In the comment area for most reviews one could find the occasional troll babbling about how terrible the reviews is or how incompetent the reviewer is (in bed). Half the time the troll is commenting on a game that has not been release and therefore, he has never played. He forgets that reviews are a subjective article. If he is going to buy the game either way, he should neither be bothered nor concerned about the score it received.
Video game reviews—more than any other medium—are subjective. Though feelings on a particular plot can alternate from person to person, video games are immersive; it is more then the plot of a game that reviewers score. The mechanics, difficulty level, or even the reviewer’s play-type can determine the final score of a game (I’d give Read Dead a 2/10 just because I can’t sell drugs out of an ice cream truck). A review should tell readers whether or not the game is worth purchasing. This should cover all readers, from the folks that save for weeks to buy a $60 game, and for those that buy multiple games a week. It’s quite the task. That’s is why, for ever reader there is a reviewer; that goes for games too.
In an episode of the Mobcast, a question about assigning men or women to specific games came up. The discussion quickly spiraled and became more about how reviewers should review. The answer I came up with was a combination of what was said. Reviewer should have some kind of past with the game/genre, but should also acknowledge those who do not. With that said, they have to go in open minded and try to have no preconceived opinion on the game (this usually requires avoiding news of the game prior to release). They should state how much they enjoyed the game, but touch on how it may be received. However, I have no opinion of how scores should be dealt with. To be honest they should just be eliminated, but I see their necessity. The score can either match the way they felt about the game, or what they think it deserves based on the qualities of the game and how it will be received.
My favorite example of the perfect review was 1UP’s Civilization V review. Matt Chick gave his reasons as to why Civilization V was a good game, but didn’t match Civilization IV. He basically is telling anyone new to the series they should save some money and playCivilization IV, while telling anyone experienced Civ player what to expect. This is the perfect review; someone familiar with the series reviews the game, examines its strengths and weakness, and then provides some insight as to what the consumer should do. He gave it a C, which made sense after reading the review (if only everyone did).
Readers must understand that it is impossible to make everyone happy. Also, that not every reviewer will think exactly the way you do. Gamers should find a reviewer that they seem to agree with most of the time, because chances are that when he/she do not like a game, the gamer will still agree. I often find myself rooting for my favorite series to do well, when it’s poorly receive I’m not upset at the reviewer. I usually end up buying the game that got slammed. I’m still crossing my fingers they fix FFXIV for the PS3 (God help us).
