I'm sure we are all well aware that the accuracy of game scores is a bit of an issue these days and it is still true that many people will simply look at a score and not bother to read the review.

While I would like to say that I've not been a culprit of this, it's true that some game reviews (especially for highly anticipated games) can get exceedingly long and I'm usually not all that interested in the quality of the rock textures in level 3. I was thinking about this today and realised that I couldn't remember the last time I read every word of a game review. I find myself more and more just reading the last paragraph or two to try and get some idea of if the game is fun before I head out and spend my hard earned cash.

Is this something that other people are finding as well? How do you read game reviews?

Usually, what I do, if I find a review that mentions something I hadn't otherwise heard, then I go back and read other reviews by that same reviewer, and see how his tastes compare to mine. Thus I can more accurately judge what I might like about it.

Also, I completely ignore scores.

I don't think you can get an accurate picture of what a reviewer thought of a given game UNLESS you read the entire thing. I know that when I write reviews, I include everything in them for a reason, and if someone only read the last paragraph, they'd miss a good portion the ideas I'm trying to convey. It's hard to persuade someone to either play or not play a game if he or she only reads one paragraph. They'd miss the entire argument!

After all, finding a good reviewer is like finding a good hair stylist: You have to search for awhile until you find someone you trust. You must find someone whose tastes fit yours, and you're never going to get that if you don't read the entire review. Yes, it takes effort. But I'd rather expend effort before I spend my money than after. :)

I don't.

I check out as many screen shots or vids as I can get my hands on, cruise through forums for opinions and then if I'm still unsure I rent before purchasing (as I'm strictly a console gamer). So far, I've never purchased a game I've been disappointed in.

I've been a subscriber to PC Gamer for four or five years now, and an avid newstand reader before that. By reading every last issue cover to cover I've gotten to know not only the reviewers but their overall editorial philosophy. I'm a fan of the magazine and I trust the articles because I know these people, and I know what they've liked in the past and what they're likely to think of a game before they review it. Then, if they dump on it I know it's not up to their high standards and I avoid it.

What is amazing is all these podcasts out there now. I'm up to speed on the culture of so many more magazines just by hearing their editorial staff banter that I'm thinking of subscribing to a few more magazines.

I read reviews obsessively. And I think that ignoring a score is part of not-getting-the-whole-story. A score can spin someone's overall perceptions considerably, which is an important tool in a reviewer's repertoire.

I tend to ignore scores and look for whether or not the reviewer evaluated things that are important to me, or spent their time angsting over things that aren't. A review that starts out with "In spite of a lack of multiplayer ..." for example will usually go straight into my "ignore" pile.

Ok, so it seems that everyone has a different opinion on this (most of which are different to mine........), but that leaves me still curious. Since a lot of the guys on the escapist forums are actually people that review games, or have reviewed games in the past, in public forums (not for the escapist mind you) what do you guys think about when you write reviews? are you trying to get a particular message across? perhaps trying to write a big ass article to express how much you love a particular game? or are there times when you will pad out something to meet a minimum word count that you have been givien? (come on, be honest :P)

Depsite being relatively new to the posting scene, I've been around the traps for a while (a "lurker" at GWJ and planet gamecube among others for many years) and there are people that i have come to trust. I'll have to admit to being a big Matt Casamassina fan, regardless what you guys think of ign in general. Are there people that you guys will listen to more than others? or perhaps more importantly, people that you will try and imitate when you write reviews/reports/etc?

and just on a side note, as far as podcasts go, i think russ and shawn have the podcast thing perfected. Despite how much I love the "grown up" attitude of the escapist magazine, generally when i'm after a radio show I'm after something light and entertaining with just a little bit of seriousness holding everything together. That is exactly what they provide and I really couldn't ask anything more. Despite the little bit of negative feedback about the last show, you guys have hit something special here. Don't ever let that go, PLEASE!

When I do write a review, I prefer to talk about the experience rather than bulleted technical points. Think about a movie review: Sure, some people talk about lighting, cinemetography and so on in every review, but that type of writing doesn't take into account that movies are greater than the sum of their parts. I think gaming is the same way, at least with good games. If some aspect of the game is truly stunning, be it graphics, storyline or even direction, I should be able to express it without saying "Graphics: 9/10."

