Reveiws are for people that want another persons oppinion

for arguments sake i am going to stick to games reveiwers and not reveiwers in general. reveiwers are given a game to play and evaluate on "their" experiences with the game. weather it be graphics game play or over all feelings, it is a personal take on somthng someone else has created. maybe the game designer wants this overcite maybe he doesnt but to be honest putting reveiws that are obviously going to be read by the masses you have to stick to what i like to call...RESTRAINT!...people are going to take every little word you say and twist it to fit their own personal veiw on a game, almost like a war in which a reveiwer takes the first shot and an apposing or agreing person takes the next shot as the reveiwer cowers in wait.

novice reveiwers tend to take their personal veiws to a point - a little like i am doing now - in which onlookers can take advantage of. the second link hilights a less animalistic take on clashes between points of veiw but the theory is there. what if i were to say "i dont like project gothem 3 because its linear and i dislike racing games to an extent in wich i wish to vomit" the reveiwer will almost certainly take that as a personal attack and feel non the better for personalising his words for the masses. some things should be let go.

game journelists also face the scrutiny of the much larger percentage of the games world, the recreational players. people have an over veiw of journelists and reveiwers but hey, we all buy these reveiws and in turn, even if we disagree immensly, we pay their wages through sales and they benifit from us doing so. their point has been portrayed and many of them are strong willed enough to take everythng we say about them, with a pinch of salt.

Ranking a game in its most basic sence seems almost heart breaking as many games that are left on teh shelf because of a bad reveiw have deeper graces that need adressing, but reveiws tend to reer towards "i like the graphics but...!!THE FRAME RATE IS A BIT SLUGGISH!!" ranking a game on its graphics and/or game play alone seems almost meaningless, what does this game have? what can it show for future development? games can be considered milestones and are a learning process for games companies. To put it simply, if i wanted a game to be changed in a certain way such as farcrys low contrasting lush green fowliage, i'd make a comment expressing that, rather than giving the game an 8 because it had good game play but the graphics made my eyes ache. looking at a game and giving it a score is pointless. looking at a game and giving your oppinion on its failiures and successes gives the developers and readers somthing to work from. hten maybe sales would be increasingly more perposfull.

ngj..

What other forms of games writing can you find?

games writing can take the form of ratings reveiws and general discussions and can also be found in many formats such as blogging, devotedURLs and even discussions through other games or chat rooms. writings from sites such as http://uk.ign.com/ are a basis for delivering games writings inside the games world. people can express their oppinion through message boards. articles in newspapers depicting games sales or game trials are common place in todays technological age. many games have also been made into movies or vise-versa such as "Final Fantasy" or "Resident Evil". games writing doesnt just stop at somes score out of 10 its mass marketed and put out there in many forms for us to see on a daily basis.

Both subjectivity and objectivity have there status and are regarded to be a necesity in writing. i feel that both types of writing deliver a persons point of veiw weather bias and straightforward or broad and discussed. if a person must express an oppinion on wich he or she cannot be shyed away then so be it but if a writer can openly agree to critisism and discuss to means then that is a course best suited to its perpose