If you were reviewing a game for the first time, what would it be?

[KentaZX]

Me and my buddy were thinking of starting like a game review or "video game humor" kind of series, but I'm debating on whats the first game I should do.

so What I like to ask is, if you were making a video game review video, whats the first game you would do? Would it be something well known, something that has not been talked often, or a game that's been a part of your life (as in your favorite game of all time)?

 

[Taleweaver]

First off, I'd make damn sure to know what sort of video it's going to be. Reviews and video game humor are two completely different things.


So assuming it's going to be a review, it's easy: the last game you've played (or one of the last games). From time to time, I just pick a random game from my steam backlog and play it for some hours (recently: Wooden Sen'sey and the walking dead, season 1). Then, once I get tired of it (or when I've played enough to have a good enough feel of the rest of the game), I write a review. It's in no way a "review" in a professional sense and strictly my opinion, but since everyone else does it, I guess it's okay. I do my best to point out WHY I like or dislike something.

I don't do video reviews, but I'd probably go about it in the same way: write the review, then read it aloud while showing some game footage, then upload the result to youtube. I'm just too lazy to do it.


Oh, so as for reviews: I would go for something not too well known. There are already plenty of video reviews on every AAA-title ever. Indie games, mobile stuff or even flash games don't have as much stuff going for it. But that's just my personal opinion. And it's because I tend to like those games more. All in all, you really should review games you personally like (or want to like).

 

[DinohScene]

Reviewers that play games for a couple of hours and write a complete review about it aren't reviewers.
Imho, a reviewer should finish the game before writing a review.

Then again, I barely ever check reviews.
It's all multiplay praise and COD praise these days...

 

[Hells Malice]

If you actually want views, I wouldn't do a review series. There's PLENTY of established reviewers to watch.
You'd have better luck with an LP format or something unique.

 

[KentaZX]

Taleweaver: I'd only said either review or humor because my bud was going back and forth on what he wants it to be, but anyways basically if I'm doing actual reviews, then I would do not so well known, or whatever I personally enjoy. Got it, but what about if i was doing something similar like Jontron? same thing?

DinohScene: Isn't finishing the game completely before reviewing common sense?

Hells Malice: Unique.... Would Jontron or AngryJoe for example be in this category? I mean I know AJ reviews game but he does have his own thing he does with the corporate cobra and the costumes he uses and all... I ask because from the look of my script my buddy sent me just a moment ago, I think he wanna do more of a video game comedy sketch...

 

[DinohScene]

Unfortunately, a lot of reviewers these days just play the beginning and make a judgement of it.
Atleast that's the impression they give.
Mainly IGN...

 

[Social_Outlaw]

Unfortunately, a lot of reviewers these days just play the beginning and make a judgement of it.
Atleast that's the impression they give.
Mainly IGN...

IGN inspired me to review games fully instead of half assing it.

 

[DinohScene]

IGN inspired me to review games fully instead of half assing it.

A chimp does a better job at reviewing a game then IGN does.
Atleast the chimp ties to use the game as a tool, rather then the baboon from IGN using it for nothing.

It's sad indeed.

 

[Qtis]

I'd say it depends a lot on platform and genre. On average my reviews have been done after at least 30-40 hours of gaming for RPGs. Some other games (not to mention my free time gaming) can take only a few hours to get the gist of the game (and a few hours more to be proven completely wrong).

As for games I'd try out for a new series, I'd got with something that isn't too complex. If you haven't done it before, reviews tend to be along the lines of Skyrim; "Would mod it again, 10/10" without any actual content. And for video reviews, take notes and play the game beforehand. I've seen some real life meltdowns with people reviewing games before even testing them

 

[aofelix]

u should always finish the game before reviewing it.

*looks at bravely default*

 

[Social_Outlaw]

It all depends, reviewing a game that you like or both of y'all like will make a interesting angle because you know so much about it and you can provide the fun factor about the game.

Reviewing a game that hasn't been really been talked about will give a challenge, so going with a non well known game will give you quite a few hiccups in the long run, but the rewards is getting to know this subject better .

Reviewing a well known game would possibly be easy but that's only if you seen a little bit of video or reviews, you can understand it more, and make your own craft of understanding it, and giving insightful information.

The only way to be a good reviewer is clever word play, bring your audience in to your world, and give them a sense of your awesomeness that your trying to elevate. If these solution didn't help out, you could ask some Mods for some more tips (like the amazing Qtis above) or the amazing other ones .