I tend to prefer reviews that work the same way, because really, I don't care if the sound is bad or the graphics are good if they don't detract or add to the fun factor, and I'm most concerned with whether or not the reviewer had fun.

Joe:
Think about a movie review: Sure, some people talk about lighting, cinemetography and so on in every review, but that type of writing doesn't take into account that movies are greater than the sum of their parts. I think gaming is the same way, at least with good games.

I try to avoid being a nintendo fanboy when i can, but seriously. Zelda: Ocarina of time - graphics 8/10, sound 6/10, story 6/10, game overall 10/10. don't know why, that game just really works for me.

Goofonian:
Since a lot of the guys on the escapist forums are actually people that review games, or have reviewed games in the past, in public forums (not for the escapist mind you) what do you guys think about when you write reviews? are you trying to get a particular message across? perhaps trying to write a big ass article to express how much you love a particular game? or are there times when you will pad out something to meet a minimum word count that you have been givien? (come on, be honest :P)

When I first started writing reviews, I felt like I had to meet a checklist: Talk about graphics--check; sound--check; gameplay, characters and plot--check, check and check. But I soon learned that in discussing my opinion of a game, certain aspects would be utterly irrelevant. For instance, who cares about the sound in an adventure game, unless it's really bad or really good? So now I try to focus on the entire experience, without worrying about meeting some arbitrary checklist of topics.

(On a side note, I think it's a sign of lazy writing if you need to pad your article up to meet a word count. If that happens, you probably haven't thought hard enough about the game and what you want to say about it. Besides, I usually have the opposite problem, that is, figuring out what to cut!)

Are there people that you guys will listen to more than others? or perhaps more importantly, people that you will try and imitate when you write reviews/reports/etc?

As far as reviews go, I tend to like and trust the reviews I've read in CGM; sure, I also may be biased. Still, I was a reader before I wrote for them, and I've always felt like CGM's reviewers knew just what I was looking for and why. I feel the same way about the reviewers at GWJ, particularly Adam "The Fly" Lamosca and Cory "Demiurge" Banks, for starters.

Lara Crigger:
I feel the same way about the reviewers at GWJ, particularly Adam "The Fly" Lamosca and Cory "Demiurge" Banks, for starters.

Ya know, Cory Banks was the name of my old boss at toys r us. I'd be somewhat excited and disturbed all at the same time if it turned out to be the same guy!

Lara Crigger:
I feel the same way about the reviewers at GWJ, particularly Adam "The Fly" Lamosca and Cory "Demiurge" Banks, for starters.

Golly... you're making me blush. :)

Goofonian:
Ya know, Cory Banks was the name of my old boss at toys r us. I'd be somewhat excited and disturbed all at the same time if it turned out to be the same guy!

How I wish this were so, purely so I could yell and scream at you for slacking off at work. But I've never worked at Toys R Us. If it'll make you feel better, though, I'll pretend.

The message a reviewer should be trying to get across is whether they like the game or not. That's a fundemental problem with being a critic, though ... not everyone shares your tastes. My approach is a lot like Lara's in that I'm looking to convey the experience of the game to the reader, but I feel that the checklist (sound, graphics, gameplay, etc.) is important to keep in mind. I don't know if I could ever write a review that assigns values to each aspect of the game and still feel like I'm getting my point across, but the checklist helps you keep in mind which attributes of the game need pointed out, for better or worse.

Lots of people don't like them, but I love writing reviews. The bulk of your content is right there, waiting to be described. But I don't really like reading reviews, outside of finding out general information about game mechanics. If I don't know where the reviewer is coming from, experience-wise, I'm not going to be able to translate their praise or complaints to my own tastes. There are a few reviewers I trust (most of them write for GWJ, one of them for The Escapist) but otherwise I take most reviews with a grain of salt. I expect the readers of my reviews to do the same.

Whilst it's true that not everybody shares the same tastes in games, I like to describe what I like and don't like, and spend time justifying why.

And I think it is important to talk about sound and graphics, especially in the Next-Gen era. If a game doesn't look / sound like it's giving you the most a 360 can, then that should be stated.

Sure, a good game is a good game, but when you've paid over $600 for your console and $100 for your game, you should get the best out of it.

