Reviews: The No Spin Zone
by Dylan Romero · 12/13/2006 (8:58 pm) · 12 comments
I love my job, but sometimes I grow weary writing upbeat marketingese for every game on our product page. It helps that most the games we put out are truly awesome (go! buy them now! get an extra copy for your dog!), but occasionally I long for people to actually believe me when I say a game is good.
I don't want to just spew spam all over the community whenever I in my omniscience deem a game "good," "mediocre," or "Shaq Fu," so I've devised a rough preliminary format for reviews depending on whether they're casual/free games or hardcore/purchasable games:
Casual/Free Games
Short Review
Basic Info: Title, Style (# of players, genre), pub/dev
Scoring System: Play It!, Depends: (short reason to play or not play it), Don't Bother
Short Description: One or two sentences
Review Categories (all 1-5): Playability, Bells and Whistles, Replay Value, Intangibles
Extended Review (everything above, plus...)
Extended Description: A couple paragraphs
Review Category Descriptions: describe why it was rated X on graphic, etc
Comparison (if applicable): If you like ______, you'll like this game.
Hardcore/Purchasable Games
Short Review
Basic Info: Title, Style (# of players, genre), pub/dev/, ESRB, price
Scoring System: Play it!, Depends: (short reason to play or not play it), Don't Bother
Short Description: One or two sentences
Review Categories (1-10): Playability, Bells and Whistles, Replay Value, Intangibles
Extended Review (everything above, plus...)
Extended Description: A couple paragraphs
Extended Review Categories: Bells and Whistles broken up into: Graphics, Sound, and Presentation; Playability broken up into: Controls and Gameplay
Review Category Descriptions: describe why it was rated X on graphic, etc
Comparison (if applicable): If you like ______, you'll like this game.
Changed Scoring System: 1-10 based on total goodness of game
Final Verdict: Includes if it's worth the money and to what type of person.
Reviews won't be limited to games in the Game Store though. I'll be reviewing games from all platforms and time periods. Look out for a new review about once a week (then be disappointed as I don't match my own expectations).
Let me know what you like, don't like, or want to see added to this review format. We're going to start tinkering around with the guts behind that pesky "review" button on GGE, and many of the ideas brewed up here may be applied to that as well. Maybe that'll be enough incentive for you to post some feedback. :)
I don't want to just spew spam all over the community whenever I in my omniscience deem a game "good," "mediocre," or "Shaq Fu," so I've devised a rough preliminary format for reviews depending on whether they're casual/free games or hardcore/purchasable games:
Casual/Free Games
Short Review
Basic Info: Title, Style (# of players, genre), pub/dev
Scoring System: Play It!, Depends: (short reason to play or not play it), Don't Bother
Short Description: One or two sentences
Review Categories (all 1-5): Playability, Bells and Whistles, Replay Value, Intangibles
Extended Review (everything above, plus...)
Extended Description: A couple paragraphs
Review Category Descriptions: describe why it was rated X on graphic, etc
Comparison (if applicable): If you like ______, you'll like this game.
Hardcore/Purchasable Games
Short Review
Basic Info: Title, Style (# of players, genre), pub/dev/, ESRB, price
Scoring System: Play it!, Depends: (short reason to play or not play it), Don't Bother
Short Description: One or two sentences
Review Categories (1-10): Playability, Bells and Whistles, Replay Value, Intangibles
Extended Review (everything above, plus...)
Extended Description: A couple paragraphs
Extended Review Categories: Bells and Whistles broken up into: Graphics, Sound, and Presentation; Playability broken up into: Controls and Gameplay
Review Category Descriptions: describe why it was rated X on graphic, etc
Comparison (if applicable): If you like ______, you'll like this game.
Changed Scoring System: 1-10 based on total goodness of game
Final Verdict: Includes if it's worth the money and to what type of person.
Reviews won't be limited to games in the Game Store though. I'll be reviewing games from all platforms and time periods. Look out for a new review about once a week (then be disappointed as I don't match my own expectations).
Let me know what you like, don't like, or want to see added to this review format. We're going to start tinkering around with the guts behind that pesky "review" button on GGE, and many of the ideas brewed up here may be applied to that as well. Maybe that'll be enough incentive for you to post some feedback. :)
#2
I've never seen or received a review, but what's up there looks good and varied enough. Gamespot style reviews tend to be good and pretty informative.
