• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Testing the waters for Onsite Game Reviews

Would you be interested in scheduled game reviews?


  • Total voters
    60

Corderlain

Banned
As some of you may be aware, there is a thread in OT detailing multiple volunteering options that have to do with making the forum a little more organized and get some community content going.

Game reviews are a pretty integral part of our shared hobby and some of you may agree with me here when I say the quality of most big name reviewers has gone down the shitter. The infamous Cuphead review and the frankly agonizing Doom gameplay review are two quick examples.

I've been interested in doing unbiased, apolitical, and non-shitter game reviews for a while now and want to gauge the community interest in this. My current plan would be maybe bi-weekly or monthly and to have a community poll for the next review. I won't pretend that I'm the greatest at all games, but I bet my left nut I can do a better job here than the official journo's.

Currently I'm hoping to hear back from admins whether this would be better suited to strictly text posts or video reviews. This topic will serve as a community perception litmus test and also scrounge up review recommendations.
 

Vitacat

Member
Interesting idea.

I only really care about what fellow gamers on message boards and youtube have to say anyway.
 
Last edited:

Corderlain

Banned
Interesting idea.

I only really care about what fellow gamers on message boards and youtube have to say anyway.

And that's sort of what I'm going for here.

It’s not a terrible idea.

A sterling endorsement.

It is a good idea, the gaming press is awful.

I don't know what's happened. I don't know if it was a culture shift or more people actually playing but it sucks so much ass now.
 
Similar to how there's a thread to claim gaming OTs, why not do something similar for reviews? And why not give 'em their own sub-section? I'd love to participate in such a thing (though I'm sure you folks can guess what genre I'll focus on). I also like the notion that a person would put up their review and would have to defend their position in the thread itself. We all know that public comments are trash but I think the original idea -- interaction between the reviewer and the readers -- is sound.
 
Similar to how there's a thread to claim gaming OTs, why not do something similar for reviews? And why not give 'em their own sub-section? I'd love to participate in such a thing (though I'm sure you folks can guess what genre I'll focus on). I also like the notion that a person would put up their review and would have to defend their position in the thread itself. We all know that public comments are trash but I think the original idea -- interaction between the reviewer and the readers -- is sound.
I like the idea of a new sub forum for Gaffers self publishing. Posting their own channels and blogs.

But it would need to be one thread per person. Not new threads every time you make something new
 

MC Safety

Member
Do as you will, but all reviews are subject to the bias of the critic.

A review is an argument in favor of, or against, an artistic piece's merit. It's subjective and opinionated (but hopefully the argument has merit and is supported within the body text).

I wrote and edited many reviews for many professional publications. You'd be surprised at how many critics, let alone casual fans, have or had no idea what a game review is or should entail.
 

Raven117

Member
I think this would be interesting, but it would need to be managed perfectly. Someone would need to take the lead in dividing up the games. (Or people can submit reviews to the one editor, and the editor picks one).

Anything else, this would just be kind of a cluster eff.
 

Corderlain

Banned
I'm intending to do all reviews by myself. The games will be mildly curated by my own interest and results in a poll like the one in this thread. New game ideas that seem interesting will be pulled from thread comments for the next review thread.
 

Corderlain

Banned
I can't vote sight unseen, submit a sample review and prepare to be judged!

Alright. I'm off tomorrow and Wednesday from work so I'll see if I can't get one out for a game I've played a lot of maybe Wednesday or Thursday.

I'm going to be sticking to text post format for now. I don't have good recording or editing software for the admins haven't really weighed in on video reviews being selfposted.
 
Last edited:
I'd prefer a sub forum for creators.

Your own thread to link all your self created content. If you are a youtuber, all your vids go in your thread and allows you to interact with your own "fans" and promote your stuff.

Same goes for if you write for a website. Your own thread to share articles you write.

But it has to stay out of Gaming Discussion imo.
 

Corderlain

Banned
That could be a good idea if we had more than a handful of content creators on the site. As it stands now an OC subforum would probably be really dead.
 
That could be a good idea if we had more than a handful of content creators on the site. As it stands now an OC subforum would probably be really dead.
But Self Promotion wasn't/isn't allowed right? If it was and contained in its own sub forum it may be active.

If it doesn't have it's own, it could clog up Discussion
 

haxan7

Banned
Reviews + active user feedback.

NeoGAF has always been good for gauging the community's general reaction to games.

Make it so your reviews open a discussion and then make an effort to provide clarifications and active feedback on comments that multiple people seem to make / agree with.
 

Ivellios

Member
But Self Promotion wasn't/isn't allowed right? If it was and contained in its own sub forum it may be active.

