Who should review games and how should they be reviewed?

It is impossible to be 100% impartial. The real difficulty is whether a game should be reviewed like a movie critic looks at a film, as a product review, or a hybrid of both.

Should the reviewer be picked because they are a fan of the source material, genre, a fan of the series? Should they try to go into it as open minded as possible about the new experience the title brings? Depending on how this is handled should there be a counterpoint sub review so you get another opinion to balance things out?

well the thing about giantbomb that makes its reviews so much more engaging. is that we have a feel for all their tastes and preferences. if brad and jeff both reviewed the same game, they'd come up with completely different opinions. sure they might agree that the game is good or that its bad, but their reasons for thinking so would be different.

the first thing i do when i click a giant bomb review, before even giving a shit about the score, i look to see who did the review. the reviewer is often more important than the score in terms of what is said about the game.

all that being said, i think i enjoy Jeffs reviews the most in general. he seems to have that "harsh but fair" thing down pretty well.

I kinda like the idea of how that weird Japanese magazine does it with having multiple reviewers and combining the scores out of 40, i don't think they should really add them together but just be there as a second opinion, if GB can do this i wouldn't really know with how little of them there is and how only a few of them actually review stuff. Whether or not Sites feel there is a need to change how they do things, and have the confidence to do it is up to them though.

There is no universal right way to review games. With anything review related it's your job to find a reviewer that has the same likes and dislikes as yourself and go from there.

Of the GB crew Jeff is by far the one most in tune with my own taste where as whatever Brad says it mostly irrelevant for me. Ryan sits somewhere in the middle.

@M_Shini said:

I kinda like the idea of how that weird Japanese magazine does it with having multiple reviewers and combining the scores out of 40, i don't think they should really add them together but just be there as a second opinion, if GB can do this i wouldn't really know with how little of them there is and how only a few of them actually review stuff. Whether or not Sites feel there is a need to change how they do things, and have the confidence to do it is up to them though.

Jeff has talked about this being a possible new thing for reviews in one of the Jar time videos. Having a section of sort for a second opinion. It wouldn't add up to or change the official score in any way but just give the opportunity for another take on the same game.

@M_Shini said:

I kinda like the idea of how that weird Japanese magazine does it with having multiple reviewers and combining the scores out of 40, i don't think they should really add them together but just be there as a second opinion, if GB can do this i wouldn't really know with how little of them there is and how only a few of them actually review stuff. Whether or not Sites feel there is a need to change how they do things, and have the confidence to do it is up to them though.

I approve of this idea. I don't expect them to do it because they probably don't all have enough time to review the games everyone else is reviewing, but it would be interesting to get a second take on a game from someone who might have a different perspective. For example, when Jeff reviewed Catherine, it was interesting to see how someone like Patrick talked about the game later on. A "second opinion" section of the review might be kind of cool, even if it only happens rarely.

Reviews are opinions- editorials.

Nothing more.

If you consider more to them, then that is really on you. No one is actually qualified to review anything. People become qualified by the readers who choose to read their work (or view in a lot of cases, point is the same none the less).

I just finished Alpha Protocol, and came to the conclusion that all reviewers should be fired because they are clearly incompetent.

@Amukasa said:

I'm really not sure how reviews should be handled anymore. Should the reviewer be picked because they are a fan of the source material, genre, a fan of the series? Should they try to go into it as open minded as possible about the new experience the title brings? Depending on how this is handled should there be a counterpoint sub review so you get another opinion to balance things out?

I see so many reviews, professional and user reviews out there that are so crazy biased because they don't like the genre, source material etc. Or on the other hand they are too in love with a particular genre that it can do no wrong. I know they are paid for their opinions but some reviews seem to denounce way more than the game they are talking about. I was also wondering which of the Giant Bomb crew you most align yourself with when they debate about games and conduct reviews. I probably most agree most with Brad and Vinny on games. They seem the most open minded and less jaded when playing something new. Patrick reminds me of my friends who go to see a movie like Independence day and somehow expects the Shawshank Redemption when everyone else just expects shit to blow up. That's whet they expected and that's what they received. I respect his opinions but just find them a little silly at times.

