How much emphasis do you put on game reviews?

[Flake]

. But of course it all has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think that's one reason I like CGR reviews so much. He shows you a lot of footage and talks more about the feel of a game and points out where he found enjoyment.

Classic Game Room should be a required study for anyone who wants to do a video game review, professionally or otherwise. Mark (and Dave, back in the day) only answers that one question that needs to be answered: How much fun is this game?

[jfrost]

It's a bit ridiculous the discrepancy between movie and game metacritic scores. Great movies barely make 70s. (I think someone mentioned this a while ago on these boards.)

Sure, movie reviews have had a hundred years to mature, but game reviewers could take a hint or two from their playbook. As it stands, game scores are almost useless.

[ZeroAX]

It's a bit ridiculous the discrepancy between movie and game metacritic scores. Great movies barely make 70s. (I think someone mentioned this a while ago on these boards.)

Sure, movie reviews have had a hundred years to mature, but game reviewers could take a hint or two from their playbook. As it stands, game scores are almost useless.

I think a big problem with game reviewers, is that most of them are fanboys, and I don't just mean console fanboys, but genre fanboys as well.

Also they just can't respect what is different. A good movie reviewer can see a good comedy and give it the mark it deserves even though it is not as deep as a drama movie. Likewise with action movies.

Game reviewers refuse to see Wii party games as what they are. Wii games for PARTIES . Just cause you don't have friends doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

Likewise with shooters, like someone mentioned. They complain about the lack of levels (if you have unlimited lives shooters can be beat pretty fast, but beating them with 50 continues used isn't really winning the game right?) the lack of online multiplayer (although the slightest big of lag will make these games unplayable) and the hard difficulty (even though the game's philosophy is too be hard ffs).

I wish there existed more mature game reviewers. I'm open to suggestions about good review sites. As objective as possible.



BTW Edge magazine does a good job of giving out low score reviews, but lately they to have become more open handed with their review scores.

[Gamerforlife]

I pay attention to gamerankings and metacritic, but that's usually just a starting point. I'll check out other places like this site right here to see what people say and I always look for a youtube video so I can see the game in action. Sometimes I'll check out the demo too, since practically everything that comes out now has demos

I think "professional" reviews are good for info, but it's not what should influence your buying decision. Seeing what like minded gamers think of the game and seeing the game in action either through youtube or a playable demo should be what ultimately makes your decision I think.

The thing about reviewers, they're pretty much all the sime. Like some kind of hive mind and usually I seem to already know what they're going to say about a game before it even comes out. Beat'em ups will always have a hard time with reviewers unless they are designed like Devil May Cry, God of War or Ninja Gaiden. Artsy games and gimmicky games will usually win reviewers over even if gameplay is mediocre(Alien Hominid, Scott Pilgrim vs the World, Shenmue, Odin Sphere)and big name titles like Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Zelda, Final Fantasy, etc. are guaranteed high scores before reviewers even play them. Old school, retro games don't usually do well unless it is a well known name like with Mega Man 9 or has some kind of gimmick or hook(Odin Sphere won reviewers over largely on its graphics)

Sometimes I like to read gamecritics.com because they don't ride the same bandwagon as most other review sites. Unfornately, the critieria by which they review certain games is utterly ridiculous and usually reaks of pretension and trying to appear smarter than they actually are

Lastly, I will say that the overwhelming majority of game reviewers today are not knowledgeable about gaming and its history and it really shows

EDIT:Not sure why I mentioned Scott Pilgrim there, it's actually gotten somewhat lukewarm reviews

[Erik_Twice]

There are very few reliable game reviewers. Every mainstream critic page I can think of is pretty bad or has serious journalistic problems (As in, we can't give this game less than 7or Sony will pull the adverstisments).

Even then its hard to find someone without hard bias against a genre. I have yet to see a good shump review and the same goes for musical games. Most reviewers don't understand fighting games but still review those titles either because they think they know when they don't or because they are forced to.


Anyways I don't think the 4 point scale is that wrong. There are very few modern bad games if you think about it. Halo is no 10 but not a bad game at all it's just bland. Unlike movies a bland, cliché game can be incredibly fun.

I mean, I look through my modern games and I do not see any bad games. I mean, even shovelware and the "Imagine" series are not that bad. I ask, what do you think is a modern bad game? Name one that is well-known because I don't think there's a lot of them.

