How to Review (for Dummies)

I'm sure there are more than enough self help books out there already but I always had a soft spot for the Dummies series (hence the title) and figured I would give everyone the down low on my thought process when it comes to playing, scoring and submitting a game review. It might also help some people get to know the x360a review team a bit better. After all I will be revealing their deepest darkest secrets..............or not.

First of all, I am by no means a professional writer. So please don't take my advice as any kind of gospel truth. My writing style has been honed over a couple of years and is based around making reviews as informative, yet fun, as possible. If you are shelling out £40 ($60?) on a brand new title then I want you to know everything you might love/hate about it before you make the plunge. Nothing used to piss me off more than reading rave reviews about a game and then getting it home only to be massively disappointed. The most famous scandal was obviously with Kane and Lynch on a certain site - and someone got the boot for their review on that. So the key is to be as unbiased as possible. I will say that I have dabbled in writing before, I have a 100k word novel sat around and have written and submitted a couple of short stories down the years. Not much success there but at least it kept me busy.

Let me dispel some myths that seem to float around x360a from time to time:

1) None of the review team get paid.
2) We don't get a review copy for EVERY game. 70% of the games I've reviewed I've actually gone out and bought (and no, the site don't reimburse me).
3) Games companies have NO say in our final score.
4) Every review is edited and checked by the rest of the team before it goes on the site. If someone thinks it is bad/biased/the score is wrong etc then it doesn't go up. Simple as.

The biggest accusation I get is usually to do with bias. I have no affiliation with any games company, I don't get paid and I play games for fun. If I play a game and it has faults then they are going to get mentioned. I don't care if someone out there thinks a game is the next messiah - if that game glitches like hell, has a crippling frame rate and takes three hours to complete then it's going to get marked down. So the bias thing is usually down to someone not agreeing with a score and deciding that I have been swayed by some kind of evil conspiracy. If you disagree with my review that is fine, but at least have a reasonable argument to back yourself up - don't just shout BIAS and expect me to be tolerant. I would also say you should actually read the main body of the review rather than looking at the final score and jumping down my throat. A few people have slagged me off, gone back to read the review and then come back to say they agreed with me.

So onto the reviews themselves.

I'm often asked how we decide who does a certain game, which is not really an exact science. The team is split into two already, with some of us based in the UK and the rest over in the US. Before a deluge of folks say they want to review from Australia, Japan and Italy - the reason for this split is simple: cost. Review copies tend to come through the news/PR team on the site and these guys are based in the UK for PAL games and the US for NTSC. So the cost of shipping out a PAL game to an Australian reviewer would just be too prohibitive and lengthy.

Obviously if we get an NTSC promo game then one of the US guys would handle it and likewise with PAL games. So the choice of reviewer can rely on who sends us a copy, or on release dates. Most games come out in the US sooner so it makes sense to get them done and on the site ASAP. Obviously the guys have other commitments too so if the difference is only a week or so then it may be picked up by the UK team to help spread the workload. If we don't get a review copy then it comes down to the team to cover it. With big games like Resident Evil 5 or GOW 2 it is not so much of an issue, as most people are more than happy to buy a copy on launch day and get the review done. Niche games and less alluring titles, can be more of an issue but (as anyone who has browsed my list can see) I will play pretty much anything, so in a worst case scenario I'll just buy a game so we can get the review done. The same for the other guys.

I would also like to point out that Pants has a pretty much exclusive hold on RPG games because he is pure evil and doesn't want the rest of us to have any fun. Of course it could just be that he really enjoys them but I like my original theory, ha ha!

Even if we get a promo game it usually only arrives in the week prior to release and then has to be sent onto the individual reviewer. So if a game isn't up on the day of release then it's because we haven't finished playing it yet. The reason behind this is that we like to have completed (or as near as damn it) every game before we review them so we can get the best possible opinion. The best example of this would be Pants pouring 60+ hours into his first playthrough of Tales of Vesperia before he started writing - now that is commitment.

Regardless of how/when a game arrives it then becomes my number one priority in terms of gaming. I may well play another game alongside it but I will try to play the review title for a couple of hours everyday (don't forget I work full time, ha ha) until it is done.

My first order of business is to look at the achievement list for the game. If I think it is a doable 1k then I'll play it on my main tag, if I think it will take a hundred hours or so to finish off then I put it on my back up account instead. A recent case in point would be Red Faction - I loved the single player but the online achievements were long winded and numerous and I really couldn't see myself going back to it.

Before anyone accuses me of cherry picking to improve my completion %, this theory only applies to review games that I might not otherwise have picked up. I'm happy to put games like GOW 2 on my tag, even knowing that I'll never complete them, as it is a game I want to play. Likewise there have been certain review games, like HAWX and Virtua Tennis, that I enjoyed enough to put on my tag with the knowledge that I MIGHT one day get the full 1k.

Once I know which tag I'm playing on I will dive right in. I'll usually pick the easiest difficulty if the option presents itself as that way I can play through the whole game in a shorter space of time and experience everything it has to offer. This is even true if I want to 1k the game - as it is more important for me to get a good and thorough review than the pick up maximum points (it hurts me just to say that, ha ha). As I play the game I will usually make a mental note of any issues that arise in terms of graphics or glitches (I do have a good memory so tend not to write anything down at this point) I'll also keep an eye out for any innovative features, or just things that stand out in general. I like to play games having seen as little other information as possible, as Webb will tell you, I don't play demos beforehand or read other reviews/previews. I like the game itself to impress me rather than its PR campaign.

Depending on the title I will always try to play the game to completion or, if it's a sports game, try and get through at least one season or similar. Once I've finished with the single player I then move onto multiplayer. I try and play every available game type, possibly a few times each to get a feel for it. The only issue here can be a pretty dead online community at launch, as I struggled to get a game going on HAWX and Stormrise for example - so had to actually seek out someone to play with via the forums. HAWX has picked up considerably since then, but it was a real pain to find a match a few days before it was officially released.

Once I'm happy that I have sampled everything a game has to offer then I will sit down and start my review. The usual boundaries are as follows: 1200-1500 words, three/four images with captions, coding for paragraphs/images/final score boxes. The content boils down to the following (though not necessarily in this order):

Intro
Story
Gameplay
Graphics/sound
Multiplayer
Achievements
Summary

I may well add in some comments about previous titles (if it is a series), talk about the developer or publisher, plus any other unique issues that may be worth a mention. I try and stay clear of controls as such, unless it is something innovative like the whip system in Stormrise or the timed shot release in Top Spin 3, as anyone can read a manual.

When I first started out I would write a review from beginning to end in a very specific order, but now I like to mix things up and chop and change paragraphs to get the best flow. I usually start reviews now by completing the final score boxes, so I'll give my individual marks for the various sections as well as an overall mark for the game. In this sense I can get my final opinion down as soon as I've finished with the game, so it is fresh in my mind. Then I can flesh out the review from the bare bones of this section.

When it comes down to the main body of the review I usually do the achievements section first as this can be pretty much done and dusted by looking through the list. I pay attention to any fun or unique achievements and any glitchy tasks or non-stackable difficulty achievements mean a bad score. I'm pretty much set against dragged out multiplayer points too - so any game that requires a million kills or whatever is not one that I really want to praise too highly. I think developers really need to focus on making their lists more unique and interesting, regardless of whether they are easy or not. As it is there are far too many titles that reward you for in game progression and then throw a ton of kill X number of enemies with X number of weapons achievements. It's just lazy.

Then I'll move back to the start and introduce a game. Regardless of the game I approach each of them with an open mind. I might be looking at a potential game of the year or something designed just for kids, but you have to give everything a fair chance. The intro is usually a bit of fun and I try to give my first impressions and delve in the background of the series or any other games teh developer may have been involved with.

Moving on, I then try to get a good flow to the review. If the game is heavy on story I'll usually start with that and how well (or not) it ties into the game as a whole. Some games don't need an amazing story to still be a lot of fun to play, but by the same token a bad story can really undermine the experience as a whole. It's a fine line and one that really depends on the game in question.

The key aspect of any review is always going to be the game-play, especially in sports titles, and what I look for here is a game that does something new and interesting. If a game is sticking to tried and tested techniques then it HAS to be as polished as possible. Obviously there is only so much you can do with a footbal game, so you have to make sure it does everything AMAZINGLY in order to succeed. What annoys me is sequels that are pretty much the same as they ever were with no sense of progression, as if you are making a sequel I really think you need to have a reason - a unique selling point that shows you have updated the game for a real reason.

The graphics and sound are fairly straightforward. Either a game looks good or it doesn't, likewise the soundtrack should be impressive when it needs to be and subtle at other times so you aren't overwhelmed. If you are going to have voice acting then it should be of a good quality too, rather than grabbing a few bored actors and providing some dodgy lip synching. Overall though I don't think a game can be defined by graphics, so this section would never impact on the final score too highly. If a game looks bad but is still a lot of fun to play then that is more important. Though if the graphics start to impact on game-play it cna only be a bad thing - clipping, frame rate issues, pop up and lag can cripple an otherwise decnt title.

The multiplayer only has to cover a few key areas: is the game fun to play with friends? does it lag? and is there an online community? Most online games have the same generic options (deathmatch, capture the flag etc) but I wouldn't mark them down for a lack of innovation. The key is how much enjoyment you can have online and just how easy it is to get a match going. If a game lags and is cluttered with numerous exploiable glitches then it is obviously not ideal. If you are struggling to get a game going on launch day then you are probably not looking at a game that will give you much long term enjoyment either. A multiplayer game should by a fluid experience with plenty of regular players. That way you can guarantee a game that you'll be playing long after you've finished off the single player.

Some people like to discuss any cons in one paragraph near the end but I tend to talk about pros and cons as I go along. Then I can give my final verdict in the summary and just mention whether or not I feel the game has more positives or not. A good game should provide a reasonable length solo experience with the addition of a solid multiplayer being a major bonus. Multiplayer orientated games like Halo and Left 4 Dead are obviously a little different. The summary will basically give the story of the whole review in one paragraph, with my opinion on whether or not I think it is worth your cash at the end of the day.

Once I'm done with a review I will pick out some suitable screens for it and do captions for them. The draft is then posted up for the review team to edit/critique. If there are any rewrites needed then I'll go back and make changes. Otherwise it is over to Webb to get it posted up.

Job's a goodun.

It's a fairly lengthy process and, aside from playing the game, it can take me 4-5 hours to get a review done and dusted. Though the time can be less if I sit down with a very good idea of what to write.

It's good fun though and I thoroughly enjoy myself from beginning to end. Any questions then go ahead and ask, but I need to rest my fingers after typing this. Keep on keeping on.