Runa216 said:
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. |
As far as the second point, I can see it both ways. By giving some background, you can build some credibility, especially among fans. It can also help build more of a connection with the reader as well.
There are two reasons I personally don't care for it though. First, I really want the review to be as concise as possible. The less reading I have to do, the better. Given that there is a finite amount of time in the day, I generally don't want to spend much time reading a review (I would rather spend the time playing the game for example). Second, on a personal level, it doesn't add much to the review. I think reviews should be judged on their own merit, and not on the past playing history of the reviewer. In addition, the game being reviewed should be the main focus throughout the review (kind of goes back to being concise).
As I said, I can see it going both ways, and you would probably need more responses to get an idea about what readers really want. Also, I think your spot on with Resistance and Resistance 2. I haven't played the third one yet though. I think there solid games-first one more than the second, but they aren't exceptional.
