An article on (computer) game reviews

[MerricB]

I recently was passed this link:
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/media/?id=13224

I have to say, a lot of the comments strike a chord with me (as a fan and as a reviewer) wrt RPGs.

This part in particular:

Developers hate game reviewers because they don't understand games that are targeted for a specific audience

"Game reviewers want every game to be Zelda."

That's what one developer told me. He said that the reality of game development is that most developers make games for a very specific target audience and the developers do their best to find and meet the needs of those specific gamers.

It's a frustration then, when game reviewers complain that the game is too "kiddie" or too "redneck" or too targeted to one group. That, after all, was the entire purpose of the game.

I occasionally have that frustration about supplement reviews. People look at one and say, "it sucks", when it actually wasn't for them at all. ("Lords of Madness" was not written for me, I must say. Nor was the Pokemon RPG... )

I tend to write reviews - when I get to write reviews, something that I haven't had the time for recently - about products that are targeted at me. It must be harder for people (like Psion and Crothian) to write reviews for products that are about topics that don't interest them.

Cheers!

 

[Turjan]

That complaint that the target is often neglected in reviews is true. I just think of "The Herobuilder's Guidebook" or "Enemies and Allies". Most people were giving those books very low ratings but completely forgot that those books were not targeted at them. This might also be part of the problem with comments directed at MM IV.

Edit: And I really wouldn't want to write reviews about books I don't like at all or which don't interest me. That's like work, not fun.

 

[Crothian]

That's why as a reviewer I need to try to look at the book and ask "Who was this written for?". and even if that is not me, I have to be able to judge if those people will be happy with the product. Though I do not always do this.

 

[MerricB]

See also:
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13240

Cheers!

 

[Erithtotl]

As a hardcore gamer, I would agree with the second article (Videogame Journalism Sucks) a lot more than the first article. The first article does make some good points. Often you get the feeling that online reviewers do not finish the games the play. You also frequently see reviewers not interested in the genre reviewing a game.

In general, though, I find myself wishing game reviewers were much harder on the games than they are.

When it comes to RPG supplements, I would say the same thing. With hundreds and hundreds of supplements to choose from, I need critical reviews so I can really decide what the best books are. Of course, this does indeed take us back to the original point, are the books being reviewed for their target audience? I think most reviewers do a good job of this, though I think the most common mistake is the assumption that certain material is or is not useful depending on whether that reviewer would use that material. For example, one DM might never consider using pre-leveled PCs, while another might find them very useful. As long as a reviewer tries to put themselves in other peoples shoes and ask 'would this be good for them?', I think they're going to produce a good review.