Game Reviews Not Stuck In Pac Man Era?

Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' column discussing critics who say videogame reviewing is still much too basic an art. Quoting a subscriber-only Wall Street Journal article with similar comments to a recent Slashdot story, the author warns against overly conceptual game reviews: "Look at it this way: Would you prefer for me to wistfully tell you how Final Fantasy XI made me feel, or would you prefer for me to tell you how it works, what about it works well, and what about it doesn't work well?" And, although he thinks the WSJ piece has many good points, he takes issue with comparisons between game reviewing and film reviewing: "When was the last time you decided to see a movie based on a movie review? Film critics write to each other."

Comments

I use film reviews and game reviews...

[JMZero]

..all the time. In either case, you have to find a specific reviewer that enjoys the same kind of things you do. Once you do, you can avoid a lot of crud you wouldn't like, and find stuff you may have otherwise missed.

Right now, there's game reviewers that talk about the things important to me. The WSJ guy may be interested in other stuff about games, or discussion from other angles. I can see that, but it's silly to pretend that this different coverage he wants would be better across the board.

Similarly, I'm happy with Ebert for film. Others may want more esoteric information or deeper analysis than Ebert provides. Or more shallow. But that doesn't mean that Ebert is somehow wrong - he gives many people (including me) precisely the information they want about a picture.

If you look beyond the mainstream, there's plenty of different review sources for games out there - just as there are for film. You can't review criticism based just on the Eberts of the world. To do so is just lazy.

Simple Philosophy for Game Reviewing

[MBraynard]

I use to write game reviews for the now defunt Well Rounded. It was very challenging to write for some games, especially games that I didn't like, but keeping a simple philosophy in mind was a lighthouse that helped guide me.

Specifically, the purpose of a game review is to allow the reader to determine whether or not to plunk down ~$50 for it. If games were free, there would be no need for reviews - people could try them out and keep or discard them at whim. But since $50 is real money to most people (and EB Games is cracking down on it's generous return policy), folks need to be careful not to spend their money on something they wouldn't enjoy.

And there's one other thing I kept in mind: there are games that some people will enjoy but others will dislike, and a review should be of use to both people. In other words, the same review must both clue-in people who will enjoy the game and ward off those who will not.