16th May 2018 - What do you look for in a game review?

Leonardo Da Sidci - Yesterday at 8:12 PM
Today's Topic - 16th May 2018

submitted by Leonardo Da Sidci

What do you look for in a game review and why? What's important to you as far as a game review is concerned?
Superuser - Yesterday at 8:17 PM
What makes a game review useful to me is the reviewer's background, namely, 'do they like the types of games that I like'. In recent years I've followed individual reviewers rather than outlets to find reviews of games.

What separates a good game reviewer from a bad one is the author's ability to speak positively on a game's good aspects and not resort to cynicism. I look for reviews where the reviewer can praise the good side of the game and evaluate that just as critically as the bad side.

I prefer reviews without scores. If it's a video review, I like to see gameplay or the cinematography of a game's cutscenes because those speak for themselves.

UnteroffizierGurke - Yesterday at 8:18 PM
For me objectivity is important, when looking at a review by game magazines, but when it is made by a person, whose opinion i value, it does not need to be subjective at all. Reviews can be a lot of fun to watch, if done in the second style I mentioned. I value a good structure and clarification, of every machanic, and how it works or feels. That's like the most important part, for a person, that hasn't played a game, and wants to get an opinion on it.

pieecuu - Yesterday at 8:18 PM
For me it is reviewing the game with as little spoilers as possible, but also looking at it objectively, without all the hate trains that games can get (take dead rising 4, which i enjoyed, while the series' fans hated it for the most part), or even nostalgia glasses (some older games for example, which people remember as being better than they actually are), and looking at the pros and cons, without skipping the former nor the latter. Some people can be very biased when reviewing a game and they show only the good or only the bad side, which can make people not buy the game for themselves, even if it's actually good. And also as @Superuser pointed out, it's good to follow individual reviewers, and I agree with that.(edited)

3X0Karibu - Yesterday at 8:18 PM
a good game reivew has to be objective for themost part, if the author wants to put his opinion in he has to mark it no matter what, if the game has a controversy surrounding it (like with battlefront 2 or metal gear 5/survive) this has to be mentioned, if the game is getting continous updates, the original reviewer has to come back to it and re review it, if the game has special circumstances they also have to be mentioned (firest game to do something, first release of a indie studio, the publisher firing the main creator and face of the series etc) if the game contains lootboxes the review also has to mention that and, if there is a rating system, take away some pionts, this also applyes to day one dlc/seasonpass, there should also be a "award" system for the game, like great openworld, great story, great soundtrack, so one can see what the best things about the game without having to read the entire atricle(edited)

Space Tacos - Yesterday at 8:21 PM
Honest impressions, but also I expect the reviewer to make me aware of the context. Objectivity is unobtainable, so I'll settle for rational subjectivity. I want to know what the reviewer's past experiences are with the genre/series, I expect him to explain how exactly this game relates to everything around it that I may have played. Knowing the tastes of the reviewer, what he liked and didn't like (without pretending to judge something as outright bad), what the similar games are, I can form my own opinion on whether or not I'd like it.

That's why I like Giant Bomb reviews, where the authors tastes can be clearly seen. Or Kotaku, where the staff is small enough to quickly find out who specializes in what. They also don't give numeric scores, and recently have even given up the binary yes/no recommendation. There's the review itself, that should be enough for the reader to decide. Too much importance has been delegated to the scores, which simply can not be used as a substitute of an opinion. I understand their appeal, but they just entice people to stop caring about the actual text.

P.S.: And for the love of God please let the youtube people stop using the word critique for nitpicking videos. It's not what that word means.(edited)

Stefferty - Yesterday at 8:23 PM
I fancy video reviews. It gives you time and accurate presentation of the game.
I like watching how the game unfolds and will decide if I want the game while watching one. If I see the need to stop watching, I have the discipline to do so to go, buy the game and play it myself.
Spoilers do not concern me as when the fun is gone, the game will not be fun to be played again, thus I have no interest anymore.

Written reviews are not enough for me to make decisions as many did lie before and I have no intent in believing anything I haven't seen.

