Should there be a format for the reviews?

I

iamscott

New Member
Recently, I realized something. All of the reviews are, for the most part, a boggled collection of unorganized comments on games. If the reviews could have a common ground, then, maybe, they would seem better. I have also noticed that many reviewers try to follow a common unspoken code, while others heap their reviews together, and still others, myself included, have tried to innovate on the common code. Things like ESRB Rating and the Learning Curve were good, and definately the price of game, but then there are things that aren't so good, like the Reviewer's Tilt. Of course these are all my opinion, but if we maybe had a code for the reviews, then, perhaps, the most of the reviews would seem... better.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion, so argue against it if you want.

See you guys later.
 
I have been quite happy with the more recent reviews.  I think we are beginning to really cover the games, rather than the one or two paragraphs of the older reviews.  No offense to those who wrote those older reviews.  I think the site has probably changed a lot, and those shorter reviews served their purpose at that time.

What are you referring to as "common unspoken code"?  Do you mean following breaking it up into things like Gameplay, Video, Sound?

We've had discussions on Reviewer's Tilt before.  I think it came up because sometimes the Christian Perspective can knock a game down, even though it's a great game.  The Reviewer's Tilt may tell you this game is really good, even though there are some issues.

Ultimately, I feel this is up to Cheryl, which is probably why I tend to follow her review format for my own reviews.

I also try to add in things I personally look for in reviews.  For example, longevity is extremely important for me.  Can you mod it?  Can you make new maps?

One of the other problems is how do you review sound and graphics for older games?  Do you compare with what's currently available or against its own time?  I try to mention a little something like, "compared to today's (2003) standard" or "typical of other games of the time (1996)".
 
I agree that the reviews have indeed grown with the site.

I leave the creativity and style up to the reviewer as long as they point out things that some people may object to. It can't be like "There's lots of blood but it's fun to blow people to bits!" If a person wants to write secular reviews, there are tons of other sites for that. CCGR is unique.

Regarding the graphics, to be fair it should be compared to games of that time. Unfortunately Eternal War had to get docked in that area.
 
The common unspoken code is what you thought it was. I mean, everyone mostly follows that. The thing I see, however, is that besides the innovation, there are the bad things. I personally hate hearing the story of the game in a review. A game needs to be like a novel, where you discover what happens yourself. The review for Halo, for instance, did not follow a set format, yet it was a good review. Some of my friends have been asking about it, that's all, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top