Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is There Something Wrong with Video Game Reviews?

Posted by Zonk on from the they're-time-consuming dept.

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."

5 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. What about ad revenue? by dasunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is also the problem of reviewers depending on the money of the companies they review for income...

    That is a biggie, IMHO.

    1. Re:What about ad revenue? by Mitleid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I completely agree. There is a LOT wrong with video game reviews, and it seems to revolve completely around money.

      The worst offender lately, as far as I'm concerned, would have to be Game Informer, though I read that magazine all the time. Only the WORST games they give a poor review, and most of the time those games are by publishers and developers that don't have much credibility (read:cashflow) anyway. The loopholes in their review system, as well as many other review sites/magazines, show if you actually read the review. While they might give a game a number rating of 7 or 8, if you actually read the review text maybe 50% of the written review criticizes the weak points of the game. Now I understand even the best games aren't flawless, but if you're taking half of the time to criticize what's wrong with the game, then that should automatically be like a 5 or 6. It's even worse though, when a reviewer IGNORES ALTOGETHER the poor aspects of a game when they are blatantly there or played it in an environment that is optimized to specifically cater to a particular game.

      Case in point, Half-Life 2. It's my understanding that in order to get reviews of the game out in a timely manner, the reviewers had to play the game in the Valve offices. Which means they didn't have to deal with Steam downloads, authentication or the verification system each time they wanted to play. Even more skewing is the fact that they most likely played the game on systems that the game might have been specifically designed for, thus robbing the whole "average gamer" aspect from their review; they might not have had to deal with a minimum requirement system OR possible unrealiabilites with the Steam servers.

      So, sadly, you really can't trust any reviewer these days, and this will probably only get worse as the industry continues to grow. With game review publishers getting more and more money from hardware manufacturers, game developers/publishers, and game culture companies it's going to become VERY hard to get away with saying anything bad about your financial contributors. It's a Catch-22 though, really, because the groups that are willing to give the most advertising dollar to game reviewers are the ones that are going to raise the biggest stink about harsh reviews. Hopefully the industry might grow in a manner where companies who have little invested in game reviews can market towards gamers in magazines and on websites so that reviewers no longer have to worry about pleasing the greater majority of the ones paying their bills, but who knows...

      --

      --
      Is it me, or did it just get fatter in here?
  2. Ranting... by Moo+Moo+Cow+of+Death · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is nothing mind boggling or new that he's stating here. In fact, most of what he's saying comes across far more as a whiner or an english prof. than an actual analysis of game reviewing.

    I've found multiple instances where it seems he's either contradicting himself or carrying on some strange arguement inside his own head and translating the results onto paper. He also makes some GRAND assumptions that gamers rely off of reviews to buy games even though they already know about the game itself. Personally, I don't rely on a goddamn thing other than my own opinion for the basis of my like/dislike of a game. The only reason these days to read a review is to find out more about specific features not found on the side of the box or areas of the game that play poorly or I dislike, NOT that the reviewer likes or dislikes...ME.

    He also mentions that scores are a bad idea, but then goes back and says (in no certain terms) that we should all adopt a single system of rating, which is all fine and dandy but unfortunately, not realistic in the slightest, since some people want to split their games up like slices of pie (5 pieces) and others like pizza (10+ slices). Along with this he also mentions that for some reason, people seem to be CONFUSED about these different ratings (or at least he is). I could CARE LESS what numbering system people use, personally, I can count from 1 to 5 or 1 to 100 and I also know that 5 is a greater number than 1 and 100 is a greater number than 1. This to me, means that a higher score is better, despite minor differences, this is pretty clear, even between such devious numbers as 89 and 98 which seems to perplex him.

    Despite all the stuff he's written, I believe he doesn't really take the gamer perspective into view at all. Which is that gamers KNOW what they like, reviews don't need to be scrutinized to the point of obscruity, because they may help or hinder, but only because they show DEFINITE SIGNS of what people ALREADY WANT. Let me show you an example...
    World of Warcraft:
    WoW did well, that's a no contest. Reviews were also good for WoW. Did this corelate?

    WoW did not introduce anything extremely new or groundbreaking but followed the formulas of other RPGs and did everything RIGHT. Reviewers stated this, and that is pretty much all people need. If a reviewer stated horribly bad things about WoW, they'd probably be stating OPINION rather than fact, which is pretty much all reviewer readers look for. Therefore, if the viewer read a bad review, they could usually tell that the reviewer was using opinion and not fact.

    In the end, reviews are simply not needed to undergo the reformat and scrutiny he desires because people simply DONT CARE how they're formated, as long as they get the facts across in a clear concise fashion. Possibly the only thing I would agree with, is that reviewers need to figure out a way to not rely on money from companies who make the same games they review, it obviously creates a flawed view on things.

    /end rant

  3. Re:The most difficult part of reviews by Monohielo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    For me, the most informative reviews are not ones that take a generic approach to a review and compare it against other games in the genre but those in which the reviewer personally states his likes and dislikes often and mentions the particulars that made the game special (or not so special) to them.

    I'd say that's one of the biggest reasons that Tycho and Gabe are so respected. I know that Tycho likes computer games of the strategy variety and Gabe prefers action packed consoles, and so when I read their opinion of a game, I take into account the reviewer and compare their personal likes to mine. Generally, I like games that Tycho recommends, and know that if Gabe really enjoys a game, it's probably not going to be my cup of tea.

    The best thing that a review site can do is provide an easily accessible background on each of the reviewers, containing the genres they like and mention specific games which they have liked and disliked. Also, provide and easy way of identifying particular reviewers, such as the picture icons PA uses. Eventually, people will figure out what reviewers they agree with and trust.

  4. Too much hype... by wolf31o2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What gets me is that most game reviews read more like an infomercial than an actual review. There are usually too many references to how much ass something kicks or how completely cool some stupid eye-candy effect is compared to some other game's stupid eye-candy effect.

    Hype and anticipation should have no part in a game review. It doesn't matter if the game has been anticipated for years or it is an unknown that just came to market, it should be reviewed equally.

    It seems that there are no real metrics for doing a game review that can be accepted. After all, shouldn't the results be reproducable? How do you review things like playability or replayability? What if the game doesn't deliver everything that was promised at release time? What if the game won't run on half of the gaming hardware out there? What if a game doesn't run quite as fast as a competitor on the same hardware but is much more creative and inventive?