Hate videogame reviews?

[Vandenh]

Well you are not alone. TGDaily has written an interesting article (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/07/the_pointlessness_of_current_videogame_journalism/) about why they don't like the state of videogame "journalism".

Rather than being critics who add to the industry as film and music journalists arguably did back in the heady days of the 50's - 70's (though there's a whole other debate in the state of those two branches of critical journalism these days and in the past) videogame journalists are mere extensions of the marketing machine, pushing even the most mediocre of games into a good light with the public in previews and then trashing them for sport to see how many good puns can be dredged out of the 500 words which the author really doesn't want to have to write.

[Varsity]

The problem with quality games writing there isn't enough demand for it. Print magazines have a hard enough time as it is competing with online news sites without narrowing their demographic, and the online news sites are dominated by those catering to large younger/less involved audiences. As McKenna points out there ARE good games journalism sites (like my own, natch) and publications, but they never achieve the same sort of fame as the good film or music sites because of the overall games journalism audience. This will only change as gaming penetrates higher age brackets and reaches more serious audiences.

His preview beef is damn straight, though.

[Inglorion]

Ah yes. Hate to reiterate what everyone's been saying dozens of times before me, but GameSpot, I think, is the only site out there, amongst the big ones, which has any shred of integrity.

[CapnAJ]

I don't really read reviews, I just go by what I like and how the game is generally received amongst the gaming public (e.g. reading forums; though I tend to avoid the tech forums as they always give the impression the game is bugged beyond playability and when I play the game everything works fine).

[fushi]

Whenever I think that a game review is "good" or "interesting", I'll see at least ten people yell that it's "pretentious", "too wordy", or whatever. And no, I'm not narrowing it down to insertcredit only, EDGE and even EuroGamer get pissed on for the same reason. People plain dislike reviews that deviate from the norm and a tired game reviewer isn't going to change that, sadly.

Or maybe I haven't read any good reviews. Who knows. I like Greg Kasavin, though. His opinions are always very clear and concise.

[Kelegacy]

Whenever I think that a game review is "good" or "interesting", I'll see at least ten people yell that it's "pretentious", "too wordy", or whatever. And no, I'm not narrowing it down to insertcredit only, EDGE and even EuroGamer get pissed on for the same reason. People plain dislike reviews that deviate from the norm and a tired game reviewer isn't going to change that, sadly.

Or maybe I haven't read any good reviews. Who knows. I like Greg Kasavin, though. His opinions are always very clear and concise.
Kasavin is a gamer, through-and-through. If he likes a game, chances are I'm going to just as much. Many of the reviewers/editors at Gamespot are close when reviewing games. The most accurate reviews on the net, in my opinion.

But if I'm really on the fence about a game I'll read IGN, Worthplaying, and sometimes...just sometimes...Gamespy. I like to see what different people like/hate about the game.

[critch]

I read the big reviews just for fun sometimes, but mainly I just listen to word-of-mouth and actual gamer reviews. Or just renting the thing if it looks interesting.

I can't imagine anyone really takes places like IGN seriously though.

[EvilBob46]

I compare GameSpot/IGN reviews and check Gamerankings/Metacritics carefully whenever I buy a game. They've never failed me. If a game gets a really good score on both GameSpot and IGN and has at least 88% from all review scores on the other sites = must buy.

Personally, even with all of the talk of GameSpot being "biased" or "pro-Sony" or what not I still like them a whole lot. Greg Kasavin and others like Gerstmann are honest and down to earth. I also like that they don't hand out high scores like there is no tomorrow (*cough* IGN *cough*). Resident Evil 4 got a 9.6? It must be amazing. Ninja Gaiden a 9.4? Same.

[Draft]

Whenever I think that a game review is "good" or "interesting", I'll see at least ten people yell that it's "pretentious", "too wordy", or whatever. And no, I'm not narrowing it down to insertcredit only, EDGE and even EuroGamer get pissed on for the same reason. People plain dislike reviews that deviate from the norm and a tired game reviewer isn't going to change that, sadly.That's because most of them are. The videogame literati haven't figured out how to write new games journalism that doesn't read like an english grad student's livejournal.

[Inglorion]

Greg Kasavin and others like Gerstmann
Jeff Gerstmann is infamous for overrating games, though.

[jeffbax]

I compare GameSpot/IGN reviews and check Gamerankings/Metacritics carefully whenever I buy a game. They've never failed me. If a game gets a really good score on both GameSpot and IGN and has at least 88% from all review scores on the other sites = must buy.
Both owned by the same company...
Personally, even with all of the talk of GameSpot being "biased" or "pro-Sony" or what not I still like them a whole lot. Greg Kasavin and others like Gerstmann are honest and down to earth. I also like that they don't hand out high scores like there is no tomorrow (*cough* IGN *cough*). Resident Evil 4 got a 9.6? It must be amazing. Ninja Gaiden a 9.4? Same.
I agree with Kassavin, I really like his reviews.

Gerstman.... he usually reviews fine, but his scores are the most shitty and random fucking things ever.

[woodentaco]

I got Game Informer for a month or two, but it became the epitome of bad video game journalism. So many previews overhyping games, and so little self-criticism, and so few good reviews. Yech.

Computer Games Magazine does a great job, though. I especially love the articles at the back. Some of them can be a little thin, but I always love the Squire/Jenkins.

Still, the best reviews I've found are on Eurogamer. They do a really amazing job over there at keeping reviews compelling.

[EternalGamer]

The overall response to this thread is a prime example of why game reviews don't change. You'll notice that most of the people that defend a certain website or a certain writer do so on the basis that their reviews always are "spot on" in helping them decide what to purchase. This is all they want out of a review so it is all they get.

And fushi is right, whenever a particular writer tries to do something other than a paint by the numbers review, whenever they actually try to give some thought to the paradigms that make up the gameplay or attempt to place the game in a larger ideological context of any sort (ie. whenever they invoke their readers to wonder or think about anything game related), they get immediately dismissed as pretentious. Videogame journalist do absolutely nothing to push the industry forward as their counterparts in other media do. Some game journalist might have enough integrity to only pimp quality merchendise, but they are still just part of the marketing machine even if a selective one.

