Review Contributors - General

I always try to write my reviews as the best of my knowledge of the game. That may not have been true in my early review writing but as I got a little older and understanding of games a little more, I try to be more in depth with my reviews. For example if it's a game in a series I may tell about how it may have been improved since the last game and whatnot. This may not be the best answer but just my thoughts more or less.
---
CRP: 12949 | FAQs: 15
FAQ Outlaws | Mega Man Legends

This topic is basically the motivation behind most of my reviews, and also the site I help run, GamingSymmetry.com.
---
www.DDJGames.com - Game reviews, articles, guides, lists, and more.
Latest: Top 10 Games Developed By Firaxis

KeyBlade999 posted...

In my case, I try to be as objective as possible about most bits (i.e. the mechanics, how to play) so as to let people try to make their own evaluation about things. Then I tend to apply a relatively small bit of opinion to it as a "personal" bit. People are still able to decide really whether THEY want to buy the game or not, and the opinion tends to apply some personal evaluations - like intraseries comparisons - that can work for people having similar tastes. (After all, people who readily play Final Fantasy might play more Final Fantasy, y'know?)

First off, I voted for your faq today. Secondly, I agree with writing reviews as objectively as possible. Depending on your definition of objective and subjective however, this can only be done to a certain extent. You can view things as subjective strictly if they are coming from another person. You could also define a subjective view as a game developer saying that his or her game is perfect.

TC, you've asked such an interesting question that It's seriously hard for me to know where to begin. Kojima (MGS) was interviewed in Nintendo Power once, and he plainly stated that games were not art. They weren't art because the person they are for (video game players) plays through the game and changes every aspect of it. To him, art cannot change. And video games are all about player change.

So in that respect, video games are not art. They are games that are meant to provide entertainment to those playing them. A movie or a painting can be art because once released, they shouldn't change (thanks Lucas). A painting will be viewed and interpreted differently by many different people, but a video game is more for entertainment.

I've also been gaming for 23 years, and at one point in my life (8-10 years ago) I was defensive of gaming, and felt that it was art. Now I feel a bit differently.

Reviews to me, are more of a tool. Sometimes I write in an English format, and sometimes I write with a strict format that analyzes the game. Basically, I want my reviews to be easy to navigate for the readers, and I also want them to be more relaxed. Describing art wouldn't work like that.
---
U.S. Army Airborne Veteran

For the most part, I always try to explain games the best I can, and I also avoid being a "fan boy." Just because I love a game doesn't mean it is good, and just because I hate a game it doesn't mean it is bad. The simple truth is that everyone likes different types of games, and that isn't the game's fault. For all of my reviews, I try to explain as much detail as possible, point out the good points and the bad points, and I just about always keep my personal opinion out of it.

For example, I gave Ninja Gaiden 3 (original version) a good review, because it actually wasn't that bad of a game. If you put aside the fact that it's a Ninja Gaiden game, focus on it's story, its gameplay, and if you review it just as a standard action game, it's actually pretty good. Now if you see it as a Ninja Gaiden fan (which I am), then the game is basically one of the worst things you can play. Still I put my feelings about it aside, and reviewed it as fair as I possibly could, while also giving as much information about the game as I could as well.

Some games just don't work well for written reviews though. I mean there's only so much you can say about some types of games, so yeah... That can really limit a review.
---
3DS FC - [1203-9218-7780] | XBL - [NettoSaito] | PSN - [NettoSaito] | Nintendo Network - [NettoSaito]
My Backloggery - http://www.backloggery.com/NettoSaito

KMAnsem posted...

I actually kind of rebel against the idea of objectivity in reviews.

I mean, don't get me wrong. You do have to be honest, you do have to be thorough, and you do have to be accurate. But to me, a review is always going to be subjective.

To me, "objective review" is an oxymoron. If you're writing an "objective review," what you're really writing is a summary. You know, like, "In combat, you can press X to do this." And if twenty people write "objective reviews" for a game, then all you have are twenty walls of text that say, "In combat, you can press X to do this." It's boring, redundant, and really kind of useless.

What you want is subjectivity. You want to have one review that says, "Oh, man, you can press X to do this, and it's so goddamn cool. It adds so much spice to the formula, and it's amazing how it brings the gameplay into a whole new dimension, and here's why." And then you have another review that says, "You know, you can press X to do this, but it really doesn't matter. It's a useless, tacked-on mechanic that ultimately does nothing for the game as a whole, and here's why." Those are opinions. Those are reviews, and that's where the meat is. That's what's useful. As a reader, that's what I want to see, so as a writer, it's what I write.

^This. A review is not meant to be academic--that's what a Wiki is for. However, you still have to strike that delicate balance between too-objective-to-be-helpful and too-subjective-to-be-taken-seriously.
---
Luigi > Mario
Current Project: Revisions to KH3D FAQ | Upcoming Project: Luigi's Mansion FAQ