Should Reviewers be fans?

[LazyBoy]

Something I've noticed with the releases of FFVII and Streets of Rage IV is a multitude of reviews written by ultra-fans of these game's series. They'll normally have a line in their review along the lines of 'I loved the original' or 'I grew up with the earlier games in the series'. This causes a problem for me, and I wonder if anyone feels the same?

It's not so much about impartiality (although that is an aspect), but more that it removes their ability to step back and see the game as a product of its time, as opposed to a homage to their childhood. I must have gone through a dozen FFVII reviews that fawn over 'how it's got something for new and old fans alike', before I got to one that addressed some of those archaic RPG elements that don't deserve to be in a 2020 game. 

A Streets of Rage review did the same, framing it entirely in terms of how it builds on the series, without addressing whether a refresh of a 20 year old genre still does enough to be relevant in the modern age of video games, or even just keep up with the norms of the industry. 

I think there is a place for those reviews, but they need to be marked out as comments for fans, and less as a review that treats the game as it's own entity. 

Anyone else feel the same?

[WackerJr]

I do agree, although for me it depends on how else the reviewer critiques the game. I do like to know how enhanced versions compare to the original games, however your view about the reviewer also needing to critique the gameplay as a new game are valid for me too.  I like to read the overall score / review as a new game, but referencing the original & mentioning how it compares and even whether it is worth getting if you own the original.

[Grazza]

I'd argue the opposite.  There is a difference between being a fan, being a fanboy and just appreciating a series or genre.  Take Streets of Rage 4 - I'm actually not that nostalgic about this series, but I think you need a reviewer who appreciates the genre.  And by that I do mean the true genre as it was at the time of its peak - the late-'80s/early-'90s.  It is possible that someone younger just hasn't experienced that genre enough to appreciate it; to know what it's like to go through one of these standing beside your friend at an arcade cabinet or sitting next to them on the couch. 

 

Beat-'em-ups often get criticised for being too simple, but there is a balance to get right.  I don't want my brawlers as simple as, say, King of Dragons, but nor do I want them like the late-'90s, when Street Fighter II began exerting too much influence and introduced overly-complex combos into the likes of Final Fight 3.  The inconvenient truth is the perfect formula lies somewhere around and between the original Final Fight and Streets of Rage 2, and it hasn't really been bettered since.  This genre is largely about timing and positioning - it needs restrictions.  In Streets of Rage 4 most of the characters can't even dash, but it's all part of the design of this game.  You can do combos, but it doesn't appear the game gives them too much importance.

 

At the end of the day, I haven't completed Streets of Rage 4 yet and there might be some things I dislike that others don't.  But from what I've played so far, it's a kind of alchemy.

[Ashley]

No.

But if you want a longer answer; if you're looking for reviews look for a variety of them from different people. A fan will have a different take when reviewing than someone unfamiliar with the game (likewise someone looking to buy the game will have different things they want from a review based on if they're familiar with a franchise or not). Both views are valid and the reader should be able to read a review within this context. 

Someone that hates a franchise probably shouldn't review it (could write a feature if they want, but ideally they shouldn't be forced to review it if there's someone else available to do so), but I don't think you need to be a fan to review something. 

Likewise with remakes, someone that played the original (regardless of their opinion on it) is going to produce a different review from someone who hasn't. Both are valid. 

[Ike]

I think it depends on the reviewer and if they can take off their rose tinted glasses. Chris Scullion seemed to manage to judge SoR4 on its own merits even though he claims SoR2 is one of his all time favourite games, he wasn't constantly comparing the 2.

I agree if they're not fans of the series/genre then they probably shouldn't review it as it often means they go into already made up their minds.

I think Famitsu's format of giving multiple opinions/scores is a good format, not sure why it's not adopted as much.

[Hero-of-Time]

7 minutes ago, Ike said:

I think it depends on the reviewer and if they can take off their rose tinted glasses.

Agreed. 

I think Huber from EZA is a good example of this. He loves Shenmue to bits but was happy to give Shenmue 3 a middling score because he was able to admit the problems that the game had. It's the same with SOR4. He ADORES the second game but wasn't going to give the game a straight 10 just because of nostalgia. It comes back to what Grazza said in that there is a difference between a fan and a fanboy. A fan is able to openly admit and criticise something they love whereas a fanboy can't bring themselves to do that. 

11 minutes ago, Ike said:

I think Famitsu's format of giving multiple opinions/scores is a good format, not sure why it's not adopted as much.

I totally agree with this. It's obviously not possible to do for every game but for big releases it would certainly be welcomed. Having other perspectives/views is never a bad thing. A fan of a series would certainly have a better understanding of the game but an outsider would probably pick up on things that they wouldn't. Or what Ash said...

25 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Likewise with remakes, someone that played the original (regardless of their opinion on it) is going to produce a different review from someone who hasn't. Both are valid. 

 

[Sméagol]

No and yes. Ideally, you have a reviewer who remains critical regardless of he's a fan of something or not. But ultimately, you, as the consumer, need to look at different perspectives if you use reviews to make decisions. So read multiple reviews from multiple reviewers, or just analyze the reviews yourself and think about what parts of the reviews are relevant to you and what isn't. The thing is, if you yourself are a non-fan, a non-fan perspective may be of more use to you. And vice-versa, if you are a fan, a reviewer who's also a fan may pick up on things and highlight those that matter to you, that a non-fan wouldn't.

[Dcubed]

Some interesting perspectives here.  Cool to see.

In short, I think that a reviewer should at least have a basic appreciation for a game’s genre; but doesn’t have to especially be a fan of it.