I am not saying that game reviews should not inform purchasing decisions, but that should not be the focus. Rather than overtly telling someone as if they were a 6 year old "buy X" or "don't buy x," reviews should be an intelligent exploration of the material. I hope Varsity is right in that this industry will naturally grow as the age of it's audience grows and journalism will grow with it. However, I have to wonder if that is really the case because I see little evidence that the industry is even interested in catering to an audience beyind the teenage demographic.

Frankly, I am elated to think about the day I can turn on Charlie Rose or NPR and observe an intelligent conversation revolving around videogames. But right now the industry seems permanently stuck in MTV mode.

Dan

[EternalGamer]

On a more specific note, I really like Brady Flecter's stuff in PLAY, especially that "Back of the Book" column he did a few issues back, I wish the magazine had more of that overall. Also I have to give Halverson credit for one thing, his previews often DO try to give feedback to the developer about problems he sees in the builds, although he always does it with very kid gloves. The overall magazine is, nevertheless, as guilty as all the rest in terms of being part of the hype machine, but at least the layouts and production qualities are great. Hey if you are going to read fluff, at least it can be shiny pretty fluff. :)

Dan

[Kagger]

I'm sick of the double standard that revovles around sports games. If a sequel to Ratchet and Clank doesn't blow your mind, it gets trashed for being a rehash rushed sequel. But if madden comes out with the ability to pick gum off the seats of your stadium, and a new roster, it gets 9.0's and the GoTM award.

EGM said it was different because it's a yearly update, but I don't buy it. You know that if a site gave Madden a 6 for not being innovative, the hardcore Madden crowd would boycott.


And...a great point on the preview hype would be Enter the Matrix. EGM did a cover story, then 4 months later it was given 3, 4, and a 6 ish.

[EternalGamer]

EA really is genius they way they have been able to convince everybody, including journalist, that there needs to be a yearly update to their sports games and that it doesn't even have to be all that different from the previous years but should still be full price. People just except these thing as a given now much to the elation of EA's boardmembers.

Dan

[The Continental]

Computer Games Magazine does a great job, though. I especially love the articles at the back. Some of them can be a little thin, but I always love the Squire/Jenkins.

I picked up the issue of CGM with the WoW expansion on the cover the other day and after reading through most of it I don't think I've ever read a more vitriolic and snide magazine in any industry. Every single preview of any game was a snarky, tongue in cheek list of flaws that may have been found in either the original title (if it was a sequel) or in the producing company's other products. Of their 5 point rating scale (including decimal places), I'm not sure I saw anything over a low 3 rating, even products that have been well received by pretty much every other publication.

Just reading the magazine, it felt like the editors gathered around every week for staff meeting to mutually pass around the classified ads in hopes they could escape the torture that is playing and writing about video games for a living, before finally deciding if they can't escape it, so they'll just make sure their misery is adequately reflected in the labor of misery that is their magazine.

As for accurate reviews, I think PC Gamer realized they were in trouble under Dan Morris and their seemingly contractual obligation to rate exclusives really high (hence his abrupt departure), I'm hoping they can regain some credibility in the coming year.

[MosBen]

I was going to write a post about how quality games journalism shouldn't really only mean that the review isn't biased or uses a consistent scoring mechanic, but Eternal Gamer beat me to it. Well done.

[Kelegacy]

I picked up the issue of CGM with the WoW expansion on the cover the other day and after reading through most of it I don't think I've ever read a more vitriolic and snide magazine in any industry. Every single preview of any game was a snarky, tongue in cheek list of flaws that may have been found in either the original title (if it was a sequel) or in the producing company's other products. Of their 5 point rating scale (including decimal places), I'm not sure I saw anything over a low 3 rating, even products that have been well received by pretty much every other publication.

Just reading the magazine, it felt like the editors gathered around every week for staff meeting to mutually pass around the classified ads in hopes they could escape the torture that is playing and writing about video games for a living, before finally deciding if they can't escape it, so they'll just make sure their misery is adequately reflected in the labor of misery that is their magazine.

As for accurate reviews, I think PC Gamer realized they were in trouble under Dan Morris and their seemingly contractual obligation to rate exclusives really high (hence his abrupt departure), I'm hoping they can regain some credibility in the coming year.

Dan Morris is why I never renewed my subscription to PC Gamer. The magazine seemed to pander too much and after the Doom 3 fiasco, I said no more.

[drakkarim]

personally i don't care about anyone's review of any game. why? because bottom line, a review/preview is simply an opinion based on one's tastes, and quite frankly nobody's opinion is any more important then anyone else's, and when you combine that with 'tastes' to make a purchase decision, well, forget review/preview alltogher as everyone has different tastes.

granted it doesn't help that i always tend to go against the mainstream when it comes to my gaming tastes (i.e. i hate multiplayer, forced group mmorpgs, modern combat crap, sports crap, racing crap, sims crap, fps crap, etc.) and since 99% of reviews/previews tend to be aimed at that exact crowd, i just ignore all of them.

best way to tell about a game is to go to the game's forums and see what people complain about, that's the gold of reviews if you ask me.

and if you just MUST have game X on release day, then grab your mouth gag, your vaseline, and bend over, because you'll either get a rim job from a sexy woman, or your salad tossed.

[dark_inchworm]

Both owned by the same company...

The person you quoted said Gamespot/IGN; you're thinking Gamespy/IGN.

Unless you're referring to Metacritics/Gamerankings... I have no idea who owns them.

[fable2323]

The problem with game reviews today is that a web site will tout a game as being "Great" for a few months and then turn around and nitpick it to death on a few small issues and give it a terribly low score. Once a low score hits the web by one review site with a few points as to why they didnt like the game, most other sites then make the same points as to why they didnt like the game either, as if they have read the other review prior to posting their own review. To me, if you havent played through a game 100% through, then you should not review it. Period. Not take the easy route and just throw up a score and a review based off of what some other guy said about the game after they played it 50% through. Staying unbiased by not reading other game sites/magazines reviews is crucial in our industry. In the movie industry, they dont have reviewers watch half of a movie and then throw up a review on a tv show/website. That would be unethical.

