Worst way to review a game?

[GraveBusta]

Like I know there are many sins to fail at reviewing a game,but what is your least favorite game review sin? My personally most hated sin is the over use of graphic rants it royally ticks me off it's like they are there to rant about the graphics and not even review important game mechanics.


((I am unsure as to the right category as to where this thread belongs if this is in the wrong place I am sorry for the mess staff))

 

[TheoAllen]

When the reviewer put their taste over the anything and s/he feels like his/her taste is the best around the world.

You can't just said horror game is bad just because you don't like

 

[Archeia]

Another thing to add to Theo's post, I think it sucks if the reviewer misses the thematics/point of the game. Stating the elements that makes the game's thematics drive home as a bad thing is something I hate seeing in reviews. There's a clear theme-ing in place, it's the reviewer's job to judge it based on what it's trying to achieve than their tastes. This is separate from genres (e.g. Horror) but I'm talking more about like games that does subversion and deconstructions of predefined tropes and how.

 

[GraveBusta]

When the reviewer put their taste over the anything and s/he feels like his/her taste is the best around the world.

You can't just said horror game is bad just because you don't like

What about when someone says something is bad because it is bad and that they are right and everyone else who doesn't agree with their opinion has no intelligence? That is my 2nd least favorite thing normally would be the kind of behavior that gets under my skin the most but because I do not see this near as often as graphic rants and weaboos (yes that's my term for those who only play games for realistic graphics, graphic weaboos) I am more annoyed by the graphic weaboos.

 

[TheoAllen]

Another thing to add to Theo's post, I think it sucks if the reviewer misses the thematics/point of the game. 

Lol this thing. I got a bad review about my game since he seek for a story when I already state that my game wasn't focused on the story. So I ignore his review. It different matter if anyone else points out the bad gameplays.

What about when someone says something is bad because it is bad and that they are right and everyone else who doesn't agree with their opinion has no intelligence? That is my 2nd least favorite thing normally would be the kind of behavior that gets under my skin the most but because I do not see this near as often as graphic rants and weaboos (yes that's my term for those who only play games for realistic graphics, graphic weaboos) I am more annoyed by the graphic weaboos.

Just saying bad is bad ...

At least they give the clear reason. If you can't, then dont post

I do not consider it as a review though. But if you include that kind of post is a review, then it's included as one of the worst way to give a review.

Even heard "The two possible things that why your work have no comments is, It could be your works is great that no one could give a critics. And the other things is your works is very bad that no one could give a proper critics"

 

[GraveBusta]

Lol this thing. I got a bad review about my game since he seek for a story when I already state that my game wasn't focused on the story. So I ignore his review. It different matter if anyone else points out the bad gameplays.

Just saying bad is bad ...

At least they give the clear reason. If you can't, then dont post

I do not consider it as a review though. But if you include that kind of post is a review, then it's included as one of the worst way to give a review.

Even heard "The two possible things that why your work have no comments is, It could be your works is great that no one could give a critics. And the other things is your works is very bad that no one could give a proper critics"

oh on youtube there are idiots that say its a review and then pull it go watch gligar13vids you'll die in a few seconds of facepalm

 

[Matseb2611]

Yeah, being biased due to taste is annoying. Unfortunately it will always happen to some degree with every reviewer. Being 100% objective is next to impossible. However, I guess so long as the reviewer acknowledges that they don't like something because of their taste, then that is fine.

I'd say one of the most annoying things is when the reviewer only concentrates on one aspect and just hammers at it every second. You mentioned graphics, but this can apply to anything - mapping errors, grammar/spelling/punctuation errors, combat difficulty and mechanics, tone of the dialogue, etc. Unless the game is broken beyond belief, there's no need to poke at every single minor error. We get it.

In fact being overly nitpicky is just annoying full stop. It's as if the reviewer is playing the game just for the sole purpose of finding flaws rather than, you know, playing the game.

 

[GraveBusta]

Yeah, being biased due to taste is annoying. Unfortunately it will always happen to some degree with every reviewer. Being 100% objective is next to impossible. However, I guess so long as the reviewer acknowledges that they don't like something because of their taste, then that is fine.

I'd say one of the most annoying things is when the reviewer only concentrates on one aspect and just hammers at it every second. You mentioned graphics, but this can apply to anything - mapping errors, grammar/spelling/punctuation errors, combat difficulty and mechanics, tone of the dialogue, etc. Unless the game is broken beyond belief, there's no need to poke at every single minor error. We get it.

In fact being overly nitpicky is just annoying full stop. It's as if the reviewer is playing the game just for the sole purpose of finding flaws rather than, you know, playing the game.

