Support NeoGAF

[No_Style]

It's a simple question. How do you like your reviews these days?

Do you like the long winded multi-page spreads that detail not only what the game contains, but also give anecdotal evidence?

Do you like them concise? Telling how each of the major areas are: "Visuals are awesome. Sound is awesome etc etc.."?

Do you like point form delivery showing off pros and cons etc?

Or do enjoy video reviews where everything is spoken and examples of gameplay are used?

 

[rakka]

moneyhatted, please

 

[Like the hat?]

video reviews are the best of those listed, imo

someone can SAY a game looks good or bad in motion, but it's much better to actually SEE it and judge for yourself.

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

Intelligent...informative and "rating free".

 

[radios shipping overview]

just a little rare, with a side of red potatoes

 

[Cedeo]

No number or lettered score.

 

[stuminus3]

I like the ones that are deliberately under-scored to generate page hits.

 

[No_Style]

Intelligent...informative and "rating free".

Could you give me an example of one? I'm essentially trying to find the ideal review style. Should videogame reviews be more like movie reviews? Simple one pagers?

 

[raYne]

Definitely multi-page with gameplay examples and as in-depth as possible. Loading frequency, times, install, framerate, game performance etc are a must. As is a final summary breakdown at the end stating pluses/minuses of each of the usual categories (visuals, sound, control etc).

No hyperbole bs or opinion on what "competing" game is better/worse. Facts and facts only. Also, no number/letter score. If you must, thumbs up or thumbs down as far as recommendations go and that's it.

 

[batbeg]

Like my women.

Real answer: video reviews. I like to see examples and the game in motion, mostly because I don't put stock in a reviewers opinion to begin with and would rather see examples of the game myself, and they tend to show good examples in video reviews.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. Narrative.
2. Story, Gameplay, Praise.
3. Valid Criticisms.
4. Soundbite Conclusion.

Insert humor and keep it brief (less than 1500 words) you have the best possible review.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Written by people who can write and have clear and level heads.

Robert Christgau can review an album in a sentence occasionally; the New York Review of Books regularly prints multiple page reviews of greater literary complexity than the books they are reviewing. There are talented reviewers using an /10 system, an /5 system, an /4 system, a binary thumbs-up thumbs-down system, or no scoring system at all.

Length does not matter. Focus does not matter. Scoring system does not matter.

All that matters is a talented and insightful writer with a commitment to providing a well written review.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I like my reviews with Oscar worthy writing.

 

[a Master Ninja]

No number or lettered score.

Yep, but does anyone have recommendations (besides just not looking at the scores at the end of most reviews)?

 

[SapientWolf]

video reviews are the best of those listed, imo

someone can SAY a game looks good or bad in motion, but it's much better to actually SEE it and judge for yourself.

This.

When I go print I am looking for specific descriptions of what worked and what didn't. Unless the game was released under the radar, all I really need is a list of bullet points with a plus or minus next to them.

And yes, I want that number at the end, unless they also go through the trouble of comparing it and ranking it against similar games, or telling me how much trouble I should go through to find the game. I'm already pretty good at deriving that information from an aggregate of scores.

 

[stuminus3]

I like GameFAQs user reviews. They are completely fucking useless useful for finding out what trolls and fanboys think.

 

[Haeleos]

"Ding ding ding" or a "womp womp woooomp".

 

[Tieno]

1)Written by Shawn Elliott.
While I have different taste in some games, prefer other games, I value his opinion above anyone else and enjoy contrasting it with my own and seeing new things.

 

[Gbeav]

-excellent
-good
-average
-poor
-quake wars

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

I like reviews that match my predetermined opinion of a game Ive yet to play. Any review that does not follow such guidelines is written by a complete imbecile whom does not know how to play games.

 

[Salazar]

Unhurried. Progressive, if possible - as close to my experiences as they can be.

Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 - reflections, retractions, amplifications of points made. Basically, full of things that big professional sites can't or won't do.

 

[Tron 2.0]

What Stumpokapow said.

I don't care about format, I don't care about what form (if any) the score comes in. I care about the review being well-written.

 

[Alphahawk]

I like Gamespot type reviews. They're generally not overally long and highlight the pros and cons at the start of the review. IGNs are good too, but their occasional three page reviews are way too long. Finally I like 1ups letter based grading scale, mostly because a "C" rating isn't quite as damning as a 5.0 is...

 

[skip]

with unending messageboard threads as a dessert.