Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How should I approach reviewing a game?
Yakkin
Member Posts: 919
I have been trying to write my own review for the World of Warcraft: Cataclysm expansion for the past week, but everytime I try to put something down, I simply cannot get my thoughts down properly. So I am asking everyone on this site: How do you go about review a game, or if you haven't reviewed any games, how do you feel it should be done?
Before you post anything though, please note I'm not going to try to be 100% objective for my own review, mostly because I feel some of my own personal feelings towards the game are a relevant part of reviewing the game itself.
Comments
A good review should:
1) Say non-trivial things about a game that are true of that particular game, but not of most others in its genre,
2) Simultaneously tell some people they should try the game, and others that they should not (on the basis of what features they like), unless the game is awful, and
3) Give lots of details, not just vague statements that could mean anything or nothing.
choose several categories and rate them independantly of eachother.
Really? this is all of the user reviewrs that will answer? Come on people! I'm sure there are many of you dying to share you knowledge of the art of the review with us.
1.Watch a few videos so you can talk about the graphics, sound and gameplay. Should only take a few minutes.
2.Make some random analogy jokes ("...Of course by that I mean, people who text-type regardless of the medium like they were possessed by the spirit of a bejeweled iPhone using 14 year-old girl..." HAR HAR! )
3.add lots of buzzwords (immersive, dynamic, game changer, genre buster, evolutionary, innovative, etc)
4.make the brunt of your opinions contingent on the developers coming through on rapid fire content ("Best Game Ever* IF they fix all their shit and deliver a fresh new experience every month")
5.profit
Did you enjoy it? Do you feel you understand why you did or did not enjoy it? Where did you realize it had hooked you?/Where did you realize it had lost you? Start with the game as a whole, then zoom in as you have time on different paths you took or avoided.
In anything as subjective as entertainment, you need to occassionally explain your own interests and expectations to give readers a context for your impressions. If you are trying to analyze the game for suitability across different playstyles and backgrounds, you need to be brutally honest with yourself over whether you really can imagine it from the point of view of different tastes.
(at least that's the approach I would take)
I think I mentioned this in my OP.
"Before you post anything though, please note I'm not going to try to be 100% objective for my own review, mostly because I feel some of my own personal feelings towards the game are a relevant part of reviewing the game itself." - Enigmatus
Just saying.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what some stranger thinks about a game, particularly a game I don't care about. I don't know you, or where your tastes lie. You might loathe a game and I might like it, or you may like it and I might hate it. Reading what YOU think isn't going to make my mind up for me.
If you are going to review a game I think they is one important aspect.
Take your gaming preference and personal feelings about the said game and leave them somewhere until your done. A reviewer should be neutral about a game and approach the good and bad of a game with an open mind.
Since it's an expansion it makes sense to me to focus on new content and changes made compared to the previous incarnation of the game. What new things are good? What new things aren't? Why? What changes are good? What changes aren't? Why?
A brief history with conclusions on Cataclysm's life cycle as well, such as the philosophy change on heroic dungeon difficulty level, new content added etc.
Entertainment is fundementally about personal preferences. I don't believe there is such thing as objective review - at best, you can have an intuition for how a wide variety of preferences will react to what you see and what percentage of your audience will or won't agree with you, but the only objective facts are the technical specifications.
Exactly! A review is totally personal opinion. Is it good? Is it bad? Is it meh?
A good review states the reviewer's opinion and then explains why they feel that way. Give examples. Let the reader know what you are basing your idea of "fun" on.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Don't use points. Points are good for sites in which a group of people have a somewhat coherent pointing system and either intends or has reviewed many games.. I don't think it is good for a stand-alone review.
Agreed.
"please note I'm not going to try to be 100% objective for my own review, mostly because I feel some of my own personal feelings towards the game are a relevant part of reviewing the game itself."
Completely reasonable. A good thing to do early in the review is to establish the perspective or playstyle you are coming at the game from. It could be something as simple as stating that you're x type of gamer and that your review will be based around that playstyle.
Two gamers that I regularly read reviews from are Paragus1 and Keen. IMO, they are great gamers to check out if you are looking to write a review and want ideas on how to go about it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
It's NOT reasonable to review with a bias... regardless of what others might try to tell you.
If you are not 100% objective nobody worth their salt will take you seriously.
Edit* Somebody will but you have to consider the source. Nobody wants "feelings" we want facts.
