Support NeoGAF

[Grayman]

//but I've read more than my fair share of times "stay way from X and pick up Y instead." Well you know what, I've already picked up Y, played the hell out of it and looking for something else now.

>>If y is a much better game than x i'd like to know that. That can be an indication if you will like x. If a reviewer thinks that half life 2 had a better single player experiance than doom 3 and can back that up they should mention it. To people who played half life 2 they have that yard stick, to people who haven't they will go read that reviewers half life 2 review.

Games in a series especially should be compared. regardless of any two month time frame. Many people wanting a review of GT4 or Halo 2 want to know what changed or improved since the last game. The review has to serve new players as well but old ones can't be left out. I think it would make a strong review to compare the multiplayer of one game to it's predicessor or a close competitor in the genre. If doom 3's multiplayer was a dropped ball compared to quake 3 that must go into the review.


For the proffessional reviewer problem, reviews should be gone back to later and properly finished or updated. The whole multiplay experiance should be properly reviewed after release and added. If multiplayer changes later within a relevant timeframe(based on popularity, or sales, or anything else justifable) that should be added as well. A review of MGO would be different today than it would be during the first seven days where everyone was a noobie. When BF2 gets a patch that adds something like no_vehicles option that should be attached to the bottom of the review. People do read legacy reviews sometimes and it would be nice of they were indicative of how the product ended up. If a game becomes less playable because of low playercounts or rampant cheating that would add to a fair review.

Niching or fandom could do to be mentioned as well. Someone who likes realistic racing sims will like one much more than someone who just likes arcade driving. To use a /10 scale for effect only here, a 10/10 F1 game is a 4/10 to someone who just likes need for speed, How should this game be reviewed? Perfect? crap? the middle between perfect and crap? Can it be given the perfect must buy praise if only some fans will feel that way? Should it be treated down because it is only perfect to some people? Currently we are stuck with scores so this needs delt with.

Buy/Not buy could be great if it included many frames of reference. The mag or site can have it's main universal score but then give advice to the very specific fan types seperately for your real score or buy/not buy

 

[Zamorro]

Demo's + Video reviews will replace written reviews with scores. Seeing is believing.

I would like to see sites like gamespot do video reviews exclusively. People don't want to read when they can watch something, and everything which is in a written review can also be included in the video. Just a screen filled with you-tube-like video's, that's what I think will be the future of video game reviewing.

For video reviews the only limitation is lack of bandwidth for some people, which will be solved in the coming years.

I don't want to see any more scores. When you watch the game being played, you know whether it's good or not. Maybe a thumbs up, thumbs down score could be added, but that's it.

And demo's are obviously also a good way of ascertaining the quality of a game. You don't need a review if the demo is well done.

 

[Acosta]

Demo's + Video reviews will replace written reviews with scores. Seeing is believing.

I would like to see sites like gamespot do video reviews exclusively. People don't want to read when they can watch something, and everything which is in a written review can also be included in the video. Just a screen filled with you-tube-like video's, that's what I think will be the future of video game reviewing.

For video reviews the only limitation is lack of bandwidth for some people, which will be solved in the coming years.

I don't want to see any more scores. When you watch the game being played, you know whether it's good or not. Maybe a thumbs up, thumbs down score could be added, but that's it.

And demo's are obviously also a good way of ascertaining the quality of a game. You don't need a review if the demo is well done.

Sorry for breaking your bubble but that won´t happen.

First, publishers love printed magazines.

Second, publishers and most users love scores, so video or not, the game will have a number so the PRs can use it and fan have something about argue in forums. Right now they are optional so there is no need to put scores on them (as everyone assumes is the same score than the written one).

Third, there is a reason why we have still wrotten film review, you may no believe this, but there is lot of people who prefer *gasp* read something to watching it.

I am agree demos and videos are the best way to let users makes their own opinions, but scores and wrotten articles will still around for long time.

 

[Acosta]

I've stopped reading reviews though and just go by the impressions posted here. More informative and wider range of opinion.

I really like GAF, but if I have to decide if I buy a game like Yakuza given opinion here, surely it would drive me crazy.

I still like to read a professional writing to make my mind. Reading the great review of Yakuza in 1UP, I would have clear in that second that I want that game.

 

[Zamorro]

Sorry for breaking your bubble but that won´t happen.

First, publishers love printed magazines.

Second, publishers and most users love scores, so video or not, the game will have a number so the PRs can use it and fan have something about argue in forums. Right now they are optional so there is no need to put scores on them (as everyone assumes is the same score than the written one).

Third, there is a reason why we have still wrotten film review, you may no believe this, but there is lot of people who prefer *gasp* read something to watching it.

I am agree demos and videos are the best way to let users makes their own opinions, but scores and wrotten articles will still around for long time.

I agree for the most part. But in, let's say, ten years from now, I imagine there will be less written reviews than there are video reviews. The great part about a video review is that you can actually show something good or bad instead of writing a lengthy piece about it. I think this aspect is rather underutilized in video reviews. It's nowadays mostly a spoken review with some segments of the game as a "background video".

And when you say that some people prefer to read, well, welcome to the ever increasing minority. I like to read too, but game reviews are near the bottom of the list of stuff I like to read.

 

[Acosta]

And when you say that some people prefer to read, well, welcome to the ever increasing minority. I like to read too, but game reviews are near the bottom of the list of stuff I like to read.

I know is cool to say how unimportant are games in the general state of the universe (especially in a gaming forum), but when I say there are lot of people who like to read, I mean there are people that prefer the reading experience to the watching experience, for everything (that is mostly the reason why there are newspaper and they were not erased by TV as some clever analysts predicted many years ago).

Being fair, I don´t enjoy the video review. Something as that 1UP video is nice, because you don´t get a video review of the game, but more a casual-like chat with info and some footage, which complemets the written review. When is about doing a real review, with the guy looking to the screen between videos and trying to replicate the structure, it seems incredibly forced, for me at least. I prefer having videos, text and demos, each one in his own space, but that´s me.

 

[Zenith]

If it's an IGN review, I just skip ahead to the closing comments and the score capsules. I don't even bother with other online reviews. They are all way too wordy.

yes, all those words swamping your mind. it's amazing your brain can even cope with this thread.

 

[rastex]

I really like GAF, but if I have to decide if I buy a game like Yakuza given opinion here, surely it would drive me crazy.

I still like to read a professional writing to make my mind. Reading the great review of Yakuza in 1UP, I would have clear in that second that I want that game.

I think this covers one of my central points really well. You can't look at GAF as a whole for advice since there's so much varying opinion. Even a very well loved game like Halo, or Shadow of the Colossus has it's detracters. Personally, I've identified a few posters that share the same tastes as me, and I value their opinions very highly. I imagine this is the same for a lot of people here.

Also, it's quite ridiculous to say that written reviews will ever be replaced. Even Roger Ebert is still incredibly active in writing normal reviews, despite having a popular show.

 

[Pureauthor]

Good post, TC.

Personally, I want reviews to focus as much as possible on entirely objective data. Give me the facts, let the variable factor (the reader) decide whether or not it will add or detract from his enjoyment of the game in question.

 

[Drakken]

Good read. I agree with your main points.

 

[FightyF]

Great post rastex!

I think you would have loved my game reviews for the Calgary SUN. No score, focused on the experience, focused on what the game does right, and noted elements that can turn off gamers.

I wanted to make it almost like a readable rental. Not giving a personal opinion on whether or not people should buy it...but rather giving them a taste of the game itself. I assume that the reader has never heard of the title before and go from there.

I agree that review systems for the most part are pretty broken. I hear the EGM changed their system and it's even more broken after the fact...