What do you look for in a game review?

[MadMaxHellfire]

that's why you only look for negative opinions.

 

[Tehdagah]

I like when the reviewer try to understand the developer's objective.

Reviews written by fans/haters and questionable websites are all shit, of course.

 

[Dedup]

For mainstream reviews I look for the whining. Whining about the game being too difficult, too complicated, too little hand holding/lack of in game tutorial, no multiplayer will indicate that there's a good chance I'll like it.

For user reviews I look at a couple 10/10 GOTY, a couple 0/10 it's shit, and a couple reviews in the middle of the pack and try to parse out the things I care about to see if the game is worthwhile.

 

[zeitgeist]

A general understanding of the history of computer games, especially the genre that's being reviewed, including but not limited to: knowing which trendy features are being pushed for which reasons, which features historically didn't work and why, why some features caught on (and perhaps shouldn't have), how the genre initially split into subgenres and why, is there a specific audience with a specific taste that the games of this type are made for instead of legitimately trying to be good games, what are the best games of the genre and why, what could be the economical/sociological motivations or justifications for specific game design bits, and how the game being reviewed fits into this larger context.

Haven't seen many of those in the recent years, so eventually I just stopped looking.

 

[Metro]

In an age where I can see gameplay on YouTube I don't read game reviews.

 

[Ellef]

I look for maximum butthurt potential. I don't give a fuck about game reviews otherwise, just watch some gameplay footage or take the plunge if its cheap and fits into a genre I like.

 

[Farage]

I only look for "why video games are trash" kind of reviews

 

[Mustawd]

I only read POE Darth Roxor reviews

 

[ED-209]

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?

Rich Evans.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

In an age where I can see gameplay on YouTube I don't read game reviews.

i would do that too, if only 99% of the videos didn't contain some random faggot screaming and shouting random nonsense.

 

[upwardlymobile]

play the demo i downloaded from kat.cr

then just keep it because the only thing buying it will do is fill my computer with drm bullshit

 

[Jaesun]

I just follow the dorito dust...

 

[Ellef]

i would do that too, if only 99% of the videos didn't contain some random faggot screaming and shouting random nonsense.

look for videos which say 'NO COMMENTARY'. They are a godsend.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

play the demo i downloaded from kat.cr

then just keep it because the only thing buying it will do is fill my computer with drm bullshit

i took for granted this topic omitted "[if you can't try the extended demo]".

 

[Durandal]

-Must have at least played through the game twice for better understanding or finding missing details
-An explanation of the game itself
-Explanation on WHY things are good, and WHY it meshes so well with the framework of the game, instead of just saying the graphics are good or the music is good, shit like that is why I read negative Steam reviews more often
-Explanation on things from a technical standpoint (optimization, available settings, loading times etc.)
-Reviewer needs to at least know more than a thing or two about the genre it is reviewing rather than come off as someone who is playing a certain genre for the first time (I don't need to hear shit about danmakus being too hard from a casual who only reviews strategy games)
-Being able to discern bullshit from actual difficulty (like bulletsponges or trial 'n error traps)
-Reviews shouldn't end on a GET THIS GAME/DON'T GET THIS GAME note, but rather 'I would/wouldn't recommend this game, BUT - (insert argument for why a certain demographic or a fanbase might like/dislike this game)'
-Morality is very subjective, and shouldn't affect the game's score (or see the suggestion above)
-Some proper fucking disclosure about any possible relations between the reviewer and the publisher/developer
-No overuse of flowery language as if you just got an English major (see Adam Sessler's TLoU review)
-In-depth explanation of the game's mechanics
-Reviews about old games should take its age in consideration, and/or at least mention how this game would stand up in the past and how it stands up in the present
-Taking other entries in the franchise of the reviewed game in consideration, and mention how the reviewed game has improved/regressed in comparison of the preceding games
-Mentioning game length and what factors could influence it
-Understanding good level design, enemy placement, enemy variety, weapon variety, weapon balance, enemy AI, friendly AI,weapon design, weapon 'feel' (animations and sound), encounter design etc.
-Whether the game 'lives up to the hype' is irrelevant, because after three months of the publication of your review, new readers won't be able to feel any kind of real hype towards the game
-A review of all game modes/minigames as well (unless the multiplayer/co-op is dead and there's no AI bots)
-Mentioning if the game is really original, and if it executes its concept well regardless of originality
-Whether the developer is a massive shitstain is irrelevant, maybe the very chair you are sitting on is made by a massive shitstain, or the table your PC is placed on is made by a massive shitstain, or the bed you sleep in is made by a massive shitstain, or yadda yadda you get the point
-Keep the target demographic for the reviewed game in mind, don't go ragging on Sonic games for not having romanceable party members
-The paragraph about 'good/bad graphics' should also mention artstyle, animations, UI design, particle effects, lighting, backgrounds, (overuse of) post-processing effects, whether designs match the tone of the game itself, and aesthetics
-Further explanation on what makes the atmosphere so good. Is it the sound? The world design? The ambience?
-Explanation on the controls, if they're fluid, responsive, or at the very least customizable
-Explanation whether certain elements of the game actually benefit the whole, or if are they just added for the sake of it
-Automatic disapproval of the game if it's a RPG and the bartender has less than 4 dialogue options
-Explanation on the skill/progression/difficulty curve of the game
-Humor is subjective, and different people like different kinds of humor. At least mention what kind of humor there is in the game, and if it's well executed/not too repetitive
-If mods make the game good, review the vanilla game first, and the mods afterwards
-"It's fun with friends" is an invalid argument since ANYTHING can be fun with friends
-Don't insult your fucking audience you fucking prick

 

[zlocish]

All I need is:
- Is the main character a woman?

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

The sad thing is, I don't look for anything in game reviews anymore. Every game of note is previewed, highlighted, shown at presentations, discussed on forums, etc so much, by the time it comes out, I already have a good idea of whether or not I want to play it. There might be some borderline titles where I will glimpse a grade if I'm on the fence, but that's rare. I miss those days when reviews were actually important because I knew nothing of new games coming out. Ah, innocence lost...

 

[KK1001]

Lots of stuff has been covered, and I don't personally read reviews. But I will say that your review is instantly thrown into the trash if you use the word "fun."

 

[Adamaklas]

Cross check other of his game reviews with games i actualy played, see how we both feel about them, try to understand what's wrong in his life.

I only really trusted one guy in his reviews , in a regional pc gaming magazine( he doesn't write anymoar)... never trusted anyone else since, xcept rpgwatch ofc ^^

 

[Durandal]

never trusted anyone else since, xcept rpgwatch ofc ^^

 

[Neanderthal]

Soft, long, absorbant and flushes easily.

 

[Eirikur]

Step 1 is always to vet the reviewer here:
http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php

 

[Night Goat]

I don't read reviews anymore unless they're on the 'dex, and even those are mostly shilling these days.

 

[rado907]

I've given up on single reviews. I look at two things: Average review scores at Steam or GameRankings or something; and YouTube gameplay videos.
-----
Quote: 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.
Once I was reading the Steam user reviews for Icewind Dale EE. Some guy with 400+ hours of gameplay had posted a negative review that went along the lines of: "This game is horrible because it's not faithful to D&D3.14c. 1) In D&D3.14c, one-handed non-exotic curved swords do 2d5 dmg, not 2d6 dmg. 2) Etc."
Bought the game right there and then.

 

[Durandal]

Another answer to OP's question would be an example on how to do it completely wrong.
Just take a look at this verbal diarrhea.
https://archive.is/AglZm