Pretentious Prose: Game Review Styles

Agricola

After reading a few reviews of Uncharted 2 for PS3, it was interesting to note the varying styles of the reviewers. The Eurogamer review is full of lofty language. Sometimes I find with game journalism like this, you almost need to re-read whole paragraphs just to extract the necessary information from the article.
The CVG review on the other hand gets down to brass tacks and I think conveys all the details about the high quality visuals and gameplay in simple terms which get the message across with the minimum fuss.

I like abit of high brow wordsmithery (or whatever its called) as much as the next man, but sometimes I think its over used just for the sake of sounding posh and clever. What you think?

Jazzy

yeah a lot of games journalists try to sound too clever for skool. they think they are roger ebert or something... little do they know that eberts success was born out of simplicity, like orwell. you just cringe when you read some reviews

L31mr0d

Agricola wrote: »

I like abit of high brow wordsmithery (or whatever its called) as much as the next man, but sometimes I think its over used just for the sake of sounding posh and clever. What you think?

This is true of all forms of journalism. Depending on the writer they will have a greater knowledge of words so will be able to use ones that are fittingly more appropriate. It's usually fairly obvious to spot someone who's sesquipedalian as the verbose use of certain words will seem distinctly out of place, and usually the syntax could of been more effectively expressed with shorter more succinct phrases and words.

Personally, I never read Game reviews (even though I write my own from time to time :pac:) I'll usually just watch the video reviews on Gametrailers.

Mr E

I thought the Eurogamer review was well written. Makes me want to get the game at 9am the morning it comes out (so job done).

I am smart though - I can understand da big werds, like.

Retr0gamer

I really hate some of the reviews for some of the contributors on eurogamer and especially Edge. They really just reek of trying too hard and they usually end up saying some really stupid things that make them look like idiots (moreso eurogamer, edge usually doesn't get caught out like that). I miss the days when of Sega Power and the older magazines when the biggset review was a 2 page spread most of which was screenshots and the reviews were actually informative and not full of a journalist that is trying to sound clever and pretentious.

GothPunk

A overly long verbose review can be bad, but what's worse is the overuse of certain words, or the use of words in the wrong context. Words like 'visceral' and 'compelling' have become buzz words that are removed from their proper definition. I often feel like it's a lack of confidence in their own writing that they try to cover up for with nice sounding words. Perhaps they're just not very good or haven't had any formal training.

Jazzy

the worst ones are the ones that dance and skittle around the point and are just full of metaphors but no substance. get to the point. what is good, what is bad. reviews dont have to be essays

johnny_ultimate

I have no problem with more 'flowery' reviews, as I think games journalism deserves smart criticism as much as any other artform does. My major problem with the vast majority of game reviewers - Gamespot and IGN are two examples - is that they are way too positive, and you can never tell whether they've been paid off or not to give it a simplistic, glowing review. Plenty of their reviews don't read like valid journalism, merely the ravings of an internet fanboy. Also the reliance on a 'score' at the end is a major danger - plenty of readers often get distracted by the final number, ignoring the core of the review which is far more significant (and tbh I can be the same sometimes).

I do like Kotaku's basic approach they have introduced in recent months though - blue bullet points for good, red for bad. It is simple and effective, and can help me decide whether a game is worth buying or not. However, more in-depth reviews - Edge's Time Extended feature every month, for example - are something I always enjoy reading after finishing a game. Games should be praised for their good points, but also smartly criticised for their flaws - the likes of Edge, Gamecentral or Zero Punctuation (the latter in a far more tongue-in-cheek manner, of course) dismantle a game, pointing out the flaws that others constantly ignore. There are a lot of things wrong with contemporary games, and I am glad there are smart critics out there who will dissect a game in detail, and yet their passion for the medium always comes across. I want games to be taken more seriously than they currently are, and serious criticism is pretty much a prerequisite for this. Yes, a simple to the point review may help sway me to buy a game, but there is more to criticism than simply 'to-buy-or-not-to-buy' - they also act as analysis, and for that more in-depth reviews are often necessary.

Retr0gamer

In depth reviews can be simple though as seen in kotaku's approach. There's no need to use flowery language to get your point across. When a review goes into how the art of the game makes them feel I roll my eyes skyward. I don't really mind this stuff in a retrospective article months after release but it's not necessary in game reviews. I've read less pretentious reviews of books and films in the Sunday Times Culture magazine than some eurogamer reviews.

SeantheMan

Eurogamer = Phail

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

In depth reviews can be simple though as seen in kotaku's approach. There's no need to use flowery language to get your point across. When a review goes into how the art of the game makes them feel I roll my eyes skyward. I don't really mind this stuff in a retrospective article months after release but it's not necessary in game reviews. I've read less pretentious reviews of books and films in the Sunday Times Culture magazine than some eurogamer reviews.

I do think a review can be too pretentious (speaking of Culture magazine, film critic Cosmo Landesman is the worst offender - the man simply cannot enjoy a film, instead dismantling it on the flimsiest of moral objections) but flowery language can be fine as long as there is a solid point to make. OK going into 'feelings' and stuff is a bit much, but games are art at the end of the day (even if some developers seem to go out of their way to disprove this) and simplicity isn't always the best way to express opinions. As I said, the simple approach is perfect when deciding whether to buy or not, but I do enjoy reading a balanced, well written review when I've finished a game rather than beforehand. I know alot of people don't read reviews in this context, but for me it is always appealing, and why I'd defend the likes of Edge for providing a different sort of criticism to the online norm.

As for Eurogamer, I can take or leave them, and they certainly can't be considered consistent. The occasional smart review, but they do try too hard on occasion.

Retr0gamer

Ellie Gibson is the best features and review writer Eurogamer have and her stuff can hardly to called high brow. However anytime I see a really bad, boring or average game on eurogamer you can be sure it's her writing it and you can be sure it's a very enjoyable read no matter how disinterested you are in the review.

I want to marry her.

TheDoc

You can usually spot the reviews, and journalist, who try too hard. There is sometimes a demand or requirement for an article to fill a certain space or meet a word count, hence why you read severe woffle.

I always feel reviews should be basic, simply worded and too the point. I do not want to know how "Batmans cape flutters in the gloomy mist of Arkums underlying secret", I just want to know, " The physics engine is incredible, his cape is realisticly affected by wind and matter."

Leave the fancy stuff for theory articles to make the reader think and discuss, reviews should be basic to the point.

Much the reason I do not buy any gaming mags or most mags for that matter, most of them do not know how to compile articles properly or write in a way to keep the reader intrigued, so they are not worth their over the top price tag.

GothPunk

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I do think a review can be too pretentious (speaking of Culture magazine, film critic Cosmo Landesman is the worst offender - the man simply cannot enjoy a film, instead dismantling it on the flimsiest of moral objections)

Totally OT, but MY GOD, so true. The man has issues with absolutely everything. I think I actually hate him.

I enjoy Kotaku's review style the most - they are usually very well written and succinct enough. The separation of what the reviewer liked about the game and did not like instead of just sticking on some arbitrary number as a rating for the game forces the reviewer to explain themselves properly. I think it's a much more informative review method.

super_furry

I think sites Eurogamer and the magazine Games TM strike the right balance, haven't read C&VG in ages but last I remember it was more aimed at kids with 'wicked' language. Edge, are usually the worst offenders but seem to be reigning their reviewers in recently. I picked up the most recent issue and was impressed with their reviews of Halo ODST, Demon Souls and Section 8 in particular, however there was a feature on Warlord I think it was, that was indecipherable at times.

