No Great Name
Arcane
Assuming little to no prior knowledge of a game, what is it you look for and/or what should a review need to be useful?
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
What do you look for in a game review?
- Thread starter No Great Name
- Start date
MadMaxHellfire
Arcane
no use of the fotm-words.
no history of the software house.
no plot description.
no "on my monster rig it ran flawlessly".
no "it is good/bad": WHY.
i want details which show the reviewer actually played the damn thing instead or copy-pasting what pr told him to say.
that little delay after that command which annoyed him, that other little detail which had been better in game x and y. gonzo journalism.
no history of the software house.
no plot description.
no "on my monster rig it ran flawlessly".
no "it is good/bad": WHY.
i want details which show the reviewer actually played the damn thing instead or copy-pasting what pr told him to say.
that little delay after that command which annoyed him, that other little detail which had been better in game x and y. gonzo journalism.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,350
Not saying that they are only reviewing the game because of other reviews that didn't match their ideas.
Neckbeard Shitlord
Unwanted
First off describe what the game actually is.
Second, list what you like and don't like, and what you don't like about it.
Third, don't spoil anything or talk about characters, which is the same shit.
That is the key information and the rest is just fluff, if it's good fluff it will make the review more interesting without obscuring the message. Most reviews don't actually provide this info. And they still manage to put in spoilers.
Second, list what you like and don't like, and what you don't like about it.
Third, don't spoil anything or talk about characters, which is the same shit.
That is the key information and the rest is just fluff, if it's good fluff it will make the review more interesting without obscuring the message. Most reviews don't actually provide this info. And they still manage to put in spoilers.
I stopped reading these altogether. Other's people opinions should in no way affect mine.
A user named cat
Guest
I do a search for "majestic" and if not found, then close the review.
puns in chapter titles
MadMaxHellfire
Arcane
well, you need some source at least to judge if that kind of game is worth your interest.
judging only by screenshots and previews, bloodlines should have been a friggin fps, all they shown before release were guns and gibs.
Short description of what the game is(obviously not in "explain 40 y o housewife what should she buy for her kid" way, it depends on the audience - you don't have to explain what RTwP or Turn Based modes mean edit: on codex), then put spotlight on mechanics/features it has, explain which of those work well and which don't(and why if you care), and overall pros and cons.
As for story, limit yourself to describe the general mood or whether it's well done or not.
Add summary which constitutes of reviewer's opinion whether it is worth buying/playing or not.
As for story, limit yourself to describe the general mood or whether it's well done or not.
Add summary which constitutes of reviewer's opinion whether it is worth buying/playing or not.
Last edited:
DraQ
Arcane
My main question when someone tries to introduce a game to me is "why the fuck should I care?" so - minimum spoilers, maximum information giving me a gist of this game, specifically why it is supposed to be interesting, atmosphere, general information about mechanics, minimum information about plot or setting that's necessary to get the general vibe etc.
Villagkouras
Arcane
A rarely read any "professional" reviews (I find user reviews more helpful) before playing a game a couple of hours, to see if my initial feeling agrees with the reviewer's, provided the game is a bit interesting. If we're on the same page, I just check if the game is worthwhile to continue or becomes a borefest.
GrainWetski
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 5,103
Nothing. They're completely and utterly useless. Watching 3 minutes of gameplay will get you a better understanding of what a game is like.
Obviously prefer first-hand user reviews as opposed to reviews published for a major website. Also like to see how many hours that've been played if it's a steam review, just so I have a general idea of their experience with it. I trust them more if they are willing to mention the aspects of a game that they did enjoy in a negative review, or ones they did not enjoy in a positive review. Maximum amount of information possible, no nebulous non-answers like "The gameplay is fun", or "The controls are bad", obviously avoiding spoilers if it's about the story. If it's multiplayer or has a multiplayer aspect, I also like comments about the community and how they behave, as well.
Hoaxmetal
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,161
And below screenshots. God forbid a screenshot and its description would be informative.
PeachPlumage
Cipher
- Joined
- May 28, 2015
- Messages
- 522
I tend to read the odd review but mostly user reviews, let's plays are better indicatives if I purchase a game or not.
