Facepunch Review Discussion: We have absolutely nothing yet edition - General

[QUOTE=absolalone111;45846050]I think maybe three people review each game/thing that way you get different views on it, all from the same place, but not to many that reading it all becomes a chore. I'd be down to write reviews of games, but I'm more console orientated than PC, so that could be either an advantage or a disadvantage. [editline]wait shit[/editline] I like this, im very good at complaining and finding flaws in things[/QUOTE] That way a game is covered from all angles and it cuts out the possibility of circlejerk reviews as each person has a different goal in mind when covering a game, and the final review would take its constituent parts from all 3 articles equally.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;45845997]And then you start making clickbait articles and end up being no different from the rest [editline]30th August 2014[/editline] It really depends who your target market is: The higher the quality of the writing, the less people you'll have going to the site. The lower the quality of the writing, the more people you'll have going to the site. So whoever decides to go ahead with this will be operating at a loss.[/QUOTE] I think as long as we're honest, open, and accepting of criticism no matter the source, we can avoid falling into the circlejerk black hole that has devoured all other entrants to the world of games journalism. It's about not putting ourselves above anyone else. We're just fucks writing about games for other fucks, yeah? As long as nobody gets a big head I think we'll be alright. But hell, I'm not doing any of the setup work, so take what I'm saying as a friendly suggestion that yall are totally within your rights to ignore.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;45846068]Ideally, I think it should start as just reviews, then after a little it should move in to both reviews and news. And it absolutely needs to be clear of any connections at all between us and those being covered. So if by some chance we actually got a review copy of a game, even that would need to be stated. If Ubisoft throws HTC phones at us during a press events about their latest game, then all subsequent coverage should mention that.[/QUOTE] "thanks for the swag ubisoft by the way your game sucks dick" i imagine the review would go something like that

[QUOTE=The freeman;45846076]Except that will make one person praise it as being the best game this decade, one thinking it's the worst game this decade, and one actually having a worthwhile review. The writing would be so incredibly off throughout the review. Having multiple people do multiple reviews focusing on the game as a whole is probably the best way to pull it off.[/QUOTE] The other issue in this way of reviewing would be when a game is legitimately terrible and all three know that. You would end up having the positive part of the review being forced while the negative and regular reviews being negative, throwing the balance.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;45845813]I think a site without a scoring system would be cool. That way people would actually read about the content to find out the good and the bad about a game.[/QUOTE] There's a Slovak film review site that does this. It's awesome and nobody ever complains.

Having 3 people is a terrible idea in practice, especially as this is "un-serious". I can just think of the delays of waiting for one person to hand in, or how all 3 people might not like it. In reality it should work like this: People can write about whatever games they want, whenever they want. This is important, it's less like a job, people are likely to pick games that they actually enjoy (which is important for finding valuable reviews) and they can be a bit more insightful. This could also spawn pure opinion pieces, which can be fantastic and more of a conversation. Reviews are just straight and blunt, but a conversation between two opposing authors opinion pieces can be a nice read.

I'd like to see this take off as well, but you're all spending too much time fantasizing on what you'd like to do rather than just doing it. You can't even begin to worry about being bribed HTC phones when there isn't even a site to bribe.

[QUOTE=The freeman;45846076]Except that will make one person praise it as being the best game this decade, one thinking it's the worst game this decade, and one actually having a worthwhile review. The writing would be so incredibly off throughout the review. Having multiple people do multiple reviews focusing on the game as a whole is probably the best way to pull it off.[/QUOTE] Not really, the 3 reviwers, good, bad and neutral would be focused on[B] aspects[/B] of the game, pretty sure people are able to point out the best bits or the worst bits without loving or hating the game in its entirety. The good would highlight the good parts of the game, the bad would highlight the bad, the neutral would highlight things both good and bad from a middle ground. Though you'd have to be careful and select writers who are somewhat indifferent to the games that they are approaching, to avoid them covering their end too passionately and being as you said, calling it the best game of the decade or the worst.

After dozens of seconds of looking at screenshots from the new Call of Duty, I give it a solid 9/11, never forget. God bless the United States of America.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45846046]Should have 3 reviewers per game, each with a particular role in approaching that game, 1 focusing on the best parts of the game, (in their opinion) 1 focusing on the worst parts of the game, and one focusing on the good and bad parts as a whole, and aggregate all 3 parts into an overall review.[/QUOTE]Honestly, I'm not such a fan of this idea. It'll be more just one person just hyping the shit out of a game, one person shitting all over it, then one person giving an actual review. I think each one needs to provide an actual, all encompassing review. Because while reviews will always be subjective, that is just the nature of the beast, but only letting a person focus on one side and another focus on another will actually make the issue worse.