[fitbabits]

On a more specific note, I really like Brady Flecter's stuff in PLAY, especially that "Back of the Book" column he did a few issues back, I wish the magazine had more of that overall. Also I have to give Halverson credit for one thing, his previews often DO try to give feedback to the developer about problems he sees in the builds, although he always does it with very kid gloves. The overall magazine is, nevertheless, as guilty as all the rest in terms of being part of the hype machine, but at least the layouts and production qualities are great. Hey if you are going to read fluff, at least it can be shiny pretty fluff. :)

Dan
Oh Lordy! PLAY is absolutely THE most pretentious piece of journalism I've ever read. Dave Halverson obviously has an agenda and likes to think he's being 'out there' or unique by constantly rating average games higher than the, well, average. Another thing I noticed after subscribing for a while is that games that have had cover features or major features done on them will always score significantly higher than one would expect after reading other reviews from other sources.

For example:

Death by Degrees
Play - 8.5 (http://http://www.playmagazine.com/index.php?fuseaction=SiteMain.showGamePage&Game_ID=30) ... GameRankings average - 51% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/918964.asp)

Tork - Prehistoric Punk
Play - 9.0 (http://www.playmagazine.com/index.php?fuseaction=SiteMain.showGamePage&Game_ID=22) ... GameRankings average - 64% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/561516.asp?q=tork)

Both these games were heavily hyped by Halverson and company before their respective releases. That's all I'll say - you can make up your own mind.

[EvilBob46]

Both owned by the same company...


IGN is owned by the News Corporation. GameSpot is owned by CNET Networks.

[Nadreck]

Damn, a newspost that's taking me out of Lurk mode.

Strictly speaking, a review doesn't need to have any sort of endorsement (or denouncement) attached to it; it is purely a critical assessment of a given work or body of work. Of course, the term has been co-opted, so I've kind of given it up as a lost cause, and instead make a distinction between "review" and "critique". That can also be applied to "reviewer" and "critic" (I would call neither "journalism").

A critic should:
1. Introduce me to authors or works of which I was hitherto unaware.
2. Convince me that I have undervalued an author or work because I had not read them carefully enough.
3. Show me relations between works of different ages and cultures which I could never have seen for myself because I do not know enough and never shall.
4. Give a “reading” of a work which increases my understanding of it.
5. Throw light upon the process of artistic “Making.”
6. Throw light upon the relation of art to life, to science, economics, ethics, religion, etc.

Now personally, THAT is what I'd like to see. I know there is an aversion to "pretension" in writing about games, but honestly I think there's room for more formal writing on the subject. As much as it SHOULDN'T be necessary, the only way we're going to stop getting invasive legislature and censorship regarding video games is if we start treating it as a valid art form, a valid form of expression. Formal writing on the topic is part and parcel with this validation.

[fitbabits]

Damn, a newspost that's taking me out of Lurk mode.
Welcome, Nadreck - stay a while. :)

[EternalGamer]

Oh Lordy! PLAY is absolutely THE most pretentious piece of journalism I've ever read. Dave Halverson obviously has an agenda and likes to think he's being 'out there' or unique by constantly rating average games higher than the, well, average. Another thing I noticed after subscribing for a while is that games that have had cover features or major features done on them will always score significantly higher than one would expect after reading other reviews from other sources.

For example:

Death by Degrees
Play - 8.5 (http://http://www.playmagazine.com/index.php?fuseaction=SiteMain.showGamePage&Game_ID=30) ... GameRankings average - 51% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/918964.asp)

Tork - Prehistoric Punk
Play - 9.0 (http://www.playmagazine.com/index.php?fuseaction=SiteMain.showGamePage&Game_ID=22) ... GameRankings average - 64% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/561516.asp?q=tork)

Both these games were heavily hyped by Halverson and company before their respective releases. That's all I'll say - you can make up your own mind.


I agree with you completely and I go into reading PLAY well aware of this fact. I very rarely make purchase decisions based upon their reviews, but then, as I was saying, the point of a good review should not just be to convince you to buy something, although PLAY doesn't suceed in writing good reviews that often either. The benefits of the magazine, as I see it are as follows: Brady Fletcher's writing (especially when he is let of the leash a little), Halverson's attempt to write previews that aren't just advertisments, and the production quality and the quality of the layouts. Halverson certainly is overly pretentious in a very real way, but the magazine overall is still a hell of a lot more interesting to read than almost all of the others.

Dan

[Liquidize105]

I'm working on this problem right now, believe it or not.

[EternalGamer]

Now personally, THAT is what I'd like to see. I know there is an aversion to "pretension" in writing about games, but honestly I think there's room for more formal writing on the subject. As much as it SHOULDN'T be necessary, the only way we're going to stop getting invasive legislature and censorship regarding video games is if we start treating it as a valid art form, a valid form of expression. Formal writing on the topic is part and parcel with this validation.

I agree with you, but I think Auden would be a bit perturbed at your using his critique qualifications to discuss videogames; he was a bit of quirky luddite in his old age. Still, that was part of what made him so much fun to read and he was self conscious enough not to take himself too seriously. One of my favorite Auden poems:


Doggerel By a Senior Citizen

Our earth in 1969
Is not the planet I call mine,
The world, I mean, that gives me strength
To hold off chaos at arm's length.

My Eden landscapes and their climes
Are constructs from Edwardian times,
When bath-rooms took up lots of space,
And, before eating, one said Grace.

The automobile, the aeroplane,
Are useful gadgets, but profane:
The enginry of which I dream
Is moved by water or by steam.

Reason requires that I approve
The light-bulb which I cannot love:
To me more reverence-commanding
A fish-tail burner on the landing.

My family ghosts I fought and routed,
Their values, though, I never doubted:
I thought the Protestant Work-Ethic
Both practical and sympathetic.

When couples played or sang duets,
It was immoral to have debts:
I shall continue till I die
To pay in cash for what I buy.

The Book of Common Prayer we knew
Was that of 1662:
Though with-it sermons may be well,
Liturgical reforms are hell.