Neanderthal
Arcane
Not licking arse or owt but being made by Codex helps, reason why I came ere was cause of quality of editorials and reviews, reviewers had played game and knew it in detail rather than releasing the press package in their own words. Oh and an absence of buzzwords helps, innovative - streamlined and dumbed down. Accessible - plays itself. Balanced - boring. Good level of challenge - easy as a drunk whore. Pushing boundaries - got a gay bloke or lesbian in it, wow so shocking.
racofer
Thread Incliner
Honesty and loyalty and the prospect of a lovely future together.
No Great Name
Arcane
As a reference, I haven't read any "professional" reviews for years now. However, user reviews tend to be too vague and don't adequately explain how a game actually plays.
I prefer written reviews to videos cause I can easily skim over bullshit, while I can't do that as easily with a video.
I prefer written reviews to videos cause I can easily skim over bullshit, while I can't do that as easily with a video.
Surf Solar
cannot into womynz
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 8,831
General forum threads of just simple internet people are far more reliable to for me seeing if the game will interest me or not.
Mustawd
Guest
Adon
Arcane
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 667
Don't read them. After so many years of playing games it's easy to identify the types of games I'm interested in enough to spend my money on. Only way that I'll get a game on a recommendation is from individuals who I either trust, or at least are articulate enough to point out why the game is good in their eyes.
But, if I were looking at reviews, what I would look for is:
- Clear showing that reviewer did multiple playthroughs or a fair amount of time was spent on the game. None of this "I only spent the minimum amount of time possible on this game to churn out this review" bullshit that seems prevalent at times. When I hear reviewers basing their MGSV TPP review off 40 hours on a game that can as easily take twice as long AND with copies that didn't have the ending? Sorry dawg, those perfect scores sound like a load of bullshit.
- A general understanding of the game mechanics. I want to know how mechanics work in conjunction to one another and if they're well-made, broken, useless, or just adequate for what they're going for. Doesn't matter if I end disagreeing with them at the end of the day as long as some effort was put into trying to understand the game's framework. Just for an example, say how limited saves added to Resident Evil's resource management by adding a greater sense of fear towards dying because of those limitations but that the game gives you too many at the end of the day.
- Story wise, I guess it depends on how important it's supposed to be. Some games clearly don't give much of a flying fuck about it while others are trying to tell a genuine story. At best what I'd look for is a general summary without major spoilers and then some general criticism or praise for certain aspects of the story.
- Difficulties. I guess this could be part of the multiple playthroughs, or the mechanics part because there are some games where higher difficulties aren't well-balanced thus just being artificially harder by bloating enemy HP and increasing their damage, and I'd definitely want a review to point that out. Nothing necessarily in-depth just a description of what higher difficulties are like in comparison to normal. Which would clearly indicate that the reviewer did more than just one playthrough.
But, if I were looking at reviews, what I would look for is:
- Clear showing that reviewer did multiple playthroughs or a fair amount of time was spent on the game. None of this "I only spent the minimum amount of time possible on this game to churn out this review" bullshit that seems prevalent at times. When I hear reviewers basing their MGSV TPP review off 40 hours on a game that can as easily take twice as long AND with copies that didn't have the ending? Sorry dawg, those perfect scores sound like a load of bullshit.
- A general understanding of the game mechanics. I want to know how mechanics work in conjunction to one another and if they're well-made, broken, useless, or just adequate for what they're going for. Doesn't matter if I end disagreeing with them at the end of the day as long as some effort was put into trying to understand the game's framework. Just for an example, say how limited saves added to Resident Evil's resource management by adding a greater sense of fear towards dying because of those limitations but that the game gives you too many at the end of the day.
- Story wise, I guess it depends on how important it's supposed to be. Some games clearly don't give much of a flying fuck about it while others are trying to tell a genuine story. At best what I'd look for is a general summary without major spoilers and then some general criticism or praise for certain aspects of the story.
- Difficulties. I guess this could be part of the multiple playthroughs, or the mechanics part because there are some games where higher difficulties aren't well-balanced thus just being artificially harder by bloating enemy HP and increasing their damage, and I'd definitely want a review to point that out. Nothing necessarily in-depth just a description of what higher difficulties are like in comparison to normal. Which would clearly indicate that the reviewer did more than just one playthrough.
Neckbeard Shitlord
Unwanted
That used to be the case. Nowadays for every shit game there's 500 people who live to play it so it's hard to sift through it all. If I just looked at people's opinions I might have played Pillars of Eternity, or even Shadowrun. I don't think I could forgive myself for that.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.