Is There Something Wrong with Video Game Reviews?

unclethursday writes "GamesAreFun.com has a new editorial about what the Editor in Chief feels is wrong with video game reviews, GamesAreFun's included. The editorial touches on the importance of scores to people, the importance of getting the first review out there, the problem with trying to review online parts of a game before the game is released into the wild, reviewing games in a series, the expectations from reviews about overly hyped games, and review length."

Comments

Not that it'll ever work for major sites...

[jvmatthe]

...but I am more comfortable with the progression I've used on my own site:

1. First impressions - After an hour or two with the game, putting down just what things are like early on, and useful for comparison when I'm finished with a game.
2. Updated impressions - After several days with a game, revising anything from the first impressions, and starting to really get into the things that are working and the things that aren't.
3. Review/Final impressions - If I finish a game, I write a review that summarizes all previous writings and gives a plain English summary of my opinion. No score is assigned, since that seems pointless to me.

   On the other hand, if I decide a game's not worth finishing, I just put up some final impressions and a summary of why the game wasn't worth my time to finish.

To really see how I feel about a game, you'll generally want to read all the parts, and I've tried to keep them as brief as I can. I try not a give laundry lists of features, but instead focus on the experience of playing, story, and quality of the gameplay (e.g. is it fun driving game, does this particular fps work with a console controller, is that puzzle game addictive, etc.) I will also knock a game for crappy production values, load times, and other annoyances that we shouldn't have to deal with anymore.

The real down side is that I often won't finish writing about a game until several weeks after it's been released, if not months later. They're not always timely, that's for sure.

If a real publication did something like this, I'd be impressed and more likely to read it regularly.

Here's an example with Ace Combat 04: First impressions, Updated impressions, and Final review. The game is old (it was an early PS2 title), the total process took from 10 March to 6 May 2004.

Use www.gamefaqs.com for reviews

[DarkAdonis]

I don't purchase games based on the major website reviews or reviews from any magzine publications. I use www.gamefaqs.com. Nearly every game on that site has a review section where members submit reviews.

A week or two after a game's release, I can get a pretty good distribution of reviews on a 10-point scale. If 90% of the reviewers give the game an 8, 9, or 10, I can usually assume the game is quality.

However, such high scores can be a result of fanboy-ism...which is why I don't read more than two 10/10 reviews. I usually read, a 9/10, a few 7/10 or 8/10 and a few If I deem a game worthy of my consideration, I'll visit sources to obtain a free trial and I'll buy the game if it's good.