Sex was of course -- it always is --
The most enticing of mysteries,
But news-stands did not then supply
Manichean pornography.

Then Speech was mannerly, an Art,
Like learning not to belch or fart:
I cannot settle which is worse,
The Anti-Novel or Free Verse.

Nor are those Ph.D's my kith,
Who dig the symbol and the myth:
I count myself a man of letters
Who writes, or hopes to, for his betters.

Dare any call Permissiveness
An educational success?
Saner those class-rooms which I sat in,
Compelled to study Greek and Latin.

Though I suspect the term is crap,
If there is a Generation Gap,
Who is to blame? Those, old or young,
Who will not learn their Mother-Tongue.

But Love, at least, is not a state
Either en vogue or out-of-date,
And I've true friends, I will allow,
To talk and eat with here and now.

Me alienated? Bosh! It's just
As a sworn citizen who must
Skirmish with it that I feel
Most at home with what is Real.



But I digress terribly. Great post.

Dan

[Rirath]

Ever since Gamespot got their act together with video reviews, my routine has been much simpler.

1) Hit Metacritic and check overall score
2) Compare IGN and Gamespot with overall
3) Watch Gamespot video
4) Check IGN if need be
5) Check user scores at Gamefaqs

And as said, Gamespy is a last resort but still barely above the commons. Gamespot has become my goto website though, the video reviews have come a long way. I must admit I rather miss XPlay on TechTV. (Canned the channel) They were always some of the harshest and funniest critics, nitpicking every little thing, and you felt like they actually played the game.

[EternalGamer]

Actually X-Play is still around but it's more filled with skits of the non-sequitur type humor that's en vogue these days. Their forced cynacism gets really tiresome and I find the show pretty annoying. As far as television reviews go, I actually like the Judgement Day guys a little better but it's really like compairing MTV to VHS so when it comes down to it, I will not vehemently defend either.

Dan

[Player 1]

EA really is genius they way they have been able to convince everybody, including journalist, that there needs to be a yearly update to their sports games and that it doesn't even have to be all that different from the previous years but should still be full price. People just except these thing as a given now much to the elation of EA's boardmembers.

Dan

Or perhaps PROFESSIONAL reviewers leave all the angst, attitude and faux politics to one side and review the product based on the product alone. This site, for example, will hate ANYTHING EA do simply because it's EA. Is that professional?

Additionally, I've seen many a long post of mine criticised as being 'too long' (which is a shame because the content of most of my posts provides details to back up my opening statements rather than assuming everyone should just believe what I say for no reason).

This suggests that a lot of people don't really want to read long reams of text and are happy to criticise a body of text on it's length instead of it's content.

[Rirath]

Well I meant I canned G4 from my lineup, rather than X-Play was canned... But I stopped by the website after posting that and hey, 54 pages of online video reviews! Still funny as heck too, just check the GTA: LCS review. They're so good, I watch reviews for games I don't even care about.

http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/videos/index.html

Who knew?

[H.Bogard]

Ah yes. Hate to reiterate what everyone's been saying dozens of times before me, but GameSpot, I think, is the only site out there, amongst the big ones, which has any shred of integrity.

You blind or something? The suck the farts out of the games and praise them in previews and then WHAM! fuck them in the reviews....gamespot is the kind of journalism that the article mentions.

[fushi]

These are some excellent points, Nadreck, yet...
1. Introduce me to authors or works of which I was hitherto unaware."Useless namedropping."
2. Convince me that I have undervalued an author or work because I had not read them carefully enough.
3. Show me relations between works of different ages and cultures which I could never have seen for myself because I do not know enough and never shall."Once again, the author overblows his ego."
4. Give a “reading” of a work which increases my understanding of it."I wouldn't write something like that even in my LiveJournal."
5. Throw light upon the process of artistic “Making.”"Pretentious."
6. Throw light upon the relation of art to life, to science, economics, ethics, religion, etc."This was supposed to be a videogame review."

I'm obviously being sarcastic, but this isn't that far from the truth.

Edit: Attention, Player 1: Chill. You are not a persecuted minority, stop acting like it. I respect you and value your opinions, but seriously, relax.

[Inglorion]

You blind or something? The suck the farts out of the games and praise them in previews and then WHAM! fuck them in the reviews....gamespot is the kind of journalism that the article mentions.
You blind or something? Read my post one more time, kid. No, make that two.

[EL CABONG]

I tend not to pay much mind to reviews as I use to. I don't watch x-play anymore do to lack of gameing content and to many skits. I read egm mostly for the previews, interviews and so I have something to read on the can. I get the xbox mag put rarely read the reveiws. I get it for the disc. I know the mag is by nature pro x-box.

I do think critics in general show too much bias. If u read 4 or 5 reviews of almost any reviewer u can tell if they are sony or Big N fanboys or whatever. I do agree that they try to "be too cute" and make alot of puns and jokes that often don't help tell me much about the game. Plus most reviewers all give way to high of scores and have hard ons for some games I.E. metal gear, ico,metroid prime, final fantasy,ect that are way over hyped. Don't get me wrong some metal gear games are good and I love some of the old ff games but they get more credit with the press than they should.

[LilAbner]

IGN is owned by the News Corporation. GameSpot is owned by CNET Networks.

You are correct, sir.

Game Informer, incidentally, is owned by mega-retailer GameStop......now how in the world can you trust a mag that is owned by a retailer?!?!

[H.Bogard]

You blind or something? Read my post one more time, kid. No, make that two.

*reads twice

I still dont get it. :(

[Kelegacy]

You blind or something? The suck the farts out of the games and praise them in previews and then WHAM! fuck them in the reviews....gamespot is the kind of journalism that the article mentions.
Could I ask you WHERE you go for reviews if not Gamespot? Gamespot, for the most part, employs great people to do their reviews and articles. I actually enjoy most of their editor roster because not only are they likeable in both written and video reviews, but because they generally get things *right*.

Just like Kefkataran's site will do in the near future. :) Right Kefka?