12/14/2006 (4:26 am)
Huh, Shaq-fu, that brings back memories of a certain kind ;)I've never seen or received a review, but what's up there looks good and varied enough. Gamespot style reviews tend to be good and pretty informative.
#3
If they've not played any of the games then it gives them a feeling for which is better and might point them in the right direction the next time they're being indecisive at the game store. There's been plenty of times that I've stood around at Game Stop or was browsing the GG game store and wound up walking away without purchasing anything, and it's not because none of the games are any good, but a lot of times it's because there's so many games and I have no clue (outside of the top AAA titles that I already own) which one I'd enjoy most... or truly even what the gameplay is like. I've not played any of them and don't even know what to compare and contrast them with.
On the other hand, if they have played one or more of the games then they'll possibly see a game that they've not played.
If I could compare an Indie title to something else that I've played and liked then I'd be more likely to go out and buy it or download it or whatever. Without that comparison, the review is relative to an unknown value, so if you said the artwork is a 5 out of 10, ok, so it's average to you, but is it what I call average? Plus, some people for some reason call "7" average, so maybe a 5 to someone that does that might think 5 is crap and they shouldn't bother.
Sorry for droning on about this... doing reviews is great and I'd read them all and possibly even purchase one or two that you give a good review, but I'd enjoy them much more and they'd be a lot more useful if you'd review and compare more than one, even if it means you only produce a review once every few weeks.
P.S. The format looks great too :P
12/14/2006 (7:54 am)
I find that reviews are more useful to me when the author reviews two or more games of the same genre... I know it's a bit more work, but it provides a base to which your readers can relate. If they've not played any of the games then it gives them a feeling for which is better and might point them in the right direction the next time they're being indecisive at the game store. There's been plenty of times that I've stood around at Game Stop or was browsing the GG game store and wound up walking away without purchasing anything, and it's not because none of the games are any good, but a lot of times it's because there's so many games and I have no clue (outside of the top AAA titles that I already own) which one I'd enjoy most... or truly even what the gameplay is like. I've not played any of them and don't even know what to compare and contrast them with.
On the other hand, if they have played one or more of the games then they'll possibly see a game that they've not played.
If I could compare an Indie title to something else that I've played and liked then I'd be more likely to go out and buy it or download it or whatever. Without that comparison, the review is relative to an unknown value, so if you said the artwork is a 5 out of 10, ok, so it's average to you, but is it what I call average? Plus, some people for some reason call "7" average, so maybe a 5 to someone that does that might think 5 is crap and they shouldn't bother.
Sorry for droning on about this... doing reviews is great and I'd read them all and possibly even purchase one or two that you give a good review, but I'd enjoy them much more and they'd be a lot more useful if you'd review and compare more than one, even if it means you only produce a review once every few weeks.
P.S. The format looks great too :P
#4
Some really good ideas already.
Tom, I like the idea of a learning curve/how long it takes to get into it part of the review. It might be best to keep them short and just say something like: learning curve - 10 min, but definitely worth including.
Tony, that's a great suggestion. I think part of that goes into the "Comparison" idea, but maybe I'll try to post at least shorter reviews in groups of similar genres.
Keep the ideas and thoughts coming!
12/14/2006 (9:56 am)
What is up with '7' being an average game? Adam Larson and I have discussed this to death. Shouldn't '5' be average? That's how I'm planning on making it at least.Some really good ideas already.
Tom, I like the idea of a learning curve/how long it takes to get into it part of the review. It might be best to keep them short and just say something like: learning curve - 10 min, but definitely worth including.
Tony, that's a great suggestion. I think part of that goes into the "Comparison" idea, but maybe I'll try to post at least shorter reviews in groups of similar genres.
Keep the ideas and thoughts coming!
#5
But go ahead, give everybody "F"s, maybe that'll make them try a little harder next time.
12/14/2006 (11:33 am)
I bet people call 7 average because they went through the public school system where 70% gets you a "C" and 50% gets you an "F". That's my theory anyway.But go ahead, give everybody "F"s, maybe that'll make them try a little harder next time.
#6
5 is the mathematical average between 1 and 10, but to the average layperson 7 is the psychological average. Take the Olympics scoring system as an example of this type of mathematical vs psychological scoring.
For some reason it's always a little different if you're using a "stars" method. 3 stars in a 1-5 star rating is a little above average, as it should be and 5 stars is hardly ever given.
