16th May 2010, 4:24 AM
On the other hand, I think most of us lack a lot of that. I don't expect someone to review in that direction most of the time. It's perfectly acceptable for a review to be from the perspective of someone entirely new to a series. All I ask for are details.
It does help though when someone actually makes the claim to have been a long time fan of something for the review to actually reflect that, which often enough it doesn't. If someone says they have always "loved the Zelda series" and then states that "for the first time in the series Link is a kid" or "Ocarina of Time's music is great but where's the main Zelda theme?" (I should explain, as far as I'm concerned that "main theme" is present in the form of the overworld theme, though it's more like small snippets from that melody or a really heavy remix.) I also don't appreciate a review where they complain about problems that are ONLY problems if you need to get a review out on the day the game is released. If someone out and out complains that there are "too many side quests eating up too much of your time", or that a game is "too easy, though admittedly I only played on easy mode", they didn't do their job.
The big problem if they go too far into the history of every single little thing is you can miss the forest for the trees. If I read a review on food, I don't WANT to know about which part of the mediterranean it came from. I just want to know if it tastes good. What use is the history lesson in judging whether or not I should eat it? If I was studying how to write game music, detailed information on the method and research done by the composer would be useful to me. Otherwise, I just need a general synopsis like "the music is done in a simple but effective style". In the end, a review is basically a statement of whether or not the author liked something. It's not an in-depth analysis. That's a completely different thing for a different audience.
It does help though when someone actually makes the claim to have been a long time fan of something for the review to actually reflect that, which often enough it doesn't. If someone says they have always "loved the Zelda series" and then states that "for the first time in the series Link is a kid" or "Ocarina of Time's music is great but where's the main Zelda theme?" (I should explain, as far as I'm concerned that "main theme" is present in the form of the overworld theme, though it's more like small snippets from that melody or a really heavy remix.) I also don't appreciate a review where they complain about problems that are ONLY problems if you need to get a review out on the day the game is released. If someone out and out complains that there are "too many side quests eating up too much of your time", or that a game is "too easy, though admittedly I only played on easy mode", they didn't do their job.
The big problem if they go too far into the history of every single little thing is you can miss the forest for the trees. If I read a review on food, I don't WANT to know about which part of the mediterranean it came from. I just want to know if it tastes good. What use is the history lesson in judging whether or not I should eat it? If I was studying how to write game music, detailed information on the method and research done by the composer would be useful to me. Otherwise, I just need a general synopsis like "the music is done in a simple but effective style". In the end, a review is basically a statement of whether or not the author liked something. It's not an in-depth analysis. That's a completely different thing for a different audience.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)