I write semi-professionaly for Game-Overdrive.com and I'm the head writer over there.

That doesn't mean I'm an initiated writer of any type though as I'm not paid for my work and still consider myself a neophytte. Over the past year or so I've been with GO, I've seen the review system adapt to our ideas of scoring each category individually and dividing the review into categories to our latest review system iteration which involves a general flowing essay format coupled with a final score element.

I'm personally a fan of not assigning any score to a game and letting the readers decide from their reading but sadly, the majority of people who read reviews don't seem to read the whole review and therefore need some sort of guiding element.

When I write reviews, I try to piece together my thoughts of the game into one simple sentence. This is my general opinion of the game and once I have that sentence down, I expand on why I feel it is like that and what elements make it that way. In all truth, I've never had to pad any of my reviews for a word count as since I write for an online establishment, my word count isn't as limited.

I don't read any publishments actively other than my own site(which isn't as active as I'd like it) and The Escapist although I should be reading WAY more. When reading up and deciding if I'm going to purchase a game, I firstly ask my friends if they have any info on it and then I check out metacritic.com and look at various publishments opinions on the game. From those generalized scores, I decided if I'm to buy or not to buy.

P.S. I'd be interesting in talking to some of my fellow writers here if any of you guys are interesting in speaking to the neophyte to game journalism.

Slybok:
When reading up and deciding if I'm going to purchase a game, I firstly ask my friends if they have any info on it and then I check out metacritic.com and look at various publishments opinions on the game. From those generalized scores, I decided if I'm to buy or not to buy.

I use Metacritic before buying any game these days. If I am considering buying a game, I go there and first check out the metascore. I then read the reviews that are close to the overall score, and usually peruse a couple bad and glowing reviews. That way I know (1) if the game if the game is good, (2) what are the drawbacks, and (3) where does it shine. Makes the decision making process very easy. I never get a bad game anymore.

If I am still on the fence after reading up on Metacritic, I go ahead a rent it or give a play at the local game store.

I only read reviews once I'm actually playing the game. When trying to decide what I want to play I go to gamerankings.com or metacritic, look up the game, discard the highest and lowest scores and then find the mean of the remaining scores. Then I'll see if I like the game's subject/style/genre. For instance, I'm not a huge RTS fan so an RTS has to be pretty freakin' awesome to interest me. Alternatively, I really like horror based games so I know something like Call of Cthulhu will be of more interest to me despite mediocre reviews.

Of course, if I can get a game for $2 brand new like I did with Max Payne 2 from Gamestop.com a couple weeks ago, I'll play it no matter what unless I've heard that it's really really terrible.

DrRosenRosen:

Of course, if I can get a game for $2 brand new like I did with Max Payne 2 from Gamestop.com a couple weeks ago, I'll play it no matter what unless I've heard that it's really really terrible.

I found a big ol pile of dvd's for $2 each at the local electronics store today. Oh boy there was some stinkers in there! haha

While I do read, in a glancing way, magazine reviews, I do not buy a PC game until I see positive User Reviews. I am also seeing more and more reviews where the words do not match the score. Read this review and work out what the score would be, then look below for the actual score and tell me they match...

"Don't worry, it's not as bad as it looks. Space Rangers is one of those games that comes from nowhere, looks from the box like a bad joke wrapped in a bizarre piece of revenge fantasy sent to test your patience by a hated enemy, but somehow defies all the odds and keeps you playing thanks to the magic gameplay juice that developers like to pull out of their arses from time to time.

Anyone old enough to remember such yesteryear 'classics' as Masters Of Orion will have an inkling of what's going on here. For the most part it's the kind of top-down, 2D turn-based space exploration that went out of fashion around the same time as heterosexual boy bands. Throw in a spot of trading, piracy, law enforcement, asteroid mining and alien baiting for good measure, then add some basic yet engaging planet-based stompy robot RTS action, the occasional multiple choice text adventure (go figure) and a strange Asteroids-like mini game and that's Space Rangers.

Sounds like a horrible mess, doesn't it? A car crash of loose ideas, backwards thinking and outdated gaming ideas tied together with a functional yet underwhelming visual style. It isn't though. I've installed, reviewed and promptly uninstalled many, many games in my time on planet Earth, but Space Rangers (actually a package incorporating two previously unreleased Space Rangers games) has somehow managed to remain a fixture on my already cluttered hard drive. Because it's playable. Very playable.

