[Simon Crust]

We are thinking of starting games reviews.

They'd be part of this forum, as dedicated posts.

Do you think this is a resource that would be useful?

[Guns_LotsOfGuns]

I think its a good idea, the gaming forums are popular and perhaps it could be tied in with the existing review threads that the members currently post thier reviews into.

Although it might be hard to get games reviewed in a timely fashion. Unlike films you cant sit and take it all in with one sitting; most games will take the normal human being with a life and daily reponsibilities several days of solid play to get to the point where they can write what could be called a "review".

Unless we could get games early like the other games media, we would always be behind everyone else. Saying that ive always felt there was a space for retrospective reviews after the hype has died down and an objective review can be produced. The question is would people still read & enjoy it after the fact. Id like to think so.

Even so i think it warrants considering and would be a good addition to the site.

[KhalJimbo]

I'd say yes, I get all my movie reviews from here so why not get my game reviews too, would be good I say

[SyStemDeMoN]

The only thing I do with the movie reviews on here is Ignore them.

People here, have blasted films that I've really enjoyed.

[mudstuff]

I tend to read a few of the bluray reviews and would read the game reviews if you did them. I can't help but think you'd be fighting against the current though and while people might read them, would they actually be valuable?

I say this as there are loads of dedicated gaming sites that document the production of a game from start to finish with video content. I have made my mind up to purchase a game well in advance of the release usually. If I can't make my mind up, I'd rather leave it a couple of days and read actual gamers' opinions in the forums to make an informed decision.

I think they would actually have more value retrospectively by AVFers reading up on games that passed them by which would work for you since as aforementioned, I'm afraid you couldn't compete with the big boys on big releases.

[kav]

There are loads of informal retrospective game reviews here on the forums already. As mentioned above, to keep up with the big gaming sites, you would need to have deals as you presumably do with Blurays to get them early so that a proper review is ready upon/just prior to release of the game. To stand out from the other review sites, you could perhaps focus (again as you do for films) on the technical aspects such as pic and sound quality. I'd definitely be interested if this were to happen.

[kopchoir]

Yes as long as you get some gamers to do the reviews and not someone who plays the odd game on their ps3 bluray machine

[Haggler]

I think most of the drawbacks of this have been mentioned already but here goes.

1) Games would need to be available for review before the official release date, in order to be a really useful resource.

2) Games would need to be reviewed and the review ready by the official release date.

3) Any belated reviews of released games may still be useful but this should use members own purchases, after all if you have the game already it won't be costing anything extra.

4) All games would need to be reviewed by a member who plays a hell of a lot of games and any reviewer(s) would obviously need to own each respective system.

5) A point not mentioned yet, it would be necessary for the game to probably be reviewed by more than one person in order to get a balanced review.

6) How any you going to determine who is best suited to reviewing games? my advice would be to look in the reviews section for each particular gaming section and pick out a few members who have already written a few decent reviews.

7) Have you considered video reviews? if someone here is capable of the uploading and has a really decent voice etc that would be a major scoop, there is much less competition.

Good luck with whatever you decide

Haggler.......

[kav]

Originally Posted by Haggler

5) A point not mentioned yet, it would be necessary for the game to probably be reviewed by more than one person in order to get a balanced review.

Agree with everything you've said except this point - reviews are almost always the subjective views of one person, so why should games reviews be any different? The only time I can think of more than one reviewer being involved is when IGN sometimes add their "Another take" section where another reviewer comments on some aspects they either don't agree with or want to give more detail on.

We could always go for an irreverent, Zero Punctuation style review of games - wouldn't exactly be reliable but sure would be funny.

[Haggler]

Originally Posted by kavanf1

reviews are almost always the subjective views of one person, so why should games reviews be any different? The only time I can think of more than one reviewer being involved is when IGN sometimes add their "Another take" section where another reviewer comments on some aspects they either don't agree with or want to give more detail on.

Gaming magazines used to do it all the time, zzap 64 etc, this is why people moan sometimes when they read reviews, if that is the case i think a review by more than one person should be the norm not the exception.

[Haggler]

In fact if what you say is correct (and i'm not sure) this could be a major scoop for AVF, "The only site to provide balanced video game reviews by multiple reviewers"?

