Game Reviews too light?

[Untraditional]

Hey guys after the recent reviews on the website and everyone feeling like they have to weigh in, I want to know what you guys think since this is a smaller group and easier to discuss.

Anyway my start to the discussion is do you guys feel that other websites take reviews too lightly? It seems that almost every game these days gets between an 7-9 but never a 10, and Rarely anything lower. Do you guys think that it matters if they are scored higher or lower? Also how do you feel knowing its only one specific person's opinion on the game? Do you think more than 1 person should review a game on a website so that 1 persons opinion doesn't act as the whole crew of writers thoughts?

I'm asking for a way to better the review system and I don't care to be told disregard reviews, that i should make my own opinion cause thats what real gamers do, etc. I just want to hear your thoughts on the system of game or rather entertainment reviews as a whole.

 

[dragon82]

I personally hate the current review system. I hate how any game rated 7/10 or lower is considered a crap game these days. I also hate how the top games are almost given a 9 or 10 before they are even played. All sites are guilty of handing out perfect scores without actually playing the entire game. I have seen some base a perfect score off of 2 hours of gameplay on games that would take a person near a hundred hours to complete. I know money plays a huge part in reviews these days but it makes me sick.

I personally think that all reviews should have one of three possible scores (Pass, Rent, Buy). This would clear up any confusion over which games are worth our time or money. I also think that a reviewer should actually beat a game before they review it. You wouldn't write a movie review after only watching 20 minutes so why would you review a game that costs so much more money that way.

 

[Jacky]

personally I hate critic reviews, because there are so many people out there who pay attention to a critics review and then based on it, pass up on what could've been a really good game and end up buying a really crappy game. critics can be bribed and ALOT of them are and some people refuse to believe that, which is why I normally look at the players score, though one should not buy based on their reviews either because of those oh so loveable trolls out there (every game has them).
the only real way to truly find out how good a game is, is to borrow it, rent it, or play a demo.
reviews just aren't trustworthy. they are after all, only that reviewers opinion. what matters is your opinion, not theirs.
reviews today are either too light or too harsh, so why bother paying attention anymore.

 

[wolfehound22]

I'm hit or miss on reviews. Reading just one and basing my purchases off that isn't a good thing, but looking at a few helps. As much as people hate metacritic, it does do a decent job of compiling a lot of reviews, so at the very least you can get an idea on what to do. One person giving a far a 9 or a 5 doesn't mean anything, but 50 sites averaging a game 9 or 5 should provide a base layer of understanding.

That said I do agree reviews need to be more varied, if you look at reviews of movies they use the whole scale, and anything over 60 is good. It would be nice if games would start to head more I'm this direction.

 

[Phoenix8387]

I've stopped reading reviews, flat out. Reviews are just opinions and we all have differing opinions. The only way I personally find reviews helpful are when I can identify someone that shares extremely similar tastes in games (or a specific genre), which is hard to find. The only time I personally look at reviews anymore are when I've played the demo and still don't have a good feel for the game.

I absolutely despise the rating system that sites use now. On a scale of 1-10, but only use 7-9... that makes sense. At the point, you may as well be on a 3-point scale. When I rate games (or anything really), I typically go on a 5-point scale. 1-Horrible, 2-Bad, 3-Average, 4-Good, 5-Great. Admittedly, this is still somewhat broken as well because few actually fall into the 1-point range, but just like the occasional 4- that sites give it does happen.

I find it much more helpful to get reviews from people who aren't reviewers. People who play games for reviews... well, they traditionally play them for reviews. For page hits. For $. I want a real persons, who spent their own money, opinion on a game. Someone who plays the game for fun and actually spends time with it. Ground Zeros is likely going to be a prime example of why. When reviews come out it'll likely average 8-9. Some reviewers will take the cost/length somewhat into account, but they won't ever give you the feel of someone who spent their own money on the game.

 

[Lifewish]

I also think that a reviewer should actually beat a game before they review it. You wouldn't write a movie review after only watching 20 minutes so why would you review a game that costs so much more money that way.

In a perfect world yes you would beat every single game and then gather every single trophy before you write the review. Also, you are comparing a 15-40 hour game and a 2 hour movie. It is so much easier to review a 2 hour product compared to at times, a 40+ hour RPG. It is really hard as a father/husband/full time worker to fully complete a huge RPG, when sometimes that game makes it to my doorstep a day or two before release date. As a website being there first day as a review is HUGE. The later after release date that you release your review, the less effective it is and the less traffic it brings in.

 

[dragon82]

In a perfect world yes you would beat every single game and then gather every single trophy before you write the review. Also, you are comparing a 15-40 hour game and a 2 hour movie. It is so much easier to review a 2 hour product compared to at times, a 40+ hour RPG. It is really hard as a father/husband/full time worker to fully complete a huge RPG, when sometimes that game makes it to my doorstep a day or two before release date. As a website being there first day as a review is HUGE. The later after release date that you release your review, the less effective it is and the less traffic it brings in.

