Game reviews are an important piece in the mechanical clog-work with regards as to the success or failure of a game. This is because many gamers, are influenced by other people’s opinions. Personally, I try no to rely on other people’s opinions as it tends to “taint” your own view, but when I do read one, I believe it as cold hard truth even though I know it’s far from it. But what makes a review something to remember? All reviewers want to be the one that “stands out” and to be the person who makes or breaks a game, as this is what will keep them in the business.
There are a lot of issues regarding working with reviews in the gaming industry. To people who may not of had experience in this, may see it as an easy way to able to play games and talk about them for a living. But, because game reviews are taken so seriously, it’s a very hard part of the industry to get into. Anybody can write a review, but it takes someone very talented to persuade an audience for or against something. You need to have good literary reviewing skills to begin in this industry, but that means you need to have had some experience, but because you aren’t in the industry it just makes it a difficult circle to break.
Reviewers are mostly employed by companies revolving around the media, like for example, magazines and gaming websites. This means that these companies pay the reviewers wages. The reviewers need to have something interesting to say, otherwise the audience (and therefore the consumers of games) will get bored of hearing the same thing told over and over again. They are paid to make it interesting, so audiences will buy their magazines and visit their websites.
Personally, I think a “standardising” ranking system would make reviews more boring. They should be able to stick to a basic overall reviewing system to include the need-to-know aspects of a game but be able to extend on the basics, to make for a more interesting read. This means that you will have the information you need to know about the game surrounded by the “padding” of the other things which may make the game more or less interesting for the consumers. An objective ranking system isn’t totally necessary for sales, but a loosely based reviewing system may help expose any problems or benefits about certain games.
My feelings towards new game journalism is, as I have stated before, I find them slightly too biased and perhaps a little tedious. People’s opinions on things will always differ, like everything else in the world, somebody may like one thing and somebody may despise it. This makes for a more interesting world to live in, though I feel like it is too easy to take these opinions as truth. If I do read a review on a game, I tend to find a variety of reviews from different sorts of people, to gather a collective response. However, if I’d like to buy a game, and I read some bad reviews, I will still buy it so that I can make my own mind up.
A recommended version of game reviewing is to gather a group of people and share the thoughts on a certain game. This way, it gives you the ability to see the sort of body language which comes with the reviews, as some popele may feel strongly against something and some may not. You would not be able to tell if you are reading the review instead of seeing it in person. Also, if there is a difference in opinion, then people may discuss and argue their points, backing them up with better reasons. The continual going back and forth from one reason to another gives other’s the chance to take in the opinions and reasons.
If I were to review a game, I always tend to try and make it seem better than necessary because I want people to appreciate the effort that has gone into making it, even if it’s really not my sort of thing. I’d make my review too biased and then would easily be persuaded in a discussion. Instead of giving my reasons as to why it’s bad or good, I’d prefer to give reasons on how it could be improved, discussing the positives along with it. Therefore, giving constructive criticism as to not offend anyone.
