Man, I'm just making this up as I type, but here's what I might look at when I plan on reviewing a game someday.Packaging:
"WTF?" you say? "Packaging? Don't judge a book by it's cover--" Yada yada yada. This is no ordinary game review site, so some things are gonna be unorthdox or silly, but it's my personal gaming blog, so I can do whatever I want.
Anyway, usually when you go out and buy a game, the first thing you notice is the box art (unless the store is Hastings and you're trying to look at DS/GBA games, but they have them all turned so that you can only see the spine, and you can't turn them over to look at the box art OR the price of the damn game). Me being that amateur graphic artis that I am, I shall critique the box art on whether it's pretty or not. Whether it fits the game, and stuff like that.
Of course, the box art won't have an affect on the end score of the game (if I even plan on using a scoring system involving numerical values). You can't judge a game by it's box art! I mean, look at the Resident Evil Remake's box art. Looks dumb as hell, but the game is pretty neat. And We Love Katamari? Holy crap, the US box art looks like TOTAL ****! But the game rawks.
Graphics:
OMG! Teh gr4ph1x! I'm not graphic whore, but we all acknowledge the eye candy makes things easier on the...err...eyes! There have been very few games with great graphics, yet shallow gameplay (Doom 3 wasn't THAT bad, and Killer7 was still fun).
Also, under graphics falls stuff like the quality of texures, graphical glitches, and animation. I'm no technical expert, though, so if you wanna hear about bump-mapping or normal-mapping or specular lighting, then you best go somewhere else. If you wanna honest opinion from the average gamer on the visual qualities of a game, well, go somewhere else 'til I get some reviews up. :D
Another thing: since I'm currently unemployed and make no money off of this blog or anything else, if I decide to review a new PC game, I probably won't be able to run everything on Ultra High settings. Wow, this blog sounds like a terribly unreliable source for reviews, but, think about it... I'm the average gamer with limited funds, so your experience will likely be similar to mine! ...well, actually, most PC gamers can afford to have high-end gaming systems, so maybe I'm not the average PC gamer. Whatever. I'm doing this 'cause I want to have something to do. Like I said, I'm not getting paid for this.
The same goes for high-definition games. I don't have an HDTV. In fact, a SDTV (standard-definition television) with S-Video input, and a display that crops the image. But, hey, as long as you can see what's going on, it's okay, right? Yeah, if I had an Xbox 360 and were reviewing Dead Rising, I'd give it low marks in graphics 'cause of that stupid problem.
I guess I'll post screenshots and stuff, too. But on console games, that's gonna be kinda hard 'cause I don't have a video capture card or anything like that. Maybe I'll steal screenshots from other websites, like lots of other people do. Who knows! Find out when I actually write a review. >=[
Sound:
Ugh, here we go again. This is another element that one would require technical knowledge to do a thorough and comprehensive review. One would also need lots of money to buy those super duper cool home theater sound systems. I don't have a surround sound system. It took me forever to get a TV that supported stereo sound! But, hey, again, the average gamer will probably be in the same situation, so that justifies my crappy gaming setup, right?
But anyway, under Sound, I'll discuss crap like ...sound(are the guns now loud enough? [Doom 3], do the gunshots just sound stupid and annoying [San Andreas], does the voice acting sound as bad as humanly possible? [House of the Dead]). Also, since I love video game music, I'll comment on the game's soundtrack.
Gameplay:
I guess I'll summarize and describe gameplay here. Whatever. Who plays games for the gameplay?
Fun Factor:
You'd think this would go under gameplay, wouldn't you? No way. I think how fun a game is can be separate from how the game is played. Does that make any sense? Well, there'll be complex games, like those Civilization games. It'd take a whole large section to describe how the game plays. Then you gotta read another section to find out if it's fun or not. Meh, whatever. I just like this being a separate section. Obviously, this'll all be of my opinion. Maybe you find bass fishing simulators fun, but I probably won't.
I also might include special sections in here, like "Difficulty", when games are sometimes so hard that they become work and not fun (Devil May Cry 3, Jumper :P).
Summary:
I guess I'll put a short summary of the review for lazy (all) gamers that just wanna know the bottom line. In fact, maybe I'll just call this section "The Bottom Line", 'cause "Summary" sounds pretty damn boring.
I'll write something short like:
"The fish look amazingly realistic, and are beautifully animated, but the shiny fish are not enough to make me orgasm over the shallow and tedious fishing mechanics. But the boss fight at the end with the giant robot snake with toaster oven fingers was pretty awesome."
You know, the usual.
Final Score:
I guess in the end, I'll rate the game with numbers, but numbers really don't mean anything. "Summary" or "The Bottom Line" would probably be the better section to determine a purchase or a rental or a "not play the game 'cause it sucks." Yeah, that's not a noun, but whatever.
Unless the game is PERFECT, then it gets the coveted "Snakes on a Plane/10" rating.
I guess if I'll probably end up rating a game based on this rubric. It'd be like:
Packaging: 10/10
Graphics: 10/10
Sound: 10/10
Fun Factor: 10/10
Overall (not an average): Snakes on a Plane/10
'course, maybe I'll just ignore this and just type crap up. Whatever.
