Question How does the review process at PCG work?

[Cryptdrifter]

How does the process for a review work at PCG?

I'm thinking of Cyberpunk 2077 of course and I have to imagine that most people in the office are very eager to play the game, but how is it determined who gets to review it? I imagine that reviewing any game comes with its own caveats: rather than taking it slow and enjoying the ride you're kind of forced to progress at all costs because of deadlines and the like.

Do you decide well in advance who was/is going to review a game? What does that process was like? Do you draw straws, coin flip, office battle royale, etc. Or is it as simple as the EIC delegates who gets what?

Going along with this, it might not be a bad idea to publish some kind of "how PCG reviews work" article to help stop some of trolling/bad faith arguments that happen in the comments of every review ever. I think there was an article like that at one point but I can't find it anymore.

For what it's worth, I like all the PCG reviewers and think they all do a really great job of critically analyzing both the content and form of a given title while still retaining their own authorial voices. It would be nice to see review scores go away altogether as they tend to inspire more fighting than its worth, to say nothing of the fact that the numbered score can often undermine the entirety of a well written article because all anyone wants to do is argue about whether a game is a 75 or 80.

 

[DXCHASE]

I was hoping PCG would do a XIII remake review because its just so atrocious but they skipped that game too, but reviewed games i never heard of lol. I guess its just a "there are hundreds of games released each month, we can only cover so many" kinda situation.

 

[Zloth]

I like review scores. If a game has a high score, read the review. If the game is in a genre I like a lot, read the review regardless of score. If the game has a descent score (60+) in a genre I kinda like, read the review. If the game has a particularly bad score (under 40'ish), read the review to find out what went so wrong. Anything else, skip it. (Except for the screenshots, of course - gotta look at those.)

That's all they are really good for, though. You've GOT to read a review to understand how much you might like a game. There's almost no chance your tastes will match up with the reviewer's so you've got to read the review, figure out what those differences are, and adjust accordingly.

 

[190pja]

Re review scores. I personally really like what eurogamer did, and would hope others would follow.
Once upon a time when something was either good, great, or proper mint*

You should of course read the review and make your own mind up whether something sounds your cup of tea. However if a game were 'good' that's a discussion I'd likely make. Where as, if it were 70%, id think. Hmmm probably not for me. Stupid way to view things mind




*,said I when I was 12yrs old

 

[SBan83]

Basically, I like some kind of a measurement standard I can check first and only then be arsed to read a full-blown review. Which is why PCGamer, IGN and Gamespot are the only places I check for reviews. The rest of them like Polygon, RPS, etc. who've done away with scores I ignore completely as far as reviews are concerned.

 

[PCG Jody]

Most publications have a reviews editor to decide who covers what, though writers are typically welcome to put their hands up if they're free and interested. Because we have a print magazine and website that means two editors make those decisions. Usually it happens well in advance, though sometimes a game might suddenly blow up out of nowhere or get missed and then a review is assigned at short notice.

Though it's true that reviewers can have hard deadlines, it's not as common as people think. I think readers have got hold of this as a convenient explanation for why they disagree with a reviewer ("They just didn't have time to understand it like I do"), when actually, rushing through a game for review happens less these days than ever, thanks to digital copies being sent out in advance.

When I reviewed Wasteland 3 I had enough time to finish it, and with Hades I was given access to the 1.0 version well before it was publicly available. Being sent to sit in a hotel with a copy of a game for X hours and then expected to write a full review hardly ever happens these days. I've never done it.

 

[mainer]

Back, way back, in the 1980s there were 3 gaming magazines that I looked forward to getting every month: PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, & Computer Games Strategy Plus. I loved it when they all reviewed the same game as the reviewers all had slightly, sometimes radically, different viewpoints of the same game. PC Gamer was the sole survivor of that trio, and still going strong.

 

[Zloth]

Oh, as long as we have some Q&A time...

@PCG Jody - what about long games? Seems like they would have to take longer to play through and would (I hope) have more to talk about in a review as well. Do shorter games get a preference because of that? I think I think I finished Outer Wilds and The Stanley Parable in about as much time as it took to get to the title screen of Assassin's Creed: Odyssey.

 

[PCG Jody]

Shorter games don't get a preference precisely because there's often less to talk about. The shorter games that do get covered are more likely to be ones that stretch into interesting territory, that say or do something novel and are particularly worth recommending.

 

[mainer]

As much as I like PGC's reviews of games, I think your Features & Previews are also important. Previews allow me to read about up-coming games, some that I've never heard about. Features can give in depth looks at certain games. I mention this because I just finished reading the Cyberpunk 2077 feature in the Holiday 2020 issue of PCG. That was a great, well written, in depth article on the making of Cyberpunk. I have a far greater appreciation of the time CD Project put in to making this game. Who wrote that? I didn't see any credit at the beginning or end of the article.

 

[Zloth]

Good to know that short games are getting a fair crack. I still worry about the really long games - though maybe those could be helped along with some save games from part-way along?

As much as I like PGC's reviews of games, I think your Features & Previews are also important.

And the Extra Life section, too! There's still plenty of games that just fix a few bugs here and there after release but many others release pretty substantial changes afterward. I remember arguing years back that it would be better for a game to charge $1 for a DLC rather than give it away for free because free DLC never resulted in a review.

Steam reviews can be handy there but those are pretty dicey, too. The 'just finished playing' topic here is a good one for tracking how well a game has come along and you can actually ask the person about anything in particular - though you don't get a choice in what gets covered.

 

[mainer]

Good to know that short games are getting a fair crack. I still worry about the really long games - though maybe those could be helped along with some save games from part-way along?

And the Extra Life section, too! There's still plenty of games that just fix a few bugs here and there after release but many others release pretty substantial changes afterward. I remember arguing years back that it would be better for a game to charge $1 for a DLC rather than give it away for free because free DLC never resulted in a review.

Steam reviews can be handy there but those are pretty dicey, too. The 'just finished playing' topic here is a good one for tracking how well a game has come along and you can actually ask the person about anything in particular - though you don't get a choice in what gets covered.

Yes, Extra Life, absolutely. I love reading about mods, or late changes the developers made (even years later). They can radically change how a game looks or plays, and usually for the better.