Do you prefer reviews that focus on gameplay or themes?

[StaceyPowers]

Continuing off of the discussion here, a review cannot possibly cover everything, at least not in-depth. So do you usually prefer:

1. A review which tries to cover everything, but can only do so with a small amount of detail.

2. A review which is focused primarily on elements like gameplay, graphic quality, mechanics, etc.

3. A review which is focused primarily on elements involving story, characters, and themes.

Or, does it depend on the type of game you are playing?

In my case, I think it depends on what type of game it is and what makes me interested in it. If a game interests me because of its gameplay mechanics, that’s probably what I want to read about. But if it is a game’s story that sounds interesting, then I am more interested in hearing about its themes and writing quality. In both cases, I prefer in-depth reviews that focus on just a few things.

@Alyxx @The Blackangel @kingpotato @killamch89 @DylanC @skyfire

[Alyxx]

For me it depends on the game. If the game is very light on story and themes, like my recently covered Ion Fury and Amid Evil, I tend to review the gameplay elements in more depth. If it's an adventure game or more story-driven game then I tend to focus more on that.

[The Blackangel]

I would have to go with a review that focuses on story, characters, and themes. If I see a review like that it will tell me quickly if it's a game that I could possibly like. I can figure out everything later like gameplay and mechanics. As for graphics I don't give the slightest bit of a shit how good or bad they are. Some of my absolute favorite games are on the Atari 2600 and the NES. So, considering the graphical era that we're currently in, that should tell you automatically that graphics mean absolutely nothing to me. I want to know, "Am I playing Zelda or Doom?". If I don't know whether pressing "B" is going to draw a sword or fire a plasma rifle, then a review of only the mechanics and technical side of a game has about as much value as a rat turd in a corn field.

Edited October 3, 2019 by The Blackangel

[skyfire]

I think the review should focus on all the possible elements. We just don't want people to mention the bugs and the graphics issues. We need people to reference the graphics to something in past and also reference story to something they know etc. Lot of such things can go in reviews but often reviewers don't go that much deep. 

[kingpotato]

It will depend on the game but if I had to choose an option it will be number 2, I prefer a review that goes straight to the point focusing on the important aspects of the game, such as gameplay, graphics and mechanics.

[killamch89]

Themes are nice and all but I'd rather a review that focuses on the gameplay because that is the main reason for playing a game in the first place.

[Alyxx]

19 hours ago, The Blackangel said:

I would have to go with a review that focuses on story, characters, and themes. If I see a review like that it will tell me quickly if it's a game that I could possibly like. I can figure out everything later like gameplay and mechanics. As for graphics I don't give the slightest bit of a shit how good or bad they are. Some of my absolute favorite games are on the Atari 2600 and the NES. So, considering the graphical era that we're currently in, that should tell you automatically that graphics mean absolutely nothing to me. I want to know, "Am I playing Zelda or Doom?". If I don't know whether pressing "B" is going to draw a sword or fire a plasma rifle, then a review of only the mechanics and technical side of a game has about as much value as a rat turd in a corn field.

I agree. Good graphics mean nothing if they don't aid the game. I usually value style over realism as well.

[skyfire]

These days a lot of paid reviews are wandering on the market. I think that's one reason we have to check out the gameplay.