A review is just that a "viewing" of what is a hand, the X, the Y, the Z. The reader in the end decides if they like it or not based on factual data.
It's a common theme, especially with the younger generation to consume and create "reviews" that are glorified blog posts as opposed to anything resembling journalism.
To make matters worse many of this same generation have no real idea what a good review really is, then they get others of the same ilk to go along with them; it's the blind leading the blind.
Going by what I quoted, I would say you are already well on your way to becoming a pro. All you need to do is add a paycheck from whatever company is making the game you are reviewing, some cheesy catch-phrases, cut and paste BS to fill in your review and just a few basic lines to "prove" you played the game for 10 minutes and you are good to go kid.
I don't think people can be objective when they are invested in anyway.
My suggestion is to own what you write and speak what you really think and feel.
Don't worry about what others think of what you write.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Could you provide an example of a review of an entertainment product that you consider worthy of the title of "journalism"?
If the OP was a professional journalist or expert in the field writing for a particular column or periodical, then I would agree. However, this is a gamer writing a personal review of a game, so a different set of rules apply. The reason for this is because his most knowledgeable perspective is from that of a gamer so not only should that be the angle he approaches it from, but his review, which will obviously be slanted toward a particular playstyle, should be presented in context so that the reader knows where he is coming from.
To explain that in another way, someone who enjoys eating out should write their restaurant reviews from that perspective as it is the one they are most familiar with. To try to mimic professionals or to feign expertise in the workings of cooking or kitchen management would result in, well... the typical useless bloviation seen in all to many blogs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
http://www.pcgamer.com/review/a-games-of-thrones-genesis-review/
Another posted this: "What makes it objective is to remove your personal point of view from any assessment or judgement, and instead identify the source of any opinions you use in the review.
Some topics just don't lend themselves to facts and statistics. For instance a review of a film or music. In that case, and objective review can use the opinions of others who you identify as having a history or reputation of fairness, and then provide your analysis about the opinions, perhaps talking about which type of viewer, reader or listener is more likely to enjoy the piece."
I understand that a game is akin to film or music when not regarding the performance/graphics/game-play mechanics etc. making it harder to review without some bias derived from past experiences.
This review leaves me with the impression that the reviewer had already more-or-less assigned a score before even installing the game. The way it's written, it appears the reviewer was expecting to bash it for being an Age of Empires clone without political intrigue. They then criticise it for not being enough of a clone (you can win by prestige rather than conquest) . Finally, it concludes by criticising the game for being too much about micromanagment of political intrigue - exactly what the review expected would be missing at the start.
My opinion is that a review should take into account what the creator is trying to do, how the work stands along side other similiar works in the same genre, how successful they creators are with their work.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
100% objective review isn't a review. It would nothing more than a boring collection of experiences with a game.
- Include a setting so the reader has an idea of what you did. Make sure to include important factors that could change your perspective.
i.e. solo, random groups, guild
- Highlight some game mechanics ( good/bad ) and include your experiences with them. Consider having both unique and common ones so readers can relate to their existing game. You don't have to make a direct comparison to another game.
- End it with your opinion.
http://www.pcgamer.com/review/a-games-of-thrones-genesis-review/
Another posted this: "What makes it objective is to remove your personal point of view from any assessment or judgement, and instead identify the source of any opinions you use in the review.
Some topics just don't lend themselves to facts and statistics. For instance a review of a film or music. In that case, and objective review can use the opinions of others who you identify as having a history or reputation of fairness, and then provide your analysis about the opinions, perhaps talking about which type of viewer, reader or listener is more likely to enjoy the piece."
I understand that a game is akin to film or music when not regarding the performance/graphics/game-play mechanics etc. making it harder to review without some bias derived from past experiences.
According to Dictionary.com:
re·view? ?[ri-vyoo]
noun
1.
a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital, or the like; critique; evaluation.
Note the critical part. A review is the same as a critique.
The first paragraph of your cited "journalism" article is filled with opinions. How can you tell? The adjectives used to illicit feelings or sway judgment, underlined for ease of read.
Based on the fascinatingly sadistic A Song of Ice and Fire novels by George RR Martin, Game of Thrones should make for a perfect strategy game. The books are purely about lethal plots, arrogant nobles fighting pointless wars, and the suffering populace of a world failing to face an undead threat coming with the long winter. And dragons. Having included all of that, how could Genesis fail?
- Dan Griliopoulos
I don't know if I would use journalism and review in the same sentence, but they are related.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR