Hun-Speak

Click here for other Hun-Speak columns.

January 5, 2000 -- Reviewing: a Lost Art?

As you may or may not have noticed, I don't post many links to reviews here on The Haus. That is by design. It's not that I feel I am the ultimate reviewer and everyone else must bow to my knowledge--far from it. It's just that few reviews provide honest, unbiased information on the item to be reviewed.

This has gotten to the point of stupidity now that Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament are out. Everyone and his dog (even I!) have reviews of one or both games. That's not the problem. The problem is that most of these reviews have very little objectivity. Most of the reviews I've read on these games can be summed up in one of two sentences:

1. Unreal Tournament is not Quake III Arena, therefore it sucks.
2. Quake III Arena is not Unreal Tournament, therefore it sucks.

(I suppose I could even add Quake III Arena is not Quake II, therefore it sucks--I've seen more than a few of those too.)

I understand that, by their very nature, reviews will be very subjective. After all, what's the point of reviewing something if you don't tell people what you personally think about it? But too many reviews simply compare the game (or whatever) to the reviewer's preconceived notions of what the game should be. It's as if they think that they are the ultimate arbiter of what is good and what sucks. Everyone else must acquiesce to their wisdom. That's not reviewing, that's preaching your opinions as gospel truth.

I don't mind it when someone trashes a game, even if it is a game I like. I can make my own judgments. I don't need someone to make up my mind for me. If someone has a logical, well-thought-out argument against it, I will say that's a good review, even if I don't agree with it. But it is never a good review if the author says, "it sucks," without saying why it sucks or what could have been done to keep it from sucking.

I don't claim to be the best reviewer in the world. If I were, I probably would make my living doing just that. All I ask is that reviewers step back a bit and try to view the game objectively. If you must give a bad review, be truthful and make your points clearly and logically. If you must give a great review, avoid gushing so much that people miss the point you are trying to make.

When reading reviews online, remember to take everyone else's opinions with a grain of salt. It has been somewhat crudely said that opinions are like ***holes; everyone's got one. If a fan site is doing a review of the game it endorses, that review will most likely have a positive slant (of course if it doesn't, you know the product sucks). If a fan site is doing a review of a competing product, it will most likely have a negative slant.

After reading a number of reviews on various sites you will soon find out that your opinions tend to mirror particular reviewers. Then you can generally trust that you will feel the same way the reviewer feels about any given product. In my case, I have found that I quite often have the same opinions on games as Thresh and Evil Avatar. I know that if they like a game I am interested in, then I will probably like it too. If they trash a game I am interested in, I probably won't like it either.

I view The Haus as a filter for gaming and computing sites. I will only post news or links to files that I think will be of genuine use and help to me and to the people who read this site. I'm not going to post every possible link under the sun about Unreal Tournament or Quake III Arena (or anything else for that matter) just because it mentions one of those products. If you see it from me on The Haus, you know that I like it and found it helpful--even if I may disagree with the author.

I plan to practice what I'm preaching here too. In my reviews I will try to become more and more objective. I will still tell you what I think, but I will also tell you why I think that way. You may not always agree with me. I don't expect you to. But I do hope you will go away a smarter, more informed person.