What Good is a Review?

An interesting post.

For me a review serves its purpose in helping me choose the best games I can. I personally don't want any duff games in my collection, but I'll make allowances based upon reviews, with my mind and wallet making the final decision.

One of my favourite games is Square's Parasite Eve. I recall back when this was reviewed in the PS1 days, it got marked down a bit to 5s, 6s n 7's. Now FF7 was all the rage back then, so far that PE was sidelined a bit. I think Edge gave it a 6 or 7.

Since I have been buying Edge magazine, long before internet sites became what they are in my life, I take their opinion quite highly to this day. Overall though, I like the look of Square trying something new in PE, with its real world rpg setting and imported a copy for my still chipped PS1. I happy to say I never regretted it. Sure, it could be said that the Edge review helped me buy it.

One vital thing to remember, is that we play games for fun and enjoyment, and that we make that final choice. Opinions are noted and respected, and yes they can entertain too (here's looking at you Zero Punctuation). Whether you agree or disagree, a lot hangs on them. There's so many opinions out there though, that it can be confusing, which is why I read at least five opinions from different places, then decide on if a game is for me, to rent, buy now, wait until its cheaper, or not buy at all.

I do admit that if I still can't decide, demos, rentals or playing a friends copy usually makes me decide.

a good review is one that agrees with me and all the other fanboys! otherwise it's just wrong, anyone can see that

Well, reviews are becoming useless anyway because of how gaming journalists are actually making gaming journalism useless. Because,

1) the grand majority of all gaming journalists are biased, biased towards their own reputation and how their target audience perceives them. Gaming journalists will not risk this reputation at any cost for a few exceptions here and there.
2) Journalism in general has become more of a thing of condensing as much in as small a space and as fast as possible, only highlighting what big happens now, not ever looking at the bigger picture or delving deeper.
3) market forces, even in scientific circles the credo is becoming "to not perish is to publish" resulting in the publishing of more articles then actual big books of intense research.
4) everyone with a electronic device that connects to the internet (except something of the Xbox brand) can be a reviewer, so finally no one really is.

Al these four togheter make gaming journalists jump from hype to hype, going "OMGZS! Console X outsold Console Y for one week in Japan, HUGAMEGAMUNGUOS NEWS!!! " while acually it doesn't change anything in the long run and not being able to adapt to new economic situations because that would endanger their reputation.

And...fantastic use of pictures Tim, brilliant!

In a way, this post is as sane as it is insane, because in the end its all a bit mad, and kind of shoot down us being here, doing what we do.

Yeah, everything is hitting the fan with reviews etc. So should we all just shut up shop, tune out and never listen/read those opinions? Of course not, because at the end of the day, we all converse here because of what we love and enjoy. Reviews are part of it, with previews, discussions like this one, that make it matter more.

Like all things, perhaps reviews are going through a transition. I do believe that there is a fine line between a fan laced but objective review on small site, and one by a game journo who might feel more pressure to give certain review marks. When that balance is found then I'm more likely to listen.

These days Edge and Games TM are the only magazines I buy, but I buy them with the reviews as an extra. Other opinion I pay attention to come from podcasts that i feel are more on a fan level (CAGcast, Bobby Blackwolf Show), while 1up Yours is usually enough from the cream of game journos I know of (and Spong obviously.

How I can't wait for the day, when Spong has its own podcast. It would be nice for you to give others a run for their money. Wishful thinking I guess.

What good is a review? Something and yet nothing, but its all we got. The reader/listen must decide for themselves. And like with a doctor, if you don't like what you read/hear you get a second opinion or more until your mind is set to purchase or not.

And if you still not sure, what good is a review, go and ask Jeremy Clarkson. He'd probably reply back to you, 'what good isn't a review?' Think about how you answer that.

You wouldn't think that if you'd ever heard us witter away down the pub of an evening. It's very difficult to be entertaining for the length of a decent podcast, my hat goes off to all the guys and gals who do them and remain informative, entertaining and fun.


I'd never ask JC to review anything. He's an entertainer now, not a reviewer, not a journalist. He has helped to create a very entertaining TV show, but really it has no serious information it it at all.

He had a chance to do a "proper" review, but drove through a shopping centre and did a beach landing with the marines instead. Quite entertaining and I'm sure a load of fun for the marines involved, but hardly what people buying a Fiesta want to know about.

If we wrote reviews in the same way Clarkson et al review cars, we'd have 400 pictures of muzzle flashes in Killzone and two sentences about the way the controls work.

Maybe that's where reviews are going these days. There's so many sites out there that it's better to be entertaining than informative. Unless your name is Yahtzee and you can pull of doing both. Usually.

LittleBigPlanet is great/s**te/an inspired expansion on the platform genre/a hobbled piece of software that over-charges for what's been left as a side-scrolling platformer. Stephen Fry's in it.

Did I manage it? I tried!

I'd certainly agree to an extent. But, I'd also argue that web journalism, to a large degree, demands condensation of information. Don't get me wrong, this should never be at the expense of accuracy and I would favour writing something longer to get all the relevant information in over cutting it for the sake of brevity.

Certainly with news, however, it should be as concise as possible. People getting a news fix from the Web often don't have a lot of time. They want to click through (while their boss is looking the other way) get a concise shot of information, then return to their regularly scheduled task. This is even more of an issue with the rise of portable web-enabled devices. People often don't have the time or patience for anything more than a pithy, to-the-point story.

None of which should serve as an excuse for lazy journalism which is bereft of fact. I hope that on SPOnG we deliver news in a way that's accessible and only as long as it needs to be, while still providing context and solid, forward-looking analysis.