[Mason]

Expecting a reviewer to be both comprehensive and deep is problematic. Not all games have interesting subtexts. You can have great games which simply don't provoke a lot of discussion beyond their basic mechanics. Geometry Wars, say. It is an exercise in pure functional gameplay, with no narrative to speak of. You could study the genealogy of the 2D multidirectional shooter back to Asteroids or War, perhaps, but without any sort of thesis to the discussion you're just prattling on.

And then some games, like Shadow of the Colossus, have a ton of subtext. The game's relationship to ICO and biblical and Babylonian mythology is the seed for many fruitful discussions.

So it is a contradiction to expect interesting and enlightening reviews, but at the same time a comprehensive view of all the games that are released. That isn't how academia works. Literary and film criticism have never functioned by reviewing broadly across the many (and uninspiring) book and film releases. Instead, a large amount of criticism is spent on a relatively small subset of significant works. The only barrier to entry is that someone has to make the eloquent case that a work is in fact significant.

So this is the fundamental problem. A review site is fundamentally about informing a consumer's purchasing decision. A criticism site is about an ongoing discussion of significant works, and it will necessarily ignore works that no one is willing to defend as significant. The two have very different structures and different purposes, and really shouldn't be equated.

I'd love to see more game criticism sites, and I think they'd help a lot with the various creative issues facing the industry. When SotC and a Madden title have similar scores and the same number of words dedicated to them on all the review sites, it's clear that the "review" culture isn't rewarding the appropriate things. Game criticism, which focuses on the great and interesting works, would give developers a lot more incentive to try and produce great and interesting works.

[H.Bogard]

Could I ask you WHERE you go for reviews if not Gamespot?

Nowhere...if I buy a game after reading someone's review its like buying clothes my grandma would choose for me. I download as much gameplay footages as I can and try out the demos. If greg freaking kasavin likes mario then good for him.
A good example would be my brother...he LOVES land of the dead...which got the worst game of the year award...but one man's food is another's poison i guess.

But if you still wanna buy what gamespot likes to pick for you then heres a nice choice (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/maddennfl2006/review.html).

Also...big time gaming press also tends to be the hyping machine for some of the crappiest games you could find.
Exhibit A : a $$$ mediocre game (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/thematrixthepathofneo/index.html)

Exhibit B : another mediocre game (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/adventrising/index.html)

[SMES]

But if you still wanna buy what gamespot likes to pick for you then heres a nice choice (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/maddennfl2006/review.html).


What's worse is the 7.4 they gave to the 360 version. That version is severely crippled, I would have given it a 5.0 and said that it was a good tech demo and left it at that.

[Kelegacy]

Nowhere...if I buy a game after reading someone's review its like buying clothes my grandma would choose for me. I download as much gameplay footages as I can and try out the demos. If greg freaking kasavin likes mario then good for him.
A good example would be my brother...he LOVES land of the dead...which got the worst game of the year award...but one man's food is another's poison i guess.

But if you still wanna buy what gamespot likes to pick for you then heres a nice choice (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/maddennfl2006/review.html).

Also...big time gaming press also tends to be the hyping machine for some of the crappiest games you could find.
Exhibit A : a $$$ mediocre game (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/thematrixthepathofneo/index.html)

Exhibit B : another mediocre game (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/adventrising/index.html)

I find buying games and discovering if you like/hate them later is a bit primitive, not to mention costly. Renting is one method, but renting is something I do not do anymore, not for games anyway. Reviews, not just one but multiple, from different sites, create a helpful mean that you can follow to make worthwhile purchases.

Reading reviews, not scores, is the best way to navigate gaming sites. Numbers are there for the lazy and hasty. They can be ambiguous.

[EternalGamer]

Mason, makes a good point, and I think we need to be a bit more clear about what it is we expect out of a good game review. I was not so much making an academic comparison as I was a compairson to film critics, who perform some type of amalgamation between "product review" and "academic exploration." Certainly some critics ignore films they consider lacking in content (such as Stanley Kaufmann), but others attempt to find a way to discuss the film and it's lack of content in a reflective manner. While he is not my favorite reviewer, one of the things I always admired about Roger Ebert was his ability to discuss a big budget popcorn film in an approachable yet interesting way. His reviews are always highly personalized and usually have something insightful to offer and you will never seem him start breaking down a film using some type of amateurish template. This whole "graphics/music/gameplay/overall template is absolutely insipid. I want to be able to tell that there is a human being behind the writing, preferably one that can also demonstrate intelligent thoughts. What I don't want is a review that sounds like it was written by a machine. I should be able to tell who wrote a game review without even looking at the author's name. It should come through in the presentation of their original perspective, their methodological approach, and their stylistic idiosyncracies.

Dan

[H.Bogard]

I find buying games and discovering if you like/hate them later is a bit primitive, not to mention costly. Renting is one method, but renting is something I do not do anymore, not for games anyway. Reviews, not just one but multiple, from different sites, create a helpful mean that you can follow to make worthwhile purchases.

Who ever said that you should judge after buying them? I already mentioned that i try to find as many footages (hurrah gametrailers.com) and playable demos as i can...and if i like what i see then its settled, the only drawback here is that most demos are prerelease and unpolished. If i ended up reading reviews then i would mostly end up with games that i dont like.........for example final fantasy...(YUCK!!) which has the crappiest combat system in the world.

[bean19]

Could I ask you WHERE you go for reviews if not Gamespot? Gamespot, for the most part, employs great people to do their reviews and articles. I actually enjoy most of their editor roster because not only are they likeable in both written and video reviews, but because they generally get things *right*.

Just like Kefkataran's site will do in the near future. :) Right Kefka?

I used to like everyone at Gamespot except Alex Nevarro. He used to seem very bored and negative even when rating a "Great" game that gets an 8.0 or higher, and sometimes he tended to find flaws that might be minor to another player or reviewer and completely trash a game.

Still, he was always quick and thorough, and I learned to not necessarily completely trust his most negative reviews, but to use the information he provided about a released title to make my own decision.

My point, Alex is my least favorite Gamespot editor, but I still enjoy his reviews because all of them are thorough in their reviews. I may not like his manner, and I think he rates too low occassionally, but I cannot fault his ability to quickly communicate the relevant inforamtion about a game title.

