Hi Everyone,
When everything in this world is being standardised why are PC Game Review's not standardised?.I mean why is there no set format for a review??Most of the generes that had to be found out and presented in PC game format have already been done.
Whenever I read bad reviews of my fav games I cant help wondering what was wrong with the guy who wrote the review.I do agree that different people have different choices.But that is exactly the point.Maybe that guy had a choice very different from mine.But then how am I to know about this?
What I think ,is that, before writing ANY review on any site the reviewer should be asked to write down the names of 3-5 of his personal fav games from all possible generes(that he plays).When the review goes on for around 20 lines 4-5 more lines should not be a big deal.ONLY after this should the review begin.
So instead of reading the entire review and then getting confused(because of conflicting reviews for the same game from different people) one could just glance thru the fav list of the reviewer and then decide if the choice of the person matches to his own.
Thus we could zero in on the review's writen by people who have more or less the same liking as ours.
This would ultimately not only help all those who buy games AFTER reading the reviews(rather than buy the game based on HYPE!!)but also the developers who glance thru the reviews(I hope so!!),so that they can make the necessary changes in say part 2 of a particular game.(I dont think that the developers can possibly go thru all the reviews.But a proper catloging would be a BIG help to them).
Granted that this may not be the best way to tackle this problem,but anyway this is my suggestion.Can any suggest any better?

P.S-->This point struck me when I read an extremly biting review of "No One Lives Forever".I dont remember the site nor the reviewer.
The same site also wrote that NOLF-2 is FAR better than the original NOLF!!!!GOD.Either I have a VERY BAD choice or there is something teribly wrong with the world.
(By the way I am the biggest living fan of NOLF(original) if u havnt guessed!!.And also think that NOLF-2 chopped off everything that was good about NOLF and is therefore the WORST sequel to one of the best PC games of all times.)

Usually you can get a feel for what the reviewer likes by reading other reviews done by him/her.
Look around the site/in the mag and read some more reviews from that person.

As for why not having a standard review, why should we have a standard review of anything? There isn't a standard video card review format, motherboard review format, etc.

The point is that we all have different tastes and opinions, so creating a format which would be suitable to most of us would be an incredible feat, or it'd be a review of such a magnitude that noone would bother to read it (much less write it).

So instead you look around, find magasines and sites which has reviewers who have some (if not all) of the same opinions that you have, and stay with those mags/sites.

I don't think that phenomenon is only present in the game industry.

Often for movie reviews you can have different opinions. If a movie is really bad to the point where you want a refund after watching it at your friend's house, you will always find some movie critique that will say it's "gold on film". It's a bit of the same phenomenon in games but you seem to take it more personally, that's all.

I always think for reviews in general, the author of the review should always insist that the article exposes his opinions & not an universal judgement on whatever is being reviewed. Phrases like "this game is bad" should be more like "I thought this game was bad", for example.

That always lets you understand that this person did not like the game but you might.

Reviews should just be as objective as possible. For the best time of review is the least biased review. The person should highlight the raw facts then perhaps enfisise on them, using constructive critisisms. Some reviews just use a page to slagg a game of. Or are so overjoyed with a game they forget to highlight the downfalls of it.

silly,silly reviewers.

Additionally - games are not like processors. You can Benchmark CPU's and run them head to head under the same exact demands and loads and circumstances. Games are subjective, and are written and designed in so many different ways there is no possible way to standardize them. One person's waste of money is another's treasure as far as games go. Finnd a few reviewers or group of reviewers (maybe who work the same mag or site) that you find share the same tastes as you, and use them as a starting point. But, at the end of the day - if you love a game, do you care what someone else's review says about it?

All that I am saying is that if the reviewers write down names of 3 to 5 of their fav games will it not simplify things for everyone of us?The rest of the review can follow the pattern that is being followed.No issues about that.

Ah, well that sounds like a good idea
Makes it easier to see if you agree with him/her or not.

Just got a bit hung up in the standard format, which I obviously misunderstood.

I think one thing that would simplify things a bit is if reviewers would only review games from the genres they actually enjoy. I have seen reviews in the past from people who seem to only play first person shooters. I came to this conclusion because every other genre game they reviewed got a bad or mediocre rating at best. While these people do a very good job of reviewing the games within genres they actually like, they don't know squat about games in the other genres and should not try to pretend they do.