dwarf Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 So the other day I was bored and stumbled across a good little article, I guess you could read it first before the post below: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/endosgame/6274-I-Dont-Need-No-Stinking-Standards The guy is totally right. We need more reviews that don't go into detail about how the specific game mechanics work or about the various levels that are present in the game. I'd like to see more anecdotal experiences the reviewer had with the game as well as the little perks they find with playing it, which would make for something more interesting to read about. Reviews in games are all based on certain criteria and I'd like reviewers to do this: If they think it's a good game, only leave one or two lines for bad parts of the game and then concentrate on the parts that made it more enjoyable than the next title. It then is more indicative to the reader about whether or not it is a game for them because then their opinion isn't affected by the person slating other factors. I'd like to know what your opinions are about this, but I'd also like you to post (unless you don't really have anything worthy of posting) whatever gaming articles you have been reading recently and then discuss those too.
tapedeck Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 Well, I try to do this anecdotal thing in small doses BUT! it's a balancing act. Go too anecdotal and you run the risk of missing out on key features or not being taken seriously. A review of a product should be an overview and an informative piece which will enable the reader to ascertain whether they should buy into the title or not. It should also build a relationship with the reader in a subtle manner. I believe the confident individuals stamp their personality on their reviews but that's only because that's what my reviews do. I personally like the video formats as a playground for comedy/funny reviews as written comedy is a difficult skill to get down (and make universal). I try my best in my own reviews to be human and try to imitate the old N64 Magazine style of reporting where it had a community vibe to it. But tbh most people have already made up their own minds from the absolute overload of 'me-too' online journalists, traditional journalists who seem to be forgetting the word 'impartial' and the hype machines that get fed to them through bullshots or youtube/GAFfer viral marketing. As a final point: In a sea of so called internet me-too gaming 'experts' it's becoming more and more difficult to actually come to terms with who or what is authentic. /Rant.
Grazza Posted July 17, 2009 Posted July 17, 2009 The only thing that matters to me is honesty. I disagree with almost everything GameCentral on Teletext says, but I value their opinions massively, because they appear to be honest. For the same reason, I wouldn't criticise IGN AU for their Wii Sports Resort review. Using the whole scale from 1-10 is a very valuable thing. Jeff from Gamespot was one of the best reviewers - I still think he was right with his 8.8 for Twilight Princess, but people were furious with him for being honest. People have too much emotional attachment to systems and games. Now, let's look at the article dwarf gourami posted. I appreciate the fact the author is trying to be open minded, but you have to review with instinct. As long as you're not actually biased, there's nothing wrong with not liking something. Take his example of Prince of Persia. Yeah, it may have realistic rock climbing, but instinctively a reviewer knows that's not the focus of the experience. It's only natural to judge the overall quality and feel of the game. The other game he mentions seems pretty offensive to me, but reviewers have always been able to be impartial about games that don't have good graphics or fit the usual formula. My example - Tetris. All the magazines when I was young held it up as a great game, which it was.
dwarf Posted July 18, 2009 Author Posted July 18, 2009 Well I'd just ask more reviewers to comment about the smaller things in games rather than use the same forumula of graphics, gameplay etc. I don't even know what is meant my gameplay, it's such a general and personal thing that you can't really give it a score. I'd like there to be more funny/anecdotal reviews so that they don't get boring to read. And instead of rating individual segments, just rate it as a whole.
Dan_Dare Posted July 18, 2009 Posted July 18, 2009 sounds like the dude is crying out for more New Games Journalism. If he is, he's a damn fool. NGJ is the most god awful, pretentious would be gonzo guff cloud ever conceived.
dwarf Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 Greatest Weapons in Videogame History. http://resumeplay.net/?p=4482 This is a good read.
Recommended Posts