If it doesn't have it's own, it could clog up Discussion

Why is it not allowed to self promote? Like a streamer with showing his work for example
 

jdforge

Banned
It would be quite cool and unique if the OTs for a game could also serve as a mechanic to aggregate the review scores given by registered users of Neogaf, rather than just the subjective opinion of one person.
 

Ivellios

Member
Idk if it is or not.

But I just assume it’s not since this place was filled with threads “check out my channel”

If that is the case then i agree with your idea of a separate sub forum just for this purpose, even if end ups with low activity.
 
Last edited:

gioGAF

Member
Go for it! I am always up for honest reviews. I don't think you should be running into any problems, especially if you stick to being truthful. Your effort/dedication will show, even if anyone disagrees with your review, it still provides valuable information (we don't all like the same thing, etc.).

I would be skeptical of any "sponsored" reviews, but if you are just being you and providing your thoughts, then I'm good. Good luck!
 

DGrayson

Mod Team and Bat Team
Staff Member
As some of you may be aware, there is a thread in OT detailing multiple volunteering options that have to do with making the forum a little more organized and get some community content going.

Game reviews are a pretty integral part of our shared hobby and some of you may agree with me here when I say the quality of most big name reviewers has gone down the shitter. The infamous Cuphead review and the frankly agonizing Doom gameplay review are two quick examples.

I've been interested in doing unbiased, apolitical, and non-shitter game reviews for a while now and want to gauge the community interest in this. My current plan would be maybe bi-weekly or monthly and to have a community poll for the next review. I won't pretend that I'm the greatest at all games, but I bet my left nut I can do a better job here than the official journo's.

Currently I'm hoping to hear back from admins whether this would be better suited to strictly text posts or video reviews. This topic will serve as a community perception litmus test and also scrounge up review recommendations.

Just FYI I ran this by the other mods and admins and we are totally fine with this. How ill it be presented. One thread per game review? One thread with all game reviews etc? But ya so far go for it.
 

Grimmrobe

Member
Do as you will, but all reviews are subject to the bias of the critic.

A review is an argument in favor of, or against, an artistic piece's merit. It's subjective and opinionated (but hopefully the argument has merit and is supported within the body text).

I wrote and edited many reviews for many professional publications. You'd be surprised at how many critics, let alone casual fans, have or had no idea what a game review is or should entail.

Thank you, man.

It bums me out so much when kids on the internet say "I am not biased", or "I am objective", etc. They sound like brains in vats that have never left their rooms and have no connection with reality. And the idea that a person such as this--an "objective" person--could have anything to say that would be of any value to a living, breathing thing, would be laughable if it wasn't tragic.

Just grow up you damn nerds! There's nothing objective or unbiased about your damn opinions!
 

Corderlain

Banned
Just FYI I ran this by the other mods and admins and we are totally fine with this. How ill it be presented. One thread per game review? One thread with all game reviews etc? But ya so far go for it.

I'm planning on a single review per thread and around two threads a month.

Thank you, man.

It bums me out so much when kids on the internet say "I am not biased", or "I am objective", etc. They sound like brains in vats that have never left their rooms and have no connection with reality. And the idea that a person such as this--an "objective" person--could have anything to say that would be of any value to a living, breathing thing, would be laughable if it wasn't tragic.

Just grow up you damn nerds! There's nothing objective or unbiased about your damn opinions!

The only bias I'll admit to is I'm not going to be reviewing fighting games as they're something I've never been good at. Strategy games are also around there but I can say I'm sort of mediocre and that's good enough for a review.
 

GenericUser

Member
"Unbiased" review is an impossible goal. The sheer fact that we are all human (well, most of us) makes this impossible. A person can only state his own, honest opinion about a game. He or she can not speak for others.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for this. I also really like Musky_Cheese Musky_Cheese 's idea of one thread per content creator. Either way I'd love to see on-site reviews. Lately I've been trying to write about games I played to hone my critical thinking and writing skills.
 

Blam

Member
Just FYI I ran this by the other mods and admins and we are totally fine with this. How ill it be presented. One thread per game review? One thread with all game reviews etc? But ya so far go for it.

I feel like if it's one thread for all of the reviews, it could be endlessly bumped (in a good way), plus it would sorta allow a main post to be also endlessly updated.

But maybe if each review linked to the one before it in the seperate thread idea it would also work too.

Musky_Cheese Musky_Cheese did make a really good idea of a thread per content creator, and in a sense also just a GAF content forum.

Would also be super useful to rehost the indie games thread there too?
 
Last edited:

Barsinister

Banned
The problem being, reviews will be typically after release, yes? Open it up to all kinds of reviews and I agree. Classic and new games, hidden gems, and make it an archive.
 

ROMhack

Member
"Unbiased" review is an impossible goal. The sheer fact that we are all human (well, most of us) makes this impossible. A person can only state his own, honest opinion about a game. He or she can not speak for others.

