What a review is for
A game review is one person’s or one outlet’s informed opinion about a game, written to help readers decide whether it suits them. It is not a measurement. A review describes what the game is, how it plays, what the reviewer found good or weak, and who might enjoy it. The score, where there is one, is a summary of that opinion in a single mark.
Keeping that in mind explains most of what confuses people about reviews, including why a game you love can score modestly and a game you dislike can score highly.
How a critic usually works
Practices differ between outlets, but a typical process looks like this:
- Access. The reviewer gets the game, often before release, either as a copy supplied by the publisher or by buying it. Early access to a game can mean review code that differs from the final version.
- Playing. The reviewer plays enough of the game to form a view. Length matters: a short game can be finished, while a very long one may be sampled in depth but not fully completed. Good reviews typically say how much was played.
- Notes. While playing, critics keep track of what works, what frustrates, and how the game compares with others of its kind.
- Writing. The review is shaped around the critic’s main conclusions, supported by examples.
- Scoring. If the outlet uses scores, the critic chooses one, often guided by the outlet’s house scale.
- Editing. An editor may check facts, tone and consistency.
Some outlets have more than one person weigh in, and some update reviews after major patches, particularly for games that change significantly after launch. This is common for online games, where the game on day one may differ from the game months later.
What critics look at
Reviewers weigh many aspects, and their emphasis varies:
- Core play. Does the central activity feel good to do again and again? This links to how the game’s systems fit together and how its progression systems keep the player going.
- Design and pacing. Whether levels, challenges and story beats are well paced. The difficulty is part of this, and opinions on game difficulty vary widely.
- Presentation. Visuals, interface, sound design and music.
- Story and writing, where the game has any. Game storytelling is judged differently from film or books because the player takes part.
- Technical state. Bugs, crashes, and performance such as an unstable frame rate.
- Value and content. How much there is to do and how it compares with the price. Monetization, such as optional purchases, may also be discussed.
- Accessibility. Whether options such as game subtitles or colorblind modes are available is increasingly noted.
No critic weighs every item equally, and a game can be technically rough yet inventive, or polished but unremarkable.
Why scores are only one view
Scores compress a lot of information, and they bring problems:
- Scales differ. One outlet may treat the middle of its scale as average, while another rarely uses the lower half. A given number does not mean the same thing everywhere.
- Scores flatten differences. Two games with the same score may please very different people.
- Taste varies. A reviewer who enjoys a genre judges it differently from one who does not. A critic unfamiliar with a game style may miss what fans value, and a devoted fan may overlook flaws that newcomers feel.
- Context matters. Reviewers consider the game against what they expect from its price, scale and genre, and those expectations differ.
- Timing matters. Early reviews may be written under deadline, before the full game or its online features can be tested.
For these reasons, reading the text of a review often tells you more than the number does.
Aggregates and player reviews
Some websites collect many reviews and display a combined figure. These can show the general mood of critics, but they inherit the weaknesses above, and averaging scores from different scales hides differences further. A combined figure may also be influenced by how many reviews it includes and when they were published.
Player reviews are a different kind of evidence. They come from people who bought the game, which can be useful for hearing about long-term problems and performance on different hardware. They can also be affected by organised campaigns, strong reactions to a single issue unrelated to the game’s quality, or a small number of very vocal people. Treat them as another view with its own biases, not as a more or less honest alternative to critics.
Disclosure and trust
Reviewers often receive free copies, and outlets may earn money through advertising or links. Respectable outlets tell readers about this and aim to keep editorial decisions separate. As a reader, it helps to look for an outlet that states how it handles review copies and how much it played. It is reasonable to follow a few critics over time and learn how their tastes compare with yours. A critic whose past opinions have matched your own is a better guide than any average.
Reviews beyond text
Reviews also appear as videos and streams. A video critic shows the game, which can help you judge whether the look and feel suit you, and many streamers play games live without writing a verdict. The opinions that come out of these formats are shaped by the same factors, plus the entertainment demands of the medium. Playing a game with commentary for an audience is a different activity from reviewing it, a distinction explored in the history of lets play videos.
Using reviews well
- Read the reasoning, not just the score.
- Check what kind of player the reviewer says the game is for.
- Compare more than one source.
- Look for details about the parts you care about, such as performance on your hardware or controls you find comfortable.
- Remember that your own enjoyment cannot be predicted exactly. Reviews raise or lower the odds that you will like a game, nothing more.