Mark C. P. | KZNE - Yesterday at 8:24 PM
Not gonna lie, I end up hogging it to the number score a bit more then fully reading through the reviews of most games. The reason for that is that with some games, you would rather just get a quick look at if it is good or not, as you don't wanna set off all your time for a 20-30 minute video about every intricate mechanic the games has to offer. Granted, with some more complex games like the ones in the Sid Meier list of games, it's gonna be required for you to look through the mechanics, regardless of you wanting to skim it or not, but for less complex titles like shooter and whatnot from the AAA scene, we have just become used to a number because we are already incredibly expectant of what is going to be in that game. And due to that, we don't tend to delve deeper.

Granted, some reviewers have tried to break the "quick review culture" through different means. Super Bunnyhop is one I would fit into that has he manages to be analytical and informative about everything he does, but manages to keep you invested. I'm not exactly sure as to what he uses, it it is subtle humor, his way of speaking or something else, but Shammy is easier to talk about. He tends to try and mix in depth analysis with clever editing and just the right amount of humor for it to be funny and not run dry. I'm pretty sure I'm missing some other great reviewers that managed to keep it interesting in the long run, but most people just don't go to that anymore, as those type of vids take a long time to make. So people switch to quantity over quality...(edited)

Luke Mileto - Yesterday at 8:24 PM
I only expect the scores, because most of reviews only answers whether a game is worth buying or not (and in here game is an expensive stuff)
Doki - Yesterday at 8:30 PM
What do I look for in a game review? Well, that's a hefty question and my answer is that I look for information from a viewpoint that I like from someone who can have the same or similar outlook on the game o reviewed material for that matter. In a game review, I look for thoughts about the main aspects of a game. How does it play, how does it look like, and most importantly what does it feel like when I'm getting involved with it. The immersion of a game is the most important aspect of a game for me after all. If it can grab my mind and take it on a journey so to say, if with a cleverly written story or well planned mechanical gameplay ...but something needs to anchor my attention to the game itself. If I can see that in the review how much of that anchoring power it might have. That is what I'm looking for in it.

Sci - Yesterday at 9:24 PM
What is most important to me is the reviewer's honesty about his own biases towards whatever he reviews. Objectivity in game reviews is impossible, so it's important for a reviewer to warn the viewer of his own potential biases towards particular genres or franchises.

I watch more than one game reviewer on YouTube, each has their own preferences towards certain styles of game design, certain genres and of course their own unique all time favorites. Hearing out many different perspectives on the same game can give you a better image of whether it would be enjoyable. Following only a handful of reviewers who's tastes have aligned with your own in the past limits your knowledge and can leave you making a bad purchase or missing out on a title that is out of your comfort zone but could be gateway into a new genre or style of game.

As someone who played Dark Souls after hearing it's praises from many different sources and then found the game to be boring and unenjoyable despite making significant progress, I wish I had found more criticism of it before making the choice to play it.

Prosthetic Consciousness - Yesterday at 9:37 PM
A game review is much akin to a movie review in my opinion. I look for a reviewer who's opinion I can either trust and appreciate, I look for diversity of approaching the game, and a combination if objective discussion and subjective discussion of the various facets at work.

I follow Laura Kate Dale and Jim Sterling largely these days, but will be branching out a bit more with both of them reviewing less and less (In Laura's case because she never got over the admittedly awful cup head review she had and Jim because he stopped reviewing in the large scale) because I knew even if I didn't agree with their opinions, I could understand how they came to them. That's important in a review, that semblance of personality. For instance, if Aris tells me that fighting game X is bad, I know he's a tekken player and to judge it against that specific lense. If Jim tells me a game is devastatingly short, I know that from the lense of an arcader who prefers shorter, sweeter titles. (1/2)

After that he diversity of the review. A review that focuses on looking on a game through Y lense or against X axis doesn't do anyone any damned good. You need to be able to tell how a game should be approached and how it could be approached for enjoyment. Should it be played competitively or casually? Are its mechanics welcoming or foreboding? Are they going to claim its the dark souls of tetris clones or the Street Fighter of Racing titles. It's important to determine how your reviewer is approaching the title and how you need to read into it as a result.

