[stepurhan]

I think a review can be as long as a reviewer can make it interesting. If you're adding a lot of detail that will give a reader greater understanding of the game then it's probably worthwhile.

At the end of the day there will always be people who only read the bullet points and scores regardless of the review length and there will be those who'll savour the whole thing likewise.

Just out curiosity, what was the game?

[Ascovel]

The game is The Dark Eye. I won't hide my review under some false pretense of modesty either. You can find it at Adventure Classic Gaming, if you'd like to have a look at it.

[Ninja Dodo]

Originally Posted by Mystgirl

But even the worst adventure game, is still better then the best shoot em' up and fighting game bore, that the consoles are offering these days.

A bad game is a bad game, regardless of genre.

Not to be overly harsh, but when reviewers say adventure games are "stuck in the past" that is not an inaccurate statement. Now this may or may not matter to you personally, but a reviewer's job is not to evaluate a game in isolation, but to consider it as it stands among its interactive peers. The truth is that adventures have not changed significantly since the glory days of Sierra and Lucasarts and most of the time don't compare favourably to their ancestors.

You can't expect reviewers to go easy on a genre that has done nothing new for over ten years. It would be like giving Quake eights and nines if it came out today!

MystGirl, you cited Doom 3 as an example of the cutting edge of action at the time and graphically that was certainly true but in terms of gameplay you couldn't have picked a worse example as it was pretty much a remake of the original Doom that did very little to advance the art-form. You can rest assured that if it had had the same sprite graphics as part one it would have been torn to as many bits as the average adventure.

It sounds to me like you tried Doom 3 just to confirm your dislike of action games, in which case you're doing yourself a disservice.

There have been countless games involving varying degrees of action that have explored far deeper and subtler gameplay and narrative (!) than most if not all adventures.

I write this as a fan of the genre, but honestly, the only modern adventure I'm interested in playing is Sam & Max (and Phoenix Wright if we're stretching the definition)... okay, and maybe a handful of indie adventures, but that's it.


As far as the value of reviews goes I look for one of two things in a review: commentary or entertainment. I can get the facts from previews and trailers, so when it comes to a review I want to know what is compelling about the game and why... OR an amusing analysis of why it doesn't work.

Actionbutton.net and Zero punctuation both serve the latter purpose, but Yahtzee manages to make some very valid points about the failings of today's games in-between the cursing, making it tend a little more towards commentary.

Things like this though are interesting snapshots of why a game might be worth playing. Bloodlines is a flawed game, but it oozes atmosphere and there are some genuinely great characters and moments in it that would be easy to gloss over in a traditional 'objective' review.

I don't care about a laundry list of features. Tell me why I'll love the characters, the story; tell me of the incredible experiences to be found in this interactive world. Tell me how it's something new...

[ShadeJackrabbit]

I'm curious though, if anyone finds more ellaborate, in-depth (and obviously longer) reviews interesting, or do you think a good review is just a thorough, concise evaluation?

Hmm... I think it's important to get the main point out quickly, and then explain it afterwards. I don't like having to search through 2 pages of a review to find the verdict. If a verdict interests me, I will read on.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by MystGirl

Personally, I tend to rely more on word of mouth...instead of a game website's own critic...I also notice they tend to be much more harsh on games that I've eventually played and really enjoyed.

Do you have links you could post on a game or two that can compare reviews by, say, a specialist in a certain kind of game versus a more general gaming or media site?

For example, I just bought and played Keepsake recently. It got mixed reviews from readers, but "official" gaming website critic reviews that I read, were downright brutal. Same thing for Scratches. However, when I looked at the various readers who added their two cents to the "official" critic's review, they were more positive overall.

The average review score from Metacritic is 68, which doesn't seem bad at all. But I'm not sure what your definition of 'downright brutal' is. Certain sites that review games (Gamespot, The New York Times, BBC News, etc.) do so with a particular audience in mind, so the audience we think of that see sites like, say, Gameboomers or JA+ may be different from the those who read Salon.com or Adrenaline Vault.

It makes you wonder how "impartial" the gaming mags, and gaming sites own critic's reviews really are since so many of us, disagree with them on a regular basis. For example, I loved Keepsake, even though it was trashed by a gaming site's main critic in one of their reviews.

That could also be true of specialized gaming sites that review specific kinds of games. For example a site that focuses on RPGs or RTSs may be a little more appreciative of those kinds of games than a more general site. Which gaming site, BTW, 'trashed' Keepsake?

See, in my mind, there is no such thing as a "bad" adventure game. Some are more puzzle based, some more character, or first person driven.

I will diverge from you on this point. I think a personal preference to, or passion for, certain things carries the danger of blinding us and forgetting that yes, we can and should still retain a critical eye. In this case I know that, that more I love a particular kind of game, the more critical I must become when scouting out more of that kind of game to play.

A good wine connoisseur doesn't become so because he thinks there is no such thing as a "bad" wine. He becomes a connoisseur precisely because he is better able to discern wines based on experience.

But even the worst adventure game, is still better then the best shoot em' up and fighting game bore, that the consoles are offering these days. (In my personal opinion) Very few console games (unless they are adventure games that also come in console versions like Syberia) leave me feeling as thrilled as I do, as after having finished an adventure game.

Careful there. You run the risk of being exactly like those reviewers who, in your words, seem to be downright brutal. Perhaps they were brutal in the same way you could be when you critique a game that is NOT an adventure game?

For example, I was bored to death with DOOM 3, which was supposed to be the BIG console game that came out recently. (running around and shooting things all day, gets old after awhile) Give me something like Scratches over DOOM 3 any day, thank you very much!

