Dan Amrich
Los Angeles, CA
Male, 41
I started reviewing videogames professionally in 1993, when Genesis and SNES roamed the earth. Over the next 15 years I worked for magazines and websites like GamePro, GamesRadar, Official Xbox Magazine, and World Of Warcraft Official Magazine, while freelancing for Wired, PC Gamer, and many others. In an attempt to guide the next generation of reviewers, I wrote and published Critical Path: How to Review Videogames For A Living in February. Ask away!
I believe there are certain elements that all gamers feel are valuable, so I draw on them: an engaging story, a sense of progression and advancement, an abundance of experiences that elicit interesting emotional responses. Pretty graphics, cool music -- they're part of the mix, but they're not as important as what the game does to you or for you. All gamers do not hold all those elements as equally important, nor do all games do not try to incorporate all those elements -- no big story to Tetris, for instance. So while a lot of games have similar goals or components and a lot of gamers expect similar things when they play a game, I've never found a way to truly approach it scientifically, with empirical accuracy. You are evaluating both art and science -- storytelling and emotional resonance, plus technical aptitude -- so you can't use only one or the other to build an opinion. I have worked from templates in the past that leaned heavily toward to the science side -- more like checklists. Rate the graphics; rate the sound; rate the controls. The trick became how to express those elements in a description of the overall experience -- to drop in phrases about those specific things in the discussion of what the game offers as a whole, which strikes me as a more artistic endeavor. Reviewing is analytical writing, but if it feels analytical when you read it, you are doing the audience a disservice. They don't want scientific data so much as personal insight into how that game might make them feel if and when they choose to play it, or even buy it. And if you are dealing with feelings, I think the whole thing leans more toward art. Value is tricky, because some people want X amount of hours of gameplay for Y dollars. Other people don't care about the length of an experience, but how it affects them. I'm one of those people who loved Portal from the first day I sat down to review it. I knew going in it was going to be a 3 to 4 hour experience. Didn't bother me at all -- the quality of those three hours was so amazing and surprising and joyful to me that I still smile every time I think about the game. Whereas I've played 15-hour games where I was begging the thing to end already. Yet some people felt Portal was too short to be worth their money (even though watching a non-interactive theatrical movie for roughly the same money is a shorter experience!). There is an inherent money-is-time value for them, and if the campaign of a $60 single-player game isn't at least 10 hours, they feel ripped off. Sometimes 10 isn't even enough. And if they can burn through a $60 game in 6 hours? It often does not matter how good those six hours are; they walk away angry. The value is not there. But it might have been for me. So I can't quantitatively evaluate the overall value of a game for someone who has different values. I can absolutely say "this is what I found valuable, based on this criteria," and then they can determine if that matches what is valuable to them as well. That's how a review is supposed to work -- here's my opinion, and how I came to it; use it as you form your own.
Share Answer: 
Not really. Publishers love those kinds of quotes from the media, and they want to use them whenever they can. Everybody wants to be Game of the Year according to someone, and really, the only consensus is when multiple independent editorial outlets all come to the same conclusion -- which happens some years and doesn't other years. Every year at the E3 Expo, the Game Critics Awards offers its best of show stuff, and that is a panel of judges from dozens of the top editorial outlets -- but that group of judges does not reconvene at the end of the year when the games are actually finished.
Share Answer: 
I don't know the current statistics on the percentage of female game players. I'm a reviewer, not a statistician. :) And I think we've both seen games that are marketed directly to female players, so it seems pretty clear that publishers do.
Share Answer: 
I have always been a non-fiction guy, in writing and reading; I have friends who have made the jump from critic to storyteller (Jay Turner & Gary Whitta to drop a few names), but I am not one of them, nor do I ever expect to be. It's not that I wouldn't like to try, or that I don't have ideas that I think might make interesting games, but I don't believe there is a direct connection between those two fields and it's never been a goal -- I love being a game critic. A lot of people do think, after playing a game or reviewing a game, that they can make a better one -- to which I say, that's probably the healthiest thing you can undertake. Give it a try and get an appreciation for how difficult it really is. Your subsequent reviews will turn out far more informed.
Share Answer: 
Toll Collector
What happens when a car blows past a tollbooth without paying?
Emergency Room Manager
What's the best time to arrive at an ER to avoid waits?
HR Executive
How do you feel about employees working remotely?
You know those were created by the guy who also created the first Easter egg in games, right? Warren Robinett, creator of the Atari 2600 classic Adventure, where he snuck his name in as a credit in a secret room. Awesome.
Share Answer: 
You can only review the experience you have. People seem to think that if a review does not reflect their personal experience, then the review is wrong. Well, no; their experience was different from yours, but both experiences are valid. If something like DRM/always-on connections affect your experience of the game, then they should factor in. But if they did not affect the reviewer's experience at the time of review, it's hardly fair to expect them to say "But maybe the game isn't actually as good as it was when I played it for myself." Whose opinion are they writing anyway? Their own, based on their own experience. But it is absolutely responsible to note "this game has significant DRM" or "this game will require an always-on connection" as part of the review's information, as those will factor into the game experience. As you note, a game is more than just its content, and every game is more than your personal money investment, it's a time investment. Reviews can't just factor in "is it worth your money" -- they also have to ask "is it worth your time?" Whether DRM or technical factors weigh into the score or not depends on whether that reviewer felt it was a detriment or a boon or neither. At the very least, the consumer should be given that information so they can factor it into their own decision. But they cannot control the game once it is released any more than you or I can. If a game has significant issues after the review is posted, add an update to the review, or post a news story about the current events. You don't have to ignore reality, but I also don't feel the reviewer's experience should be rendered invalid because of temporary technical issues. Problems will arise and problems will be solved. I know of very few top-tier games with online components that don't experience issues during launch week and don't have adjustments on the back end to deal with those issues. Based on the last several years, I now accept that games will evolve after release, and that the release week may well be problematic. It's reality.
Share Answer: 
I do a lot of my gaming on 360 and iPad because I worked at OXM and it is most available in my free time, respectively, but I could just as easily be doing it on PS3 and 3DS. My playing a lot of 360 should not influence you in the slightest. I am platform agnostic and I have active disdain for the so-called console wars. As if we don't have enough divisive issues in the world, some brainiac decided that one machine dedicated to playing games had to be empirically better than another. Downright ridiculous. Play what makes you happy on whatever you can put your hands on. The important thing is that we're playing games and enjoying it.
Share Answer: 
-OR-
Login with Facebook (max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
Register with Facebook(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
Browse Jobs
Host a Q&A
Search
Submit Your Question
Host a Q&A
Last 7