Anyways just wondering what the community thinks about this and you think reviews should be handled?

''Depending on how this is handled should there be a counterpoint sub review so you get another opinion to balance things out?'' I think ideally there should always be multiple people reviewing a game. It doesn't HAVE to be only one as you implied (what's wrong with 3 or more opinions, not just 2?) and it doesn't HAVE to be a 'sub-review' as you implied. (Why not give all opinions equal footing?)

Though there are probably advantages to elevating one person's opinion over the rest of the crew's. Let's say you have 4 people play a game, and then afterwards look at all 4 reviews and choose one which to feature and which 3 will be ''sub-reviews''. It should be decided based on things like, who played the game more, and which opinion is the most well rounded. (if such a thing is possible)

''I was also wondering which of the Giant Bomb crew you most align yourself with when they debate about games and conduct reviews.'' I don't know the crew members at all, as that would require watching/reading their content to a sufficient degree. Why would I do that?

As for how I think reviews should be handled... I haven't really thought about it anytime recently since it seems like a futile cause. However..

• Should definitely be multiple opinions, as I said above. There are so many reasons for doing this.
• I had an idea a while back that reviews should be a blog, rather than a single piece. This way you can review SP and MP separately, (and as MP community actually becomes available as opposed to playing with only other journalists), update the review as you finish the game and take its full replay value into account, update the review as patches/fixes are made, update when DLC is released, update when a game drops in price (e.g. a 60 dollar retail title becomes released online or as a with-all-DLC-included edition for 20 dollars) as well as avoiding deadline hurdles, and allows you to be more transparent with readers as to how much of the game you actually played. (Which by the way I think is a serious issue with professional reviews and you'd be incredibly naive to think all reviewers always play the game sufficiently enough to review it.)
• Should absolutely not be like Gametrailers's reviews in any way. They are garbage.
• Ideally it shouldn't have scores. Although if there are multiple reviewers doing a review, it actually does make more sense to have scores since it differentiates between their opinions more easily. Actually, the problem is not just the scores themselves, but the have they have abstract meaning. If a 7.0 is good and an 8.0 is great, why not just say 'good' or 'great' as the score? Think about it. Oh I got a good idea. Each reviewer should give two scores, not just one.
• They could record themselves actually playing the game. (not the same as showing stock gameplay footage) And it should be for more than 2 seconds at a time. (Gametrailers?!) This would be a huge transparency thing. Viewers would actually *know* what they're playing, because *how* a game is played is a huge factor in what kind of experience one has with it. (which come to think of it is a major problem with reviews)
• SOMETHING could be learned from Zero Punctuation but I don't know how to best put it here. (because if you're a reviewer and are doing this part wrong, what's the use in telling you to do it differently) Reviewers should talk about their personal, first-hand experience with the game, not just read bullet points off the back of the box. When ZP reviews a game, he talks about what the game is like in practice, rather than using his playing-the-game to guess what it might be like had he played it differently, or how long it is, etc etc.

Still even with all that, reviews will still just be a review.. so it's kind of a futile thing.

The weird thing is that over time theres been a shift away from the buyer-guide review, more to the opinion review. Back in the day reviews were most definitely consumer supplemental - you bought a gaming magazine because there was no internet and you wanted to see pictures of the game - then you read the review to see if it was worth buying. Reviewers for said magazines let you know the value of that game against the backdrop of all it entails, graphics, plot, gameplay, longevity. A lot of people have this take on the matter of "you're supposed to form your own opinion!" - well how are you supposed to do that when you've never played the game before. Obviously I'll have an opinion of it after having played it. Reviews aren't meant, or at least in the past weren't meant to just be there so you can compare and contrast your own experiences - whats the point of that? So it's my firm belief that "game journalists" should get back to this previous state of reviewing with the intention of informing the gaming public if a product is worth buying, and giving their opinion along the way.

Also I just thought of something. Maybe what reviewers should do is always assume the reader/viewer will disagree with the review. (rather than assuming the opposite, which is what they currently do) Maybe all future gaming reviews should be based on such a philosophy.