My guess is that you were bored with Doom 3 because it was never your kind of game to start. And Ninja Dodo put it eloquently so I'll quote him as I agree with him on this:

MystGirl, you cited Doom 3 as an example of the cutting edge of action at the time and graphically that was certainly true but in terms of gameplay you couldn't have picked a worse example as it was pretty much a remake of the original Doom that did very little to advance the art-form. You can rest assured that if it had had the same sprite graphics as part one it would have been torn to as many bits as the average adventure.

It sounds to me like you tried Doom 3 just to confirm your dislike of action games, in which case you're doing yourself a disservice.

The one thing I notice with gaming critics, is they also sound a tad impatient when they review adventure games, even if it's one they enjoyed. (maybe it's because they have so many games they have to play and review, whereas, we can take our sweet time playing a game, and therefore, enjoying it more?)

Well, they do have less time than we do to play ANY game because they have deadlines to meet. I know if I had a stack of games I had to play and a serious deadline (so I can get a paycheck) I would have to have a reliable system and checklist with which to work as I play each game. That's necessary in order to stay efficient.

Which games have you played that you found you enjoyed, and ended up completely disagreeing with a game site's or game magazine's "official" review of it?

I haven't yet played any kind of game that I ended up feeling very, very different about from most reviewers. Then again I never buy games left and right, I'm very picky. I can go for months without touching a game and I can wait that long until a game I truly feel excited about comes out. Most of the time I'm right and I have a great time with it.

[Sik]

Interesting thread.

Like many others, it seems, I read reviews mostly to get a detailed description and opinion about a game from someone who has played it. I don't generally care about the score a game gets, unless it's extremely high or extremely low. The score does have one important function, though. I look at it before reading a review. If it's high, I know the review will mostly focus on the positive aspects of the game. If it's low, I know the review is likely to focus on the negative aspects of the game. With that in mind, I'll be more aware of the "pro"s in a negative review, and the "con"s in a positive review. If these fit with my ideas of pros and cons, I know I'm likely to agree with the reviewer. If not, I'll look elsewhere, or at least not make a decision about whether it's worth my time based on it.

While on the topic, I'd like to applaud Adventure Gamers for the quality of their reviews. I rarely agree 100% with the score, but every review I've read has given a good description of the game. The reviews always point out aspects of the game that might appeal to some people and discourage others, and after reading an adventure gamer review, I almost always know whether a game is worth playing for me, or not. In other words, the reviews are fairly objective, while the score is entirely subjective. As it should be.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

How much "stock" should we put into game reviews?

...but how important are certain types of reviews?

I don't know how much stock we should put but I know how much I personally put. I've found that there are very, very few professional game critics whose reviews I look forward to. The only two I can name at the moment are Shawn Ryder and James Wagner Au.

Au is a rarity in the world of games journalism. IIRC, he actually has a degree in writing or English Lit, and has contributed work to various good publications like The L.A. Times, National Public Radio, The Harvard Business Review, and Salon.com. He has multiple vantage points in games as he not only writes reviews and about gaming culture, he also works deep in the industry as a developer and designer (Majestic, America's Army), and as journalistic conduit (embedded Second Life journalist for CNN, contributor to Wired Magazine Online).

I'd love to see more people like Au writing about the game world.

I think at this stage in the world of games there seems to be missing an intellectual depth in terms of how games are written about and explored in reportage. This is mostly why I don't pay much attention to many of the articles I see out there unless they're of particular importance (like games that defy or provoke discussion on societal issues, for example).

I think that game reviews could be so much deeper, and should not only tell us if a game is worth getting but also if it's worth thinking about in a larger and deeper sense. We not only need better games, we need better games writing, one that goes beyond the typical "this game has good puzzles" or "the graphics are stunning".

[Fien]

I usually avoid reviews like the plague. Before I play the game, that is. Too afraid of spoilers. Afterwards is a different matter. And for many games I don't need a review, I'll buy them anyway: Sam&Max Season 1/2, anything by Jonathan Boakes and Matt Clark, Gray Matter, A Vampyre Story, Still Life 2, Myst, etcetera. Previews of adventures by unknown developers are great, though.

IMO, the reviews at AG are generally quite good. (Although I can't seem to agree with Heidy Fournier on anything.) I also like Quandary for its objective info. But my alltime favorite adventure reviewer is Andrew Plotkin aka Zarf. Not the glossy, "professional", predictable kind of reviewer many people seem to prefer. Whether I agree with him or not, he always makes an interesting read.

http://www.eblong.com/zarf/gamerev/

[ozzie]

@Fienepien: Thanks for the link. I've read some reviews there now (Dark Eye, Next Life and the "non-review" Black Mirror) and I agree very much with him while he raises some interesting points.
You definately get a feeling for the game through his descriptions.

Edit: Well, except for his Syberia review. Not an interesting story? Pff.....it was the best part of it!

But, well, I don't have to agree with him, I only have to understand what he talks about, the game and the subject. He does this well enough.

Edit2: Hm, I think I read those reviews before, I remember the ones about The Last Express and The Longest Journey.

I thought the site looked different then, though.

[TezChi]

I hardly ever believe, or agree with, reviews from websites or magazines. It seems to me that a lot of them are simply aimed at what they THINK the "casual" audience will think of the game, and they score it according to that.

Also a review is one persons opinon. I for example don't like sports games, but I love adventure games. So obviously, that would come through in a review I wrote of any of those genres.

Needless to say, I don't pay much attention to reviews at all really. I am more into Demo's for forming my own opinions, than a paid, no doubt biased review.

[Ascovel]

I don't understand how reviews in general can be seen as only confusing.

There are many non-comercial sites that do reviews. And I think even reviews with suspicious or biased ratings can give worthwhile information about a game title if the reader knows what he likes himself.

In my opinion taking in consideration a wider audience than just oneself when writing a review is a very good idea. And it doesn't mean the whole review has to become impersonal.