• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

How to Write a Good Review?

R

rastex

Banned
I'm looking for pointers on how to write decent game reviews, and just writing in general. I'm not going for a professional site or anything like that, I just want to write some opinions about games and having it actually flow well. I've already written something up on Geometry Wars. I'm not even sure what I want to write can be considered a review, more of a critique/essay on the game. So any tips, especially in starting the review would be greatly appreciated.

I've tried looking at other professional reviews but so many of them are so formally structured and follow the exact same pattern that it's not very useful, since that's exactly the pattern I'm trying to avoid. If people have some great reviews that buck the trend, I'd love to read those.
 
The best advice I can give you is this: Know your audience. There's a huge difference between writing something for gamers ("Dude did you know you can blow people's heads off? This fuckin' rules!"), something more akin to a buying guide ("This game is pretty good! A recommended buy!"), and an academic criticism ("The unification of ammunition into a single resource in Deus Ex: Invisible War was done to remove arbitrary limits on player expression within the gamespace.").

Also, focus on content, not silly scores. Any idiot can slap a 7.8 on the bottom of an article and call it a review. Be sure to talk about what worked, what didn't, and why. Avoid formulaic writing, too. There's no reason to have a Graphics, Gameplay, Presentation, and Audio section. If the graphics, audio, or presentation warrant mentioning for being extraordinarily good or extraordinarily bad, mention them. Otherwise, stick to focusing on and supporting your opinion of the gameplay.
 
The first 95 percent of the review should comprise no reference to the game whatsoever. It should just comprise faux-philosophical ranting about the gaming industry and where its heading.

The next one percent should be an amateurish segway into the actual game you are reviewing.

The final 4 percent is your opinion on the game, enhanced or tarnished based on the your loyalty or hatred for the platform it is on.

Then finish off with a score using a /100 rating scale where 1-85 means bad, 85-89 = average and 90+ = good.
 
Just please above all else, do not attempt to be some sort of comic act, or try to act too "smart". A small joke here and there is okay, but when reading a review, I just don't want to envision the writer knocking his head back and forth like he was Dennis Miller.
 
Campster, I'm going for the academic approach. Discussing the game on its own merits and examing what it tries to accomplish, why, and how it goes it.

Notorious, I had forgotten about Eurogamer. It's great that you pointed it out as I just read their Ridge Racer 6 review. I was planning on writing an essay on the game, because I felt that the gaming press didn't cover it well. However, the Eurogamer review was really good and mentioned many of the points I wanted to make. And there's no point in reinventing the wheel.
 
Grug said:
The first 95 percent of the review should comprise no reference to the game whatsoever. It should just comprise faux-philosophical ranting about the gaming industry and where its heading.

The next one percent should be an amateurish segway into the actual game you are reviewing.

The final 4 percent is your opinion on the game, enhanced or tarnished based on the your loyalty or hatred for the platform it is on.

Then finish off with a score using a /100 rating scale where 1-85 means bad, 85-89 = average and 90+ = good.
Click to expand...

Hah QFT
 
Notorious_Roy said:
Re-word some Eurogamer reviews. They're brilliant.

www.eurogamer.net
Click to expand...
1up'd :o :lol

FortNinety said:
Just please above all else, do not attempt to be some sort of comic act, or try to act too "smart". A small joke here and there is okay, but when reading a review, I just don't want to envision the writer knocking his head back and forth like he was Dennis Miller.
Click to expand...
Great point.

Also, keep your personal opinion/preferences to a minimun. People want to read about the facts of the game itself, not your thoughts about it. If possible, try to compare it to other games in the series instead of other games in the genre. In other words, keep possible fanboy-ism far away. Don't give number/letter scores! Just a full text review.
 
I wrote these 80 reviews over the past two years, although I donÂ’t know about their quality as no one ever told me if they were good or not. I kept fanboyism out of the way in all 80 of them as I dont *love* any system in particular but I am sure I made other mistakes.

Maybe you should/should not copy their style....

Staying away from gimmicky reviews is also good. I wrote a Wik: Fable of Souls review lately and wrote the whole thing as a rhyme to coincide with the games style. I thought it was a good idea when writing but not to sure about it now.
 
Figure out the key elements of the game and explain whether they are good or not, and why.

Sounds simple, but it's harder than you'd think. If you can do it, though, you'll have written a useful review, which is a good review. If you can do it creatively and stylishly, you may even write a great review.

What Campster said about scores is extremely important. If you're going to use a score, don't even think about it until you've written the rest of the review. Then read over what you've written, think about your experience playing the game, and use whatever score seems most appropriate. One of the biggest problems with reviewers is that they score a game while they're playing it, then write the review to justify that score.
 