[Solar]

Originally Posted by Haggler

4) All games would need to be reviewed by a member who plays a hell of a lot of games and any reviewer(s) would obviously need to own each respective system.

This is the only point i do not agree with.
See the reason i dont read any gaming sites is the fact that one person (or a couple) can not define how good a game really is. What is good for one might not be good for another and vice versa.
What reviews need are a mass amount of people, or just a random forum member (hardcore gamer, or a non gamer) to test it and write a review of "what they think", not "what others will think" about the game.
And this is exactly why i only read about games on AVForums, i am much more likley to get a review or opinion off other people on here with the same interests and thoughts as me.

If this does go ahead (which i think would be great) AVF needs to make a deal with which ever publishers they are reviewing for to allow criticism and bad reviews. AVF is an open public forum full of general and personal opinions, thats why we are all here and thats how it needs to stay.
There have been times in the past where publishers have threatened to break the deal with review sites because of a bad review.

[Guns_LotsOfGuns]

Ive been thinking perhaps rather than a dedicated review, it could be more of an AVF round table feature, with snippets of opinions from the review threads collated, edited and organised into an interesting read by a knowledgable writer who has played the game.

That way you could intergrate the user opinions but tie it all together with the writers analysis and critque. It engages the community and could be more useful than a single perspective.

It would of course be done after release but the multiple opinions could make it an interesting read and could serve as a way of summarising many people views, i can imagine people using long after release to get a feel how a game was received. Perhaps people would even be more inclined to review games here as thier opinions could possibly be used as part of an article, and likewise people could be compelled to read the review to see if they made the cut!

Its a little similar to the section Gamespy add on the end of thier reviews (example), but with less cut and pasting after the review and more original writing to tie it together as part of the review, then the reviewer could put forward thier opinions and use quotes from user reviews to re-enforce thier views or even counter thier own arguements and present multiple perspectives to the reader.

It needs alot more thought but i think i could be a way to review games without trying to compete with professional sites, whilst using and building on our best resource at the moment, User reviews!

Just an idea! Its a slow friday afternoon at work!

[24fanboy]

I think its a bad idea.

Just leave the reviews to Gamespot and IGN IMO.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by 24fanboy

I think its a bad idea.

Just leave the reviews to Gamespot and IGN IMO.

Agreed. There are far too many dedicated sites that do this and have close ties with the industry. I personally think it would be allot of work for little return. Most people use ign, gamespot, gametrailers etc. who get the reviews out early along with videos, screen grabs and link to other reviewers scores.

In all honesty I prefer to read forum members thoughts on games. Multiple reviews to base my purchase on is my preferred choice.

[Miyazaki]

Metasites are becoming more and more the norm.

I use rottentomatoes for film reviews and gamerankings for games. As reviews are so subjective I find websites that compile reviews and give a mean a much more reliable way of judging what games or films I should get.

If you were to do reviews you need to include some added value that makes reading them worthwhile.

[CAS FAN]

I can see both sides of the debate here. I personally love playing and discussing games on the forums (as I guess my post count implies), but whilst i'm in favour of AVF doing game reviews I agree that they would have to offer something that the other sites do not.

Being an AV forum, the obvious route is to give the reviews a more AV based slant. I'm not saying that the reviews shouldn't go into the most important aspect of any game (how it plays), just that there should be a strong focus on the Audio and Visual presentation of a game (i.e. resolution, AA, AF, textures, art style, tearing, framerate issues, audio output, quality of effects, musical score etc.).

I also find that there's a lot of interest on here from gamers as to which versions are the best, so comparisons between say PC, 360, PS3 and where applicable Wii versions would be very interesting.

I also agree with the points that I would like to see a good team of reviewers providing different views on a game. One of the biggest factors however is getting the review onto the forums in good time for the game release. This would mean people sticking to deadlines (an essential part of journalism in all areas) and also being able to get pre-release copies in sufficient time to do a review.

I think it's pretty important for any reviewers to own all systems and to be able to produce non biased accounts of games on all systems. I also feel that having a pretty good AV setup is important to be able to review the AV aspect of the game properly.

Basically, i'd love to be involved with this if possible and I look forward to seeing how this develops.