That's what a review should be! It should be informative, thorough, and quick. If I want to read columns about deeper issues in videogames (I do!), then I'll read their "Freeplay" column, but I want my reviews to tell me relative information about the game that will allow me to decide on whether or not to purchase it.

[Tohoya]

I agree. I really wish the escapist would start running reviews and previews; they're the only good gaming magazine left.

[Cubfan]

I rent my games from Gamefly. If a game is universally lauded by critics/players, then I'll buy it without having rented it first.

[Zombosis]

I spent a year writing for Adrenaline Vault.
Now I write for WorthPlaying.com, and I do review/synopses for a shareware site called gamextazy.com.
I work my ass off to be entertaining and informative. I consider my goal to be one of balance: objective to subjective. It's important to me to refer to a tangible list of points when reviewing/critiquing, and it's also important to convey that a game can work even when technical issues are present. I'm by no means the best reviewer on the planet, but I strive to get better with every title I write about.

That said, I love seeing all this blanket hate towards what I do. It really makes me feel great that all the work I put into this is dismissed as useless and/or pretentious and/or paid off.

[Tohoya]

I rent my games from Gamefly. If a game is universally lauded by critics/players, then I'll buy it without having rented it first.

Totally agree. Gamefly solves this problem and can save a hardcore gamer an upwards of 400 dollars a year.

[Rirath]

I'm by no means the best reviewer on the planet, but I strive to get better with every title I write about.

That said, I love seeing all this blanket hate towards what I do. It really makes me feel great that all the work I put into this is dismissed as useless and/or pretentious and/or paid off.

I've been writing some handheld gaming reviews as a hobby for around two years or so off and on, starting with Pocket PC games and moving on to Mobile, NDS, and PSP. Honestly, a lot of the blanket hate is deserved and it's something that internally we've considered and try to balance. Previews really are largely fluff. Reviews are too formulaic. And if you get too tough on games, readers and staff alike (sadly) complain you are jaded -- which keeps things rather neutral.

When you spend your time being a critic, you shouldn't be surprised when someone is critical of you.

I'd love to see more game criticism sites, and I think they'd help a lot with the various creative issues facing the industry.

I've spent this afternoon after coming across the G4 X-Play site watching about 15 pages worth of videos. I think the criticism, mixed with humor, is why I love X-Play so much. They're some of the most critical reviewers, mercilessly mocking the flaws, failed promises, and overused formulas... as well as the people who play them. They take joy in trashing what they dislike. While it may be highly opinionated, it's a refreshing depart from absolute neutrality.

They may take awhile to produce each review, but it's worth the wait.

[Phanto]

But if I'm really on the fence about a game I'll read IGN, Worthplaying, and sometimes...just sometimes...Gamespy. I like to see what different people like/hate about the game.

I do the same i check most of the "popular" or known sites.
One of the most influencial sites that i really take their reviews serious its Gamespot but that doesn't mean that i always agree with them in every review.

Just compare the reviews of gamespy with the gamespot ones :rolleyes: .

I have been reading for years now gamespot, the only thing i can tell you is that if they give a 9.0 or more the game is more than great, thats all i can said.
But thats just me ;)

[Royal Fool]

Ah yes. Hate to reiterate what everyone's been saying dozens of times before me, but GameSpot, I think, is the only site out there, amongst the big ones, which has any shred of integrity.

Heh... no (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/blackwhite2/).

Don't take that too personally, there are others in this thread that have a very forgiving attitude towards GameSpot; your comment simply stood out the most.

Oh, and of course... this (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/blackwhite/).

Or this (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/tonyhawksproskater3/).

GameSpot is a really good site, but sometimes they've done some really strange things.

[Shinigami]

Not really a "reviews" publication, but does anyone here read The Gamer's Quarter (http://www.gamersquarter.com/)? Definitely something different.

[GWhite]

The problem I think is that all "review" based publications inherently suck. There is a big difference between those magazines and journals that provide primarily editorial content and those that just process and summarize new products. I mean look at most mainstream music and movie journalism, it is not terribly impressive either.

[Kefkataran]

Just like Kefkataran's site will do in the near future

I sense the world of videogame journalism will be getting much better very soon. /crystalball.

[thecrazyd]

I sense the world of videogame journalism will be getting much better very soon. /crystalball.
Would you consider your site NGJ, or just good standard games journalism? Are you going to focus on reviews? Will you have scores? I look forward to seeing it.

[Kelegacy]

I sense the world of videogame journalism will be getting much better very soon. /crystalball.

Very soon = When an ingenious site name is harvested from the lode of English letters.

[Kefkataran]

Would you consider your site NGJ, or just good standard games journalism? Are you going to focus on reviews? Will you have scores? I look forward to seeing it.

It's hard to answer for sure whether or not I'd call it New Games Journalism if only because there doesn't seem to be a really solid single definition for that, but I think it could fit under the definition, surely. I guess what we're going for is intelligent game discussion that go beyond what you find in a lot of game magazines/sites, but does so while not going into the realm of pretentiousness.

Reviews won't be our focus, but we're certainly going to have them. As for scores, that's still up in the air. Personally, I prefer not having them, but we still might simply for reader ease. If that is the case, we'll probably do something closer to the Ebert style of scoring with 4 or 5-star system rather than 1-100.

Very soon = When an ingenious site name is harvested from the lode of English letters

Yeah, we're having a major fucking problem with naming the site. Maybe I should just hold a naming contest on EvAv? :p

[Kelegacy]

It's hard to answer for sure whether or not I'd call it New Games Journalism if only because there doesn't seem to be a really solid single definition for that, but I think it could fit under the definition, surely. I guess what we're going for is intelligent game discussion that go beyond what you find in a lot of game magazines/sites, but does so while not going into the realm of pretentiousness.

Most game magazines and sites have a mainstream tone to them; they have to do this because the Hardcore is a demographic that can be measured in meager percentage points. Aiming game discussion higher, marinating it with a finer pedigree, is something that most sites don't really attempt. They report, and that's about it. Gamespot's Freeplay editorials are interesting because you get into the mind of certain editors and see what they are currently chomping at the bit to discuss, but because many publications are divided into just Previews/Reviews, there isn't a lot of space to have an intelligent debate or conversation. They instead create forums or, for pulp, a letter's section, for their reading public. We are essentially writing in one such forum right now. Of course we get rampant bias and irrational tirade's, but thus is the nature of the industry, I suppose.

