As the title says, what do you think is a good game review? Also, as a side question, how long time do you think a game reviewer have to play a game before they can make a worthy review of it?
The review should tell the reader how good the game is for them. I hate it when reviewers give 95/100 scores for a game that ends up with <70 average score from users. Thats basically a bad review thats alien to what users need to know.
Originally Posted by BlueRet
Atleast 12 hours of gameplay, if it's indie then 3-5 hours.
List of options available and which options are missing (AA, customizeable keys)
How good the gameplay feels, are you comfortable when playing? Or are you irritated? (I feel irritated and my eyes hurt when I play RAGE due to FOV lock for example)
Support of multiplayer if available, is it P2P? Dedicated?
Is it disappointing considering the previous game in the series? (Like Modern Warfare to Modern Warfare 2)
i5-4670k 4.2GHz | EVGA GTX 980 | 16GB Kingston HyperX | 256GB 840 EVO | Corsair H100i | Noctua IndustialPPC
ASUS PB298Q 4K | 2x QNIX QH2710 | CM Storm Rapid w/ Reds | Steelseries Rival | Schiit Stack w/ Sennheiser HD8
Well since we will need a "review" for that, I just would like to add two important things for whats define a good review. Unbiased review and actually playing the game to play it (Aka someone who plays games). There is more of course, and Im sure if everyone participate we will have an almost good list of what makes a good review.
I'm not sure how much gameplay and such is needed for a good game review, but I personally enjoy Escapist's "Zero Punctuation". I've watched every single game review there. They make me laugh, every time.