Give this guy a cookie

 

[Susan]

There are some really useful information here.

I'm just curious about what GraveBusta means by graphic rants.

Do you mean just the kind of graphics used, or the way the graphics is implemented (i.e. mapping)?

I agree that reviewers shouldn't isolate a game just because they don't like a certain genre, mechanic, graphic, audio, etc. If I didn't like any of the elements from the start (e.g. too much gore), I wouldn't have played it in the first place, and therefore could not have reviewed it fairly.

Also, I think that the same reviewers who focus only on their own tastes, would most likely give reviews about game mechanics according to what they like and dislike only, rather than review the game mechanics according to whether it is actually well-implemented or could be improved, and how.

I think that a person should review a game's mechanics to the best of their knowledge, but shouldn't be expected to know or comment on every single aspect of a game. After all, a person may focus on one or two aspects of a game, but their comments may help a developer to improve on those individual aspects. (I don't mean "the puzzle game is badly done - full stop" kind of review. I mean the reviews that point out that this part of the game is good or bad based on who, what, where, why, and how (where applicable)).

Sorry if this is supposed to be a separate issue, but what does anyone else here think about reporting typos as part of a review?

I feel that too many typos could end up breaking game immersion.

 

[Matseb2611]

^Yeah, it's very unpleasant to play a game that has too many typos. As for when it comes to reviewing, I kind of think the typos belong in their own little section. Like when reviewer has covered all the other aspects, they could go "Oh, and I came across a few typos. Here they are...". That way they are not mixed in with the feedback on game mechanics, story, etc.

 

[Mihel]

I think reviewers should try as much as possible to keep a consistent judgemental level when analysing different parts of the game. Like when someone's harping endlessly about grammatical errors in the dialogue but then they become super lenient when it comes to passability errors or random encounters every two steps.

 

[cabfe]

I haven't done a lot of reviews, mostly bug-hunting for feedback, but I like to review a game I don't know anything about.

I don't even look at the story or the genre of the game. I just play it and let these elements go to me.

If it's well done, it should flow naturally.

Sometimes, a game include a feature just for the sake of it and it doesn't mix well. Like having a strong story-telling game, with QTE fighting sequences. Unless it's cleverly done, it feels off and should be noted in the review.

A bad review would be to be biased, like expecting a game to be something it isn't (nor ever said it was) and then blaming the game for not delivering.

Of course, there are the basic elements: game&level design, sounds&graphics, story&characters and so on.

Even a game that says "I'm not focused on any story, just the action!" would have a side note about its lack of a proper story, because it's a bare minimum nowadays.

Typos should also be mentionned, but it depends on whether it was a few cases here and there or a complete disaster.

I've played a lot of French games where the misspelling were so numerous that it actually prevented me from playing. My eyes were hurting too much

At the Alex d'Or RPG Maker Contest, I know that several games have lost a few points because of that, so yes, it's important even for amateur games.

 

[GraveBusta]

There are some really useful information here.

I'm just curious about what GraveBusta means by graphic rants.

Do you mean just the kind of graphics used, or the way the graphics is implemented (i.e. mapping)?

I agree that reviewers shouldn't isolate a game just because they don't like a certain genre, mechanic, graphic, audio, etc. If I didn't like any of the elements from the start (e.g. too much gore), I wouldn't have played it in the first place, and therefore could not have reviewed it fairly.

Also, I think that the same reviewers who focus only on their own tastes, would most likely give reviews about game mechanics according to what they like and dislike only, rather than review the game mechanics according to whether it is actually well-implemented or could be improved, and how.

I think that a person should review a game's mechanics to the best of their knowledge, but shouldn't be expected to know or comment on every single aspect of a game. After all, a person may focus on one or two aspects of a game, but their comments may help a developer to improve on those individual aspects. (I don't mean "the puzzle game is badly done - full stop" kind of review. I mean the reviews that point out that this part of the game is good or bad based on who, what, where, why, and how (where applicable)).

Sorry if this is supposed to be a separate issue, but what does anyone else here think about reporting typos as part of a review?

I feel that too many typos could end up breaking game immersion.

Like all they do is complain about how unrealistic a game is really drives me crazy or they just simply complain about how terrible the graphics are especially when the simply say terrible and not give any proof or valid reason as to why they hate it. I admit sometimes graphics look glitchy and that is ok to affect a game review I admit that's ok,other then that the whole complaining is opinionated and complete complaining and not even a legit review

 

[Hahn Deathspark]

*grabs a bag of popcorn and munches wildly*

I'm reading continue guys! :3 Interesting to read here, though the most common reasons here people have are biased reviewers. Well, I'm not surprised honestly, it does sound like a one sided battle when the reviewer is biased. It's why you need multiple types of people that play different roles. True, not everyone is a reader and not everyone is an action packed junkie, but to look at two different type of reviews can be a good thing. Not every time though, don't pass your visual novel to a non reader! >_<

A simple example I can use is like the game called To The Moon. This game does not appeal to the action packed junkie reviewers, but it nails the spot for readers. It's a matter of who reviews it because no two men (or women) has the exact same opinion.