[MrEco]

I always read the review of any game I'm interested in. I don't pay much (If any) attention to the actual score though, because regardless of the score a review will always give you information on the features of the game and that is what I pay attention to. Then after reading 2 or 3 reviews and gathering info on the game I'll decide if it's worth it or not (Also I sometimes watch gameplay video's on Youtube to actually see it in action).

EDIT:
I would also like to mention that in my opinion the ultimate reviewer wouldn't give a score at all. He would just type out a long list of the games features, it's pro's and cons, and give some examples from his playtime with the game. Maybe throw in a few screenshots throughout the review and give a gameplay video at the bottom. Then at the very end just give a quick summary of all the games biggest points with his final thoughts on what the game is worth (Buy, rent, buy used, don't buy, etc...).

[Pingfa]

But of course it all has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think that's one reason I like CGR reviews so much. He shows you a lot of footage and talks more about the feel of a game and points out where he found enjoyment.

Classic Game Room should be a required study for anyone who wants to do a video game review, professionally or otherwise. Mark (and Dave, back in the day) only answers that one question that needs to be answered: How much fun is this game?

I enjoy Classic Game Room too. His reviews are rarely critical even if he dislikes the game - which is rare as he seems to be able to get some enjoyment out of just about any game.
I've watched a few of Derek's reviews and don't enjoy them much as he tries hard to keep it 'professional' - a review can be professional without sounding it. It always feels like he's reading from a script and in trying to sound professional it results in a monotonous and pompous review.

Mark's reviews often digress and have little to do with the game, but it's enough that I know wether he enjoyed it and what aspects of it stand out as good or bad.

Anyhow, it's always best to go in without any expectations so I generally avoid reviews, but if it's a game I'm undecided on or a possible hidden gem then it's worth knowing how the experience was for other people.

[Gamerforlife]

I would also like to mention that in my opinion the ultimate reviewer wouldn't give a score at all. He would just type out a long list of the games features, it's pro's and cons, and give some examples from his playtime with the game. Maybe throw in a few screenshots throughout the review and give a gameplay video at the bottom. Then at the very end just give a quick summary of all the games biggest points with his final thoughts on what the game is worth (Buy, rent, buy used, don't buy, etc...).

Sounds awesome, I would also enjoy it if reviewers would drop the authoritative tone that seems to be a requirement in a lot of entertainment journalism for some reason. Why can't people say "in my opinion" and speak in first person. Can't we drop the pretension that is characteristic of reviews in ALL entertainment mediums. It's one of the reasons people often get upset when they read a review they don't agree with. Critics often present themselves as some all knowing gaming god sitting up on some throne and passing judgement of whatever game they play and deciding for us poor, foolish, ignorant people whether or not we should allow ourselves to play a certain game. I think that's why a lot of people prefer blogs or youtube vids for reviews, because people can just be real and drop the act

[MrEco]

Sounds awesome, I would also enjoy it if reviewers would drop the authoritative tone that seems to be a requirement in a lot of entertainment journalism for some reason. Why can't people say "in my opinion" and speak in first person. Can't we drop the pretension that is characteristic of reviews in ALL entertainment mediums. It's one of the reasons people often get upset when they read a review they don't agree with. Critics often present themselves as some all knowing gaming god sitting up on some throne and passing judgement of whatever game they play and deciding for us poor, foolish, ignorant people whether or not we should allow ourselves to play a certain game. I think that's why a lot of people prefer blogs or youtube vids for reviews, because people can just be real and drop the act

Yeah it's the "what I say is law" type attitude that makes most reviews sound fan-boyish and ignorant. I think X-Play is probably the best example of this. Personally I find the reviews at Gamesradar.com to be very open-minded and more freely written. Like an actual gamer is doing the review.

[saturnfan]

And thus is the problem with numbered reviews and their perception. A score of 75% if lukewarm? That should still be a 'good' game. A 90% should be an 'excellent' game. 50% should be average. 30% should be a 'lukewarm' game. Plus reviews are going to be skewed by the type of games you like. I don't care for platformers so things like classic Mario or Sonic games would get 50% or less from me if I were to try to assign a score to them.

I prefer reviews that talk about what the game does and doesn't do and perhaps talk about whether it looks or sounds good and whethe rthe controls do what you expect them to do. But of course it all has to be taken with a grain of salt. I think that's one reason I like CGR reviews so much. He shows you a lot of footage and talks more about the feel of a game and points out where he found enjoyment.

Perception is a big part of it since I feel a 6/10 or 7/10 would be "lukewarm" because those scores would be like getting a D or C in school. It is not good or bad, just run of the mill and unimpressive. A score of 3/10 would be garbage to me, not lukewarm.