What makes a good review?

[Radical Lanzar]

In light of the fact most of us post reviews here or recommend what we think are good reviews.

What raises the bar, what stinks and what is a cut above the rest?

[Curlypaul]

I like to see things structured, so we have some background about the game, a summary of the plot and most importantly what genre the game it.

I like to hear some proper constructive criticisms, if the game is bad then why is it bad? what exactly could have been done better? If its good, then what is it about the games mechanics that make it stand out from the rest?

I don't see the need for reviews to talk too much about which buttons do what, and what things are in what menus etc etc. I'd rather hear about how responsive the controls are and more general statements about the arrangement of in game menus or anything like that.

I also think that they should be concise. The average length of a review at Sega-16 is just about right for me. Long enough to be detailed, but not so long that I lose interest.

Also, sometimes I like to know about the reviewers stance on the genre in general - are they schump veterans or is this a new genre to them. Its often relevant to assessing whether the reviewers opinion might match mine. I don't mind reviewers showing bias, so long as I can tell that their opinion is bias.

[Erik_Twice]

This is a good question.

I think that a good review should be informative about everything else. You should be able to read it and know what the game is about, how it works and if it's for you. Knowing if it's good or bad is okey but knowing why the game is what it is is the real deal for me.

I think that regurgitating the rules or the story doesn't lend itself to good reviews, specially since they tend to make me lose focus and the format suffers from it. Many people also use those things as filler and I really don't want to look like them

[mcfrosticles]

A good review can be tricky, especially with retro games. Many games have been reviewed already, so you really have to provide some interesting information that pulls the reader / viewer in. I always love history!

One thing I see a lot of are reviews that don't take a strong stance. They will say things like "it's just my opinion, try the game out for yourself!" That completely misses the point of a review......in my opinion.

[BoringSupreez]

I like reviews which discuss each component of the game separately. A section for the graphics, sound, gameplay, etc., and then at the end an overall summary. I like comparisons of the various versions to be included in the review. I also like high-res jpegs, so that I can see what the game looks like for myself.

[MrPopo]

I read a review to determine if I think I would like playing the game or not. So I want to know how the game plays; are the controls responsive, are the menus intuitive? Does the game have a good sense of challenge or is it a lot of bullshit bats appearing from offscreen while you're over a pit? How are the production values? I'm thinking more of something that looks like care was put into it; it doesn't have to have jaw dropping graphics like FFXIII but it should have a consistent style and time should have been spent on it. Fun is a subjective concept, but these are a lot of concrete facts I can use to determine if I'll like it or not. I don't care if the reviewer liked it as long as he can state objective facts about it.

[Erik_Twice]

One thing I see a lot of are reviews that don't take a strong stance. They will say things like "it's just my opinion, try the game out for yourself!" That completely misses the point of a review......in my opinion.

Hahaha, yes! They know that the truth scares people away so if you just make everything look super happy you get more views and more free goodies on your door. Hey, no hard feelings, you are special and you can always be right because it's just my opinion!

I specially enjoy how profesional critics are like that. "Hey, I don't even care for my own career, why would you?"

[GigaPepsiMan]

I always just leave the relevant things in my reviews. When I do a write up I normally have 900-1000 words, when I'm done with edits and proof reads they normally end up being 600-700 words.
In some cases less is more. I don't believe in a point system and I tell it how I see it, I wrote about Red Steel 2 a while back and people thought I had given the game bad feedback even though I said the problems were mostly minor faults in what was a good game.
Everyone has a different interpretation of a review, this may a good reason for a point system but to me points take away the value of words, Red Steel 2 may have been fun in my eyes but I still think the game had wasted potential, this complaint seemed to stick with readers the most.
Also never use the word "that" when you are trying to write an article, if you avoid using "that" then the writing tends to flow better.

This is how I do things anyway, everyone is differen't and I don't believe my style to be the best but I do think people should try and avoid using "that".

[retrosportsgamer]

Also never use the word "that" when you are trying to write an article, if you avoid using "that" then the writing tends to flow better.

This is how I do things anyway, everyone is differen't and I don't believe my style to be the best but I do think people should try and avoid using "that".

"That" and "It" are bad words to use, agree.

[BoringSupreez]

Also never use the word "that" when you are trying to write an article, if you avoid using "that" then the writing tends to flow better.

This is how I do things anyway, everyone is differen't and I don't believe my style to be the best but I do think people should try and avoid using "that".

"That" and "It" are bad words to use, agree.

I'll keep that in mind when I write my own reviews. It's kinda disappointing how bland and stiff my writing is when I don't want it to be, and that's a problem.

One more thing I like in reviews: when the review is for a game that pretty much objectively sucks, I like humor. But make sure to read the review twice before publishing, to assure the humor isn't just stupid stuff only funny to you when you first wrote it.