Update: For me personally, I play the full game before I pass judgement, there are many reviewers who just play it slightly and determined the score, which I think is unacceptable (IGN of course). Why would I play a game for a few hours and just rate it? I'll rather just play just in case I'll see some other cool stuff that I haven't seen or unlocked that plays an important role in the story or the elements to make it better. The only time I would judge a game by a few hours only occurs to games like Naruto, and other similar games. I say this because it's the same formula, so I can understand from that point of view.

 

[FAST6191]

On the finishing a game thing I disagree. If it is doable in less than, say, 8 hours for someone not doing speedrun style techniques then you probably ought to. Granted I am mostly out to make my own fun and if the developers can do that all the way through a story of their choosing then fantastic, if I get mine from the first 20 hours then it is all good -- if I can miss series/episodes from TV shows, ignore film sequels, watch fan edits/cuts/orders, use mods in games, ignore sequences in a film (Full Metal Jacket is a wonderful film, I watched just the first half the other night and had a great time)... The developers might have had a vision but that counts for surprisingly little in my world.

As for what to review I have to ask what sort of review are you planning to do?

For many the two broad categories.

Review. Does the car in the driving game handle nicely/predictably/consistently/in accordance with established logic? Are there some good tracks? Does it look good enough to do the job (very subjective but hey)? Did it steal your credit card and use it to buy plane tickets to Thailand?...

Critique. If you have an understanding of game design, have art skills, have an idea of its place in popular culture, feel like doing a deconstruction of the mechanics and why they work (something like https://www.youtube.com/user/everyframeapainting but for games perhaps)... not many do this sort of thing for games that have just come out though many will certainly use elements of it. Later on people do look at frame timings for many games, consider the mathematics of the mechanics and more besides.

Both broad types would benefit from humour, even if you are being completely serious, and it need not even be directly related "and here is a humorous thing that happened as we bridge two segments of our review".

If you are doing video though make sure you have good audio if you are going to have voicework at all.

 

[Taleweaver]

Taleweaver: I'd only said either review or humor because my bud was going back and forth on what he wants it to be, but anyways basically if I'm doing actual reviews, then I would do not so well known, or whatever I personally enjoy. Got it, but what about if i was doing something similar like Jontron? same thing?

I watched a couple Jontron movies, and these really aren't reviews in the slightest. It's just him being funny all the time. If you don't already know the game in advance, then you'll have no idea about it later.


On the "always finish the game"...that really depends on the game. Games like race the sun, bejeweled, sim city or flappy bird have no end to get to, and quite some roguelikes are near-impossible to finish (in Don't starve, I usually die before finding the gate to start the actual adventure mode). And games like Lyne have 676 levels (as well as an unlimited supply of daily generated ones), even though you know all the mechanics after the first three or four levels. Have fun finishing those.
As a general rule of thumb, I'd say that it goes for story-driven games, but even there...I don't want to be the reviewer who has to spend who knows how much just to be able to finish Candy crush saga. (okay, you could argue that isn't story-based, but hey...I'm just pointing out that you can't go with that).


Logan97: I don't see how games that haven't been talked about would pose more of a challenge. I "review" games as soon as I'm tired of them, but the only reason I look at other reviewers is to see if they're pointing out things I don't care about (like how multiplayer behaves in a singleplayer-oriented game). And that's just that I then put in my text that I haven't tested that. Nowadays, it's pretty hard not to find at least some games you can compare it to*. All in all, if you have an opinion of a game (and you wouldn't be reviewing it if you hadn't), then those words should come automatically. Especially if you're showing sound and visuals.



*jazzpunk is one of those games. So I just pointed out that it's somewhat of a first person point 'n click game with the absurd humor of wario ware games.

 

[Social_Outlaw]

I watched a couple Jontron movies, and these really aren't reviews in the slightest. It's just him being funny all the time. If you don't already know the game in advance, then you'll have no idea about it later.


On the "always finish the game"...that really depends on the game. Games like race the sun, bejeweled, sim city or flappy bird have no end to get to, and quite some roguelikes are near-impossible to finish (in Don't starve, I usually die before finding the gate to start the actual adventure mode). And games like Lyne have 676 levels (as well as an unlimited supply of daily generated ones), even though you know all the mechanics after the first three or four levels. Have fun finishing those.
As a general rule of thumb, I'd say that it goes for story-driven games, but even there...I don't want to be the reviewer who has to spend who knows how much just to be able to finish Candy crush saga. (okay, you could argue that isn't story-based, but hey...I'm just pointing out that you can't go with that).


