Do Reviews Still Serve a Purpose?
Via Voodoo Extreme, a post on the Sony-sponsored ThreeSpeech blog asking if game reviews are a thing of the past. Post author 'Azz Hassan' opines that the proliferation of blogs and easy access to game trailers has made the 'biased views' of reviewers a thing of the past. Responding via the Ars Technica Opposable Thumbs blog, Frank Caron offers a rebuttal to the piece. 'The argument presented in the article seems to come with the very slant that it so viciously protests: one of a negative view towards a medium that the writer feels is inadequate. Yes, there is a ton of available media on the net that can help you get a look at a game as it develops, but the problem with videos and pictures is that often the intangible elements are impossible to understand simply from seeing the game in motion--only the written or verbal communication of a person can adequately capture these details.'
I have to admit, I stopped buying game magazines years ago because game reviews tend to bore me, and especially with PC's, I'd rather try out the demo myself to get a feel for the game, or buy something through a recommendation of a fellow 5punker.
I like 5punkers game reviews as they are usually unbiased, and nobody has anything to gain by stating a game that is crap is anything but that.
I like to read PC Gamer's reviews before I buy anything. I find that they're a bit over-saturated with games and so sometimes they rate a good game low because it's a bit generic, and sometimes they rate a simple game high because it's novel, but generally they're spot on. 5punker reviews are great, but they're pretty thin on the ground. I don't always find demos give an accurate protrayal of a game, and a lot of the time I can't be arsed installing them.
I don't bother at all with magazine reviews, and the only mag I buy is Neo, for the anime stuffs - although I don't really read the reviews much, just the lists of new stuff coming out and decide for myself by renting them all.
5punker reviews, to me, are the best indication of games quality - as they are by people who have paid their own money (or bandwidth) for a game and will genuinely say whether that time/money was wasted or not. No axes to grind, or if there are, they're up front about it.
What raises them above random blog reviews is that we know each other, and what games we already like, so we can measure our own interest by that of other, similar games.
I suppose magazine reviews have to at least seem not to be biased - but it seems a rather dated format, unable to keep up with public opinion quite as fast as message boards. I still remember PC Gamer's review of Half Life, though - nothing before or since has made me want to play a game more.
Also, magazines have something we don't - a full retail copy of the game before any of us have had a chance to play it - but the relationship they therefore have to maintain with the game makers always casts a little bit of doubt on their reviews for me. While I'm sure they strive to be completely honest, they haven't actually parted with their own cash for it, and have editorial deadlines we do not.
Well it's good to know that people put so much faith into our reviews. There's every reason to I suppose - many of us are veteran gamers, as much so as the professionals, and as such have a very good basis for comparison. I'm going to do a bit of work on this I think and try and expand on it - integrate the reviews into the Wiki more and write up as many of my games as I feel I can reliably comment on. Feel free to do likewise
Do Reviews Still Serve a Purpose?
