My concern with the icons is that they imply that games are to be evaluated through a set of binary indicators. This “have or have not” comparison is appropriate for more easily quantifiable items like printers or digital cameras. There’s always review points complaining that a game lacks multiplayer or full HD support or this or that, but those are periphery to the experience the player gets from the game.
Imagine rating books, movies, or television with these icons like these; it would be inappropriate and an insult to the diversity that these mediums provide. Why should it be different for games?
There is also the assumption that the more “good” icons that display by a game, the better it is compared to others. This creates an implicit pressure on publishers and developers to include features for the sake of little icons, rather than doing what is right for the game. Yet the inclusion of features does not indicate how those features contribute to the product, only if they exist or not. There have been plenty of reviews bemoaning the lack of multiplayer in games that it was not appropriate for; I feel like this icon approach will only strengthen those observations.
As for text, the shorter the better. I appreciate summaries on top of long articles, but I feel like bulleted lists are an enemy to sophisticated expression. I would rather have a sentence or two that creates a feel for the game rather than a half-dozen disjointed partial sentences.
I contend that any review that clocks in at 4000 words (or whatever obscene length that and most online reviews are) is never, ever, ever worth my time. It’s just far too much text. Say what you will about word counts, they do force writers to distill their thoughts about the game down to the most salient points. Well, either that or write a bunch of snarky comments that may or may not convey any meaning about the game.
I thought the icons were supposed to be like mini-awards or mini-demerits. Kind of like an editor’s choice, but for specific aspects of the game. They couldn’t replace the review in and of themselves, but just serve to augment the good/bad list. Their topic is very specific and usually not large enough to be used in the good/bad list.
So from specific to large comments it’d be: icons -> good/bad list -> review.
It’s like giving a movie an award for great sound direction, it doesn’t mean the movie as a whole is good, just that it has great sound direction.
However, after checking out the reviews, it seems they are just a hodge-podge of ideas. That’s not very useful.
What’s the top end of a word count before you won’t read a review?
I’ve been critical elsewhere of the format change, but I actually think this works better than I expected. I think the icons are an interesting idea. I really like the larger screenshots though - so finally you don’t have to click on the screens to actually get a good idea for how the game looks.
Well, of course it sounds silly when you put it that way.
My point is that these super-long reviews are, almost without exception, rambling and overly detailed. My eyes just end up glazing over when I start to get into long-winded explanations of the control scheme or the UI or whatever.
I’d say that the “sweet spot” is probably around 2500 characters not counting spaces (that’s the measurement we use, so that’s what I think in). That’s a pretty lengthy one-pager in the magazine, for reference. From my experience both writing and reading, that’s about the optimal length to get all your points in without being overly wordy or rambling on.
Shorter than that is certainly doable, but you end up having to cut out thoughts because they just don’t fit in. Those are almost a different kind of review, where you’re not addressing many specific points and more just the experience itself.
Blah blah blah, whatever whatever. This is all just from my personal and professional experience. Some people like long detailed reviews, and that’s fine. It’s not like how we do it is the only game in town.
No, no, I wasn’t criticizing that. I’m sorry it sounded like it.
I’d say that the “sweet spot” is probably around 2500 characters not counting spaces (that’s the measurement we use, so that’s what I think in). That’s a pretty lengthy one-pager in the magazine, for reference. From my experience both writing and reading, that’s about the optimal length to get all your points in without being overly wordy or rambling on.
This is exactly what I was looking for. I’ve seen character counts in Open Office, but it doesn’t say if that includes spaces. Do word processors typically include spaces in the character count? If so, do you write a custom script to get character counts?
Blah blah blah, whatever whatever. This is all just from my personal and professional experience. Some people like long detailed reviews, and that’s fine. It’s not like how we do it is the only game in town.
Yeah. That’s understandable. Often, when presented with a long review that’s still engaging, I’ll read it in chunks instead of all at once. I still look at shorter reviews that I can read in one sitting.
Movie reviews don’t typically have separate scores for those things, but they definitely are singled out, when necessary, for criticism. Movies are constantly being slammed for having lousy acting, poor scriptwriting, and bad lighting, among many other things.
Hope they add search for those icons. Now I’m jonesing for a game search engine with a mature tagging system.
Looking at their review guidelines page, they also mention a “medal” system. Seems like it’s something different. Can anyone point to a review that awards medals?
Yeah but readers are considered adult enough not to have every little think breaked down for thel with individual scores.
It could be fun, though.
Citizen Kane :
Lightning : 90% - blacks were ok, but the whites are a bit saturated. Awesome camera work, though, and clever use of depth of field.
Story : 70% - pointless rant about a “Rosebud”, the main character is not very likable
I like the new review format. The quick synopsis lends itself to showing many quickie reviews in a table.
The reality is, I only read the entire review when
[ul][li]I’m especially interested in the game,[/li][li]I’m especially fond of the author’s writing, or[/li][li]others call my attention to it.[/ul][/li]
Mostly I just want to know whether the game is worth trying. The subtleties of the longer review seldom help me figure that out.
Well, with a movie, you can be sure that what you’re seeing/hearing isn’t broken. The same isn’t true with games. I want to read about the art style and stuff, but I also want to know if the game is technically not broken.
