I’ve noticed a trend in reviews for video games, and even the media in general, and that is the concept that reviews are not for informing you of the product, but of what the reviewer THOUGHT of the product. The reviewers of games try to boil their reviews of a game to just whether or not they were ‘good’, and if you should buy them. Considering that these reviews tend to be on the long side (sometimes up to 3 or 4 internet pages or more), why are they spending so much time and words to say as little as possible?
We need an example, so here is an IGN review of Brutal Legend. Let’s take a moment to notice what the review is telling us: What it looks like, what they thought it needed, and a few details about what was great. Oh, what’s this? A few incredibly vague and completely unhelpful euphemisms and generalizations of the gameplay and plot? Well… isn’t that what the review should be about? Luckily, I already know what Brutal Legend is about since I tried the demo, but that’s something that no one should ever do in a review: Assume knowledge of the product. I mean, aren’t you trying to find out more about it, and that’s why you want to read the review? If your first exposure to this game was the review, you’d have no idea what the finer points of the game was, or what the gameplay is like. You’d assume it was an RTS. Why is there no mention of the main character using a guitar to perform magic-like attacks? What about the other minor characters, and the combo attacks you can perform with them?
Why should anyone read reviews like this? I mean, I understand the whole ‘no spoilers’ thing, and the idea that you need to be succinct and to get to the point, but this review leaves out the point and goes right to the fluf. Personally, I’d recommend that IGN talks to this reviewer and has them perform a rewrite, but most IGN reviews have turned into this. There is so little left in the writing that you have to wonder if they actually played the game, or just tried to fudge it and base the review off the wikipedia article. No, wait, if someone were to write a review off the wikipedia article, it would be more informative.