This is what I think. I really cannot understand people who aim to be objective because it comes across as flawed. You can certainly be apolitical about games and attempt to curb personal bias but you can't be totally unbiased about them. I don't think journalists even do a bad job of it most of the time. My main issue with them is that they aren't personal enough and resort to too many forced cliches to score brownie points (often political!).

OP's idea for a special section of the forum for content is good though. Let's see how it develops.
 
Last edited:
i'd have to see a beta test of it for a few weeks/months.is this on your on volition or is it more under the neogaf umbrella....I'd personally like content to stay away from a neogaf umbrella, and just be more personal. maybe i'm oblivious to how gaf worked before though. part of me thinks its a good idea, part of me thinks ehhh. but i mean, i dont think you need permission. half the fun of the content here is that its organic. if YOU want to do reviews, then just start them. maybe they are a hit or slow to start and over time they pick up speed. if the neogaf umbrella wants to make dedicated reviewer threads, then maybe it'd be good for the OP to have 3 community volunteers add reviews to give a more "balanced" view and a poll for community members to contribute their hot takes to for an aggregate.

or have a dedicated volunteer set up and do the main review thread for a game, and similar to OTs, people can sign up to add their own supplemental short crit/review.

i'd say start with writing before video. see how the community likes it. video takes a lot more work to orchestrate. i'd say start with something manageable before folks sign up for something too ambitious, to gauge the community response and your own schedule/time constraints.
 
Last edited:

888

Member
Should do something similar to an on-site group rating system. Allow people to submit their own ratings on a game using a poll or something similar.
 

Grimmrobe

Member
"Unbiased" review is an impossible goal. The sheer fact that we are all human (well, most of us) makes this impossible. A person can only state his own, honest opinion about a game. He or she can not speak for others.

They just don't understand what the word means. I suspect they think it means to hate something, because when stupid people disagree with each other they scream at the other person that "You are biased!"
 

dorkimoe

Gold Member
Interesting idea.

I only really care about what fellow gamers on message boards and youtube have to say anyway.
Same. I don’t trust review sites. So the more user reviews I can see the better. I don’t even need a full fledged review. Just give me the pros and cons of a game
 

Daniel Thomas MacInnes

GAF's Resident Saturn Omnibus
Daniel Thomas MacInnes Daniel Thomas MacInnes has already been doing this in the SEGA Saturn appreciation thread, so if you folks like the idea please go over there and show some love.


Much thanks to DunDunDunpachi and the other 4 people who have read my Sega Saturn essays this year. You're very kind.

As to this subject, I'm not sure how "official NeoGAF reviews" would work, as this is an open forum. I think the simplest solution is for people to begin writing reviews. I would recommend using official "appreciation and collectors" threads for the systems in question, as that would be easiest to search. You can also search an individual's posts if you chose to follow a specific review critic.

In addition, there should be appreciation threads for every major videogame system, and if there isn't one now, I highly recommend that you begin them right away. You might even want to combine systems together to save space. For example, I've considered creating an all-purpose Atari appreciation thread that would include all the Atari home systems from 2600 to Jaguar.

The broader issue of videogame review critics is a bit trickier. Today, what most gamers really want is validation. "I spent $500 on this Xbox and games, please tell me I'm good." You can see countless examples of Youtube video reviews where half the comments are complaining that Videogame X was criticized, and it's always taken personally, as though the reviewer attacked the viewer's childhood. This attitude needs to change, but I'm not sure how that happens since videogame critics and magazines took a nosedive at the turn of the century.

When it comes to gaming magazines, the kids were really only interested in two things: "What new games are coming out?" and "Where are the cheat codes?" Once the internet provided easy answers for those two, the market for journalists dried up quickly. And let's be perfectly honest here: most gaming "journalists" were really just lapdogs and groupies for the videogame industry, using magazines and websites as an entry-level position into the business. This doesn't necessarily compromise their work, Chris Charla and Chris Johnston are two admirable examples, but they are often the exceptions to the rule. Far too many Diehard Gamefans and GamePro smiley faces.

When people ask for "balance" or "objectivity," I think they're really asking for fairness. Every critic is biased, since they are sharing their opinions on a given subject. That's just part of the show. We listen to them and then debate their opinions, but we trust their judgement based on their knowledge and experience. A movie critic who has never watched a silent movie or studied film history is less trusted than one who has. The same should apply to videogames.

To be a good videogame critic, you need to know that history. You certainly should have a working knowledge with the major platforms since the 1970s. You should have a working copy of MAME on your computer, as well as classic system emulators, which can be used for reference and study. I don't think you need to be an "expert" player to be a good critic. You don't need to completely "beat" any given videogame to have a good opinion of it, but you should at least understand its content (Youtube play-through videos can be very helpful).