Another thing that game critics should consider is actually to stop giving a shit about what the mass may think of the game and only talk about what THEY think is the game worth.
 
raYne said:
Also, keep your personal opinion/preferences to a minimun. People want to read about the facts of the game itself, not your thoughts about it. If possible, try to compare it to other games in the series instead of other games in the genre. In other words, keep possible fanboy-ism far away. Don't give number/letter scores! Just a full text review.
Click to expand...

Nooooooooooooooooooo!! If you're writing a review, it's supposed to have opinion. That's what writing a critique is all about. You are supposed to express judgements, opinions, biases, etc. If it's facts only, it's not a review.

On topic, I don't know if rastex was looking to write a review or some academic essay on a particular game. That's probably what he should figure out first.
 
Eggo said:
Nooooooooooooooooooo!! If you're writing a review, it's supposed to have opinion. That's what writing a critique is all about. You are supposed to express judgements, opinions, biases, etc. If it's facts only, it's not a review.

On topic, I don't know if rastex was looking to write a review or some academic essay on a particular game. That's probably what he should figure out first.
Click to expand...

He said he's doing something more akin to an academic criticism.
 
do not subdivide your review into categories like SOUND, GRAPHICS, CONTROL, etc

try to keep comparisons to a minimum...judge the game in a way so people not familiar wth every other game in existance will be able to follow you throughout your review. If the game is obviously ripping-off another True-Crime style, then this will be hard to follow.

the inclusion of a multiplayer mode doesn't automatically add 20% to a game's score, nor does the lack of one subtract. Evaluate the nature and quality of a game's single and multiplayer and judge the game based on how well it performs in each. It IS possible for a game without a multiplayer mode to be a AAA game that will be untouched for many years just the same as it is possible for a game with an extensive multiplayer mode to be absolutely worthless

in fact, don't use review scores if at all possible. A pro/con summary at the end is a good thing, if you don't go lazy on it and actually provide a full sentance or two for each point.

for the love of god, don't make the damn thing a novella.

In case you haven't picked up on it yet, avoid aping IGN
 
Jonnyboy117 said:
Figure out the key elements of the game and explain whether they are good or not, and why.
Click to expand...

Everybody's given great great advice, kind of funny that most of it is against 1up and IGN, wonder why they're so popular still. Oh well. And Jonnyboy's advice really hit the spot for me. I was having a lot of trouble getting started because I just didn't know what to write about specifically. I just knew I wanted to write about the game. It's like ok here are some cool things, but this is cool as well, oh and this and this, and just thinking about it in my head I knew something was wrong and the essay would be very boring/bad.

Focus on the key concepts, makes sense!
 
An effective writing style is just something that has to be honed with practice. There are many books out there about how to become a better writer.

As far as the content of the review goes, I usually focus my reviews on things about the game that will either make the player glad that they bought it or things that will make the player annoyed that they spent money on the game. What makes the game stand out from the crowd? If it doesn't stand out, explain why. What previous games does it remind you of?

Remember, in the end, it's about informing the reader what kind of gamer would enjoy it and whether it is worth it for them to buy the game or not. They usually want specific reasons. This is the only opinion of yours that the reader really wants to hear. Everything else usually ends up just being noise.
 
Also.. online reviews are not really there to inform readers. Their purpose is to piss off a bunch of them, so they tell their friends, send links around... and see your ads.
 
Grug said:
The first 95 percent of the review should comprise no reference to the game whatsoever. It should just comprise faux-philosophical ranting about the gaming industry and where its heading.

The next one percent should be an amateurish segway into the actual game you are reviewing.

The final 4 percent is your opinion on the game, enhanced or tarnished based on the your loyalty or hatred for the platform it is on.

Then finish off with a score using a /100 rating scale where 1-85 means bad, 85-89 = average and 90+ = good.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Tim Rogers 108 JOESTAR ROCKER SAVIOUR OF NEW GAMES JOURNALISM
 
A couple of random thoughts about reviews in general:

1) Be thorough. Although you don't have to clumsily structure your review by major area, you should discuss all of the key aspects of whatever it is you're reviewing by the time you're done. For games, the list would include (at least) gameplay, control, graphics, sound, difficulty, length, replayability, and price.

2) Back up your assertions. When I read a review, I want to know WHY the reviewer drew a conclusion. If I have that data, then I can potentially adjust the reviewer's opinion based on my own preferences. As an example, if a reviewer complains than an RPG is "too long," he/she should quantify how long it would take to complete. That way, if I'm looking for a longish game, I can tell whether it's "just right" for me, or if it's even "too long" by my own standards.

