Words and Phrases That Should be Banned from Game Reviews

[Luke]

With more and more people reviewing games, more and more words and phrases are being used that shouldn't be used when describing a video game. There are always exceptions, as I think it is fine to use the word "Epic" with SOTC, but "Epic Mickey" was a straight oxymoron.

Next time you read a review and something stands out, post it in this thread with your thoughts. Picking nits is allowed, and this is all subjective so don't be shy about expressing your personal opinions. That said, this isn't simply a thread to bash your most hated vg reviewers.

I'll start:

"The fight for your life"/"You're in for the fight of your life".

I don't mind when this phrase is mindlessly slapped on the back of a box, but it grates my nerves when a reviewer uses this phrase. The character in the game has no actual life, and the player is pressing buttons. I love boss battles, and sometimes games do a fantastic job of building up that feeling like "it's now or never", and sure it is frustrating if you lose and have to start over...but you can always start over.

[Erik_Twice]

If you want to, I can post my whole "Words to avoid when writting" notes if I can find them.

It's not a short document.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I absolutely loathe it when I read professional reviews (IGN, Game Informer, etc) that begin with phrases like....

"I've never played a game of this particular genre but..."
"I never played the 1985 original but allow me to review the 2011 remake as if it were an original game released in 2011!..."

That happens more than you would think...

[AppleQueso]

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

[noiseredux]

I absolutely loathe it when I read professional reviews (IGN, Game Informer, etc) that begin with phrases like....

"I've never played a game of this particular genre but..."
"I never played the 1985 original but allow me to review the 2011 remake as if it were an original game released in 2011!..."

That happens more than you would think...

I don't have a problem with this. It's full disclosure, and it's also letting you know that THIS review is based on just THIS game, while another review might be reviewing it as a compare/contrast to the preceding game in the series or original game that's now being remade or whatever.

[brunoafh]

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

Same, reading reviews from a mainstream site or magazine is a complete waste of time. Terrible and brainless reviews used to piss me off years ago but I've since learned it's best to just look the other way.

http://www.officialplaystationmagazine. ... s3-review/

Played for maybe a few minutes (if at all) and reviewed on the release date just for the hell of it. It's not even a review at all, really, just random thoughts from a biased half-wit. The fact that a major publication deemed this worthy to print is something else.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

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

This.

I don't read reviews or watch them anymore.

[Jmustang1968]

For the grief they get here, I think game informer does a pretty good job on their editorials, previews, and reviews. I don't always agree with them, but I think they typicall back up their thoughts well and give interesting commentary and insight. Ign is hit or miss, and I gave up on gamespot years ago.

[Luke]

I'm with both Bone and Noise on this. I'm with Noise on the fact that full disclosure is a necessity when reviewing one particular game. They are reviewing one game, not the series.

I'm with Bone at the fact that if someone considers them self a professional, they should be aware of the source material. With the medium of video games a reviewer should be knowledgeable of the source material as it is easily and readily available.

With movie reviews, sometimes you get in that sticky situation where a movie is based off a tv show that you've never watched and people will be up in arms with "You obviously never watched the tv show!". It's a catch 22, because in this case the source material is easily available, but on a different medium. I had better ways of spending my time than watching Dukes of Hazard on tv, and I also could have better spent my time than watching the Dukes of Hazard movie, but when I gave it an awful review I heard a lot of "but you didn't watch the show!". Doesn't matter, different medium.

[MrPopo]

I absolutely loathe it when I read professional reviews (IGN, Game Informer, etc) that begin with phrases like....

"I've never played a game of this particular genre but..."
"I never played the 1985 original but allow me to review the 2011 remake as if it were an original game released in 2011!..."

That happens more than you would think...

I don't have a problem with this. It's full disclosure, and it's also letting you know that THIS review is based on just THIS game, while another review might be reviewing it as a compare/contrast to the preceding game in the series or original game that's now being remade or whatever.

I think the issue is that even though the disclosure is there it's a very incomplete review. For example, if I'm reviewing Akai Katana and start off by saying "I don't normally play shmups" then my review is going to be completely useless for people who do play shmups, though it will be useful for those who also don't really play them and want to try one out. Really, any time a writer is tempted to say something like that it says that you need two reviewers: a newbie and a veteran.