[24fanboy]

Originally Posted by CAS FAN

I think it's pretty important for any reviewers to own all systems and to be able to produce non biased accounts of games on all systems. I also feel that having a pretty good AV setup is important to be able to review the AV aspect of the game properly.

Yep, I strongly agree on both these points.

It also depends on who reviews the games. The DVD/Bluray reviewers on this forum are a seminal bunch and brilliant at what they do, but games and films are very different mediums to review. (Thats presuming they would be ones to review the games...)

[RottenFox]

Originally Posted by 24fanboy

Yep, I strongly agree on both these points.

It also depends on who reviews the games. The DVD/Bluray reviewers on this forum are a seminal bunch and brilliant at what they do, but games and films are very different mediums to review. (Thats presuming they would be ones to review the games...)

exactly, let gamers review games, and not in so many cases, an anally retentive journalist, or someone who passes off pretentious claptrap as an "in-depth" review, whilst barely scraping the surface of the game.

the better reviews are by owners or players of said game, and the AVF reviews they have now, whilst not as popular as other sites, do pass views that would make me buy or lean towards a game than some of the other sites, so called "professional" reviews.

[Norlo]

This sounds interesting.

IMO, this would need to be a review after release, and ideally when the reviewer has finished, or got close to finishing the game. If you are talking about reviewing pre-release games, then that opens up a can of worms; needing a relationship with the publisher to get the pre-release software (very tough), needing a test machine to run it. I would have a hard time seeing how that would work.

However, a review within 2 days (Monday's maybe) of release (which is enough to complete most games, or at least get far enough to make an informed reveiw), by an AVF member would be fine. Reviews are there to help and inform the people who are undecided about getting a game - sure, a Halo fan isn't going to wait for the review of ODST 2 days after release, they'll have it day one. But for the vast majority, 2 days to see what a fellow member made of it, would be more than acceptable, and could save them cash, or convince them to get a game they may not have.

In many way, i think reviews on AVF would be more appealing than going to one of the usual outlets. For a number of reasons...

1) An AVF member reviewing a game will have nothing to 'gain' for a good/bad review, where as outlets more often than not have other motives. Reviewing games after release also means you don't need to set up deals with PR or publishers, and as such, if a game is reviewed badly, you don't burn any bridges.

2) The person reviewing the game would have bought it with their own money. From experience, i can tell you, it's easier to give a game a decent review when you have not paid for it out of your own pocket. I think that would be a key advantage of AVF reviewing games.

3) Each game could easily be reviewed by 3 people. Thus giving a selection of opinions.

4) Because the people reviewing the games would be member's, and presumably posting on AVF anyway, member's would get a feel and idea of what the people doing the reviews are like. As noted, a review is a personal take on a game, not a de facto rule. One of the things i like about AVF, and the play and help threads is that you see posts on a game by member's who you believe are of the same mindset. Rather than a faceless person at IGN or what not. This just adds a personal edge to a review. I listen to a friends opinion of game more than IGN, because i know what that friend likes and doesn't like and i know how that relates to me. AVF reviews would be along those lines.

I will keep an eye on this thread and see where this goes...

[24fanboy]

Originally Posted by RottenFox

exactly, let gamers review games, and not in so many cases, an anally retentive journalist, or someone who passes off pretentious claptrap as an "in-depth" review, whilst barely scraping the surface of the game.

Hey, no need to be so harsh on the reviewers in Edge magazine.

the better reviews are by owners or players of said game, and the AVF reviews they have now, whilst not as popular as other sites, do pass views that would make me buy or lean towards a game than some of the other sites, so called "professional" reviews.

Totally agree. A keen gamer, with no bias towards certain consoles, and an eloquent and coherant writing style would be an excellent candidate for reviewing games!

I have to say, I was initially against about the idea, but after hearing some suggestions from people in this thread, I'm feeling far more enthusiastic about the idea.

[stevos]

I thought they did review games or atleast used to.

The only reason i started playing world of warcraft was because of a glowing review of it on the avforums podcast i was listening to in the gym.

I now have 'wasted' a shed load of hours playing the game and can't see that changing anytime soon.

[Stream62]

Voted yes...

This is a good idea.. offical reviews would be very interesting (from one or more person & with the correct experience) with space for other forum members to comment and rank as they do now to give a wide range of opinions. For me this could be after release as i don't buy that many games on release day... obviously this wouldn't suit all.