Something just grabs you and keeps you there. Maybe it's the sense of humour (a paragraph in the manual cheekily explains away any translation errors by basically saying, "It's the future, that's how they talk now"). Maybe it's the hidden layers of depth. Maybe it's the amount of freedom you have to play any way you want. Maybe it's just very, very good game design.

Whatever it is, Space Rangers isn't going to break any sales records and may not even stay on the shelves very long. But if you play it you will enjoy it, and you can't really ask for more than that."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59+12 is the total percentage that was given!

I also read the last couple of paragraphs of a review and use that to determine if I can be bothered to i) read the rest of the review; ii) buy the game.

In terms of reviews I pay attention to the list is very short:

i. Eurogamer (which has really long reviews, so the two paragraph rule is in full effect)
ii. Edge - mostly I just look out for the scores. Anything that scores a 9 gets read.
iii. The uk newspaper the guardian does great game reviews in its Saturday entertainment guide, called: The Guide. Really short reviews and no scores.

Other than that its all word of mouth from my gaming buddies that sways my opinion. And this has way more weight than any review.

I do like Eurogamer. I find myself reading them the way I used to read Computer Games, not so much as a pre-purchase decision, but because I really like the way their writers write and want to see their take on something.

If the game review is below a 7 and I don't know the game I don't read the review. If the game is 8.5 or above I read the entire review unless it becomes clear I don't like that kind of game.

Generally I go to the big 4 IGN, 1UP, Gamespot, and Gametrailers. I usually read or watch (Watch if possible) their review and then make a decision based on the aggrigate. When the concensus is that a game is good I buy it almost without exception. If there is variance in the scores then I base a purchase off how much I like that genre and what specific reviewers liked or disliked.

I am a story whore for example, so a game with a poor story and great gameplay still won't win me over easily. Really I don't see why people make a big deal of numerical scores, if you're interested in the game you should want to read about it. If you don't that's fine, but you can't really complain if you end up hating it.

Tylahedras:
If the game review is below a 7 and I don't know the game I don't read the review. If the game is 8.5 or above I read the entire review unless it becomes clear I don't like that kind of game.

Generally I go to the big 4 IGN, 1UP, Gamespot, and Gametrailers.

When I started reading that I wondered how exactly your centre line ended up at around 8ish, then I kept reading and it all made sense.

I still think a 5 or 10 point grading system is the best way to go, and the centre point should be the centre point. the way IGN reviews games, a 20 point difference between 60 and 80 is less of an improvement than a 5 point difference between 93 and 98, simply because their bell curve is so crooked, it gets crowded at the top.

IMO Gaming steve has (had - where's he gone?) the best scoring system:

5 - awesome, everyone should play
4 - great, definately worth looking into
3 - good, play it if you like the genre/play style
2 - not so much, maybe if you really like the genre and have nothing else to play
1 - forget it

simple and effective, and games that score mid range (~50%) are still worth a look in, so the bell curve shapes up nicely.

Usually, I've found myself to be an incredibly picky gamer in comparison to the critics. What I've found sadly is that most games do nothing for me.

I read the reviews, not very carefully, but looking for something special about the game, something unique, something that appeals specifically to me. I also know that games that get the best scores usually aren't the ones that will appeal to me. On most best game ever lists, the top ten games will all be ones I found mediocre. Same goes to most 10/10 games. I've found that most of the games I like usually get about 8/10 scores.

Ultimately though, reviews do not do much to dictate my purchasing. They used to but no longer carry weight. My tastes are too hard to predict. These days, I prefer to browse around looking for cheap games and seeing if there's any appeal to them. Sometimes I make bad choices (Ooh? XIII for only $3! That game had good graphics.) Other times, I make some excellent purchases that will keep me entertained for weeks. (Ratchet and Clank 3? I kinda liked the first one. This is under $20...) (Shadow of the Colossus... people talk a lot about this when they want to say games are art.)

