First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #3459?
dr glaze et al: Do you prefer rviews adn ratings from hghly opinionated reviewers (like Chris Farrell)? Or do you prefer reviewers who tend to like everything they play (like Tom Vasel)? Why? Does slamming bad games do a disservice to gaming? Or does it help guide people to better games?

ocdspectrum: I like knowing the flaws of a game. They all them and there is too much hype and paid hype around reviews.
Woelf: I prefer reviews from people who write them out instead of making videos.
Josh2918: Tom Vasel's my favorite. I don't have to agree with his opinion (though I often do) as long as the review is thorough.
calandale: I want honesty
senorcoo: Speak not ill of Tom Vasel or face wrath unimagineable.
Blott: I think this question is outdated and invalid. I think the myth that Tom Vasel likes everything he plays has been debunked.
Spirit of 70: I prefer to look at the material of both, to get a balance of opinions.
Randy Cox: I prefer reviews that have the rules included and tells me about the game so I can make up my mind. Opinions are good.
MisterCranky: Slamming bad GeekQuestions doesn't help guide anybody to good ones, otherwise I'd never have been subjected to this typo-filled garbage! Grrr!
MsbS: I prefer negative reviews (not mindless bashing though). The praises are often caused by first impression.
cgund: not a vasel fan. and i like reasonably short reviews that don't contain typos or spelling errors. yes, i see i didn't use capital letters.
arkibet: I like those that can describe the game well with or without biased. I have enough ability to decide for myself.
familywontplay: Obviously a game that gets published had people who liked it. They put their money where their mouth was. Why would I listen to someone who slammed a game? What did it cost them? If a game gets published I like to give it a chance. I don't like to read slammers or raves. If a gamer likes/dislikes a game, I like to hear an intelligent, neutral basis for their resulting opinions. I appreciate reviews such as Boardgames With Scott--He presents the game pieces, mechanics, play, etc. and I am forming my opinion as he shows the game. By the time he finishes I have a pretty fair idea of whether I might be interested. Then he very briefly gives his opinion. I really appreciate his format the most.
ZiggyZambo: both are fine, just know the reviewer's outlook.
wifwendell: Critical reviews can be helpful. I don't mind "opinionated" if it points out what the reviewer sees as good and bad. But a reviewer who knows s/he hates certain types of games should perhaps leave those reviews to others.
Ebon Wendigo: "Bad game" is a relative term. Tom Vasel does not like everything he plays. Just look at the games he rates with ones and twos. All reviews are opinions so to me the most important factor in a review is for it to be detailed. Don't tell me this is a "bad game" tell me why you think it's a bad game and that will better enable me to judge for myself.
spamwise: I would prefer passion in a review.
DHEK: I don't read enough of their reviews to say, but I'd prefer a fair, more moderate-type of reviewer rather than an outright biased or too opinionated one. No, slamming games that rightly deserve it doesn't do gaming a disservice. Rather, I'd say it does gaming more good. And it does help guide people to better games. I know I base some of my purchases on what people say.
aleo09: ahh
Chris Page: Opinionated reviewers, because they're more entertaining to read.
POvidiusNaso: I like reviews that state clearly what the mechanics are, how long the game takes, and what they liked and disliked. Whether they liked it or not is immaterial.
yoacusna: The former. I love to read reviews of games the reviewer really didn't like, assuming they're good writers.
hadz: I like to read both types and split the difference
CthulhuSpitt: Reviews should be objective. Reviewers should give Pros and Cons about every game.
suncrush: I like English....
KentuckyKid: I prefer reviewers who like a broad range, but will clearly explain positives and negatives of each game.
Sigisgrim: A strong opinion is good, provided one can understand the reasoning behind it. Just slamming bad things is no use to man nor beast the reviewer needs to explain why it is being slammed.
greglios: I prefer to take a wide selection of opinions rather than just from one person (or one type of person). Slamming a game you consider to be bad isn't a disservice to gaming it just says that you didn't like that game in your opinion. People can make of it what they will.
vampywife: i prefer reviews that have thoughtful opinions added in, either good or bad, but i don't care for the ones that don't suggest why it's a favorite game or least favorite game.
SisyphusX: A) No - judgmentalism invades good judgment. B) No - over-open-mindedness results in mediocrity. C) Bad games should be slammed. D) Good games should be heralded.
Dorque: Bad reviews are important. If everything is positive, then none of it means anything.
manowarplayer: Both. All opinions matter. Yes. That too.
stayman: I like reviews that present the positives and the negatives. Reviews are largely written by early adopting people who tend to like the game they are reviewing. That is why Chris' reviews are so important. That said I know Chris has a hang up about play time which I don't share so I take that into account when reading a Farrel review. Chris also tends to enjoy lighter games then I do, so once again when I read one of his reviews I take that into consideration. In all I think I prefer Chris' style of review better.
jasta6: Hay I know Chris… Yes I like "opinionated" reviews better. Loving every game out there does the disservice to a review. Isn't that the reason for a review to get a critical opinion on the game and not just “every game is beautiful” type reviewer?
