Who likes reading reviews...

[Father Ted]

Before reading this thread I actually read the offending article from start to finish and found it both mildly entertaining and genuinely informative.  Stylistically and in the use of pop-culture references I suppose it was a bit cute (maybe = "British"?), but, as someone who was curious about the "first truly modern WW2 FPS", I found that the review told me what I needed to know - ie don't buy it.

To my mind the job of the reviewer is to present the game as it plays, highlighting any glaring technical issues and so on.  This description should allow the reader to decide whether he or she would like to play the game, not necessarily whether it is "good" or not.

In the end, though, it's a matter of personal taste.  I was able to pick through the humour  to find nuggets of useful info about the game and was amused as I did so.  If, however, the humor irritated, then I can see that anything else the article offered would be discounted.

I'm not looking for a row here - I really had that opinion of the review and was interested to see the responses to it recorded in this thread

[Rayfer]

Father Ted....Your comment, 'pick through the humor to find nuggets of useful info', pretty much sums up my love/hate feelings for the reviews on this site. Unfortunately, the 'humor' (most of which for me isn't really funny at all) is the majority of the review and the nuggets are few and far between. Again, to me, the humor is often obscure and written in meaningless gibberish. But yes, there are nuggets in there that can help make an informed purchasing decision.

[Huw the Poo]

Jarhead, you already hit the nail on the head in your first post.  It's because you're American; American and British humour differs markedly.  I guess it's why websites like RPS and Eurogamer even exist.

The way you feel when reading that article is precisely how I feel when I'm reading certain things on websites like Giant Bomb or Destructoid or whatever (or almost all of Reddit...).  It's a culture clash, nothing more.

It doesn't help that they also consistently pan any AAA title that the other media outlets give high reviews (while gushing about often obscure and esoteric indie art games).

You'd have a point if they actually did this consistently, but they don't.  They've championed AAA games that they feel are worth it, and they've rubbished them too.  Exactly what videogame journalists should be doing.

[Jarhead0331]

Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment. I don't like wasting time when I'm just trying to get an opinion on whether a game is worth buying. I rather spend more time actually playing the game if I get it, than trying to figure out whether a reviewer thinks its worth getting in the first place.

Sometimes the humor and format of the "Wot I Think" reviews just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I came on too strong with the initial post, but I still don't think I said anything that warranted me being called a "bitch" and a "complete piece of shit."  I think I've been a part of this community for long enough to have risen beyond that kind of animosity. 

[Jarhead0331]

Jarhead, you already hit the nail on the head in your first post.  It's because you're American; American and British humour differs markedly.  I guess it's why websites like RPS and Eurogamer even exist.

The way you feel when reading that article is precisely how I feel when I'm reading certain things on websites like Giant Bomb or Destructoid or whatever (or almost all of Reddit...).  It's a culture clash, nothing more.

It doesn't help that they also consistently pan any AAA title that the other media outlets give high reviews (while gushing about often obscure and esoteric indie art games).

You'd have a point if they actually did this consistently, but they don't.  They've championed AAA games that they feel are worth it, and they've rubbished them too.  Exactly what videogame journalists should be doing.

I strongly suspected this. However, I do like Monty Python. I do like Benny Hill. I do like Little Britain, etc. So its not like all British humor is lost on me entirely...

[bayonetbrant]

I've gone back and re-read the Wot I Think post, and if I eliminate the idea that it's a "review" and instead treat it as "first impressions" or "stream of consciousness" then I enjoy it a bit more, as it's kind of a text equivalent of the stupid Minecraft videos my son watches on YouTube.  At that point, I'm not looking for information on which to make a decision.

[Jarhead0331]

I've gone back and re-read the Wot I Think post, and if I eliminate the idea that it's a "review" and instead treat it as "first impressions" or "stream of consciousness" then I enjoy it a bit more, as it's kind of a text equivalent of the stupid Minecraft videos my son watches on YouTube.  At that point, I'm not looking for information on which to make a decision.