Logan97: I don't see how games that haven't been talked about would pose more of a challenge. I "review" games as soon as I'm tired of them, but the only reason I look at other reviewers is to see if they're pointing out things I don't care about (like how multiplayer behaves in a singleplayer-oriented game). And that's just that I then put in my text that I haven't tested that. Nowadays, it's pretty hard not to find at least some games you can compare it to*. All in all, if you have an opinion of a game (and you wouldn't be reviewing it if you hadn't), then those words should come automatically. Especially if you're showing sound and visuals.



*jazzpunk is one of those games. So I just pointed out that it's somewhat of a first person point 'n click game with the absurd humor of wario ware games.

Playing a game that hasn't been talk about is challenging because you do not know whats it's going to bring to the table. For a upcoming reviewer, It's going to be hard in general with ether you look at the review video or try to understand for yourself. It's up to the more experience reviewers to choose to review it, but if he or her sees a major flaw it's over for the game analysis. All it takes one person to review, and its over for the game itself because majority of reviewers are going follow because it's a bad game. It's GFD (Gaming Flaw Disease) for the game and it has rewarded itself complications of errors within the game. Any not talked about game will be reviewed but majority of those games are made by studios who isn't well known like the mainstream ones but have probably been out for a while (Rockstar, Bethesda and Santa Monica), so they're not going to know (Reviewers) what path the game is going since little is probably known about the studio. People want games with that look that pleases at least a specific fan base, and has evidence of fun games to back it up, I want to break down the difference, but it would be sooooooo long.

 

[FAST6191]

Playing a game that hasn't been talk about is challenging because you do not know whats it's going to bring to the table. For a upcoming reviewer, It's going to be hard in general with ether you look at the review video or try to understand for yourself. It's up to the more experience reviewers to choose to review it, but if he or her sees a major flaw it's over for the game analysis. All it takes one person to review, and its over for the game itself because majority of reviewers are going follow because it's a bad game. It's GFD (Gaming Flaw Disease) for the game and it has rewarded itself complications of errors within the game. Any not talked about game will be reviewed but majority of those games are made by studios who isn't well known like the mainstream ones but have probably been out for a while (Rockstar, Bethesda and Santa Monica), so they're not going to know (Reviewers) what path the game is going since little is probably known about the studio. People want games with that look that pleases at least a specific fan base, and has evidence of fun games to back it up, I want to break down the difference, but it would be sooooooo long.

I do not think I could disagree more with most of what you said there. Mainly as I try to go in cold before reviewing anything really and would encourage most people to do the same, save perhaps if they are deliberately going in for a game that was trashed to see if there is anything salvageable about it.

"It's up to the more experience reviewers to choose to review it"
If you are reviewing the piece of medical equipment that is going to save my life or a new tool that is going to bankrupt me if it fails then I absolutely do not want johnny the intern to review it. For games then anything goes, up until it requires some kind of serious gaming skills or is a game based around serious maths skills or something like that. Not everybody should review every game (for instance it is probably not worth reading a review of a football game from me -- "it's boring, football is boring and I am bored" is about as far as that would go, mainly because I find football very boring) but experienced vs not in matters of reviewing matters very little in most cases, especially in game reviews where most reviewers do not talk about game theory like film reviewers talk about cinematography and they tend not to go full blown literary analysis like someone might be expected to when reviewing a book.

 

[Foxi4]

u should always finish the game before reviewing it. *looks at bravely default*

This is not always a possibility. In fact, it rarely is, especially with RPG's that span across dozens of hours and you only get a few days to bite into the game. When faced with a +/- 100 hour JRPG you're looking at a week or two of playing it non-stop (7 hours a day for 14 days) while taking notes that you then have to assemble into a coherent review - that's a tall order, nobody's going to give you a review sample a month in advance.

 

[aofelix]

Then review the game late.

I'd personally rather a site give me a first impressions review and then a valid review a few weeks down the line.

 

[Foxi4]

Then review the game late.

Then nobody will read your review and you'll publish 12 articles a year at most.

 

[aofelix]

I'd personally rather that over a thousand shitty reviews. Thats what IGN and Gamespot are for.

 

[Ryukouki]

There's also the idea of looking at things in terms of analytics. Games that get reviewed after the release date or after embargo tend to get pretty low value in terms of number of views on the overall review - mainly because everyone of relevance has already put in their two cents. For games like JRPGs, reviewing the entire game in a short span of time definitely is not easy, but a review can still be justified so long as the review covers all of the important ground in terms of mechanics and details that are allowed to be covered. You don't necessarily have to have finished 100% of the game in order to get that picture perfect review with all of the nitty gritty. It's a fine line though because everyone takes things into account a bit differently.

Most of the time, we would obviously love to be "first" in terms of releasing the moment the embargo lifts, but at the same time we want to be able to give viewers the best information so it's a definite fine line between what we can put out.