[Editor's note: Y0j1mb0 wrote up this timely piece about videogame reviews. -- CTZ]
There has been a whole lot of hoopla about game reviews lately. To the point that if you were to actually internalize how unbelievably obsessed some people are pertaining to reviews, you would think the topic would be just as an important factor in their lives as breathing air or the well being of a loved family member. People tend to forget what reviews really are half the time: the opinions of a set person who's job it is to play a game before you do, run it through it's course, and offer you a personal overview of their experiences through the pros and cons structure to better inform you whether it's worthy of your attention and money.
As a gamer and a consumer, I read reviews to be better informed before I lay my money down and purchase a game I would regret. The review should be a good look at the entire game so people won’t regret getting the game should they believe in the review. Yet there's an inherent problem with that. You have to take a leap of faith whether to trust the game reviewer's final sentence. It's an unspoken agreement that you subconsciously sign with said reviewer before or during the reading of his review and must take place in order for it to work the way it's intended to.
By the same token, the game reviewer in question must be as sincere as possible with his review. Notice that I didn't say he can't be biased because, as human beings, we are all biased about one thing over the other. All that should be required of a game reviewer is sincerity and to be consistent in his profession, regardless of who made the game. Be it a small indie developer/publisher or a giant in the field. Once that has been established and that unison or meeting of the minds has been met, which typically takes a few reviews under their belt, everything should be smooth sailing for all involved.
After all, game reviews should be about one thing and one thing only: The gamer. It should be about informing gamers of whatever new game that comes down the pike. There's the added benefit of a useful tool to the game developer as well, should he accept the critique of the reviewer to better his game by implementing changes or fixing things for future iterations of the game. So far so good. Unfortunately here's where the whole review thing breaks down for me and I get off the bus.
It's hard to find sincere, consistently honest reviewers. It's like finding a needle in a haystack because for the most part, almost everybody out there reviewing games forgets what the fuck they are supposed to be doing. It's about us gamers, remember? Instead, we are treated to these people who snag exclusive reviews with publishers/developers that I can never trust, hobnobbing with developers, receiving free game related swag, getting free copies of games for review (Personally, this practice of having a free review copy of the game makes me question their validity as I would put more stock in what they said if they had to purchase the game), and of course, their underlying requirement to procure more page views/hits on their sites, which in turn creates a race to see which reviewer can differentiate themselves more from the others through their spewing of hate mongering and attempts at humor to garner more attention from us gamers.
I'm all about being entertained in a blog or a post, but I want my reviews to be about the game in question. Not how witty, comical, or hard you can come across with the written word.
Reviews are serious business and a lot of reviewers forget how much power they actually yield. It's amazing how what they write can affect a legion of people from purchasing a game. That's why you see nowadays instant rebuttals from game developers/publishers. This is lost revenue here and for the parties involved it's like a bleeding wound that needs a tourniquet ASAP. Some reviewers have too much power and are just full of themselves. Ever read a review where they talked more about themselves then the game in question? Or one where it's a rip roaring good read but when you think about it, they didn't mention all there was to the game?
I'm a feature fanatic. I want to know everything about a game: single player, multiplayer modes, how is the actual online play, does it lag, does it feature remote play, custom soundtracks, achievements, trophies, you name it. I want to know about it. That sounds selfish, I know, but that's what I'm looking for.
It pisses me off to no end when I read a review and they miss a feature about it. That one feature may be the tipping point for someone to get the game. It's like going to a Gamestop, looking through their used games and seeing that the games are priced wrong. The five dollars extra that the game costs makes you put it back on the shelf, but in actuality, it was the price range that would of made you get it. Or worse still, it's not even priced. That's laziness in my mind's eye of a company that doesn't want to put the extra effort to get my money. The same goes with reviewers who don't want me to take them seriously with their laziness.
Don't even get me started with reviewers who will bring swift and utter judgment with extreme prejudice on smaller indie developed games but when the next football or sport game from a giant developer chucks it's next yearly update of the franchise full of bugs and whatnot, miraculously their fine toothed comb they used to rake the last game is lost completely as they pull out a blow dryer and inflate their score. Again, it's about sincerity and consistency.
This isn't a crying fit about a review I disagree with here in Destructoid. I tend to think that we have the best reviewers in the business. It just seems to me most reviewers are injecting a more personal slant to the proceedings at hand. I personally don't want reviewers to be wrapped up in this developer/game sucks or that publisher is garbage drama. I can get that from the comments of the Neanderthals that respond in a moronic way to the review at hand because they disagree with it, which again, isn't the point. Game reviewers should be above that fray. If reviews are done right, you know if it's not worth your time or not. I read good reviews all the time here, whether I agree or disagree with the point of view.
Unfortunately some game reviewers think we want more than a review about the game to hold our interests.
Contest:
3:20 PM on 08.07.2008
| 
What a fake ass punk.
Interesting read Jimbo.
Trust is a very important thing and people seem to give it away to easily to game reviewers. I don't think trust should come over night either. It should take months, if not years. I have been reading game reviews for over 15 years and there is a very very small group that I trust.
To be honest I have only been reading Destructoid reviews for about 6 months now and I am not up to the level of trusting them yet. That doesn't mean I won't eventually, but like I said my trust doesn't come over night. I personally look forward to the day I trust a Destructoid review without hesitation.
Anyways ... good read Yojimbo.
Like GTA4. I think Jim's review was great.
and Destructoid reviews.
