I've been thinking a lot lately about reviews. I think that a lot of us would agree that the “age” of the standard review is over, with most people more likely to check out quick looks etc. and just get their games media coverage from elsewhere. I think that reviews are a kind of relic from print magazines.

However, I do also think that they serve a purpose. If there is a game that you haven’t heard of then it’s great to look at a bit of text and find out if it is any good. They can also be good for finding out about one particular games playability at launch. But this is where my thinking comes in. How many people actually go below the fold and read the whole review. Take for example Jeff’s review on Mario maker. When I first looked at that review I only looked at the information shown below.

It was then that I actually realised that this is all I need from a review. It shows me the games name, platform that it was reviewed on, provides me with a small amount of text giving the reviewers feelings on the game and finally it gives me the score that the game received.

So with this information I thought about how I would do reviews and realised that if all of that information was to be presented in a really nice way then I would read all of the reviews that site put out. I therefore put this "card" together based on my own thoughts on Super Mario Maker.

The idea is that all games would be reviewed in the same format, have a similar amount of information and be kept consistent whilst altering all of the graphics depending on the game. I don't know if it’s a little “over produced” but what I do know is that I would actually look at these reviews and they would be really useful to me.

This is really just a think piece, adding to the overall conversation. What do people think, a good idea or complete trash not really serving anyone?