Stigh: Reviews are always subjective, I just like to see as many as possible. I don't mind reading how bad a game is, as long as the arguments are good.
Cavedog_pdx: Honestly I tend not to read reviews - 99% of them bore me. I prefer the quick and dirty of ratings comments and more in-depth discussion of strategy which helps me to get a feel for the actual play of the game. I'm also very visually oriented so if a theme and a picture appeal to me that'll put a game on my radar. Good games deserve to be praised, great games deserve to be bought, and poor games deserve to be cast aside. Tom and Chris' contributions have certainly been worthwhile but I do rely on Chris' ratings and comments more. Then again, there's some games Chris has played but hasn't rated that kinda annoy me - Ingenious, Age of Steam, and others. Tom's love of games and of writing about them definitely do us a good service. But I have to wonder who he means when he says the "BGG elite". Love you guys! Keep up the good work!
bigbadsteve: I prefer honest reviews...opinions(good or bad) vary.
Mark.Watson: I'd much rather read a critical review than buy a poor game. Why should game review be any different than any other type of criticism? Not all games were created equal and, worse yet, many aren't much good. As Mr. Rushdie says, "If there was one truly great book written every year, it would be cause for celebration." Why would games be so different that a fancy new "10" seems appears every month? I'm not sure, but hype and fanboyism are definately a problem, as are the giant cabal of those, when met with criticism, say "it's only a game."
Yollege: Yes
xlorp: I like considered, articulate and proof-read reviews that give me a real sense of the game itself without unrelated distraction.
javelin98: I prefer a balanced review, with both pros and cons.
scriptorum: I prefer a variety of reviewers/ratings because it helps me form a picture of the game in my head. Slamming bad games doesn't hurt, they're bad games.
beakermyers: I prefer good spelling, typing, and grammar in the questions I'm asked!
motoyugota: I think that both can provide value
Jpwoo: Slamming a game while providing background on what and why you didn't like it is helpful. Both good and bad reviews benefit most from being well reasoned.
Gecko23: I usually read the reviews for descriptions of the game play/components/mechanics/etc, and users' rating comments for opinions. But if the review hates a game, no reason for them not to say so.
Cerebus: I actually prefer proper spelling.
Belash: I prefer decent spelling in questions asked. I prefer to read reviews that are articulated well. If that means critical or not, it simply does not matter. Every bit of information helps
skrutsch: I like both types. The first lets you know what's bad about a game, the second gives you what's positive. You may have different tastes than the reviewer, so this is helpful, of course. I don't think slamming bad games that are truly bad does a disservice to gaming. I think it helps to see be a bit of a Pollyanna, though.
SabreRedleg: A. I don't have the time or money to play everything; I'd rather focus on the games I'm going to really enjoy.
Ludocrazy: I prefer Tom. Chris (no offence, Chris) seems to hate everything.
snoozefest: prefer reviews from people with my own tastes, with some discrimination; more useful that way; no, need reviews both good and bad
CharlieWonka: Everyone likes different things - each to their own - a review is good to outline what the game does but a different player may have a different play experience of the same game. Play it yourself for the best review. A review should not slam a game though it should give an opinion based on the play experience had.
Shade_Jon: I prefer review from people who have covered mulitple games that I know in a clear manner. That way, whether they like it or not, I will be able to tell if I will like it.
rdmasters: To be fair, I tend to review games that I like. So Tom may have a similar outlook - why waste time reviewing a game that does not 'do it' for you? OTOH, I will review a game that is so awful that it makes my hair stand on end. Slamming genuinely bad games, provided it is done for the right reasons (ie if a game has bad play, but excellent art, do not slam the art) can help matters.
djlg: The former. His tastes are more aligned to mine. No. Yes.
skelebone: I don't like any particular reviewing style.
2amp: i want to hear if someone slams a game. i want to hear if they like it. as long as they answer 'why'
ssmooth: I like both ends of the spectrum. If somebody dislikes a game, I don't mind them saying so. Of course it's classy if the reviewer can keep from oozing malicious glee while offering his opinion.
Spielfreak: Have you been burnt by following someone's review and buying a game?
jttm: I prefer reviewers who match my taste.
heli: I prefer to just play first and review it myself.
chaddyboy_2000: Farrell.
CDRodeffer: I prefer honest reviews either way. And unfavorable reviews are just as valuable as favorable ones, and far more valuable than shill reviews.
puffinge: I've read no reviews by either of the gentlemen you mention, but I prefer a reviewer who likes some games and dislikes others. I don't think slamming is necessary, but a courteous mention of a game's shortcomings is valuable.
CortexBomb: I strongly prefer opinionated reviews. I think there are room for both types, but the always cheery review is of zero use to me as a picky game player. I like people who have nasty ratings schemes and who have strong opinions on what constitutes a good game as I have a small collection and only want to bother with the very best games in each genre if I can help it. I think slamming bad games is an actual service to the community, because it encourages people to stay away from rehashed or shoddy designs. If those sell poorly, then companies will be more careful about what they publish, and the overall quality level should go up.
Lord_Prussian: I read them all and take into account their perspectives.