I think that's pretty great, actually. At least where intelligent, thought-out materiel is being produced. I can't say I consider two paragraphs spooged onto a page about why Wii Fit sucks ass and the Wii is going to be sold for hyper-modern cladding on empty yuppie apartments to be a review.

I think it's great that people are not restricted to a few elite sources for reviews and opinion, although it does mean a fair amount of crap can get published...

You're kidding!?!? That segment was genius. I actually want to go out and get a new Fiesta to replace my gas quaffing, tax burden that is the Mazda3 sport.

What I want to know is, did that Fiesta *really* manage to making it from the landing craft to the shore without stalling? I seriously doubt it - the sea was over the f**king bonnet, in which case they did a great job with the editing! And the shopping centre - how did they ever manage to pull that off? The cost of insurance and cleaning up the tyre rubber alone must have blown this season's budget.

Of course it wasn't a serious review - I don't think I'd watch the show if that's what it did - but JC did produce a great advert for the car, even if tongue was firmly in cheek.

What I would like from TopGear is a bit more coverage on the cars the general populous can afford - I'd prefer that to rubbish stuff like bus racing or obviously set-up car versus speedboat.



I think you might have something there.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned sites like Metacritic in this post?

What good is a review? Well, if the reviewer doesn't like racing games and reviews something like Burnout Paradise, they would probably give it a lower mark than a genre fan, so that review, being objective, isn't *that* useful.

But then, get 100 reviews, pump the data into a site that aggregates the results, and that objective review adds to the overall picture of how reviewers in general see the reviewed item.

I personally remain interested in reviews, but I won't ever base my purchasing decisions on a single review. I'll read several and from those reviews (and aggregate scores), I (hopefully) can make a more informed decision.

Oh, and I disagree, Clarkson *is* a reviewer. He might skew his reviews in favour of a more entertaining angle, but if he cites an opinion, then that should be considered his review. He might ignore things that the general public wish to know, but he does touch on obvious stuff like whether a vehicle lifts on corners, ride comfort, whether it had a decent boot.... :-) It's a lite-review at best but it is a review.

And the various newspapers and magazines he writes for would probably disagree about whether or not he is a journalist! I've read his articles in the past and I find a whole different side to him than that shown in Top Gear. He does do his "fact" homework and then he writes articles... so why is he not a journalist?

But that just gives you an average score, it tells you nothing about the game - especially given that today it seems 75% is considered "average".

Well I did qualify that by saying that I read reviews *as well*, so I get a consensus view and a more detailed view.

The issue with aggregation and averaging scores is that you lose all context except for a pithy soundbyte that's presented down the page from the average score.

It's also the case that a sparsely reviewed niche product that does well in those reviews could look like a system selling juggernaut if all you consider is the average review score.


Clarkson is a reviewer in the same way that Dara Ó Briain is a political commentator, only not always as relevant. The thrust of his work is to entertain, the fact that his opinions are based on research is beside the point.

By "ignore[ing] things that the general public wish to know" he isn't doing a very good review. He's picking on two or three things that stand out about a car that most people will never see, never mind drive, and expanding them to the length of a five minute piece on a magazine style TV show. Then he cuts back to the studio where he negates the whole review for an "it works on the track but I broke my back going over a sleeping policeman" joke and we're still none the wiser about the car.

When he does review a car most people watching the show may have a chance of owning, he tests it on the track and complains about how it handles. The serious reviews of cars people might own are generally done by Hammond or May.

Don't get me wrong; I love Top Gear as an entertainment program, it's on my Sky+ planner exactly 7 days before it starts every season and I still make sure I sit down to watch each episode it as it airs. However, I don't look to Top Gear for my opinions on which car to buy, certainly not ones reviewed by Clarkson.


Articles based on facts aren't journalism. Journalism is the research and presentation of facts in as unbiased a way as possible. Clarkson writes opinion pieces, reviews or occasionally analysis pieces, all of which contain opinion and bias. Strictly speaking he's not a journalist.

There actually is a difference between a writer, a journalist, a columnist, a diarist and a script writer. All of these write for newspapers or magazines and all of them could be said to fall under the heading of "journalist" unless we use the definition of what a journalist actually is these days, as opposed to "one who writes a journal" - the strict definition of the word.

On the other hand, I'm sure the various newspapers and magazines he writes for don't care what he calls himself, because he delivers sales. Again, he's an entertainer.

I did mention it in the original piece:



As has been said, a score in isolation isn't necessarily that much use, but the tendency of a lot of people to purely check in on Metacritic or individual review scores is what changes the nature of a review. When readers are just interested in scores for their buying decision, they read the rest of the review to bounce their opinions off it.

I check in on Metacritic from time to time, but sometimes find it a bit unhelpful. An aggregated score's all well and good when most of the scores are around the same figure. But, if the scores contributing to the aggregate are spread across a wide range (some are high, some are insanely low), what do you make of that? Theoretically, you could have half the reviews giving something a 99, half giving it a 1 and you'd get a score of 50. That doesn't represent a consensus, it represents no-one's opinion. In that sort of situation, I'd much rather just pick one source that I trust and go with it.

Which doesn't mean to say its useless, of course, just limited.

Someone can pull me up on my maths now.

I won't pull you up on your math, but I would say that the 99 vs. 1 logic simply adds to the review system? Surely this is referred to as the Marmite effect, and simply forces those interested into looking at reviews more closely?

I try not to let reviews dictate my actions if a game get a really bad review I'll usually rent it first, I just read them to see what other people think sometimes before and sometimes after I've already played/bought the game some of the games I have I wouldn't be surprised if they got mediocre to bad reviews but I like them, and that's all that matters.