Your most important asset is honesty. Share your experiences. What was it like to play the videogame? Were you drawn in immediately or more gradually over time? Is there a successful "hook" to grab your interest? Did you struggle with the difficulty or controls or gameplay, and if so, how long did you persist? How did your friends and family react to the game? Was there a chance for social or multiplayer play, and how was that?

Equally important, a writer must draw on life experiences beyond videogames. You need to incorporate your other interests and loves, whether it's movies, music, literature, sports, current events, or daily life. I would also recommend studying other review critics, such as Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael, Stanley Kauffman and Andrew Sarris. I also highly recommend taking cues from your favorite writers or other people who inspire you.

Above all, have fun. You're not going to get paid for this (cough, Zen Arcade on Amazon), so enjoy yourself. Keep yourself open to surprises and be honest with yourself. Never give in to hype or popular opinion. And don't hate on videogames because they're "old" or "outdated." No such creature exists.
 
Interesting idea.

I only really care about what fellow gamers on message boards and youtube have to say anyway.

Basically this. If you want a real idea of how a game is, you read player reviews. Sure there's the troll/fanboy 'review' comments, but you get a general gauge of how the game is a lot better than anywhere else that way.

So I'm definitely up for this idea OP.

Hopefully someone else follows suit and does some Eurojank (TM) game reviews along with Roguelikes. I wouldn't want only blockbuster reviews.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
And that's sort of what I'm going for here.



A sterling endorsement.



I don't know what's happened. I don't know if it was a culture shift or more people actually playing but it sucks so much ass now.
In my opinion what happened is that reviews became soap boxes for reviewers to preach from, dealing more with social and political themes than just focusing on the content of the game. I just want to hear about how it plays, not whether I should care about the politics surrounding it or how the gender of the protagonist affects the reviewers enjoyment.

So if we can have reviews without grandstanding then I'm good with it.
 

TFGB

Member
Should do something similar to an on-site group rating system. Allow people to submit their own ratings on a game using a poll or something similar.
This is something I suggested on The Official Playstation Forum (EU) a few years back when a similar implementation on review threads was being contemplated.

At the top of each review thread, you could pose the question “For those of you that have played the game, would you recommend it?” with a simple Yes/No poll. Either that or offer a user-based score voting system/poll.
 
Last edited:

Heimdall_Xtreme

Jim Ryan Fanclub's #1 Member
As some of you may be aware, there is a thread in OT detailing multiple volunteering options that have to do with making the forum a little more organized and get some community content going.

Game reviews are a pretty integral part of our shared hobby and some of you may agree with me here when I say the quality of most big name reviewers has gone down the shitter. The infamous Cuphead review and the frankly agonizing Doom gameplay review are two quick examples.
.

Totally agreed with you.

Without forgetting that Gravity rush 1 and 2 is one of the best masterpieces of the modern videogame industry , but Reviews are give it 7, 8 to 9, when it is a totally unfair rating that really deserves a 10, more Gravity rush 2.


I can support in the sector of import games (japanese or asian exclusive) hidden games or cult games, because I am passionate about unusual topics, in addition to 30 years of experience in the hobby, and I do not have preference in any console, but I judge with facts.
 
Last edited:

Mexen

Member
Musky_Cheese Musky_Cheese , I like that idea.
Would be great to see what GAF does outside this forum. Also, exposing my blog for criticism would help me grow as a writer.
A sub-forum for content creators. I love it.
 

Thiagosc777

Member
All reviewers should inform their gamertag / PSN id, so people can check out their achievements / trophies and see how they played the games. Usually games have different achievements for different difficulty settings, and on Xbox you can see how many hours someone played a game.

Also, if streams were made available or gameplay youtube videos, it'd serve as evidence to back up what they say in the review.
 

MC Safety

Member
All reviewers should inform their gamertag / PSN id, so people can check out their achievements / trophies and see how they played the games. Usually games have different achievements for different difficulty settings, and on Xbox you can see how many hours someone played a game.

Also, if streams were made available or gameplay youtube videos, it'd serve as evidence to back up what they say in the review.

We had this conversation before, and many games are played with pre-release software and on debug units.

You either trust a review's judgement or you don't. Wanting to see videos and confirm a player's involvement with a game is an interesting concept, but be truthful to yourself: There is absolutely no amount of evidence that will make you believe a critique you disagree with is valid.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a great idea, but without structure, it will collapse quickly. Might I suggest the following criteria for posting game reviews on GAF:

1) The entire review is written in iambic pentameter rhyming couplets. "Again" should rhyme with "train".
2) Up to, but not more than, 3 malapropisms, 2 spoonerism, and one accidentally hilarious confused homophone.
3) The title of the review is a pun, and not a good pun. It should cause physical discomfort.
4) English is good, Klingon is better, Emoji is best.
 
Top Bottom