Does anybody else notice the difference in the way reviews used to be written and the way they are now ?
With an older review it had the information I wanted to have a good idea of whether I was going to like it or not.
Now it is all about whether the reviewer likes it which doesn't really help me very much.
Comparisons between other notable entries in the genre (If it is like something but not as good why are reviewers so afraid to state that) seem to be avoided as are actual discussions about the mechanics and how well they work. Framerate is another thing (Wasn't an issue when it was all 60 but now it is)
“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
Remember when reviews were reviews and not previews? I'm completely fine with the concept of reviews, but if a review (re - view = looking back) comes about way before the game does, I think most reviewers are just pushing it to get more views. If you want to read a good review, wait a year, and once all the hype has settled, the better reviews will start to pop up.
Modern reviews are significantly more useful to me. There is significantly less publisher based propaganda built in then in the early days. When you really had to read between the lines to know if a game is dogs--t or not.
Not that there isn't a lot of paid reviews out there still. But its much easier to find an unbiased breakdown of a games pros and cons. NintendoLife is one of the best at this btw.
Er... what modern reviews have you read that don't discuss gameplay mechanics? Sounds like you're going out of your way to avoid well-written reviews. That's some impressive dodging you'd have to do.
Knowing your tastes though, I'm guessing that all you really want is a big list of technical details that would bore 95% of the readership.
I look for reviewers that have the same general taste as me, and then read through the body of review to see what they enjoyed, what they found lacking, and how that relates to my expectations as a consumer and gamer. Both retro and modern reviews have done this.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
What? I agree reviews that say some parts of the game are good/bad and don't give any explanation/examples stink, but haven't really seen that kind of problem on professional sites I check.
Knowing your tastes though, I'm guessing that all you really want is a big list of technical details that would bore 95% of the readership.
lol, I shamefully admit that's what I'm like, and at the same time I find it difficult to read overly-long reviews.
Description – objective only. Criticism – short subjective paragraphs often from more than one reviewer. Comments – technical and general short comments on graphics and sound, use of console features etc. General rating – overall remark and score (though I personally dislike scores).
That's what I'd like and is the kind of format that some British magazines in the 80s adopted. Nintendo Life reviews are nearly there, and they are among the best on the web these days, but some of their reviewers are much too subjective when they should be objectively describing the game. I most enjoy the American lad Tim's work.
I was just about to say the same thing. I miss the old Nintendo Power reviews because if it, they actually didjust that, and had a few short comments from several reviewers too. They dropped that around the 2000's but they did occasionally have a 'second opinion' piece.
Unfortunately, modern reviews have become another part of the marketing routine. Publishers are known to do big press events and hand out goodies. News site have been known to favor the glowing scores and even refuse to publish "bad" ones. Theres the embargoes, which are a mixed bag. Then theres shady situtions like with Shadow of Mordor. The good thing though is pretty much anyone can review games, be it via Youtube, user-reviews, or small sites like this, so you have a plethora of options to choose from.
There should be no need for embargoes when the Japanese version is already released. They should just review that. (By someone who understands the language if it is necessary).
I don't like somebody else trying to tell me what I should think (Or how important something is or what something means for x y z). Much rather them give me as much help as they can to make up my own mind. Not in an objective review which is what is desirable.
Damo is an interesting example because the stuff he does in Retro Gamer or stuff like the PC Engine Software Bible is great. But he chooses not to use that writing style here.
christcenteredgamer somehow manages to be more objective than basically anybody else.
@unrandonsam..... why would you review the Japanese version for Western audiences, it makes sense if your website is aimed at importers but if your review is meant for the general crowd then you need to review the version that would be available to them
@unrandonsam..... why would you review the Japanese version for Western audiences, it makes sense if your website is aimed at importers but if your review is meant for the general crowd then you need to review the version that would be available to them
Because the terms for getting a review copy are draconian. No such restrictions apply to just buying the Japanese version and reviewing that. (Or waiting would also be fine by me if I could trust the site).
Modern reviews have taken a downward spiral really. Often we're seeing things in these internet days of reviews being nothing but paid for ads thorugh companies buying ad space or threatening other goodies or future stuff being pulled/less generous. The reviews now seem quite a bit more preachy, political, over analyzing stupid junk and kind of dodging around a lot of stuff. I find reviews tend to have a lot less look into specific factors I value in a game, not just the audio/visual component but key gameplay mechanics, challenge, design, replay value kind of get tossed around but not really well exposed. On top of that reviews don't anymore include much visualization like the old print stuff had. Old reviews in magazines often had parts of the game entirely laid out in picture form so you could get an honest feel for the game and some of its secrets. The reviews usually were more shorter, hell they just were, yet they really did use that less space more wisely to give a better feel for what you'd be sucking your money into. The thing is though pre-internet, it was far less competitive as someone couldn't just upload some tripe first and get all the attention.
My Personal Video Game / Accessory List
http://tanooki.byethost16.com/
Do people not realise magazine formats are completely different to internet formats.
QUEEN OF SASS
It's like, I just love a cowboy
You know
I'm just like, I just, I know, it's bad
But I'm just like
Can I just like, hang off the back of your horse
And can you go a little faster?!
Modern reviews are significantly more useful to me. There is significantly less publisher based propaganda built in then in the early days. When you really had to read between the lines to know if a game is dogs--t or not.
Not that there isn't a lot of paid reviews out there still. But its much easier to find an unbiased breakdown of a games pros and cons. NintendoLife is one of the best at this btw.
I'd almost agree, but their are WAY too many bribes and kickbacks going around for me to think modern reviewers are any better than retro ones (Modern Warefare 3 has an 88 on Metacritic? BS). That said, the growth of the internet does allow for you to pick and choose from TONS of different reviewers and you're bound to find a least a few you can trust.
And as much as I like this site there is always at least one review out of three where I think WTH? Like Smash 3DS (a fighting game with bad controls gets a 9? No), Pandora's Tower (The subtle, yet perfect motion controls deserve at least an 8), or the first Bayonetta (Smash 3DS got higher than this? Aww, heck no).
Even with internet reviews the way they are done has been changed. (Possibly due to the NDA's but I only know what was on that Norwegian site).
Compare a Gamecube review on something like Gamespot (Or another but it obviously has to be one that has been around long enough) to a Wii or Wii U game in the same series. The difference is immediately obvious to me due to the stuff I care about no longer being there.
“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
Forums
Topic: Retro vs Modern review styles.
Posts 1 to 20 of 22
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.