Reviews won't be our focus, but we're certainly going to have them. As for scores, that's still up in the air. Personally, I prefer not having them, but we still might simply for reader ease. If that is the case, we'll probably do something closer to the Ebert style of scoring with 4 or 5-star system rather than 1-100.

One problem with a 100 point system is this: When do reviewers actually use anything below 50? With a 5 stars (or with half stars, it makes 10 probably scores) system, you can use all of the scale and not feel like you're always over or under shooting. With places like Gamespot, the grading scale is like that in schools...a 7.0 (70) is passing. Anything lower is typically not recommended unless to the very hardcore genre fans, and even then it's not a great example of what that genre can give. So basically anything under 6 or 7 is "junk". That's a lot of wasted review scale space. Of course, a 5 star rating is harder to classify by some meta-review sites, so a 4 out of 5 score ends up getting an 80% score, even though we might feel it's better than that.

Yeah, we're having a major fucking problem with naming the site. Maybe I should just hold a naming contest on EvAv? :p

I was thinking about recommending the same thing. But how would you feel to be forever indebted to a forum member for coining your soon-to-be-famous site's name?

[thecrazyd]

It's hard to answer for sure whether or not I'd call it New Games Journalism if only because there doesn't seem to be a really solid single definition for that, but I think it could fit under the definition, surely. I guess what we're going for is intelligent game discussion that go beyond what you find in a lot of game magazines/sites, but does so while not going into the realm of pretentiousness.

Reviews won't be our focus, but we're certainly going to have them. As for scores, that's still up in the air. Personally, I prefer not having them, but we still might simply for reader ease. If that is the case, we'll probably do something closer to the Ebert style of scoring with 4 or 5-star system rather than 1-100.
Awesome. Just what I am looking for in a gaming site. I look forward to it.

[jwbxx]

I think videogame reviews suck when it comes to rts games. When they review it they need to really play it. Like play it online, dont just be happy with all the shiny bells and whistles.

So many times has EA gotten away with releasing crap, like LOTR BFME, and gotten fantastic reviews. When the game was an utter piece of shit

[Kelegacy]

I think videogame reviews suck when it comes to rts games. When they review it they need to really play it. Like play it online, dont just be happy with all the shiny bells and whistles.

So many times has EA gotten away with releasing crap, like LOTR BFME, and gotten fantastic reviews. When the game was an utter piece of shit

The problem is, online play is an entirely separate entity. I agree that all games should be thoroughly tested and analyzed, including online, but to rate a game high just because it does well in online play (which is actually just an additional mode if it isn't a strictly online game in the first place) but is only mediocre or worse in SP isn't fair. A game should be judged on all of its merits, but if a review specifically breaks it down for you by mentioning a phenomenal online play vs a weak SP campaign, you can go out and buy it, whereas the guy like me, who likes SP games near-exclusively, I could just overlook the game.

Again, that's why reading reviews is much more important than blind numbers.

[Kefkataran]

Of course, a 5 star rating is harder to classify by some meta-review sites, so a 4 out of 5 score ends up getting an 80% score, even though we might feel it's better than that.

I'm willing to live with that. I'm more concerned with what people are getting out of the reviews than what the reviews are doing to metascore sites.

I was thinking about recommending the same thing. But how would you feel to be forever indebted to a forum member for coining your soon-to-be-famous site's name?

Depends on who the forum member in question is, I suppose. ;)

Awesome. Just what I am looking for in a gaming site. I look forward to it.

Glad to hear it! :) We have all the gears in place. Here's hoping we just get stuff in motion soon. When we get launched, we'll definitely be telling everyone around here about it, so no way you'll miss us! Look forward to your reactions.

[Headcase]

Gerstman.... he usually reviews fine, but his scores are the most shitty and random fucking things ever.

Yeah.

Mario Kart 64: 6.4
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3: 10.0

Don't give me any of this "oh you're supposed to read the reviews not just look at the scores". Why does the very front page of Gamespot have a tab for viewing the highest rated games in the last few months?

But yeah, Mario Kart 64 a 6.4, Tony Hawk 2 with a Revert move added, 10.0, sounds sensible to me.

[Mason]

Mason, makes a good point, and I think we need to be a bit more clear about what it is we expect out of a good game review. I was not so much making an academic comparison as I was a compairson to film critics, who perform some type of amalgamation between "product review" and "academic exploration."

I'm just not sure that they should be amalgamated, because the two forms of writing are at cross-purposes. Criticism takes on a very specific argument regarding interpretation and meaning in one or multiple works, whereas reviews are very generalized attempts to help with purchasing decisions.

I think there're more than enough reviews out there to let someone make a well-informed purchasing decision. That isn't really a significant problem. No system of reviews will ever be perfect, simply because so much about how two parties value various parts of a game are purely subjective.

What we lack isn't purchasing advice. What we lack is insight. Academic-style criticism is pretty much how you arrive at that. We don't need people telling us what to play, we need sustained discussion of meaningful games. We need us a discourse, if you will.

Without such a discourse, all we're doing is writing marketing at each other. Even clever, independent review sites with spot-on reviews. So long as you're focused on talking about every average title that comes out, you've made being recent more important than being good. Recent games get all the attention, and discussing inferior works (even if only to call them inferior) dominates the discussion.

If you google hard enough, you can find isolated works that'd count as significant game criticism. In-depth discussions of plot and meaning in games like Silent Hill 2 or Final Fantasy 7 are available, but not on any mainstream game site. But why not? Obviously, the sites need to save room for more insightful ways of telling you that the fourth installment of a franchise is the exact same as the prior three.

People need review sites; they're necessary, but not sufficient. Game journalism will never rise beyond marketing until it has a significant critical component. Reviewers will always write about the most contemporary titles, while game critics will write about any past game about which they have something significant to say.