[Hillskill]

100% yes. Both Kav and Guns have written blogs that while not necessarily focussed on games were excellent examples of entertaining writing. I don't doubt for a second they could write reviews that would be a credit to the Forum. There have been plenty of reviews that I have read on the 360 forums that have actually lead me to purchase that game. I think AV Forums should aim high and try and raise its profile across the games industry, well written reviews would certainly be a step in the right direction. I don't think it's that important that games are reviewed early just as long as the review is entertaining and informative.

[RottenFox]

Originally Posted by 24fanboy

Hey, no need to be so harsh on the reviewers in Edge magazine.

how did you guess..
anally retentive, pretentious claptrap and nonsense, is how i would describe their reviews, and their whole mag in general.
a magazine which holds onto an ideal that its "hip" and "cool", but really, its just plain poop, and has been for many years, IMO.

not to forget other publications, or sites, where reviews are carried out, and the reviewers havent even played, nor finished the game, also reviews by people who hate a certain genre of game, but still review it..but the reviews are held in high regard..unbelievable..

[clc.sheff]

I'm voting No on this one. There are already User based review sections. Maybe people just need to be encouraged more to write a review for games they have tried. Maybe a simple tick list of possible things to include in a review could be suggested OR a simple copy and paste score based template included with the ability to add any remarks underneath:

Personally I like the fact that the forum is more user driven. Having something that amounts more towards an official review would be a step away from this in my opinion and could also just start unhealthy debate.

A good example of this would be the lack of movement while firing in Resident evil 5, or the debate over the sensitivity of the controls in Killzone 2. A reviewer should cover this stuff if he / she is worth their salt. Or what about comparing FIFA to Pro evolution? Or which multiplat game performs the best on console x or y?

It might be that the reviewers find it becomes a bit of a bind as other users are bound to argue against or pick fault with the reviews.

The other thing I have noticed (In PS3 section) is that because the're are only x? amount of members there are always many games that no-one seems to be that interested in or only one or two people have bought. Seems like a lot of effort to review a game that only two or three members might consider buying. Although I appreciate that argument could go both ways i.e. It could increase member numbers and /or promote lesser known titles

[kav]

There's quite a lot of commentary about how the current reviews section allows people to make choices based on comments made by people with similar taste in games etc.

An additional option worth considering would be to formalise a template for writing up reviews in the Game Reviews section - similar to the way certain fields need to be filled in in the Trading section - to force some consistency into the reviews and allow a more accurate assessment by the person interested in the game. For example, as well as doing detailed reviews, IGN divide their ratings into Presentation/Sound/Graphics/Gameplay/Longeivity/Overall scores - we could expand upon this and make anyone who wants to write up a review fill in fields on each of these critical areas.

It may also be worth incorporating the two elements, thus giving an overall "pro" reviewer's summary as the first post in the thread, followed up with all the pleb comments, with the scoring amended based on member votes (and as usual, idiot spoilers removed - only those who comment on the game can vote, so any reasons for ultra-low or ultra-high scores would have to be justified).

We could then market the whole thing as being "rated and ranked by you - the average gamer", or some such jive. Then we could all do the hucklebuck.

Oh, and as for owning all three platforms - perhaps that would be required for the "pro" reviews, but I don't feel it's essential. Unless discussing how good a game is in comparison to another platform, I don't believe there is significant advantage in owning all three to perform an objective review on a particular game. Then again, I'm only saying that because I'm not fortunate enough to have all three consoles.

And another thing: we could have a "if you're interested in this game, you may also like:" section. Yeah.

[namuk]

Why not worth a Punt

[kav]

Any progress being made on this OP?

[24fanboy]

Originally Posted by RottenFox

how did you guess..
anally retentive, pretentious claptrap and nonsense, is how i would describe their reviews, and their whole mag in general.
a magazine which holds onto an ideal that its "hip" and "cool", but really, its just plain poop, and has been for many years, IMO.

Thats an incredibly eloquent and well-worded evaluation of Edge magazine, I have to say!

To me, they are the equivalent of trolls on message trolls...they just go against common wisdom and acceptance in an attempt to seem edgy and cool, but end up losing credibility in the process.

On a side note, I'd like to see if the OP's idea has made any progress.