Crappy videogame writing

**Rumpy** · 11 Jun 2005, 02:08 PM

You have to keep in mind that a fair share of readers could know nothing about the game. They want to read about all the features and gameplay modes before they go to the store.

**Diff-chan** · 11 Jun 2005, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rumpy

You have to keep in mind that a fair share of readers could know nothing about the game. They want to read about all the features and gameplay modes before they go to the store.

They should read the review to learn if the game is good or not, and then go to other sources (company's website, demos, whatever) to learn the nuts-and-bolts of a game. A review should be a critical examination of a game, not a blow-by-blow overview of the game's feature list.

For example, Im playing Half-Life 2. I plan to write a review on it later but here's what I mean:

GOOD: Examining the quality of Half-Life 2's writing, the quality of characters, if the storyline progression is good, and what not.
BAD: Telling us who the characters are, what they are doing, how the storyline unfolds, etc.

GOOD: Analyzing the quality of the singleplayer and multiplayer gameplay.
BAD: Giving a rundown on all different modes.

GOOD: Saying whether or not the weapons are good, and useful (I find the SMG and pulse gun to be a bit inaccurate, for example).
BAD: Giving a rundown on all the weapons.

See what I mean?

edit: I also think a review of a great product should get you pumped up for the product. Does anyone actually ever feel excitement for a game after reading an IGN review? The reviews are so turgid and stiff. My Complex Analysis textbook got me more pumped for residue theory than IGN's WOW or HL2 review did.

**MarkRyan** · 11 Jun 2005, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Rumpy

You have to keep in mind that a fair share of readers could know nothing about the game. They want to read about all the features and gameplay modes before they go to the store.

Yeah, it really is the readers that keep game reviews crappy. They demand some retarded shit. For example, if a review for a big game goes up on IGN and it's only two pages readers will complain. They also whine if the review doesn't describe every single play mode, etc. They really are pretty retarded.

**Rumpy** · 11 Jun 2005, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by diffusionx

They should read the review to learn if the game is good or not, and then go to other sources (company's website, demos, whatever) to learn the nuts-and-bolts of a game. A review should be a critical examination of a game, not a blow-by-blow overview of the game's feature list.

For example, Im playing Half-Life 2. I plan to write a review on it later but here's what I mean:

GOOD: Examining the quality of Half-Life 2's writing, the quality of characters, if the storyline progression is good, and what not.
BAD: Telling us who the characters are, what they are doing, how the storyline unfolds, etc.

GOOD: Analyzing the quality of the singleplayer and multiplayer gameplay.
BAD: Giving a rundown on all different modes.

GOOD: Saying whether or not the weapons are good, and useful (I find the SMG and pulse gun to be a bit inaccurate, for example).
BAD: Giving a rundown on all the weapons.

See what I mean?

edit: I also think a review of a great product should get you pumped up for the product. Does anyone actually ever feel excitement for a game after reading an IGN review? The reviews are so turgid and stiff. My Complex Analysis textbook got me more pumped for residue theory than IGN's WOW or HL2 review did.

I totally agree with you and Mark, I'm just saying why they do it. While reviews are mostly garbage, I think we can make TNLs Reader Reviews a great resource with the best style of reviews.

**Drewbacca** · 11 Jun 2005, 03:26 PM

The only problem with reader reviews is that you have people who have little understanding of english put material up there (like me).

**gamevet** · 11 Jun 2005, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Clash!

You keep talking soly in how long the game is vs. how much it costs. We are talking GAMEPLAY. Dragon Quest 7 is a gazillion hours long, and I think it sucks. I give it a 5. It cost $50 when it came out. Should I bump it up to a 7 because I get a shipload of game for $50?

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, about how some reviewers say: This game would be a great rental, but not worth purchasing.

That is what the discussion was about.

There are games out there, that I would enjoy playing, but I couldn't see myself playing once I've completed it. Could be a great first time experience and a short one as well. I would be better off paying $7 to rent the game for a week, than to pay $50 and be done with it in the same time.