(Portions taken from my blog, thought I'd move this here and see what others think.)
Video game reviews today are in a state of turmoil.
Never before have I read reviews as a bunch of writers simply "going through the motions." Now, more than ever, I tend to have a bad taste in my mouth after reading a modern review. It is of no surprise that many now simply go by word of mouth when making a decision on what to purchase. The same has been true of movies for decades, with Ebert and Roeper fading into the woodwork.
Reviews need to be fresh. Not a two page ramble that ends with several scores on different points of the game, only to give a final score that is never based upon an average of the previously rated points. It boggles the mind at how easily the reviewing system of games has been left in tatters. Players want to get their gaming advice from a trustworthy source, and there is no doubt left in my mind that reviewers are no longer this source.
Where have video game journalists gone wrong, then? Well, it isn't really my place to say. I'm not sure I could even answer that question without spending far too much time in research.
What I am here to do is review.
Writing a review is more difficult than one would think. It needs structure, and it needs to be broken up into several different parts. Games are a unique form of art, and need that much space in a review in order to be fairly reviewed. It took me much more brainstorming than I had initially thought before I finally found my own voice. In the end, it all came back to what I looked for in reviews. I've been a gamer all my life, for as long as I can remember, and while my opinion is just that, I feel confident that I can at least bring a breath of fresh air to gaming reviews.
So what do I think that makes my reviews different from any else you are likely to find?
I do not think the plot should be addressed in a review. A simple publisher's summary should be enough, unless there are major problems with the plot in terms of its storytelling. Rather than weigh what is a spoiler, just bypass the territory completely. Most sports games do not have a plot, and their scores shouldn't be hurt because of that. Think of a popular game like Grand Theft Auto. Do you really think the next game in that series will fail to sell if it has a subpar plot? Of course not.
I also think that the lasting appeal of a game should be left out of reviews. At this point, all games take an average of 6-12 hours to beat. In my opinion, it is the journey you take as a gamer that counts, not how much you can whore out of it. Lasting appeal for most reviewers means "does it have multiplayer?" and then a score is given based upon that. Frankly, I have played many games that were perfect as a single player game, and I have played many that had a multiplayer mode tacked on for no reason other than to satisfy the intrensic need of reviewers to want multiplayer. So for me, no lasting appeal talk.
(End blog portion)
I'll submit my first review a little later today, and hopefully I can get some feedback as to how it performed as a review. I'm a little disappointed that I have to assign a score to it, if only because I don't think games should have scores assigned to them. Maybe a phrase or something, but number scores to me just seem so final.
But enough of that rambling. Do you all have any thoughts?
Video game reviews today are in a state of turmoil.
Never before have I read reviews as a bunch of writers simply "going through the motions." Now, more than ever, I tend to have a bad taste in my mouth after reading a modern review. It is of no surprise that many now simply go by word of mouth when making a decision on what to purchase. The same has been true of movies for decades, with Ebert and Roeper fading into the woodwork.
Reviews need to be fresh. Not a two page ramble that ends with several scores on different points of the game, only to give a final score that is never based upon an average of the previously rated points. It boggles the mind at how easily the reviewing system of games has been left in tatters. Players want to get their gaming advice from a trustworthy source, and there is no doubt left in my mind that reviewers are no longer this source.
Where have video game journalists gone wrong, then? Well, it isn't really my place to say. I'm not sure I could even answer that question without spending far too much time in research.
What I am here to do is review.
Writing a review is more difficult than one would think. It needs structure, and it needs to be broken up into several different parts. Games are a unique form of art, and need that much space in a review in order to be fairly reviewed. It took me much more brainstorming than I had initially thought before I finally found my own voice. In the end, it all came back to what I looked for in reviews. I've been a gamer all my life, for as long as I can remember, and while my opinion is just that, I feel confident that I can at least bring a breath of fresh air to gaming reviews.
So what do I think that makes my reviews different from any else you are likely to find?
I do not think the plot should be addressed in a review. A simple publisher's summary should be enough, unless there are major problems with the plot in terms of its storytelling. Rather than weigh what is a spoiler, just bypass the territory completely. Most sports games do not have a plot, and their scores shouldn't be hurt because of that. Think of a popular game like Grand Theft Auto. Do you really think the next game in that series will fail to sell if it has a subpar plot? Of course not.
I also think that the lasting appeal of a game should be left out of reviews. At this point, all games take an average of 6-12 hours to beat. In my opinion, it is the journey you take as a gamer that counts, not how much you can whore out of it. Lasting appeal for most reviewers means "does it have multiplayer?" and then a score is given based upon that. Frankly, I have played many games that were perfect as a single player game, and I have played many that had a multiplayer mode tacked on for no reason other than to satisfy the intrensic need of reviewers to want multiplayer. So for me, no lasting appeal talk.
(End blog portion)
I'll submit my first review a little later today, and hopefully I can get some feedback as to how it performed as a review. I'm a little disappointed that I have to assign a score to it, if only because I don't think games should have scores assigned to them. Maybe a phrase or something, but number scores to me just seem so final.
But enough of that rambling. Do you all have any thoughts?