Finally is Objective and Subjective discussion. Subjective discussion would be breaking down mechanics as they pertain to the reviewer. Claiming Dark Souls has wonky or floaty controls would be a good indicator that the reviewer probably prefers Character Action titles and gives you a lense to appreciate it through. I feel that's rather self explanatory so I'll go over Objective insteas. Reviews can be objective. Talking about functions that don't work, bugs or crashes, incomplete sections of the game, shoddy writing and acting, graphics that aren't just low poly but are actually terribly rendered and inconsistent, things like that would all be objective points. Bad sound design, vfx, etc etc. (2/2)

Mister Deathclaw - Yesterday at 11:55 PM
What I look for and what I believe is important on a game review is:
- Where the game shines
- What are the game flaws
- What type of gamers the reviewer feels would enjoy the game or wouldn't

Oftentimes, reviews are one sided, either good or bad, no analysis other than "Omg avoid this turd sandwich or omg this game is beautiful" when in reality, an informative review is prone to have a more positive effect. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Every game has redeeming qualities when analyzed properly, granted there are exceptions to the case, it's always good to see what's good, what's bad and let viewers decide for themselves, instead of force feeding them the answer.

May 17, 2018
Chard - Today at 12:21 AM
Game reviews are tricky for me. Mostly because I stopped reading the traditional ones a long time ago. Now a days I rely more on word-of-mouth from friends and a small selection of youtubers (some who review games and some who just show games off).
I do however have some reflections around what I consider a good review, or a good reviewer.
For me a huge part of any given reviewers arsenal is their catalogue of work. A review becomes, in my eyes, far better if there is some background to the reviewer. There are two points this serves: 1) It is far easier to understand where the reviewer is coming from, and what they base their review/score on. For example: a reviewer who truly loves a genre of games will review a game of that genre differently from someone who isn’t interested. While I believe that none of these positions (being invested or not) is superior to the other, I do find it very useful to understand WHERE the reviewer is standing. 2) A catalogue of the reviewers work might contain games I’ve played. Reading through these reviews, with my own knowledge of the game, will help me understand what the reviewer looks for in games. For example: If I read a review that explains how the reviews likes a game I know about, I can gauge that reviewers perspective on games of that genre in general. Say, the reviewer likes Starcraft because they like the fast paced gameplay, now the very same reviewer is going to review Rise of Nations. The information given to me about the reviewer in the Starcraft review might help me understand how they score RoN.
As for the subjective/objective discussion, I have to say that a review is in itself subjective. But I do find more “objective” qualities in games (such as performance on different machines, production quality etc) useful to know.
I will conclude my statement by returning to the original question: What’s important to you in a game review. My answer would probably be: a good reviewer who has a consistent catalogue.

Old Senile Mushrooms - Today at 1:19 AM
I don't have much to contribute but I honestly only watch game reviews so I can get a summary of the game and see some gameplay, and I'm honestly better off either getting an LP for that or just googling wikipedia articles on a game.

I stopped caring about reviewer opinions when a lot of them back in the day would give games I ended up loving mediocre to low scores just because of really dumb things that have never bothered me. "It's too easy" or "it's too short" were the big ones and I just ended up ignoring them anyway.

What I do like seeing in game reviews, when I do watch them, is for the person doing them to care about more than just mechanics. I'm the kind of person who will play a bad game if it has a good story and I care way more about topics or artistic or narrative merit than technical merit so I gravitate toward people who don't just rave about the controls the whole time and actually bother to acknowledge video games have more aspects and appeal than just being a sport or challenge. There aren't that many reviewers like that though and I can't think of any dedicated reviewers who are. Some analysis videos fit the bill well enough though, the NitW video on sid's channel is a good example.

other than that it's fun to see what other people think of games I already play or grew up with so I watch a lot of retro reviews, it's also intereting to see the hybrid review-analysis stuff channels like SBH do since I feel like those have actual takeaways for game design from them.