9 votes

The video game review process is broken. It’s bad for readers, writers and games.

2 comments

  1. lou
    (edited )
    Link
    Very good article with a sensible main thesis that is hard to argue against. If a reviewer has no time to experience a game in full, his article will no doubt be negatively impacted. Preview...

    Very good article with a sensible main thesis that is hard to argue against. If a reviewer has no time to experience a game in full, his article will no doubt be negatively impacted. Preview copies must be delivered much sooner.

    Google’s search engine takes a lot of factors into account, but I doubt it has any perspective on the artfulness of a much-agonized-over introductory paragraph. The system rewards speed.

    That's a bit off topic, but I personally don't care at all for artful introductions, and often skip them. I'm very sorry, but I don't read journalism for its artfulness. If you got some beautiful prose to show off, do it while you're conveying information. For artfulness, I'd rather read fiction. Sorry :(

    6 votes
  2. NaraVara
    (edited )
    Link
    This article makes me wonder if maybe the way review cycles work are responsible for some of the things I don't like about modern game design. Specifically games that sprawl with low-effort fluff....

    This article makes me wonder if maybe the way review cycles work are responsible for some of the things I don't like about modern game design. Specifically games that sprawl with low-effort fluff. The reviewers clearly aren't going to be engaging with all that side content since they're just trying to race to the finish. But a normal player will be spending most of their time with the game on the side content. So really, the gamer is being treated to a way more boring and languorously paced experience than the reviewer is.

    6 votes