What makes a good review?

[Nexus]

I like writing reviews. Mainly of films and games. I write them on my blog.

 

I am, however, constantly critical of what I've written. Yeah, I do publish them in a public spectrum, but I still am really critical of my own work.

 

So, I ask you, TAYites, what do you think makes a good review?

[TheForgetfulBrain]

I'm probably much less picky and technical about reviews.

 

Personally, however, what I like to see is a thorough knowledge of the material being reviewed, clarity in the points being made about what you did and didn't like, and a balance between straight to the point and providing enough information to the reader to decide if it's something they should be interested in or not.

 

A good sense of humor also doesn't hurt, as long as it's not snarky, abrasive or pompous.

[WTF]

A good review really depends on the audience you write the review for. You need to tailor the review so that everything that the audience appreciates or could potentially miss out is focussed on.

Most reviews for visual media today are pre-reviews because you don't want to spoil the story which does affect how well you can review without giving away spoilers.

 

For a film review there are factors:

Joe Public

Pacing, story, actors, performance, portrayal and calibre are the focuses. If the setpieces are truly unique they could be discussed. Visual aesthetics can be touched upon.

Technical

Story, actors, calibre can be omitted. But performance and portrayal should cover it. More importantly direction, cinematography and editing need to be focussed on. The impact of vision should probably be the focus I guess.

 

The issue with some reviews though is cohesion and the fact that people sometimes do not know their audience. It's hard to say what truly is a good review because you do not want humour really in a review for a film in say the American Cinematographer's Manual but you shouldn't be too technical for a review in TimeOut magazine. Not to mention you do need to speak about production and costs in a review for say Screen International.

 

If you are starting out a new publication or something with reviews though you need to write to attract the kind of audience you're thinking of and that's the important thing in my opinion. I write reviews or rather used to sometimes. But it was all for technical reading and some were post mortems of films.

 

Similarly with games, though games are a lot easier since regardless what people think of gaming going mainstream or not, reviews are usually read by hobbyists (regular gamers/core gamers/etc to some) and the general public. I believe in the current generation a lot of technical things can be omitted unless it's for the PC.

[-Dex-]

"WTF" pretty much covered most of the things.

In my opinion, a good review is a review that isn't afraid to say bad things about the creative piece. I like to hear/read about the interesting little things that make that special. The usual pattern for let's say a game is, story, gameplay, graphics and advertising (hype). I don't care if a game will sell a lot or not, I don't care about the graphics.

 

Just explain to me if the game is fun or not. And I don't mean in a generic "Oh, you have this, and you have that...", I mean, from a personal experience. That's what makes a review an individual opinion and not a hivemind. Don't be afraid to hold up on words. If some aspect of a game is bad, don't go around it. Say it outright "This shit here is horrible" (not in that context, but you get the idea).

 

It helps if you're a varied gamer, and not a specific lover of a genre. If something's not your field, don't review it. You don't get a hardcore FPS player reviewing a thing he hates.

 

Keep an open mind.

 

Humor is also an important aspect. If you can't amuse your reader, you did nothing. I don't want a robot explaining to me how something works. If I did, I'd go to school again.

 

That should be a fraction of my opinion for now. Hope I contributed to your train of thought.

 

P.S. I kept writing "opinion" with 2 P's. I must be tired or some shit, I don't know why I did that.

[toxicitizen]

Some really good points have already been mentioned, but I'll add what I think are two important aspects of any good review even if some of it has already been mentioned.

 

Knowledge of the title is important, obviously. If it's a sequel, the reviewer should be familiar with previous games. A good example of doing this wrong is Kotaku's recent hands-on impression of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I made a post in the "Fucking Kotaku" thread about it.

 

I also feel that basic technical knowledge is necessary. The reviewer needs to be able to explain and detail things like texture pop-ins, framerate drops, antialiasing issues, how smart/dumb the AI is, etc... A game can be good but still have some technical issues and when I read a review that's the kind of info I'm looking for.

 

I could probably think of a few more things but I haven't been up for too long and I'm eating, so I'll stop this here. Ha, that makes me think of a third one: concision.

 

I can't count how often I've read a review on IGN only the reach the end of the first page and see it's a 5 page review and just think "fuck it" and go somewhere else. Some games obviously have a lot of content and need extensive reviews (for example, games like Dragon Age, Fallout or Elder Scrolls), but most of the time, a lot of that stuff could (and should) have been edited and shortened. Of course, length isn't as much of a problem if your writing is compelling. But most games journalists can't write worth a damn, so that's rarely the case.

[peteer01]

So, I ask you, TAYites, what do you think makes a good review?

Simply put, a good review will talk about the good points and bad points of a review, and talk about what the reviewer liked and disliked. If you can have the pros and cons from a relatively factual standpoint, along side the likes and dislikes from a personal opinion standpoint, and the reader can tell what's your opinion and what are the merits and demerits of the work...that's what I'd consider a good review. Educational, with enough information for people who might like it and people who might dislike it, while also showing the reviewer's opinions and taste.

 

Is that asking for too much?