@kkslider5552000 Well my high school teachers didn't say that per say. It was more along the lines of "do not use Wikipedia as your only source". Wikipedia is fine for a starting point but it definitely isn't the end all (nothing is).

@Jeremyx7 Don't use that definition of "review", that's the verb definition. You want to use the noun version, if you want to make an argument on the definition of "review". Also, game reviews generally are not solely an overview of the game. Everyone out there uses different information; what you want to know does not necessarily pertain to anyone else. You cannot reasonably expect a reviewer to cover all bases, as quite simply it's not possible to, especially if they need to use their time for other reviews or have some other job or life out there.

@Jeremyx7 that was a quality description not a quality review. It didn't tell me anything about whether it's a good game.

There's the misunderstanding right there on your side of the argument, you're interpreting on your own made up merits what a review SHOULD BE rather than what a review actually CAN BE. I'm not telling you to just go by one set of reviews here, nor telling you that this is the only way to get good resourceful information, nor am I saying this is the way everyone should write up a review.

Here I'll spell it out for you even further since you don't seem to fully know what Review actually can mean:
Definition of Review (Noun) -
1. a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital, or the like; critique; evaluation.
2. the process of going over a subject again in study or recitation in order to fix it in the memory or summarize the facts.
3. an exercise designed or intended for study of this kind.
4. a general survey of something, especially in words; a report or account of something.

I fail to see how a quality description can't be a quality review in this case with the Clear & Reasonable example I provided.

@kkslider I was giving a prime example that was factually accurate in this case. When it comes to video games & entertainment, wikipedia can be a very good source.

@Jaz007 Your quote - "it didn't tell me anything whether a game is good or not".

EXACTLY!! That's for you to decide with your own mind when you actually play the game for yourself! When you read a quality description(review) it allows the reader to examine all the facts about the game to a certain point without influencing their decisions as to what to believe. This is why Objectivity is good!!

You just do not understand criticism. Go do some courses in journalism and come back then. It's clear tou're not going to listen to any of us.

What if he took journalism classes ans still disagreed? I'm not trying to attack, but what if?

It would show that he is a stubborn, arrogant person who thinks he knows more about journalism than the experts. He, with no experience, no knowledge, and nothing more than an unsubstantiated and misguided opinion.

So? If someone disagrees with you, then they're not educated... Hmmm

That's allot of arrogant assuming there with unsubstantiated and misguided notions. Please quote me at least once where I said something to the effect of "Professional Journalism has it all wrong when it comes to reviewing". I'll reply one last time for you since you're the one who is stubborn when faced with reasonable arguments.

This is basically my point in a nutshell > There are more ways to review anything in life instead of reviewing things in the traditional sense.

Simple.

The thing is that this thread is about informal reviews.
Game reviewers do not write the same kind of review than you're talking about.

FFS you just don't get it.

Encyclopedia writing IS NOT CRITICISM. Poetry IS NOT A NOVEL. A film script IS NOT A STAGEPLAY.

Believe it or not there are different kinds of writing out there, and they have different purposes. Criticism is not there to INFORM. It is there to ENGAGE with a topic (in this case, a game), and provide thought leadership around that game. A game review is there to provoke thought by the readers and to build a discussion, or "argument" (read: debate) around the game. This doesn't have to be in the comments section of the website. When someone reads a review, and thinks about their own opinions of the game, then the review has been a successful one.

This is ENTIRELY different to the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article. If you want to do that, then go ahead. Set up wikis and crap. You're not a critic though.

If you can't even understand that there are different forms of writing, then you are in no position to lecture anyone on writing. Hense the "misguided and unsubstantiated" comment. You're simply not qualified.

End of story.

So? If someone disagrees with you, then they're not educated... Hmmm

Brilliant strawman. Congratulations.

@Mophtroid True, but I felt my thoughts that I wanted to share related to the overall topic at heart still.

@WhiteKnight I was only talking about different types of 'reviews'. Not 'critical reviews'...you keep assuming I'm arguing against what makes up a 'critical review'.

@Waltz: Please don't shout; he's as welcome to his opinion as you are and he is indeed more than welcome to do his own thing as you've suggested, and good luck to him in such endeavors, I say. You wanted to know what was happening, and now you've heard the other side's viewpoint.

So once again I might as well just copy/ paste Lord of the Rings and say that's a "review."

This thread from start to finish (well, until you derailed it) was about criticism. If you don't want to talk about that, go create your own thread on encyclopedia writing.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes one "bad" review can mean the game won't sell as well.
Sometimes someone reviews a game that prefers other games greatly and only does the review because they have to.

@Whiteknight well to be honest I thought what I had to share related to the thread's title even though it strayed a little into another argument. Was not my intent to derail anything really, just make points.

Well, yeah, considering this thread is about critical reviews, it's easy to expect everyone is one the same channel.
To be honest, using the "I was talking about x, you assumed I meant Y" card is not nice.

Could you explain that a little more? By that I mean it almost sounds to me that you think every game should get a "good" review so that it doesn't affect sales.

look at the thread title. there's nothing about criticism there. granted, reading the original post very thoroughly and knowing the OP a bit better might have tempered his replies to the thread a bit more toward criticism, but his replies jumping in from the thread title and perhaps going from a few of the latter comments are understandable IMO. i can see very easily where a misunderstanding may have occurred and then snowballed.

I think he means it should be reviewed in the eyes of someone who's looking for a game rather then someone who compares it to another game