Is this review too long?
That's the question initially asked asked by Curmudgeon Gamer and answered by the author, GameSpot Executive Editor Greg Kasavin, in a Kotaku post on the same subject.
I just got done reading the whole article and while I don't agree with CG's assertion that "DooM 3 would rate only a short review," I don't really agree with Kasavin's assertion that " I don’t think my Doom 3 review includes superfluous content."
In general, my thoughts on review length have changed much since I talked about it four months ago. Big-name games, like Doom 3, tend to get longer reviews because eager readers will devour anything and everything about these games. Shorter reviews would satsify many gamers who have followed every step of the preview process, long, repetitive reviews of big-name games are an easy way to get more eyeballs to read your publication longer. This isn't to say that advertising revenue has a concious impact on most game reviewers, but the I think hype and build-up before a games release tend to hint to the reviewer what length of a review the game deserves.
Yelling too much about this issue isn't very useful. It's a practical fact of the business that the big games are going to get the big space that attract the big readers. You want to change things? All you can really do is write shorter reviews and stop reading the longer ones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All you can really do is write shorter reviews and stop reading the longer ones.
ReplyDeleteDone. :^)
Seriously, ever since Ruffin's admonition to write shorter reviews, brevity has been one of my principles. Not that I'm always successful, but I certainly have that foremost in my mind.
jvm
i like detailed reviews, personally. a review doesn't have to be repetitive to be long, does it? and if i've missed the previews, i don't want to have to dig around for all that info (although online reviews can perhaps avoid that by simply linking to the previews...). i don't have that much money to spend on games, and if i can't find it at rental, i'd like to get to know as much about the game as possible before buying.
ReplyDeleteand i'd actually rather see longer reviews and shorter previews, since previews tend to be breathless hype, whereas in the review, everything can be seen in context of the finished game...
I'm curious if any of the people that say they like long reviews actually read the things, or if they just like the idea of long reviews.
ReplyDeleteThe funnier thing about that Gamespot review-and it's something you see in all of its reviews-is how often the game's name is repeated. In this case, "DOOM 3" is used 42 times in a 3400 word piece. That's probably about 35 times too many.
The opening paragraph makes some terrific points but it's way too wordy, and none of those extra words make it more interesting.
Here's a fairly quick edit that gets the point a whole lot faster, and pretty much says the exact same thing:
"Id Software’s DOOM 3 is an extremely impressive technical achievement, though it’s lacking as an actual game. That was true of the PC version, released last summer, and is still true of the Xbox version. It’s a conventional and derivative shooter, and its old-fashioned gameplay mechanics and level design are very much at odds with its cutting-edge, untrarealistic looks."
That's a third less text; I imagine you could go through the entire article and trim 3400 words into a better 1200 word review. (This is where print is sometimes better; it has actual word counts, making for more focused and, in theory, better writing.)
Most 3000+ word reviews are full of summary; you don't need to go into great detail about the 40 levels or 20 weapons; I want to know if they're good or bad, and more importantly, why. Most reviews leave out the latter.
Long review = more pages = more ad views.
ReplyDeleteBig name game = more interest = more readers.
More readers + more ad views = $$$
I've always been a proponent of sticking to the point for as long as I've been writing about games, so it's ironic to have become the target of an offensive about needlessly wordy reviewing. But the complaint is valid in this case. My own work needs to be edited carefully.
ReplyDeleteAnyway: Touché. I hope this is the worst transgression I'll ever be taken to task about.
I find it hard to justify any game deserving more than 1500 words in a review - even that is pushing it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that it is a major release should be immaterial. Spiderman 2 doesn't get more words than Sideways when a movie reviewer gets to work. And considering the amount of text devoted to a major release before and after the review comes out, I'm not sure that there is any real need for a superfluous thousand words.
But, if we as game journalists want game reviews to be more than just buyers' guides, then we will have to decide if we want more words to do that in or if we want to separate that sort of stuff from the reviewing side of things. Ideally, they would be integrated but this would mean more pages.
Avault used to be the worst violator here, with almost every game earning well over 1000 words. Gamespot isn't that bad (in fact, I don't think Kasavin's review is that bad.)
People just aren't inclined to read anymore. Think about it. The people who most-likely detest reading the most are those who play video games. And such people are going to be reading the reviews more than anyone else. There's so much bellyaching about game reviews anymore. Seriously, people, quit whining!
ReplyDeleteIf you want shorter reviews, become an editor and write them. >.>