? Would they rather have games with continues or hide-and-heal gameplay? And whatever else you want to add to the list.

I think randombullseye's got a lot of great thoughts there. I'll just say this to his post: while to you the presence in a review of the game's story is incidental unless explicitly noteworthy; I'm the exact opposite for me and I wish for even more focus on the game's story in almost all the reviews I read. And that's not a case of either of us being right or wrong; it's just personal taste.

I think that's what few realize about critics. Everyone's looking at every single critic and trying to divine whether or not they're trustworthy, scrutinizing reviews looking for some damning evidence of collusion. But it's either a case of "they did their job so well there's no way to prove it" or "no one really cares anyway." Gamespot's still around, Eidos hasn't been sued, and they're all feeling lucky that no one caught on to the several hundred other instances of the enthusiast press skewing numbers and sacrificing credibility to keep healthy relationships with the industries they cover.

I feel the only way to establish trust in any reviewer is to compare your own experiences with theirs and see if they match up. It takes time and it's easier on one's self to just read 10 reviews of one game then read many reviews of tons of games in order to find that one critic or one site who's not only untainted but also similar enough to yourself to be worth listening to. I think, if anything, the community here is lucky to have a group of very outgoing individuals who aren't afraid to make their personalities known and who stand by their work.

As always..interesting is Destructoid Discusses..

I may have to do a proper response in a post.

I've said plenty on this subject on my blog already, etc. So to avoid repeating myself.. I hope any or all indie dev's can get PR and QA (Qual.Assurance) or play testing help when releasing a game.

Otherwise, I worry that gamers and consumers may not trust indie productions after getting too burned. Basically, I really only have 2 other things to say on this..

A) I'm willing to occasionally stick my neck out for Space Giraffe and any indie production I've played and liked alot.

I still feel it is a good game for $5, I think his average of reviews on metacritic still reflect that. But, regardless of price, as long as a gamer can try any game demo first, that is fair enough to help decide if they should get it or not.

B) With that said.. I'm not willing to do anything for EC at this time. At last check (a few minutes ago) his demo that he said should be available to everyone Monday, (Aug. 4th) was & is still not up on Steam at this time, (Aug. 6th).

Therefore, I still have nothing to demo or try or play and see for myself unless I buy it. Now that it's Wed. morning and he said the demo would be up by now.. Well, personally, too late for me to keep caring.

All I know now is I think the low score was justified.. That low, tho'? I don't have any way to tell or defend something I can't even playtest or demo.

I'm an indie game developer also, so, in some ways, take a grain of salt with my words if you like since many indie dev's (as much as I'm a fan or not) are still my competition! But, I'm always willing to lend a hand or some advice if and whenever I'm asked.

Oh, and I owe Topher a slurpee.. My DToid header keeps reminding me. ;D

@bhive01

What about GameRankings? I'm pretty sure I've seen links to reviews on there that didn't have scores.

Or do all the cool kids go to Metacritic now?

Scores suck, but what can you do? I beleive in reading the full review, and getting a summary in which the reviewer says either skip it, rent it, or buy it.

It's sad these days that every game has to have a score. However, in the rare occasions that I write a review in the cblogs, I rate it on a scale of 1-10 winged-unicorn-bear-knights, because who is to say what is the actual worth of one winged-unicorn-bear-knight? Do you take it at face value and assume it's the regular scale? Do they convert to a regular scale in some complex math equation? If you don't like the score it gets, can you really criticize it when you don't know for sure how much one is worth?

The solution, obviously, is to have the entire industry switch over to completely arbitrary rating systems.

All games can't be good, we all know that. I have got nothing, I am just bored

@ randombullseye:

"I want to know whose reviewing games. I don't mean talk to them or hang out. I want to know their credentials. et, al."

I like what you said in that paragraph a lot.

@ beehive:

"Back when Dtoid was trying to figure out how to go about reviewing games, a lot of people along with myself suggested a scoreless review system. This didn't happen because metacritic required numbers in order to be listed and thereby bringing people to the site. "

Nope. Close, but the number scores stayed because of a Bob Puma. Stared me dead in the face and said "the 1-10 scale will never go away." Now, the reason is metacritic, but when Play and EGM dropped the 1-10, my soul had a hearty belly laugh at his expense.


@RJG:

"Reading the review, you would know the game isn't much fun unless you're masochistic, but how are you supposed to reconcile fun and technical excellence with a single review score? "

I'm of the opinion that if it isn't fun, then it isn't good. These are games, and if they break tech boundaries, great, but they still need to be fun. They still need to be games.

Some games can have their enjoyment ruined by bad tech, such as crappy camera or bad AI. That would take away the fun and, I assume, lower the score. Fun, of course, is subjective, and that needs to be factored into the review. But if you've been playing games long enough -- as somewhat suggested by randonbullseye -- than you should have a well versed history of what type of game mechanics work, and what ones don't.

It's called being objective. 99% of reviewers content is about how much they liked or didn't like the game. They then use specific examples of game play-music-AI-whatever to support their opinion of how they felt of the game.

To me, this is not a review. I don't need to know whether or not you liked it, I need to know whether or not I will like it. This should be the mission of every reviewer. Know who the game is being made for, then use your breadth of gaming knowledge to inform the reader, the person looking for info on the game, whether or not their interest is justified.

I don't need to write a multi-paragraph article telling me whether or not I liked the game I just played. I need to write one telling you if you will.

To use Madden as an example: I would never give any Madden game the time of day in my life. But those games aren't made for me. I can tell you I'd give 'em all zeros, but that certainly doesn't do any service to the fans of the series, does it? SO if I were to have to review the game, then I'd have to take into account who the audience is and whatnot. After that, then maybe I would give it a more accurate score.

Who know, but that's the weird crux of a review. There's no way to keep your own opinions out, but you kind of have to. But again, you kind of don't, and I think that's where yo got muddled in your Ninja review.

"Can I recommend a technically perfect game, that also happens to be not fun for me to play?" Tough call, but I think that you answered your own question in the text of your review the only that it could have been answered.

Reviews = Serious Mindfuck

I know, it's the new thing. Articles within articles = Ninja articles!