Also related to that point is the weighting criteria. Any reviewer is having to make a trade among various pros and cons to come up with an overall judgment, and not all of them are equally important. If I read a review which says that A, B, and C were all very positive and D was negative, but it gets an overall negative score, I'd be surprised and confused unless I understood how much A, B, C, and D mattered to the reviewer.

3) This last point is somewhat subtle, but important. There is a difference between evaluating how you feel about something, and evaluating how well something fulfills the creator's intent. If someone creates something unusual, you may or may not like it...but you can also judge how well they pulled off what they were trying to do. I like it when reviews try to take both angles.

As for writing style, that totally depends on your space limitations and the type of publication. Humor can be memorable, but you have to be careful not to cheapen your opinions by seeming jokey. In general, keep it professional and lean.
 
First you have to decide what kind of reviewer you want to be - subjective, or objective.

1) Subjective - you review the game based on what you think. You know, how many think a reviewer should act. However, you get ragged on, because you give an opinion or score that others think it doesn't deserve, despite it being your opinion. ("What?! This game is easily at least an 8! This guy is on crack! His comments can hold true to any game!" etc.).

2) Objective - you review a game based on simply teh quality or every aspect, trying to keep your view to a minimum. Sounds counter-intuitive, but it's still valid. But then you get ragged on for not giving your own opinion ie. teh GI scandal some time ago.

I think both styles are valid.

Haha...I'm just kidding.


...or am I?


<.< >.>
 
I've written a couple in my day and I pride myself on being... informative about the actual gameplay. For instance, I did 1up's Madden 06 (PS2/Xbox) review, take a look at it in comparison to IGN's or Gamespot's.

The aesthetic value or what have you of the game are secondary, write about what appealed to you and kept you with the controller in hand. Any nuances that you noticed, gameplay improvements over others in the genre, what have you.
 
Grug said:
The first 95 percent of the review should comprise no reference to the game whatsoever. It should just comprise faux-philosophical ranting about the gaming industry and where its heading.

The next one percent should be an amateurish segway into the actual game you are reviewing.

The final 4 percent is your opinion on the game, enhanced or tarnished based on the your loyalty or hatred for the platform it is on.

Then finish off with a score using a /100 rating scale where 1-85 means bad, 85-89 = average and 90+ = good.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I thought it was more like this:

The first 5 or 6 paragraphs should detail your life as a homeless bum in Tokyo, carrying on imaginary conversations with popular videogame luminaries like Shigesato Itoi and Kojima.

The next 3 or 4 paragraphs should reference a game partially related to (like, in the same genre, or by the same developer) the game at hand, and contain detailed criticism of that game. It helps to name drop other similar, popular games in this section.

Now, get around to talking about the game. But instead of the mechanics involved, talk about how it sets a new standard for artistry in games. Gloss over any flaws.

Don't spend too long on the game, it's time to make references to another game - this time, make sure this one has nothing to do with the game at hand... it's your job to tie the two together.

Make sure you have the sentence "____ is a videogame about a videogame" in there somewhere, your review is at least 10,000 words long, you've used the word "postmodern" at least 5 times, and have namedropped at least 3 Japanese developers, 2 movies, 1 Japanese popular fiction novel, and multiple anecdotes about Japanese daily life.

Finally, end it with an arbitrary rating, from 1 to 4 stars, make sure you never explain how you came to that ranking.

Sorry... couldn't resist =P
and I'll admit to liking a few of Tim's reviews, but I have to be in the mood...
 
In the end, you'll like Xtreme Kasavinspotting 1080 if you're a fan of Kasavinspotting games. If you're not a fan, then you might want to rent first.



DO NOT DO THIS
 
If it's anything that's suppose to resemble an academic critique, don't do scores. Of course, by academic I'm imagining you're writing a lengthy analysis of the game's mechanics, play, and structure. The question comes down to I guess if you're trying to be a Roger Ebert or a Paula Rabbowitz. If the former, the advice in this thread is pretty useful. If you're trying to do the latter, then you should read up on the works of Eric Zimmerman, Jesper Juul, Gonzalo Frasca to name a few.

Either way, I think its clear you should avoid emulating Tim Rogers in anyway whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Videogamer uses AI to write RE9:Requiem review
2
56
1K
Steve Holt replied
Digital Foundry: Starfield PS5/PS5 Pro Review - A Good Game... But There Are Issues
2
60
1K
Flabagast replied
Directive 8020 - A Dark Pictures Game | Review Thread
Review 
46
278
Zuzu replied
Motorslice | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
77
519
Guilty_AI replied
How is Streets of Rage 4 so good GAF?
2
74
805
Hudo replied
Top Bottom