If I'd have to review this blog I'd give it a 8/10. Needs more pics and the jump button doesn't work. Nice read Jimbo.
I enjoy reading reviews and getting other people's opinions but when it comes down to it only one opinion matters, mine. Some games get piss poor ratings and I love em, others get 11/10 and I think that the games blows hard.
I try out many games and watch many movies as I can never and will never rely on someone elses opinions without truely getting my feet wet. People who freak out becuase others dont agree with their tastes are pretty much handicapped.
[insert moronic neanderthal comment here]
[[You did make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, my friend!]]
Also, I agree and good read.
It has always been about empirical evidence for me, but I will confess that reading people who have similar tastes get hyped about a game will tend to make me more hyped about a game.
The problem is really finding a person with established patterns that consistently match your preferences.
that is all.
someone on something awful did a beautiful satire piece on self indulgent reviewers 3 or 4 years back.
i find that a jaded reviewer can also be misleading. for example, the first thing that comes to mind is rev's review for twilight princess, but im only mentioning that because i just read that the other day after hearing it was 'legendary'. so it looks like he didnt have too much fun with that game. but if u had never played a zelda, or only played a single zelda before it (perhaps not OOT), you might think it was the best thing ever. u could really say that same for mario party :P
anyway reading ur blog has stirred up all these ideas in my head and i might save them for my own blog... :)
:)
It would be great if most reviews were in depth concerning every feature a game could possibly have, since as you mention one feature can be the one thing to tide a customer over. But I don't see how a review can fit that without becoming a checklist, and at the same time provide a personal opinion that can be related to, thus becoming an extended essay.
Online journalism usually needs to cut to the point, similar to magazines, otherwise you can't keep a reader's attention (I don't mean to generalize). And isn't that what most of these "critiques" are about? Bringing in page views.
"you have to take a leap of faith whether to trust game reviewers final sentence". I think this is the thing that people forget. If you choose to purchase a game (or CD, or book or whatever) because of a review, then you are taking a leap of faith but in the end, you have to be the one that accepts responsibility for your purchase. I'm kinda tired reading comments like "I bought this game because it had good reviews and it sucks. The reviewers are all full of shit etc etc". A bad review can lead to an unwise purchase, but I find if you read a selection of reviews and really read them, then you'll rarely go wrong.
'nother good read man.
Grow a beard again Jimbo, seriously.
I totally agree! I loved Dark Sector, yeah it may had not done too many innovations but it sure as hell was a fun game to play through.
My view is that anyone can tell you what's in a game, and nobody can really tell you for sure how much you'll like a game - but a reviewer can at least give a hint as to what playing the game is -like-, which is a slightly different skill.
What confuses me about game reviews, and where the reviewers are often less clear, is what a particular title is judged against. Are reviewers rating games against a fixed scale, or is it a sliding scale depending on the title involved? In other words, does a simple well done puzzler get compared to other puzzlers, or all games in general. This is an issue with any medium I suppose.
They're like assholes: everyone's got one, they all stink, and some people have an unusual fixation on them.
Like you said, it's all about trust. Dtoid and PA are the only sites that don't make me feel like a sucker, so that's where my trust goes.
However, say I'm "borderline" on purchasing a game. I'll look at a few reviews of it and see if they sway me in one direction or the other. It happened recently with Braid, it looked interesting, I read some things on it, here on Dtoid as well, and decided to grab it. I was not disappointed, its great so far, but there was always a chance I might not have liked it either.
I think some people take the reviews more seriously than they should be taken. Maybe thats a reason companies try to "woo" reviewers to give their game an inflated score in order to sell more copies because some people take the review so seriously.
i don't really know anymore about magazines seeing as I don't have a real permanent address except home and receive stuff once in a while, so things might have changed on the magazine front.
Consistency has to be the biggest point. it's hard to gauge somebody's real opinion on a game if they can't spell it out with simple language and actually make a decision rather than leaving it to the score to be precise and not the writer. i hate reading a review then looking at a score and seeing a conflict of interest.
However, I've had enough bad buys in my life to know a little about what's gonna be a sure thing or not. Reviews are helpful, but I don't rely on them as much as I did in the past. it really feels like somebody who relies on solely reviews is going to have a rough rode ahead, but don't we all at some point reach a moment when we know who to trust and who's just feeding garbage?
All the families who go in blind either get eaten alive or wash their hands completely, it seems. That's a natural thing to happen in almost any industry, especially for games.
The industry just wants a fighting chance. They've overreacted, but movies, books, and bands get the same crap. I feel like a lot of this is just a butting of heads and sometimes it just gets a little more heated.
I do feel that it's brave for Dtoid to try to get its own voice in on reviews and this isn't something to be squelched. I like this site for its news, but I don't mind getting to actually hear their opinion on games.
Well, that was a lot to say in such small type.
And so true! I'm glad the reviews here at dtoid are trustworthy and sincere :-)
Your pieces are well written, start writing game reviews.
Again good work man.
I completely agree with what you had to say. I've been trying to write reviews for games and I find the easiest way to do it is to write it up like you would be explaining it to one of your friends. Keep it easy to read and focused on the game being reviewed. It bugs me when people bring out the huge words that I need a thesaurus just to understand.
The problem I have with being too detailed in the review is where to stop. In Rainbow Six:Vegas 2 do you really need to know how many maps there are or can you just say that there is a "wide selection to choose from"? Or how much money it takes to completely pimp out a gun in Army of Two? Clearly that would be too much but like you said, some people want to know.