[QUOTE=Scot;45845938]Many have tried this and they found that people just stopped using their site. The best system I have seen is Kotaku's "should you buy this game yes/no" system. Even though kotaku sucks.[/QUOTE] Damn that sucks.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;45846068]Ideally, I think it should start as just reviews, then after a little it should move in to both reviews and news. And it absolutely needs to be clear of any connections at all between us and those being covered. So if by some chance we actually got a review copy of a game, even that would need to be stated. If Ubisoft throws HTC phones at us during a press events about their latest game, then all subsequent coverage should mention that.[/QUOTE] The people who make their traffic on news are the people who don't verify their sources before reporting, and I don't think we want to just make another tabloid to throw onto the pile It would be cool if we could be known as the people with game news that isn't fake, though.

If you're ever looking for one, I'm willing to be a writer

How about a system where it tells you how much the game is worth? Like a really good $60 game would be worth $60 A really mediocre $60 game would be worth $20-$30

I think you're thinking too much that the good/bad people in this idea are meant to praise or blast the game, as a whole, wheras what I'm talking about is people focusing the game in [B]parts[/B], the good, the bad and the neutral, with the compiled results of those 3 seperate foci being "the review". At the least, have reviewers state their opinion bias towards the game right at the start of the article.

I don't think we should limit games to x number of reviewers. Any well written review fulfilling a number of criterias should be allowed to be published. Maybe you could list the two most popular and most polarized reviews beside each other. I know VICE did something like that, when one of their writers had an opinion about something and another writer an opposing opinion. Both wrote articles about it and both were on the site.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;45846164]I don't think we should limit games to x number of reviewers. Any well written review fulfilling a number of criterias should be allowed to be published. Maybe you could list the two most popular and most polarized reviews beside each other. I know VICE did something like that, when one of their writers had an opinion about something and another writer an opposing opinion. Both wrote articles about it and both were on the site.[/QUOTE] I posted about this at the bottom of the other page. But its v.important to note as well. I feel like this will without a doubt fail. I think going in with the attitude of just writing reviews is pretty bad. If you want me and others to read you need to have something to actually say. Talking about mechanics, the genre, the culture, the history is a must. It should be with some friends to share thoughts, not having big ideas about taking down the big guys!!! One of my favourite sites is [url]www.gatheryourparty.com[/url] . They make some real interesting content, and it's all about video games, no BREAKING NEWS or anything. In general just be your own thing, make your own style

tbh it should be anyone can do a review: if more than one person does a review of the same game then make a thing that pops up in the article showing what the other people rated the game as + link to said review btw I've got an urge to review the Mass Effect Trilogy in great anal detail, because nowhere else can you find the spread of the writing to go from "effective, great, and clever" to "worse than Episode 1" and gameplay that goes from "clunky, janky and awkward" to "effective but soulless" to "simplistic yet engaging" so if you get a site going hit me up and I'll write that shit down

Do we have any web designers here? I'm kind of an okay art man, but I'm like, a creature painter kinda guy. If there's UI shit we need and nobody else wants to do it, I could try. I'm sure it would be juvenile and amateurish, but hey, the offer's there. I mean if you want like a comic to put on the site, fuck, I'm your man. We need more Nester type shit in games journalism.

