Basically, I think Leigh is right. Ga...

 In order for me to write this blog I had to actually read a few video game reviews myself. Before this I have never seen a review of a videogame.  Anything I have ever read on a videogame is either here starting in this class, possibly in a magazine or seeing the commercial on the TV for the game. Which yes as more to be an advertisement I would consider that a review to an extent, because it is showing you pieces of the game and how the game is going to look and that is what a majority of the reviews are on, are they not?

 

In one of the articles, If critics did more championing and less obsessing over details, the writer states,"Basically, I think Leigh is right. Game critics (broadly speaking) do attribute too much to minor details, especially ones that are already present in games they love, and fail to give credit to bigger picture advances in storytelling and game play." Videogame Press. Now not knowing a whole lot and only having few examples to go by from what I have seen and read already I would say this is a very true statement! Most of the reviews have gone over well this screen shot sucked, and this camera angel doesn't work in this game. Or they continue on about the graphics, music, colors etc. I would say these are the BASIC and first things of a game that are reviewed. However, I have a feeling that true "hardcore" games who love one game to another want more. They want a new and improved story line. They would love to see better graphics and more achievements more levels and different characters on the levels. They don't want to feel that they are continually playing the same version of a game over and over when it is a sequel to the one before it! As stated in the article, If critics did more championing and less obsessing over details, "Of course there will always be those who just want a rundown of game play elements and analyses of how good they are compared to what's come before. But it's also wonderful to see critics with completely different orientations as to what matters and what doesn't when reviewing a game." The writer goes on to say that basically reviewers who get more into the story lines and see the bigger picture of the game that the more mature audiences of videogame players will want to go try different games they want to be challenged by the critics and want them to really think about what they are playing and give deeper insight about the videogame not making the review just like any other review. In the same article that is stated above, 'The videogame audience is maturing, and the result is that there are gamers who want to be challenged by critics to think about what they're playing, or should be playing, in a new way. The more critics who are championing what's new, challenging what we think is good, and engaging with each other and the audiences, the better off the art form of videogames will be."--

 

So from what I have read on videogame reviews I find an article like this extremely refreshing wanting reviewers to put out more engaged and thoughtful reviews. Ones that are not so monotonous and boring and continue on in the same format as the one before it and before that one and so on. Please give us something else to think about we get that graphics where all they could be! This isn't the Army we are talking about here!