To me that is what is wrong with reviews these days. I mean I saw people give Gran Turismo 5 a perfect 10/10 score after about 2 hours of playing it. I think people have got so caught up in being first to print with their reviews that it compromises the actual review. If a game gets to your door the day before the game launches then just post the review after launch when you have actually put the time into the game. What if all is good during the first half of the game but turns to complete shit during the second half. Do you think people are really getting an accurate view of the overall product if the reviewer only saw the first half?? Same goes for games that start out slow and get better as it goes. When it comes to RPGs I think you definitely need to invest the time before reviewing them. That is kind of the point of an RPG in the first place.

Reviews shouldn't be done to produce traffic. They should be done to help other gamers get a better understanding of a game they may be interested in. If all you are worried about is traffic then I will automatically write off any review from a site as just trying to grab hits and stop reading them.

 

[Lifewish]

To me that is what is wrong with reviews these days. I mean I saw people give Gran Turismo 5 a perfect 10/10 score after about 2 hours of playing it. I think people have got so caught up in being first to print with their reviews that it compromises the actual review. If a game gets to your door the day before the game launches then just post the review after launch when you have actually put the time into the game. What if all is good during the first half of the game but turns to complete shit during the second half. Do you think people are really getting an accurate view of the overall product if the reviewer only saw the first half?? Same goes for games that start out slow and get better as it goes. When it comes to RPGs I think you definitely need to invest the time before reviewing them. That is kind of the point of an RPG in the first place.

Hey I am on your side, I am just laying out the nature of the beast. If you show up a few days late, you lose out on so much traffic and hey, traffic is what every website is after. We don't want to deceive anyone and we work hard to put out the best review possible. Also, I invest a good amount of time into every game that I review and so does everyone at PSLS. We take huge pride into our reviews and do the best we can in a very limited amount of time. Do I get a chance to fully finish every 40+ hour RPG? No I sadly don't, but that's just the nature of this business. However, I get a LOT of time into the game and make sure I am 100% comfortable with what the game has to offer.

If you want to get mad with anyone, get mad with publishers putting a game on our doorstep the day before release or sometimes after release.

 

[Untraditional]

In a perfect world yes you would beat every single game and then gather every single trophy before you write the review. Also, you are comparing a 15-40 hour game and a 2 hour movie. It is so much easier to review a 2 hour product compared to at times, a 40+ hour RPG. It is really hard as a father/husband/full time worker to fully complete a huge RPG, when sometimes that game makes it to my doorstep a day or two before release date. As a website being there first day as a review is HUGE. The later after release date that you release your review, the less effective it is and the less traffic it brings in.

Which reminds me, thank you for commenting because i would also like to hear the reviewers perspectives. Like if you have 1 day to review a game do you feel rushed to play it and write a review? Does that mean it possibly changes the way it comes out? I'm sure there's a lot of this were not understanding

 

[Lifewish]

Which reminds me, thank you for commenting because i would also like to hear the reviewers perspectives. Like if you have 1 day to review a game do you feel rushed to play it and write a review? Does that mean it possibly changes the way it comes out? I'm sure there's a lot of this were not understanding

And I think there is a lot of truth on the readers side and a lot of valid concerns. Sometimes I am sure all reviewers feel rush to get a game out in time, though I won't speak for everyone on if it changes the way it comes out for them.

 

[dragon82]

I totally agree that this is the nature of the beast. I just wish it wasn't that way. You see people like Car and Driver put a vehicle through its paces before giving out reviews. You see places like CNET spending a good amount of time with products and comparing them to others before handing out reviews. I used to love reading reviews in print magazines like Nintendo Power as a kid. I guess the largest part of the blame goes to the internet and society for wanting everything this instant. I get that reviewers now generally don't have time to complete every game they review. I just want a reviewer to be able to tell me if Fallout 3 is as good after 75 hours as it is after 10. Or if it loses all appeal. It's just another thing that sucks about this business becoming all about the money. It used to be all about the games. I guess I am just old school. Or just old. LOL

 

[Lifewish]

Or just old. LOL

You nailed it right here haha

 

[dragon82]

You nailed it right here haha

LMAO

 

[Chandler Wood]

Reviews are a tough world. As a reviewer, you have to learn that you will never please everyone and no one will EVER believe that your review is completely honest, no matter how much heart and honesty you put into it.

I just had to finish South Park in about a 36 hour span of time. Got it Saturday, started playing that night, just finished it Sunday night, and have to write my review Monday, to hit a midnight embargo.

I just put a total of 13 hours into the game, yet no matter what I write, or the score I give, I almost just expect to get some kick back from someone.

What is interesting to me, is that if people have such a problem with the review system, why do they keep coming back to read the review and then comment about how broken it is?

Also: Review Text! Readers are so damn hung up on the score, yet there are 1200 words right above it that will give you that much more insight.

 

[Lifewish]

Also: Review Text! Readers are so damn hung up on the score, yet there are 1200 words right above it that will give you that much more insight.