I don’t see a point in getting someone who absolutely hates puzzle games in general to review a puzzle game for instance.  Ultimately, people who are reading a review will already have some sort of passing interest in the game (or at least its genre); and a review should be written with its intended audience in mind.

You wouldn’t go to MumsNet for a review on Doom Eternal (well... you might do if you’re looking for a bit of a laugh at least).  Same general concept apples to any reviewer.

A game should always be reviewed for what it is; not for what it is not.  At the most basic level, a good review needs to respect that basic adage.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Dcubed

[LazyBoy]

Some great posts, all worthy of a response. To retain nomanitive consistently though I'll reply generally. 

Don't think I want one kind of review at the exclusion of another. I think there's room for both. Certainly were we discussing BotW then I would want the perspective of someone who can place the evolution of the game's structure in context of the series' progression. 

But that's a perspective, by definition they are going to see things one way. If I am coming at the game having never played anything that preceeded it then I need a perspective closer to mine - not a 'fan' (i.e. someone who LOVED a preceeding game).

Therefor if I am talking to these review sites/channels, I'd say find a way to review the game with multiple reviewers. If you can't stretch to that then review fewer games.

[Goron_3]

I've noticed this about the Pokemon titles. There are certain reviews (i.e. IGN) which essentially boil down to 'I LOVE POKEMON, THIS IS MORE POKEMON' without really critiquing the game. 

I think it's important to recognise that reviewers generally aren't looking to critique a game. They are essentially just trying to rate their experience of the game whilst providing a rough overview of the pro's and con's. Game design is something that will never really come up. A full, in-depth critique of a game like Skyward Sword for example (the Matthewmatosis one is excellent) is at odds with the critical reception the game got.

I guess the issue here is that for reviews, 'reviewers' are given a game and are expected to complete and review it within a very small timeframe. How can they sit back and really try to analyse the game they've played? It's easier to just summarise their own experience.

On a final note, I'm reminded of a quote from Jay Z after major music outlets reviewed his album just hours after it came out. He said something along the lines of "I spent hundreds of hours making this album. I gave thought to every word, every beat...I poured my heart into it. And they give it a review after listening to it once. Good or bad, how can they claim to review it when it's barely sunk in? Why bother reviewing it if you're just rushing it out and not thinking about it. I don't get it." This pretty much sums up my opinion of reviews. They'll help you predict your own experience of a game, but not much more.

[Hero-of-Time]

1 minute ago, Goron_3 said:

I guess the issue here is that for reviews, 'reviewers' are given a game and are expected to complete and review it within a very small timeframe. How can they sit back and really try to analyse the game they've played? It's easier to just summarise their own experience.

Even then that seems to be a big ask for a lot of reviewers. Honestly, it's one of the reasons why I don't bother with them anymore. 

[Jonnas]

Most of the points I was going to make have already been made, namely, that a reviewer having preconceptions and/or biases is inevitable, as it is based purely on said reviewer's tastes and experience.

I am reminded of that Fire Emblem Three Houses preview from Famitsu, that were actually three previews: person A was a dedicated fan of the series, person B was a casual fan of the series, and person C didn't even play strategy RPGs. A's main point was that the gameplay felt fresh and familiar at the same time, B's point was that the plot was very compelling and worth diving into, and C was just thrilled to learn you could grind enough levels to bypass strategy entirely (incidentally, C's viewpoint was what H-o-T related to the most, despite him being a clear B )

I will also mention that the worst review I've ever read was the one IGN published for Golden Sun: Dark Dawn, which they claimed was purposefully given to a non-fan, to avoid biases. Besides the review being badly written in general, the reviewer's lack of interest in the game was palpable, to an embarrassing level: they limited themselves to mentioning basic bullet points about the game, they got basic details of the plot wrong, they had no idea what fans liked about the series, and the whole thing read like the most milquetoast description of an RPG I've ever seen. It's likely the reviewer phoned it in, which is clearly the result of giving someone an assignment they have zero passion for.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Jonnas

[Glen-i]

14 hours ago, Ashley said:

No.

Welp, I'm in trouble then.

Like most reviewer questions that pop up, I'm gonna use this good old example.

The PMD series is notorious for getting low review scores from critics, yet are continuously received quite favourably by fans. I put it down to a lot of these reviewers just not liking the genre. Which is a valid opinion, but would it kill them to find someone who actually likes a traditional turn-based roguelike to review it?

Fans are also more likely to actually finish a game as well, which is very important. I don't see a non-fan taking the Link's Awakening remake, beating it and then typing up a review in less than a day. *cough* Humble Brag *cough*

So yes, I think some reviewers should be fans. Otherwise, the fans that are interested in a game won't know what to expect.

And I'd lose my reviewing gig here.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Glen-i

[Dufniall]

14 hours ago, Ike said:

I think Famitsu's format of giving multiple opinions/scores is a good format, not sure why it's not adopted as much.

There is a Dutch website who do this as well. They have a policy of reviewing a game when it is out (so the inevitable Day 1 patches are included), and preferably let two people do the review.

They focus on video reviews and have a short review (5-10 minutes) for everyone and a long review (30-40 minutes) behind a paywall. Even the short reviews are good to watch as it is a discussion with two sides instead of just one person's view.

But of course the big downside of this approach is your reviews will go up a while after the embargo, and you need at least 2 review codes. And I don't think a lot of outlets want to miss the embargo wave as that's the day you will get most clicks.

[Ashley]

9 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Welp, I'm in trouble then.

You are, but only for now knowing the difference between should and can. 😉