I read the text and completely ignore the score of a game since I tend to get sidetracked if I want to buy a game that was scored a 6. If there isn't any numerical value assigned to something then it's much easier in the decision-making process. I can stomach a game a lot easier that "has a few glaring flaws but still delivers the fun for your buck" than one that is a "6/10". That's 60%. Passing grade of only ONE PERCENT. Not a fun way to look at it.

I think this is why I like Edge magazine. They abolished scores altogether.

It depends. I use Gamerankings quite alot, but after a game moves beyond the mid 60 or 70% mark, things get pretty random for me. I'll avoid a game that has a universally low score, but I have a tendency to be pretty harsh on my games. So, for that reason I usually just rent anything passed that point that looks interesting. I rarely agree with outrageously high scores (10/10s are meaningless to me) and have only come across a single game I would score "perfect" (that being Ico).

So usually what I'll do is look at the base score from a review aggregator (usually Gamerankings). If it gets the high 60+ mark then I start reading the reviews in depth (ignoring the individual scores as much as I can) and judge whether or not the game would be a good fit for me. Then I rent/buy.

I read reviews when I'm not quite sure about a purchase. I'm not going to read a review about the latest EA Sports abortion, because I ain't gonna buy it; likewise, I won't bother reading a review about BioShock, because I'll be too busy beating the crap out of anyone who dares to get between me and EB while I'm waiting for it to open on release day. On the other hand, I read several reviews of X3: Reunion, which convinced me to stay away from the game until version 2.0 was released.

I read reviews front to back. I look at scores because it's all but impossible not to, but the relevant and worthwhile information comes from the text of the review itself. I remember years ago when Computer Gaming World decided to implement numerical scores along with their reviews; it caused quite a kerfuffle within the magazine itself, with several writers expressing their misgivings over the move. I agreed with that sentiment then, and I still do. Scores at the end of reviews encourage readers to gloss over the review itself, if they pay any attention to it at all, and base their decision entirely on whether a game is a 6.2 or a 9.7. Unfortunately, but also unavoidably, this is what readers want. I'll try to avoid a long-winded rant about dwindling attention spans, but the fact is that we just don't see detailed, multi-page reviews anymore. The better writers manage to avoid it, but all too often reviews are nothing but a few paragraphs of Lara's checklist - graphics, sound, multiplayer - followed by a summation and a score. It does a disservice to anyone seeking useful and insightful information about a game.

You kids these days...

I tend to be a late adopter. Before i choose to play a game, i wait for some press. I generally scan bluesnews.com and if something grabs my attention, i'll follow the story a bit.... Or so I tell myself.

But in all actuality, I'm a box whore. I go to, say, Superior Purchase (the name has been changed to protect those who help decide what we play). My goal is to find the next big "TV on DVD" (i dare anyone to find anything better than "Six Feet Under," "Arrested Development," "The Office," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," and "Extras."(.....and "Freaks and Geeks").

Anyway, I always look at the boxes. And when the box scratches my itch, then i check the game out. The box gives you a framework for which to see the reviews. Granted, this doesnt work so much for wargames and the like in a general sense, but for the average game its marketing materials actually can work for/against it in a profound way. If a game cannot sell me on its box which was designed to sell me the game, then i may not play it.

i've played both great and terrible games using a personal ratings system based on both research and "wowness." But i've never played a game i regret trying (aside from DoD: Source).

Ohh, I might as well bump this.

I agree, scores are desperately misleading. I loved the song "Ban 7 out of 10" done at the Develop conference in July. A shame it was so factual.

Reviews are currently despised for good reason, but the reviewers are between a rock and a hard place.

Therefore, I usually stick to my mates telling me a game is good, me finding some game and trying the demo (shock! horror! a demo!). I have an easier time on my PC of course. I do find some review sites refreshingly honest (four fat chicks has some good reviews from what I've read), and others very dull (okay, most of them are bloody dull), but sometimes look them over. Always ignoring the score, the body of the text needs to sell the game to me, not a random number.

Until a game reviewer is possibly called a "critic" and have some semblance of honesty, criticism (which I don't ever see!) and less hyping of games they have not played, I won't really be looking at major review sites. I want to see every reviewer rate a game as "1" (or less then 10%) within a year of posting their first review, else they clearly do not review enough games honestly, and therefore only play those "big games" which clearly they'd suffer the publishers wrath for posting a bad review.