Now this is what really irks me as a reviewer. My last review for instance was over 2000 words long and I guarantee that most people only looked at the end paragraph and the score box. Yet, those same people want to turn around and complain about my score or accuse me of not taking my review seriously enough.

 

[BigPete7978]

I do agree on some aspects. But I can definitely see where @Lifewish and @Chandler Wood are coming from. There have been times where I know someone didn't spend the time to read a well thought out review that I wrote. Very frustrating.

 

[PolarBearTC]

I would like to see the summary box put a recommendation or even a "to the point" rating. Sort of in the middle of Kotaku's "Should you play this?" and TheVerge's product review breakdown, but not as simple as Joystiq's star rating. That should help with the people complaining about scores on a 10pt scale.

I feel PSLS reviews are for people who are a fans of the PlayStation platform, and are presented through the lense of gamers who enjoy PlayStation games. There are a lot of multiplatform games, but there is still a 'type' of gamer who prefers PlayStation and that's sort of the crowd I expect to enjoy the reviews.

Also, I think it would be cool to put a "community rating" to balance the review rating. It would obviously be skewed before a release, but I think it would level off around launch of a game. Having 'portals' for games would allow users to come back to a review easily and add their ratings to the mix.

 

[darkforcegod]

I personally dont trust reviews since a couple of years. I look the screenshots, gameplay, trailers, read the forums, read info and then I decide for myself. Some favorite games I dont even think about it I just buy them or pre order them. I think the reviews easily miss a lot of things in the games and then they give wrong critics and scores.

 

[Lifewish]

I personally dont trust reviews since a couple of years. I look the screenshots, gameplay, trailers, read the forums, read info and then I decide for myself. Some favorite games I dont even think about it I just buy them or pre order them. I think the reviews easily miss a lot of things in the games and then they give wrong critics and scores.

I like to read over reviews to gain an idea from multiple sources, but then I also do research on my own. I watch video, screenshots, etc. I think it is a good practice to do your own research while also looking at multiple reviews.

And wrong scores is your opinion. I am sure the reviewer feels he gave the correct score.

 

[Timewarp]

Hey guys after the recent reviews on the website and everyone feeling like they have to weigh in, I want to know what you guys think since this is a smaller group and easier to discuss.

Anyway my start to the discussion is do you guys feel that other websites take reviews too lightly? It seems that almost every game these days gets between an 7-9 but never a 10, and Rarely anything lower. Do you guys think that it matters if they are scored higher or lower? Also how do you feel knowing its only one specific person's opinion on the game? Do you think more than 1 person should review a game on a website so that 1 persons opinion doesn't act as the whole crew of writers thoughts?

I'm asking for a way to better the review system and I don't care to be told disregard reviews, that i should make my own opinion cause thats what real gamers do, etc. I just want to hear your thoughts on the system of game or rather entertainment reviews as a whole.

I've made my thoughts on the matter obvious in the past but just to reiterate at first it's about the content as much as it is the score but I agree that there's something odd going on as to the score, I think a lot of guys who review games know a lot of the people reading their reviews go for the score which would honestly make me feel a bit disheartened if I was a reviewer if I wrote out a big review people just want for the score and I knew giving a game a low score would mean people attacking me and giving me abuse well I'd be less inclined to give the next Uncharted a low score

But yeah there's way too many reviews out there with high scores. Games Master for instance has around 20 or so games with 10 or 9 scores as if somehow 90% of the 7th generation games were near-perfect which is insane since we rate perfection based on the quality of an object/person/service based on everything else related to it. Personally I think reviews should be taken on a certain ideals. The quality of the game and then personal opinion which yes is biased but there's so many things that decide whether we enjoy something that it should be taken into account for example GTA 5

The reviewer from gamespot pointed out that the way the game handled women put her off the game and I think it's a fair critic of the title. It's basically saying that if your a women and enjoy these kinds of games then you might actually not like the way it presents your gender. There's certain things that from game to game can affect your enjoyment of the game. Plus there's a lot of fans who to me are just wearing the fanboy equivalent of beer goggles. I've always tried to take the things I'm a fan of and question whether I like something from that since it's good or if I'm just so much of a fan that I can't see it's faults. I've looked back on things before and thought "That was really bad"

As for how to better reviews, I don't think we need to improve them and I say that on behalf of every site. IGN, Gamespot, PSLS, The Escapist, Giant Bomb and so on since it's the content again and not the score. Everyone has their own method and to suggest we need a new method seems a little unfair, like we're saying "THIS is the right way to review a video game now get in line or don't review video games!"

The people who do get riled up about video games aren't upset because the review process is at fault, those guys are just upset since it's someone saying the game is bad/good and it contradicts their opinion which for some of them makes them question whether they made the right choice or if their just stupid people who are easily impressed. (For the record, I don't think it means your stupid if you like a game someone else hates)

I mean if there's a lot of gamers who can't handle Uncharted 3 getting a 9/10 then there's a problem but it has nothing to do with the review system.