Something's Wrong With Reviews Today (And Reviewers)

I tend to trust the reviews on this site not just because they're thorough, but because they can be funny to read. It's obvious that the people who write here love games and aren't afraid to poke fun of a game's flaws. It also comes in handy for blasting apart games that are downright awful (the Survivor review is still my go to place for a cheer-me-up). I also like how very few games go past a B+ without contributing something new to the industry. Granted, I don't agree with every single review I've read on here, but at least the writer makes his case for what gets a "C+" instead of the "B-".

That does seem to be a sign of quality for the reviews here. Especially when a review is given a fun format. The dx:hr review comes to mind. The reviewer not only loves games here but loves his job to some extent to write such a creative view and I think that gives the review more value all around... even to the quality of the score given whether it be good or bad.

We deserve more Survivor: The Interactive Review type reviews!

I must admit that I don't buy a game that's rated lower than B on GR, unless word of mouth is great about it, or I'm just a fanboy of the series/devs/whatever.

You should just create a new site called Game Establishment, have all your review copies sent to it, and give everything an 8/10. Then you can post the real reviews & scores on GR on time.

Game reviews aren't the only place the 0-100 scale is like that you know. Think of school grades. If I have a 70, then I'm average. Anything above that is above average anything below is ****... You can't pass school with less than a C. It's mostly because of the view of people I think. There is that expected line that we should cross (70) if we don't then it's just not good enough and that's because well... someone else did get above 70. I am not completely sure this is something bad though. If there isn't a line how do we gauge ourselves. We can make the line higher or lower but then that just skews how the "reviewer" gives the grades. But that's just my incoherent babbling 2cents.

I think you're right about WHY people view it this way, but I think it's a problem none the less. School marks and Game marks aren't actually measuring the same thing. When we review a game, we are assessing the quality of the game. Marks in school are an indicator SOMETIMES in quality of, say writing, but often in quantity of things remembered during the class. To say you've truly learned everything in the class, you should be over 90%. If you're not there, there are things you seemingly didn't learn. 50% means you only learned HALF the material in the class. We're right to say, that's pretty bad.

But when it comes to assigning a level of quality to a game... it seems like the bottom half of the out of 10 is just useless. There's no difference between 1 and 5 essentially, except HOW bad a game is. If you were to use it to be more clear, 1 would be "The Worst Game Ever" 10 would be "The Best Game Ever" and 5 would be "Neither Good, nor Bad." As it stands now, where really only 6 to 10 is used, you might as well just be marking out of 5 and be giving a lot of 2.5s. That would at least be more honest looking.

^ This. Well said.

In a way it makes it easier for us. If you don't see a review for a game on GR, then you can probably deduce that the publishers either knew it was rubbish, or they just don't have connections, GR just hasn't bothered to purchase it. However, if the publisher has faith in their game, they'll send it to GR.

If you think about it, GR has become a prestigious site. It takes a lot to make it big, here.

The problem is gaming is becoming a big deal, so media surrounding it is also increasing. Now we have a profitable business in gaming journalism.

We have a bunch of over-educated, non-gaming people getting into gaming journalism who think that because they played Mario on NES they are true "gamers".

This is why I've always come to GR; you are gamers, who play and review games because you love and appreciate the art of gaming.

So Anthony, you were talking about how some games arrive early, some games arrive late, and some not at all. I was just thinking, it would be neat to make public that information on a regular basis. For example, each week list every game that is released, and which ones you already have review copies for, are expecting review copies for, and which ones you know just aren't coming. Not that we should infer any of those games are good or bad based on this, but it would be an interesting manifesto to read each week. Some readers with a little more ingenuity than myself might be inclined to write up a blog correlating the average scores of games next to their timeliness on arrival. It would be fun.

this. yes. I think it would be interesting to see this information. also, i guess that would let us know what games you expect to be reviewing too, which would be nice.

this. yes. I think it would be interesting to see this information. also, i guess that would let us know what games you expect to be reviewing too, which would be nice.

Honestly, I don't care one whit about this guy's review. I don't visit IGN because quite frankly, I don't feel that their reviews are particularly honest. I come to GR because, while I may not always agree with your reviews, I know I can trust you guys to give an honest and straightforward review.

This is some of the things I mentioned in the original article and your insight and candor about the process is refreshing. It's that kind of honesty that has been bringing me back to this site for many years.

My question is, do you think the way it works now will last or will it even get worse? It seems like publishers are getting a lot more strict with who gets to review their games early and how they do it.

The other problem with video game journalism is that while there is a lot of competition, there's far LESS mom and pop style competition than, say, movies. While every newspaper reviews movies, there are only a few video game reviewers. So it's far easier to bribe out the big name reviewers than with movies and the like.

Cynical as always Longo. BTW how do you think Anthony paid for his house?

I just assumed sexual favors and illegal animal smuggling. How else am I expected to get a ferret in California?

Stick to gerbils much safer.

Reviews should never have been averaged in the first place.
People should just play games.

We'd be able to do that if the prices weren't so damn high. There are so many games I've been on the edge about, that I would have purchased if it weren't for a $60 price tag. Seeing a few bad reviews doesn't help. If it were $40, I wouldn't even look at a review.

That took me actually using my Safari Reader but i ****ing pulled it off just for you Anthony_ Severino. TL;D(Did)R

I ran into this issue the other day. I love Dark Souls so I was just browsing for reviews just to hear praise about the game and to laugh at people that thought it was too difficult. Then I came across the review below and my mind was blown. Not only did the guy not complete the game (he only beat the second boss) but he states complete fallacies about the game. I hate posting the site because out will get more hits but things like this need to be learned and never repeated by anyone.

douglasville.patch.com/articles/dark-souls-yo​u-died

I've been going to this site since 1997. I was enticed by the "cheats" page, but I've stayed because of the reviews.

P.S. I also love the mailbags by Duke

the whole review system is a joke but at the same time, it's not going to change.

Game Revolution gave Fallout 3 a "A" which we all know the highest score never given is the "A+"

So an A+ would be 100% so than the A is actually 95% so your scores are 14.3 points lower than everyone else.

I love GR's reviews; they are unbiased and critique the game quite well. Ive been a faithfully GR fan since I was 11 or 12. (used them for cheat codes to be honest, but now I never cheat...strange). Im now 25. Keep up the good work.

Sidenote: I want this read last so ppl would focus on the first part, but I hated Fallout 3. The game was buggy, slow, and drab. The load times killed it and the open world wasnt really open as you were stuck in subways and fallen buildings. But I loved, absolutley loved Oblivion. I stole everything in the game ans sold it (that could be sold) before I even advanced the story.

I've been harping on many of these topics for a while now, and I'm glad to see someone else addressing it, too.

If I were to summarize what the game review industry needs, it's transparency and honesty. Let the readers know the conditions under which the game was reviewed. My second main complaint would be a rehaul of the rating system, but good luck with THAT one. Deciding to use the same gradign scale as the school system was a retarded move on whoever's part that was to begin with. The five-star system is what is more commonly used in critiques in most every ot6her medium, and there's a reason for that: the whole scale actually seems to get used that way.

Sadly, X-Play on G4 uses this scale when practically no one else does. X PLAY ON G4, people. If THEY are doing something right, what in the hell is wrong with the rest of us?