[jwbxx]

The problem is, online play is an entirely separate entity. I agree that all games should be thoroughly tested and analyzed, including online, but to rate a game high just because it does well in online play (which is actually just an additional mode if it isn't a strictly online game in the first place) but is only mediocre or worse in SP isn't fair. A game should be judged on all of its merits, but if a review specifically breaks it down for you by mentioning a phenomenal online play vs a weak SP campaign, you can go out and buy it, whereas the guy like me, who likes SP games near-exclusively, I could just overlook the game.

Again, that's why reading reviews is much more important than blind numbers.Problem is that single player sucked also in the LOTR BFME game.

I know they cant test online also. But just play a single skirmish game and you can sorta get a feel for game balance.

[Kefkataran]

Academic-style criticism is pretty much how you arrive at that. We don't need people telling us what to play, we need sustained discussion of meaningful games. We need us a discourse, if you will.


I agree plenty here, and this is certainly more where we're aiming our site towards.

[Inglorion]

Heh... no (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/blackwhite2/).

Don't take that too personally, there are others in this thread that have a very forgiving attitude towards GameSpot; your comment simply stood out the most.

Oh, and of course... this (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/blackwhite/).

Or this (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sports/tonyhawksproskater3/).

GameSpot is a really good site, but sometimes they've done some really strange things.
I don't understand why you say "no" to that. The reason I don't think they got more than a "shred of integrity" is because of those examples you gave, and you were even crazy enough to say that GS is "a really good site". :D

The latter review was written by The Gerstmann, which is too bad, but others like Kasavin, I think, reviews games pretty well.

[Inglorion]

BTW, are there any reliable online reviewers out there which don't give scores on games? Could be interesting--not sure.

[Kefkataran]

BTW, are there any reliable online reviewers out there which don't give scores on games? Could be interesting--not sure.

Eh... only thing I can think of off-hand is Insert Credit. They ocassionally give stores, but usually only in farce. Then again, they also review very infrequently and tend to focus on import and 'hardcore' (read: elitist) gaming. A lot of people around here hate IC for being sort of pretentious, and as much as I tend to dig their writers, I can't blame people for the hate either.

[Ronberk]

Gamesdomain. What did you guys used to think about them?

[phantomhitman]

The review arguement can be sumed up by one word, opinion. The reviewers that are not forced to write a decent review for a crappy game often get lumped into the category of paid off slezball. Some reviewers actually give a honest review but get ripped because other people hate the game.

[EternalGamer]

Mason, I agree with you that the goal is the creation of an academic dialogue, but I think the only medium through which that might be accomplished is by infusing the current product review system with that type of exploration. It is the only way such explorations will penetrate the mainstream and it is the only way the majority of the audience members will ever see such explorations and critique. Basically, it is the only way it could ever have any impact. Again, I think you could be selective about which games you chose to use this methodology on, but I really feel this is a conversation that needs public access. One of the things that annoys me so much about literary criticism is it's seemingly complete disconnect from the public. It wasn't always this way. There was a fusion of the two in the 60's and 70's. If there is going to develop a mainstream academic discourse on videogames, I would rather see it avoid the ivory towers that has proved so deadly to other fields of criticism. Film criticism may not have that big of an impact on public opinion, but at least it is out there attempting to engage dialogue in a public space.

Dan

[vherub]

Next Generation was a solid effort at video game criticism and commentary- and you can tell this because the articles are still worth going back and reading now. But do people really want video game criticism in their reviews? or do they just want to know if game x is worth the $50? Next Gen did last, while mags such as gamepro keep going strong.
Part of this may also be the audience- when I was 8- hell, even when I was 18- I did not really care if goldeneye was a commentary on social structures, or what exactly constituted abuse when playing split screen. I just knew you played with autoaim off, could sneak a glance at another player's screen and were a little bitch if you camped on the armor respawn.
If you want to break out metacommentary concerning 4th walls, breaking through liminal space and minding the gap between player/creater/game dynamics, that may be fine too. But this niche of criticism is currently being filled by the internet, by blogs and by messageboards such as this.
And the internet would have been dropping the hammer on many of those same reviewers/critics of the 50s and 60s because that is one of the things the internet excels at doing.

[Nadreck]

Thanks for the welcome and positive response, folks.

Kefkataran, your site sounds intruiging; please let me know somehow (leave a PM, get a newspost thread started about it, send smoke signals, whatever floats your boat) when it goes live? It sounds like it would be excellent "additional reading" from my own Critical Games. (Didn't link it because I don't have much content up yet, and what IS up is frankly still in a draft stage. That said, caveat emptor!)

At the risk of sounding like an advertisement, I'm using Critical Games as a place to put/publish my work as I finish my senior thesis on game design (with a focus on games as literature or art). I'd love feedback when and as I get material up. :)

[Kefkataran]

Kefkataran, your site sounds intruiging; please let me know somehow (leave a PM, get a newspost thread started about it, send smoke signals, whatever floats your boat) when it goes live? It sounds like it would be excellent "additional reading" from my own Critical Games. (Didn't link it because I don't have much content up yet, and what IS up is frankly still in a draft stage. That said, caveat emptor!)


There most certainly will be news posts and celebrating, assuming the EvAv staff is cool with it, which I think they will be. They're good folk. Heh.

I've never heard of Critical Games till now, but a quick Google and checking out what content there is makes me VERY intrigued. Hope you stick with it and stick with posting on EvAv. This community, as with any, can ALWAYS use more intelligent people around to add to the discussion.

[Kelegacy]

There most certainly will be news posts and celebrating, assuming the EvAv staff is cool with it, which I think they will be. They're good folk. Heh.

I've never heard of Critical Games till now, but a quick Google and checking out what content there is makes me VERY intrigued. Hope you stick with it and stick with posting on EvAv. This community, as with any, can ALWAYS use more intelligent people around to add to the discussion.

Will there be any homoeroticism on the new site? Or will you leave the manlove here on EvAv, abandoning the lustful urges from your youth like a spent condom?

[Kefkataran]

Will there be any homoeroticism on the new site? Or will you leave the manlove here on EvAv, abandoning the lustful urges from your youth like a spent condom?

Why, sir, I know not what you could be talking about.