NeoKubrick

I dislike the usage of the 'It could be bad, but, it's good' construct for an opening. It's such a tacky and cheap device. I stop reading if I come across it, usually. I don't think that incongruous words are a problem in gaming journalism: the problem is that most of the journalists (read: failed film reviewers) know little of game design. If the writer is exhibiting that he or she has some insight in game design, I can ignore poor grammar, logic and wording in writing.

stevenmu

The problem I had with the Eurogamer review was not with the words used, but more with the sentence length and structure, rather than making simple concise points, the reviewer endeavored to create long and complexly engineered sentences which, in the proper place and when used with a certain amount of restraint, can make a read more enjoyable, but in this particular case they felt a little too forced and contrived, ultimately resulting in my attention beginning to wander half-way through a particular sentence rather than being held to rapt attention waiting for the next word to present itself, although to be fair my attention has been known to wander from time to time, and often I could easily start out with some simple criticism of an article, perhaps even including a demonstration of my point, before meandering on to another topic entirely, such as how the game itself does actually look fantastic, and to be fair to the aforementioned article it did manage to convey that impression to the reader, albeit in a somewhat roundabout way.

johnny_ultimate

stevenmu wrote: »

The problem I had with the Eurogamer review was not with the words used, but more with the sentence length and structure, rather than making simple concise points, the reviewer endeavored to create long and complexly engineered sentences which, in the proper place and when used with a certain amount of restraint, can make a read more enjoyable, but in this particular case they felt a little too forced and contrived, ultimately resulting in my attention beginning to wander half-way through a particular sentence rather than being held to rapt attention waiting for the next word to present itself, although to be fair my attention has been known to wander from time to time, and often I could easily start out with some simple criticism of an article, perhaps even including a demonstration of my point, before meandering on to another topic entirely, such as how the game itself does actually look fantastic, and to be fair to the aforementioned article it did manage to convey that impression to the reader, albeit in a somewhat roundabout way.

I see what you did there :pac: Well, for the first line or so anyway.

Retr0gamer

I just read the eurogamer review and have come back none the wiser from it. It's told me nothing about the game except that there's hints that the respawning enemies problem is still there... I mean prevalent.

Agricola

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I just read the eurogamer review and have come back none the wiser from it. It's told me nothing about the game except that there's hints that the respawning enemies problem is still there... I mean prevalent.

Yeah exactly. As someone else mentioned, this kind of approach is very suitable to retrospective articles about past classics. Eurogamer do a weekly look back at old games so an article written in this manner is very appropriate in that case. Your looking back at a game you may have enjoyed alot, remembering great levels or amazing set-pieces etc. The nostalgia is kicking in.
Your not in a position of wanting to know is the game good and worth your 40 or 50 quid, or is it a turkey. When I read a review I want to know that in clear, concise terms.
If the game goes onto be a genre defining classic in the future, great, lets break out the shakespeare then!

Helix

always been a believer that fluffy english has no place in games journalism personally

Gummy Panda

Kotaku feels like "The Sun" of games journalism. I can't stand them sometimes, especially the racist crap over scribblenauts.

I like some of the 1up reviewers, mainly Jeremy Parish. His reviews usually match what i think of games and he has similar tastes e.g. JRPG, castlevania, retro, etc

Didn't one of the former mods here use to contribute to Eurogamer.

Dont be at yourself

It really depends on what you want. If you want a mechanical run-down of every feature and problem in the game, there are plenty of sites out there for you.

I prefer the more wordy/pretentious style of Edge and Eurogamer. They tend to look at the game as a whole rather than pick it apart piece by piece, and leads to a better-rounded, more informative review. And hey, I like big words.

Jazzy

the biggest problem is the reviewers try too hard. they all have a very unnatural feel about them

Retr0gamer

Since I've started playing this game all I've been hearing as I close my eyes to ponder my own thoughts is the rythnic melodious sound that constantly ushers forth as you play this game. I sure you will to as the collection of coins in this game produces a series of chimes evoking both melancholy and joy in equal measure as if the levels were designed to resonant with the rhythm of life.

The visuals are suitably abstract. Blocky yet visually appealing in a way that will appeal to the child in all of us that grew up playing games and now gets to witness the amalgamation of the art form in one throb monument to videogames as a medium. This combines with some of the finest chiptunes ever composed to create an aural visual delight that is like an overload of saccharine for the senses.

