The Purpose of Video Game Reviews

[kingofwale]

Khuutra said:

kingofwale said:
Okay, I will bite first.

Personally I have no question with the integrity of reviewers. There are bad ones out there.. (Gamespot), but most of them are good.

the latest controversy (if it can be even called) is merely another form of attack on so called "game reviewer" by Nintendo fans. It started with WiiSport, and every other games that didn't get SMG score. They go from claiming reviewers are biased, to claiming they don't know how to review "new brand" of gaming, to downright dismiss them as "hating on Nintendo"

Frankly, I don't care, game reviews lived for as long as it did, it will live through this.

Mmm. Fair point, but not what I mean to ask. This isn't about reviewers: this is about reviews themselves. Not their current state, but what they would be ideally.

What do you think is the ideal form of a review?

 well, according to 1up (on G4 tv interview) and IGN (in more than 1 podcast), they have specifically stated that their defintion of score is based purely on "FUN". Is the gameplay fun? Is the graphic pleasing? Is there lasting appeal? Is it worth your money??? All evolving around the idea of fun.

Also, it's very good at informing someone who has no idea what the game about into buying a game. Of course, they aren't always right, that's why you read more than one.

A good review should started out explaning the game, then stating all the positive and then the negative, and then give you some kind of recommendation (either buy/rent or review score)