The Perfect Game Review

[Runa216]

GameOver22 said:

Here's my advice:

1. Get to the point quickly. Write the introduction like you would write the thesis or abstract for a research paper. Let the reader know if the game is good and briefly explain why. Then expand on it in the body of your review.

2. On a related note, keep personal stories out of the review. I could care less whether the reviewer grew up playing SNES games or whether they enjoyed or disliked past entries in the series (I often times see reviewers use this as an intro).

3. Be fair and balanced (easier said than done sometimes). My main advice would be to not exagerrate how good or bad a game is- just be truthful.

4. Related to the first point, I prefer reviews to be structured. Once again, get to the point and be clear and concise. Discuss different elements separately. I personally prefer sub-heading although that might be asking too much given the length of reviews.

5. Let the readers know why the game got the score it did. This is why I honestly like sub-heading in reviews or atleast a recap at the end of the review. If you give a game a 7.5/10 in the gameplay department, let the reader know why it got that score. Otherwise, the scoring system just seems arbitrary.

That's all I have right now. I also agree with what other users have posted, particularly about keeping spoilers out of reviews. This is one of the reasons why I have actually stopped reading most reviews until I actually beat a game, at which time they are actually useless.

1 - That seems to be my biggest issue...I tend to usually start with the story/graphics/audio first, because that USUALLY takes up a small portion of the game and gets it out of the way quickly, leaving me to go on about the gameplay, value, difficulty, controls, etc.  

2 - another 'problem' of mine.  I certainly see both sides of the coin here.  While I see now that a decent amount of people don't like it (you're the second to point it out), I generally tended to think that my views and thoughts going into a review was important, perhaps enforcing my score by explaining why it took me by surprise or something.  I did refrain from this in my Resistance 3 review, however.  truth be told, I didn't much care for the first two in the series (decent but nothing special.  probably give the first a 75, the second a 63-65), and I usually don't care much for first person shooters, but something about it really jumped out at me.  it was a combination of the overwhelming hopelessness enforced by the visuals and a lot of the little things in the game that stood out for me (that I couldn't discuss due to spoilers).  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/review/39894/resistance-3/

3 - I think I'm pretty fair,b ut I agree.  you shouldn't be letting your biases get in the way of fair reviewing.  you wouldn't expect someone who plays RPG's to play a sports game unless there were hit points or whatever.  

4 - I always liked the structured style myself.  I like seeing the Gameplay, Graphics, Story, and sound all split up into their own categories so it's easy to see how the game plays if you don't care about the video/audio and want to avoid spoilers.  (I also have, I think 20 catetories of gaming split up into those four main headings).  

5 -  totally agreed.