Words and Phrases That Should be Banned from Game Reviews

[noiseredux]

so what happened when Sonic 1 came out? How did anyone review it if they had no prior experience with such a game?

[Erik_Twice]

so what happened when Sonic 1 came out? How did anyone review it if they had no prior experience with such a game?

No, what I mean is that it's very hard to understand Sonic if you haven't played Super Mario Bros, Castlevania or any other simpler, less evolved game of the same genre.

Also my review for Sonic is that it's misleading. Waste of time. Go to the arcade instead.
- PALgamer reviews

[Jmustang1968]

For the grief they get here, I think game informer does a pretty good job on their editorials, previews, and reviews.

To each his own; I abhor game informer reviews. With the latest edition (Halo 4 cover) there's a two page review on the new Spider-Man game where the reviewer never even played the game. And that's nothing new to gi. The entire review could have been summed up with "it looks kinda cool".

Yeah I double checked, the spider man piece was definitely in the preview section and it did a pretty good job of previewing the game... It wasn't a review, so I am not sure what you are getting at. I have yet to see a review from them where they haven't played the game. In fact I have seen them delay a new game review because they got the game late...

[Cronozilla]

Honestly, my largest pet peeve term used in any review is AAA.

What the hell does that even mean? It's used to mean best of the best ... but no one actually defines it, they just use it to mean "games they like that they think are the best". There's no discernible real world data definition of the term. Why is Gears of War 3 considered a AAA title, but Xenoblade isn't? It makes no goddamn sense.

Hardcore (like mentioned earlier) also has almost no definition. People claim it's games that are designed for the gamer who REALLY plays games. They don't just dabble in them. It's a game that allows you to really dig in, so to speak. Now, that's a fine definition, I'd be all for that, that is what I would call hardcore, someone pumping through a 120 hour RPG or something. But people then turn around and say, oh, Halo is the hardest of the hardcore. And suddenly hardcore seems to mean violent. Mature rated. And that's a stupid definition and does not reflect anything that makes some designation reasonable.

Casual has the same issue. It'd be perfectly fine to describe a game as casual, if it's something you can casually play. Angry Birds, Picross, things like that. Things that don't necessarily require a heavy time investment to make progress. However, that's not how people use the term in relation to games. They use it to mean like the game is not difficult, or it's "kiddy". It's just a complete disconnect that makes no sense.

Comments on how attitude relates to misuse of terms and overall delivery:

I am so tired of seeing this kind of shit in reviews. The only thing that pisses me off more is when reviewers will downplay some feature in a game purely because a game with a similar feature already came out. For example, Heavenly Sword got ripped on for being like God of War, but Gears of War didn't get shit for being like Kill.Switch. They selectively, internally, choose which games are somehow "the elite" and they don't share this information with you ... but they make all their decisions and arguments based on them.

I think that attitude should be entirely banned from reviews, in general. Having a second talking about how a title compares to similar titles in various aspects is FINE, but they don't do that. They use it as a root justification and fail to actually review the title as a result. It turns into a "I didn't like it" or "I liked it" issue, and that's NOT what a review is! A review is an analysis of the game, you are suppose to explore the depths of what exists on the game and measure the relative merits while doing so.

And to think ... people have the audacity to argue that magazines have no place in modern culture because of the internet ... but fail to recognize the journalists didn't exactly move over to similar projects online.

The old aspect of game journalism where the reviewers always gave the game the benefit of the doubt and truly tried it for what it is are GONE. Now journalists in their reviews seem to use them as lampooning grounds for things they don't like. Now, I'd swear they don't even like games. I really miss that old review style.

[DinnerX]

I don't read enough professional reviews to even notice the cliches they use.

At the end of the day, I'm saddened to say that it isn't neccesary. The unnatural speech and turns of phrase are so obvious, so generic and so unequal in form that it's impossible for me not to notice. It's like seeing a politician talk, it's so awkard it pains me to hear them.


I haven't been able to find most of my notes, they are scattered among several papers but I also don't want to bore you with too many examples. Those are words and phrases that should absolutedly be avoided whenever possible and while some are clearly worse offenders than others, two or three of these in the same review would be enough for me to declare you critically dead.

Comments in bold
PD: Most phrases will have many variations, but they are all one and the same

it sucks
compelling characters (Non-specific, non-telling, completely overused. Compare to "beliable" which is more informative and requires less regulated writting)
- compelling narrative
- compelling gameplay
Ok,so...
- Ok, so here we go!
- Ok, so let's see...
The graphics are awesome, the music is great and the X is a lot of fun (For bonus points, waggle your arms for emphasis)
The most fun X
realistic
classic X action (as in, "classic plataforming action")
feels like work
boring (use "bland" or "insipid" instead, boring doesn't explain why
overrated
underrated
fiddly (Have you ever seen this word? Talk about irony!)
heavy
elegant
deep
brain burner
cutthroat
hard as fuck
- difficult as fuck
a breeze (difficulty-wise)
random (as in "random humour" or "random shooting game". Uggh.)
great music (It's always great music. Not any other adjectives!)
memorable Boss Battles
sense of speed
- unrivaled sense of speed
blazing through the streets of X
overly difficult
- overly short
open enviroments
huge sandbox
fast-paced gameplay
In conclusion (This is third-grader writting and unfortunatedly seen as good)
rose-tinted glasses (Meaning: You are a biased moron, unlike me)
repeated playthroughs
innovative
theme (instead of setting)
Comparisons to 1984. All of them.
classic (meaningless word)
cinematic (Meaning: Boring gameplay)
repetitive (prevents you from explaining why)
cheap
sense of progression
RPG-elements
dark/ dystopian world
dumbed down
highlights
a much more appropiate X
But once you get over the fact that
(People who like X) should give Y a look
gamepaly elements
a welcome addition to the genre
cartoony (Meaning: I have no idea what I'm saying)
sluggish controls
it's a shame X (isn't better)
no X at all
the fact that in (year) we still suffer from (X) is (unforgivable)
scratches an itch
- scrathces the same itch as
getting your X fix
without any bells and whistles
fun (weasel word)
colorful graphics
where it doesn't dissapoint
- and it doesn't dissapoint here
abandons the X gameplay of it's predeccesor
benefits from X
- benefits from the powerful X hardware
- makes the best use of the X capabilities
a common problem of X is that you Y
along the same lines as X
well-crafted
what X lacks in Y, it makes up in Z
a joy to play
There's more than the usual (mechanic) of X, here you...
For starters, X is (way to say bad, often a childish way to say bad)
looks like crap
- looks like shit
The X was good in it's time but
seriously, what the fuck were they thinking?
leaderboard (Scoreboard is not cool anymore)

I could go on and on. And don't think for a moment you need those to write a review, those phrasings are only useful if you want to write like a robot.

A dyslexic one.

Covered in pee.

I believe you missed "action packed."

[nightrnr]

Now I want to write an article using all of General_Norris's avoid list. I'd imagine I'd make it into a parody (as if it would be possible not to) of sorts. But I don't really pay as much attention to "professional reviews" either, so how would I even know.

Concerning not having experience with earlier games:
I don't have as much of a problem with. However, I definitely give more credence to a reviewer who has played a game's important predecessors (I even seek out those ones, or the reason I like Hardcore Gaming 101 so much).

What does bother me is when a reviewer openly states that he doesn't like a genre, and continues to bash the game. I appreciate the honesty, but why review the game at all (or read it for that matter) if you don't like the type.
It's not often, but it does happen.