I was looking for the research article I had read on this but I couldn't find it... if I stumble across it then I'll post a link.
Anyways, sorry to bore you again :P
Looking forward to that first review.
12/14/2006 (11:59 am)
That'd be great if you used 5 as average and is probably best given your target reader.5 is the mathematical average between 1 and 10, but to the average layperson 7 is the psychological average. Take the Olympics scoring system as an example of this type of mathematical vs psychological scoring.
For some reason it's always a little different if you're using a "stars" method. 3 stars in a 1-5 star rating is a little above average, as it should be and 5 stars is hardly ever given.
I was looking for the research article I had read on this but I couldn't find it... if I stumble across it then I'll post a link.
Anyways, sorry to bore you again :P
Looking forward to that first review.
#7
I think using 5 as average allows for more detailed scores. If 7 is average, there's not much space between it and 10 for the varying levels of quality, and anything under a 6 is completely ignored.
12/14/2006 (12:07 pm)
That's actually really interesting Tony; please do post that article if you find it. I think using 5 as average allows for more detailed scores. If 7 is average, there's not much space between it and 10 for the varying levels of quality, and anything under a 6 is completely ignored.
#8
12/14/2006 (12:49 pm)
Dylan, are you sure that associating your blog title with Bill O'Reilly's TV show will assure people of impartiality? :)
#9
12/14/2006 (4:01 pm)
Of course! Who could be a better example of impartiality than Papa Bear?
#10
I must confess, I am somewhat of a gaming snob. I play a lot of games and enjoy most of them. But games that I truly treasure are few and far between. I can think of maybe 5 titles that I would rate 10/10.
I wasn't going to mention it but I had begun to stop taking many of the reviews completely seriously. I mean, to a certain extent, it is understandable. If the game is made with Torque it's easy to look at it with rose(or torque) tinted glasses on. But lets face it. Mediocre games can be made with torque and thats not a reflection of the engine itself. Torque is capable of making Quake IV and it just might be able to pull off a Shag-Fu remake.
As for the rating system itself. I really think, it would be good to incorporate more user opinions. Possibly include the rating from the game store or gather ratings on the games demo. (Plus you wont be on your own if the review isn't appreciated)
What I would really like to see you include is small specifics on the multi-player aspect of the game. I enjoy playing with other people. Playing alone sucks. So before buying a game I want to know whether the game focuses on single or multi-player. I loath games that have awesome single player and the multi-player mode is so poorly done it's like they tacked it on as an afterthought. A prime example is: Lords of Magic Special Edition. The single player rocked, however, the multi-player mode was unplayable since it couldn't keep a stable connection and would go out of sync constanly. While other games will just have extremely limited multi-player modes that are just stripped down vesions of single player with 2 people in it.
12/19/2006 (7:31 am)
I approve of this new rating system. I must confess, I am somewhat of a gaming snob. I play a lot of games and enjoy most of them. But games that I truly treasure are few and far between. I can think of maybe 5 titles that I would rate 10/10.
I wasn't going to mention it but I had begun to stop taking many of the reviews completely seriously. I mean, to a certain extent, it is understandable. If the game is made with Torque it's easy to look at it with rose(or torque) tinted glasses on. But lets face it. Mediocre games can be made with torque and thats not a reflection of the engine itself. Torque is capable of making Quake IV and it just might be able to pull off a Shag-Fu remake.
As for the rating system itself. I really think, it would be good to incorporate more user opinions. Possibly include the rating from the game store or gather ratings on the games demo. (Plus you wont be on your own if the review isn't appreciated)
What I would really like to see you include is small specifics on the multi-player aspect of the game. I enjoy playing with other people. Playing alone sucks. So before buying a game I want to know whether the game focuses on single or multi-player. I loath games that have awesome single player and the multi-player mode is so poorly done it's like they tacked it on as an afterthought. A prime example is: Lords of Magic Special Edition. The single player rocked, however, the multi-player mode was unplayable since it couldn't keep a stable connection and would go out of sync constanly. While other games will just have extremely limited multi-player modes that are just stripped down vesions of single player with 2 people in it.
#11
12/19/2006 (7:34 am)
P.S. I'd have to give good ol Bill O'Reilly 9/10
#12
01/04/2007 (9:58 am)
@James: Is that in the gameplay or graphics & sound category?
Torque Owner Tom Bentz