Bah, I'm ranting. Simply I usually ignore reviews, check tips from friends and check out demos, and never EVER look at a score (don't even get me started on "game awards")

I've been writing semi-professionally for about 2 years for a variety of websites (and starting up my own shortly woo, exciting). Part of being a good reviewer is reading and analysing what makes a review good and how it reflects the quality of the game.

When reading, I usually read the whole thing from beginning to end to try and take note of what said is in fact useful, detrimental, criticisms, praise and how the overall game seems to be. My pet hate is the lengthy, self-obsessed introduction that most reviews begin with. Understandably, some form of introduction is needed but a review throws me right off when it doesn't get to the substance of the game. On the occasion these intros DO contain some context, for instance if its a sequel or is notably trying to strive to an ideal or the reviewer is trying to state their particular bias BEFORE they begin to state their opinion.

Using the reviews of BioShock as an example (and without drawing from any particular piece), none of the mainstream reviews or previews I've encountered has even scraped the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to reviews and many feel rushed or vague. I'm currently going through the game (for review) and feel the game needs to be conveyed first for its atmosphere (which incorporates some points in regards to graphics and sound which add a great deal to the feel), second for its story-telling, its achievements in making gameplay unique and customisable to an individual and scope of inventiveness available to the player (weapons, environments, AI, creatures), then the graphical and sound quality specifically - if I find I truly understand the concepts put forth when I complete the game, then I'll comment on that too. I've also some criticisms with the game as well though none of which are game-breaking by any means.

None of the reviews to date have really scratched the surface on all of these concepts and instead aim to focus on one. My approach might make for a lengthy review but I feel that if I'm entertaining enough that this game deserves it - however I would disagree with many reviewers 100% feedback (unless they're scoring out of 5!).

Best introduction to BioShock I've stumbled across over at Gamers With Jobs and its a preview :| http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/32465 - this is an exampled of how a games ideal has been researched and well presented. Once you've played the game and read THIS preview, you'll have a greater concept of the game and its relevance - why its groundbreaking and I feel this is lacking from the gaming culture.

I think the way reviews are written needs to be rethought. The score system can work for people who are just out for a particular check-box. For instance, Crysis will most likely be 10 / 10 for gfx and sound but that says naught for story, game play or replayability. Games should be thought of more for the sum of the parts than a category break down.

I feel like I'm rambling. Might have to make a shorter post next time :\

@ Andrew Armstrong - http://www.fourfatchicks.com/ has some great reviews! Thanks for linking it to me, I don't believe I've ever read a piece on Okami that so brilliantly sums up what the game is.

Personally I try to find reviews that talk about everything. Even though the games multiplayer is bad, I don't think people should just say a feature is bad and move on. I think a review of quality would compare bad features in a game to other games with the same bad features like it. I'm not a reviewer because I want to go on and on instead of stop, but most reviews I've seen just list general things wrong about it and say some good things then slap a score on it. With reviews that nail it I have to say X play because they are (mostly) on the ball. Other quality sources are EGM and Gamepro. I love gamepro because they took out everything but Fun Factor. Other reviews I just can't tell the difference from a 7 and a 7.5. What gives it the .5? I view either the Top 5 system or the Fun Factor method the best two. Seriously. I read reviews in OXM before they simplified it and I couldn't tell the difference in some of their reviews. "First game? Give it a 82. Next game? How about 80?" Like the 99 they gave splinter cell meant that it had room for improvement.A perfect %100 score is a unicorn in the game business..........wait Bioshock has been getting perfects? I'm off!

Also, I wouldn't mind an internship in gaming mags. I need to see how games are reviewed before I can make them.

I find that Action Button has some more critical reviews, even if they are a bit new-games-journalism-y for my tastes. Tim Rogers has got to be the long-windedest game critic/reviewer/writer on the planet.

Bongo Bill:
I find that Action Button has some more critical reviews, even if they are a bit new-games-journalism-y for my tastes. Tim Rogers has got to be the long-windedest game critic/reviewer/writer on the planet.

Long-winded is an understatement. Man that guy loves to type! I didn't manage to read the whole thing, if half of it. Must say, I love the sites look and format, however and will strive to visit it again when I'm REALLY in the mood to read slabs of baffling text :|