[QUOTE=icemaz;45846193]I feel like this will without a doubt fail. I think going in with the attitude of just writing reviews is pretty bad. If you want me and others to read you need to have something to actually say. Talking about mechanics, the genre, the culture, the history is a must. It should be with some friends to share thoughts, not having big ideas about taking down the big guys!!![/QUOTE] But that is part of it. Talking about all of it as a package is part of the plan we had started work on originally.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45846220]Do we have any web designers here? I'm kind of an okay art man, but I'm like, a creature painter kinda guy. If there's UI shit we need and nobody else wants to do it, I could try. I'm sure it would be juvenile and amateurish, but hey, the offer's there. I mean if you want like a comic to put on the site, fuck, I'm your man. We need more Nester type shit in games journalism.[/QUOTE] I have a liiitle experience in web design, very minor though. lemme see if I can find my site.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;45846162]I think you're thinking too much that the good/bad people in this idea are meant to praise or blast the game, as a whole, wheras what I'm talking about is people focusing the game in [B]parts[/B], the good, the bad and the neutral, with the compiled results of those 3 seperate foci being "the review". At the least, have reviewers state their opinion bias towards the game right at the start of the article.[/QUOTE] That's a better idea than what I thought you said, but I feel it would still lead to inconsistency both in the review and between other reviews. Having 2-4 people write regular reviews and having them be their own things would be better. Hell, having one person review and it being voted on by the other writers of if it's good or not would also work.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;45846261]But that is part of it. Talking about all of it as a package is part of the plan we had started work on originally.[/QUOTE] No I mean, something meaningful. I don't really give a shit about reviews in the end. But I enjoy reading things about a deeper look into the mechanics, people like Campster (altho please less bias) and others are good for this. When I say something to say I mean something with meaning. More opinion pieces about games with focus on the game itself, less reviews

[QUOTE=icemaz;45846281]No I mean, something meaningful. I don't really give a shit about reviews in the end. But I enjoy reading things about a deeper look into the mechanics, people like Campster (altho please less bias) and others are good for this. When I say something to say I mean something with meaning. More opinion pieces about games with focus on the game itself, less reviews[/QUOTE] Review is an opinion. The way that most reviews are done are based upon a number of things. What is the genre, does it have major similarities to others of that genre. Where does it differ? Is it a sequal? How does it hold up to it. But at the end of the day, the reviews being voiced will depend on whose writing it.

We're currently working to pick up a game to be test-reviewed. If you want to vote, [url=http://strawpoll.me/2456299/]head up here[/url]. The idea is that only games that were owned by 3 people or more were counted. The steam group is also up and available.

[QUOTE=The freeman;45846270]That's a better idea than what I thought you said, but I feel it would still lead to inconsistency both in the review and between other reviews. Having 2-4 people write regular reviews and having them be their own things would be better. Hell, having one person review and it being voted on by the other writers of if it's good or not would also work.[/QUOTE] Yeah I don't know if I'm adequately explaining what I'm meaning, I'll see if I can explain it better. A "Review" would comprise of 3 Mini reviews compiled together, one part describing the good [B]parts[/B] of the game, and not the game as a whole, one part describing the bad, and one part describing down the middle. But one major suggestion I'd have would be: [B]FUCK SCORES, COMPLETELY, FUCK THEM RIGHT OFF[/B]

[QUOTE=Swilly;45846306]Review is an opinion. The way that most reviews are done are based upon a number of things. What is the genre, does it have major similarities to others of that genre. Where does it differ? Is it a sequal? How does it hold up to it. But at the end of the day, the reviews being voiced will depend on whose writing it.[/QUOTE] I'd rather a piece about someone explaining why they love their favourite game, than read a review of a new game. I'd rather read a piece about why x game from the past was important to the history of the company as a whole, than read a review of a new game. It's this kind of opinion piece I love. Talk about why the controls of Y are amazing to use and feel great, give examples of it throughout gaming. Just something other than reviews

[QUOTE=The freeman;45846270]That's a better idea than what I thought you said, but I feel it would still lead to inconsistency both in the review and between other reviews. Having 2-4 people write regular reviews and having them be their own things would be better. Hell, having one person review and it being voted on by the other writers of if it's good or not would also work.[/QUOTE] This is my thing, and it still won't do so good to give an encompassing idea of the game. If you have just one perspective on what is good, one perspective on what is bad, and one perspective on the middle, you're still not getting a great spectrum. Because two people may find one aspect good, and the third finds it bad, but if that third is writing about the good parts of the game, they'll quite likely may not include that and it gets left out. But if you see an article where two people both say an aspect is good, and the third says its bad, you can get a better idea of the overall product.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45846317]We're currently working to pick up a game to be test-reviewed. If you want to vote, [url=http://strawpoll.me/2456299/]head up here[/url]. The idea is that only games that were owned by 3 people or more were counted.[/QUOTE] I voted for Little Inferno, namely because that's the only game onlt he list I have :v

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45846317]We're currently working to pick up a game to be test-reviewed. If you want to vote, [url=http://strawpoll.me/2456299/]head up here[/url]. The idea is that only games that were owned by 3 people or more were counted.[/QUOTE] For a test review, Borderlands 1 & 2 may be a bit much. Voted for Max Payne 3.