I am a reviewer myself, I wonder if anything contradicts my Let's Playing style... @@

 

[Alexander Amnell]

What irks me the most about reviews is people who take negative reviews and combine them with their own assumptions and declare the game to be trash; and will proceed to argue with people about how ****e a game is that they've never even played before. If reviews convince someone a game isn't worth their time that's great, but at that point they have no real business judging the game any longer and telling people how bad it is.

As for reviewers themselves, I think the worst is the standards comparison of say "is x feature as good as in game y?" (Especially reviews for games like dragon age and the witcher, all you hear from half the reviews is is it like skyrim, does it beat skyrim? If I wanted a game to be like skyrim I'll play skyrim.) review the game for its own merits, let it succeed if it's good without trying to one up other good games in the process.

 

[bgillisp]

What I hate are games that get glowing reviews, then when you play the game yourself it turns out to be utter garbage once you get a few hours into the game. Makes you wonder if the reviewer actually bothered to play the game al the way through, or just posted an early impression and stopped.

I can name three games that did this to me so far. Conception II (one long slog starting about Chapter 3. Did any reviewer bother to play that game to that point?), Bravely Default (did any reviewer play that game past Chapter 4???) and Tales of Xillia 2 (grind for gold alllllllll day. But, heaven forbid you pan a Tales game).

Sometimes I wonder if current games put all their effort in the first 4 - 6 hours, then rush the rest of the game.

 

[Gothic Lolita]

Actually, I don't know what a good or bad review is, but I think the most annoying ones are something like that:
Your game is ****.
Best game ever 10/10.

If I do a review, I make something like a list:
PROS: The things I liked.
CONS: The things I disliked.
SUGGESTIONS: Things I personaly found a bit missplaced or what could be done better.
RESULT: If I enjoyed it or disliked it more in the end and why.

I don't know if it's a good way to review. But I guess only newspaper editors will know the best way. (\s/)

 

[Archeia]

I think it's impossible to review a game without any sort of bias (especially if you don't want to play it too 'safe' or middle ground). But I think reviewers should give credit where credit is due. It's totally possible for a reviewer get sick of seeing the same cookie cutter graphics/music and I won't blame them for that. But if that was the case, then the usage of said graphics and other parts of the game should be reviewed more critically where the author's efforts went into. To base a whole game on graphics is just ridiculous :'D

 

[Liak]

I think it's basically all about being objective. Even if you don't like elements of the game, you have to ask yourself if they do at least work as what they are. Some people might really like some of those elements, and if they read your review, they might come to the conclusion the game is bad, and then they miss out on something they would have enjoyed had they read another review, right? That's pretty mean of you!

So it's your responsibility to give as many people as possible an accurate overview over the GAME and what might be in it for them (or not), not over YOUR TASTE.

 

[Milennin]

I'm not a game reviewer, but I like reading/watching reviews and things that bother me the most (most already mentioned in posts above...). Also, this is mostly about professional reviews. I'm more lenient towards amateur reviewers:


-Continuous comparing it to other games. Focus on the game you're reviewing rather than continue talking about other games. This is only justified if the game is supposed to directly compete with another game.


-Continuous critiquing of one part of the game. Can be about anything, but it's annoying when the rest of the game gets ignored because the reviewer wants to rant about that one thing.


-Review scores that don't match the review. Scoring kinda suck in general because it's inaccurate, but it's worse when a game gets prized throughout most of the review, then ends up getting a mediocre score, or vice-versa.


-Short reviews that only go over the most basic things. Some review sites only do 2-4 minute reviews of games in which they quickly go a bit over the graphics, sound and gameplay, slap a score over it and call it a day. That's stupid, I want to know more. Make your review videos at least 5-10 minutes and go more in-depth about the important things.


-Bias. Like when a reviewer goes into a game already hating it before having played it, clearly not enjoying it during the review and only critiques it because it's not his type of game. Why did you even bother reviewing it if you were going to hate it? Or the opposite thing when a game only gets prized because the reviewer is the fan of the series/developers.


-Not getting it. When a reviewer plays a game in a genre that he doesn't understand. Don't review an MMO if you know nothing about MMOs. It's painful to watch for anyone who is interested in a title but get a useless review because the guy making it has zero experience with the genre.