Every facet of design has been thoroughly thought out and not since silent hill 2 has every element come together so wonderously to create a game that tells it's story with little textual exposition. From the visceral feedback you feel as you crush yet another turtle under your feet to the flag pole you slide down as you conquer yet another gruelling hurdle the game designers place in front of you, itself a phallic symbol of the shafting plumbers have under gone in this current economic climate. In fact the game as a whole is metaphor and social commentary on the recession era we live in. Bowser, the games villian is an obvious avatar for the money men that cheated and robbed the common man. Even after besting this beast it leaves a bitter sweet taste in your mouth. 'Thank you mario' you are told, 'but the princess is in another castle'. It just sums up beautifully the futility felt in the hearts of unemployed gamers, truly the fourth wall has been obliterated.

To leave this game sitting on the shelf is to not only do yourself a disservice but to **** in the eyes of the games industry. Everything in gaming has lead up to this one amazing moment when gaming suddenly breaks free from the shackles of how it is viewed by the ignorant masses and suddenly explodes in a mushroom cloud of flatulence and shouts 'I am the new face of entertainment'. The chateau de ballox of videogaming. Buy it.

Halo 3

10/10

Jazzy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Since I've started playing this game all I've been hearing as I close my eyes to ponder my own thoughts is the rythnic melodious sound that constantly ushers forth as you play this game. I sure you will to as the collection of coins in this game produces a series of chimes evoking both melancholy and joy in equal measure as if the levels were designed to resonant with the rhythm of life.

The visuals are suitably abstract. Blocky yet visually appealing in a way that will appeal to the child in all of us that grew up playing games and now gets to witness the amalgamation of the art form in one throb monument to videogames as a medium. This combines with some of the finest chiptunes ever composed to create an aural visual delight that is like an overload of saccharine for the senses.

Every facet of design has been thoroughly thought out and not since silent hill 2 has every element come together so wonderously to create a game that tells it's story with little textual exposition. From the visceral feedback you feel as you crush yet another turtle under your feet to the flag pole you slide down as you conquer yet another gruelling hurdle the game designers place in front of you, itself a phallic symbol of the shafting plumbers have under gone in this current economic climate. In fact the game as a whole is metaphor and social commentary on the recession era we live in. Bowser, the games villian is an obvious avatar for the money men that cheated and robbed the common man. Even after besting this beast it leaves a bitter sweet taste in your mouth. 'Thank you mario' you are told, 'but the princess is in another castle'. It just sums up beautifully the futility felt in the hearts of unemployed gamers, truly the fourth wall has been obliterated.

To leave this game sitting on the shelf is to not only do yourself a disservice but to **** in the eyes of the games industry. Everything in gaming has lead up to this one amazing moment when gaming suddenly breaks free from the shackles of how it is viewed by the ignorant masses and suddenly explodes in a mushroom cloud of flatulence and shouts 'I am the new face of entertainment'. The chateau de ballox of videogaming. Buy it.

Halo 3

10/10

oh god. what site is that from?
i love the name dropping of silent hill 2 as if it were some holy grail every game of every genre aspires to. if this is just made up by you, then you get 10/10

Retr0gamer

Made up by me. I was bored.

Jazzy

spot on. would believe that was a genuine effort if i read it on a few sites

super_furry

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The visuals are suitably abstract. Blocky yet visually appealing in a way that will appeal to the child in all of us that grew up playing games and now gets to witness the amalgamation of the art form in one throb monument to videogames as a medium. This combines with some of the finest chiptunes ever composed to create an aural visual delight that is like an overload of saccharine for the senses.

Hehe, even if that is a piss-take it's a perfect fit for Rocket Riot.

Dont be at yourself

Time for Consolevania.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQeQ39m_38A

Cannibal Ox

GothPunk wrote:

I often feel like it's a lack of confidence in their own writing that they try to cover up for with nice sounding words. Perhaps they're just not very good or haven't had any formal training.

I'd pretty much agree with that. It's still a (relatively) new form of journalism/critique, so I'd guess the requirements aren't as strict as they might/could be for getting a job. I've gone on and off game reviews over a while and I've never really noticed any industry standard or structure for game reviews. Don't know whether that's a good thing or not. Do any Uni's offer courses in game journalism? Are there diplomas or certs you can get? I know that Eurogamer has an explanation of it's reviewing system, but you wouldn't know it existed from the way the reviews are written and than scored.