Well, that is sort of the point UCG was trying to make, and its a reasonable one.  However, if you look at their main front page, every time a new "WIT" article goes live, they put it up there in the news box with the caption "Judged." So to me, this means they intend WIT articles to serve as reviews.

[bayonetbrant]

I've gone back and re-read the Wot I Think post, and if I eliminate the idea that it's a "review" and instead treat it as "first impressions" or "stream of consciousness" then I enjoy it a bit more, as it's kind of a text equivalent of the stupid Minecraft videos my son watches on YouTube.  At that point, I'm not looking for information on which to make a decision.

Well, that is sort of the point UCG was trying to make, and its a reasonable one.  However, if you look at their main front page, every time a new "WIT" article goes live, they put it up there in the news box with the caption "Judged." So to me, this means they intend WIT articles to serve as reviews.

I hadn't noticed that on the front page (I'm an infrequent visitor), but I would agree that labeling it as such would lead me to believe there's review-worthy info in there and I don't see enough of it to help me make a decision.

[mirth]

Regardless of what one thinks of the content, the Wot I Think entries are all in the Reviews section of the site. Whatever the intent may be, the entries are being presented by the site as reviews.

[undercovergeek]

Jarhead, you already hit the nail on the head in your first post.  It's because you're American; American and British humour differs markedly.  I guess it's why websites like RPS and Eurogamer even exist.

The way you feel when reading that article is precisely how I feel when I'm reading certain things on websites like Giant Bomb or Destructoid or whatever (or almost all of Reddit...).  It's a culture clash, nothing more.

It doesn't help that they also consistently pan any AAA title that the other media outlets give high reviews (while gushing about often obscure and esoteric indie art games).

You'd have a point if they actually did this consistently, but they don't.  They've championed AAA games that they feel are worth it, and they've rubbished them too.  Exactly what videogame journalists should be doing.

I strongly suspected this. However, I do like Monty Python. I do like Benny Hill. I do like Little Britain, etc. So its not like all British humor is lost on me entirely...

If I could give you a big man hug..... no one likes Benny hill here, it's embarrassing

[bbmike]

If I could give you a big man hug..... no one likes Benny hill here, it's embarrassing

[son_of_montfort]

I think their use of vulgarity ... mixed with what seem to be oblique insider references makes their writing highly unprofessional.

Personally, I agree, but I think you just defined "cutting edge."

I prefer traditional dignified refinement.  8)

Brant has it right, if you go back and read them like some sort of social commentary, humor-laden, art critique, then they serve their purpose. I often scroll to the very bottom just to see if they "liked" a game or not. More often than not, I still can't tell after I have read their conclusion, since they are so negative and use far to many qualifiers ("it was great but..."). RPS is much stronger when giving development and preview news.

[undercovergeek]

Agreed - rps for news, here where I know who likes what for honest opinions

[endfire79]

At first glance, sounds like a blog humor post.  I did like WOT Enemy Front review comment #1145:

Apologies Herr Panzer, I've confused you. You were expecting me to obey the on-screen prompt and Panzerfaust you from afar, not gallop up to you exposing flaws in your rudimentary AI. I promise I'll keep my distance in future.

An AI PzIII shouldn't be trying to blast you point blank with a 3.7cm gun :)

Don't think I'll pick it up - too busy still playing Europa Universalis III when I can get some free time.

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment.

You realize you just described a not uncommon reaction to grogheads.com as well, yes?

Your mission statement reads:

At GrogHeads, we're going to try to help everybody in the gaming community understand why games are great, and if they aren't why they aren't. We're going to look deeper. Because we have games on the brain.

Anyone who reads that then comes onto the forum to see the usual cutesy user names, avatars that advertise for mental health care week donations, deep signature lines like ""If I'm having fun with my friend I don't care if we're rolling tanks across Gus's ass crack" and a mix of - 90% banter and 10% game discussion?

Not suggesting anything is wrong with the model (it's not like you're hurting for membership), but my point is that it does seem ironic for you to complain about that site, when you are an administrator of a site that does business in pretty much the same way.