Hello everyone, I wanted to know what your process is for reviewing games? What do you do first and what things do you look for when reviewing games? Thanks
When I review games, I simply go by five subject-areas:
Gameplay
Graphics
Story
Sound
Value
The score I give a game depends on how much I enjoyed in each area. There's no special formula or anything. My blog has a five-star review scale, and depending on how much fun I have with a game is dependent on the review.
Check out some of my reviews on my (inactive blog) at Choffcast.com
I may not be doing it right, but I go into most reviews without knowing exactly what I'm gonna write about. I don't keep notes. The stuff that jumps out at me is what I'll write about. The main thing to make sure is that you cover the most important facets of a game in the review and that each paragraph flow nicely into the next. Make it read nice, that's your priority.
I'll be straight up. I don't review my games, ever. I am of the mind that a legitimate, thorough, and informative review cannot be done retrospectively; the process begins when you put the disk in the tray, all the minutiae need to be taken into consideration, and all the pros and cons are to be weighed, balancing the degree to which they impact the game as you play it. This is all, of course, before the actual write-up begins.
That's not how I like to play my games. I like to play my games, not walk through the steps wearing my critical lens. Maybe that's just me, maybe this is an unfounded perspective, but that's how I see it. So I might give my full impressions after I finish a game (rarely,) though it will never be as considered as a review should be.
I don't like checklists for reviewing, because you would automatically tend to focus on things that might not be relevant.
One of my pet hates in other reviews is discussion of the 'price-value' of games. One example would be the latest Viva Pinata game, which got praise on GB for being a budget title in the US but was full-price over here in the UK. Also prices change, but reviews aren't updated to reflect that, so any discussion of value is then quickly outdated. Better to just discuss the game itself, and then let people work out whether the offer they have in front of them makes the game good value or not.
"I'll be straight up. I don't review my games, ever. I am of the mind that a legitimate, thorough, and informative review cannot be done retrospectively; the process begins when you put the disk in the tray, all the minutiae need to be taken into consideration, and all the pros and cons are to be weighed, balancing the degree to which they impact the game as you play it. This is all, of course, before the actual write-up begins.
That's not how I like to play my games. I like to play my games, not walk through the steps wearing my critical lens. Maybe that's just me, maybe this is an unfounded perspective, but that's how I see it. So I might give my full impressions after I finish a game (rarely,) though it will never be as considered as a review should be."
Honestly, I think reviews should be done in the lieu of impressions. Putting on a critical filter when reviewing a game only results in nitpicking and aspects that no one really cares about (i.e. "The textures were okay, but not great"). Whenever I look for a review, I look for a reviewer that talks about the game from their perspective; from that, I simply agree or disagree with their points, but I take them into consideration. I hardly use reviews as a buyer's guide, because they never should be in my opinion. Most of the time, I'll read reviews after I've played through the game myself just to get another opinion after I've formed my own. Nowadays, I think reviews set up false expectations and I think that gamers should grow brains and make decisions on their own.
I play through the game completely, and play enough mutliplayer (if it's in the package) to the point that I can form a decent opinion. I try to keep with the 1up style of reviewing, but keeping my reviews fairly short. I mean, no one wants to read a user review that's 1,000 words. I write it assuming you have a general idea on what the game's about. I remember my audience and make sure I'm meeting their needs, not my own. It's easy to get attached to certain turns of phrase and specific wording that you feel might make you sound smart. But what really matters is getting my point across in a clear and concise manner. I'm not curing cancer, I'm reviewing products that are supposed to be entertaining. Most people don't want to spend a lot of time reading about games. They want to spend a lot of time playing games, and turn to reviews to make sure they get the most out of their limited playing time. So getting the key facts of a review out there as close to the top as possible is vital. Don't ever forget that games are still expensive. Make sure you do everything in your power to get them to spend it wisely. I got about 40 or-so reviews on the site, some of which are decent.
Then, and only then do I decide if I want to think critically on it. Then I write about it. My feelings and thoughts are enough, theres no point taking notes while playing, for that ruins my own enjoyment. I've only done 3 reviews though, must do more.
Most important think is to play the game. If you don't understand the game, don't waste peoples time with a review. What does the game try to do? Who is it trying to appeal to? Does it succeed? What were your personal impressions? What was wrong with the game? If you can't think of anything, you aren't being critical enough. First impressions are important, but not that important. How long is the game supposed to last? If you're playing a forty hour game, don't think the first five hours are representative.
See my Infinite Undiscovery one. I write what i think as going. lost odyssey's is my old format which is pretty much just write what you remember (things worth mentioning will come). that happens when i want to review it, but play it in huge stretched or just do it later
Pretty much, there's two ways: impressions, or master the game and review it
"Honestly, I think reviews should be done in the lieu of impressions. Putting on a critical filter when reviewing a game only results in nitpicking and aspects that no one really cares about (i.e. "The textures were okay, but not great"). Whenever I look for a review, I look for a reviewer that talks about the game from their perspective; from that, I simply agree or disagree with their points, but I take them into consideration. I hardly use reviews as a buyer's guide, because they never should be in my opinion. Most of the time, I'll read reviews after I've played through the game myself just to get another opinion after I've formed my own. Nowadays, I think reviews set up false expectations and I think that gamers should grow brains and make decisions on their own.
I get where you're coming from, to an extent. But I reject this new fad of, "I'm unique, I have my own mind so I don't let reviews make up my mind for me!" I consider myself as much of a non-conformist as any other non-conformist out there, but I don't find myself taking the stance of "no one's word can persuade me, I am my own man (or brukaoru,) I only read reviews for entertainment."
I don't agree with every review I have read, because I'll never come across a review where the reviewer is the same person as me; however, when you have played enough games and read a certain critic's reviews of those games, if a trend begins to surface showing that you and the reviewer have similar tastes, then you can decide to take that reviewer's word to heart. I'm not brainwashed by reviews, but they do play a significant role in my decision process. I bought Prince of Persia and Dead Space because of Brad's reviews. They described a game, respectively, that I would like. Right now I'm playing PoP and enjoying the heck out of it.
Then again, I have also bought games despite the reviews I have seen because from the content of it that I had seen, I knew I would like it anyway. But, again, I never rule out the word of a critic I tend to agree with. I think it's foolish to do so. (I'm not calling you a fool by the way.)
I usually play the game for an acceptable amount of time, this varies between games. Most of the time I try to beat the game before I review it but not always. Also, I only review games I buy, not rent, because I base most games off value.
I play a game until I realize that no further playing will change my opinion of it (for story-driven games, this usually means beating it, for others, playing until I have a feel for the gameplay and content). Then I write down an overview of the game as a whole, and make sure I make the key points I need to in order to represent my opinion.
The process isn't complicated; it's just the execution that's the tricky bit.
My process for reviewing games is simple: don't review games that you absolutely love or absolutely hate. It shows nothing but fanboyism and belongs on Amazon.com.
Other than that, when I was reviewing games back in the day, it was easy. You just talk about the game. A great thing to do is write out a ton of questions that YOU would want to have answered about the game to make it clear and understandable to you. Sure, you'll talk about graphics, gameplay, mechanics, controls, sound, yadda yadda. There are going to be all the technical aspects, both positive and negative.
The biggest thing you need to do, though, is realize that your opinion is YOUR opinion, and that you are simply trying to offer a subjective point of view in order to help others make a purchasing decision.
Log in to comment