Videogame Reviewer

Videogame Reviewer

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!

SubscribeGet emails when new questions are answered. Ask Me Anything!Show Bio +


Ask me anything!

Submit Your Question

53 Questions


Last Answer on June 13, 2013

Best Rated

What's the most frustrating or difficult part about reviewing games professionally?

Asked by Tara over 8 years ago

The top frustration is the assumption that all reviewers are on being paid by publishers for their postiive reviews. I have seen so many allegations of corruption that stem not from evidence but from differences of opinion. If I give a game a 9 but you were expecting a 7, then I'm on the take -- "obviously." If I give it a 7 but you were expecting it to get a 9, suddenly that means I'm taking money from a rival publisher to keep its score low. To be accused of a crime like that and assumed guilty is the single most frustrating and difficult part of reviewing games professionally. Worse than any deadline, any unstable early build, or any inconvenience the game or the job's real responsibilities might offer. And that people feel it's okay to smear your professional reptuation with an unfounded allegation like that -- and others blindly agree "yeah, you're probably right" without a shred of evidence -- is absolutely infuriating to those of us who take great pride in being the reader's most trusted resource. I spent 15 years reviewing games and I still drive the car I owned when I moved to California in 1996. I was never approached with a bribe or some sort of compensation for my positive opinion. Maybe I was simply not important enough -- or maybe it's a myth that gamers like to perpetuate because it makes them feel better about whatever emotions they have already invested in a game they've never played.

Did you ever have a really bad first impression of a game, which ultimately won you over big-time?

Asked by o-doyle over 8 years ago

Sure, and the opposite is also true -- strong start, lousy finish. You have to stay open minded throughout the entire process; you have to allow yourself to be not only impartial but also impressed. That means that while my first impressions are usually indicative of where the review will go, they are just first impressions, and I have to let the game teach me about itself.

When you started, did the job of 'videogame reviewer' even exist and was it taken seriously?

Asked by BRPP over 7 years ago

Of course! This is not a trail I blazed. Some of the earliest game journalists were Arnie Katz, Bill Kunkel, and Joyce Worley; they proved that intelligent analysis and criticism could be formed back in the early 80s. The magazine they worked on, Electronic Games, was my constant companion and led the way. Some more info on them:

When I got to college and started reviewing different forms of art and media, I actually started with music. I remember reading a review of Prince of Persia 2 for PC by Zach Meston in Video Games & Computer Enteratinment magazine, edited by Andy Eddy, and thought "This is EXACTLY the kind of writing I want to do -- smart breakdowns of what the game does and does not deliver." My college professor was less enthused and didn't give it much credence, despite my bringing her examples of what I felt was good writing in that very very young sector.

I did wind up as a music journalist upon graduation, but a few editors asked if I was interested in games too, as they had some extra assignments. I jumped at the chance and I soon went full-time with games. I moved from NYC to SF to work with none other than Andy Eddy on a new project! 

So yes, it was taken seriously, as others had forged the path long before I got there. Yet in some ways I think it might still not be taken seriously. We'll get there. It's evolving. 

What's the process in reviewing a game? Do you go buy it like everyone else, or does the maker give you a guided walk through?

Asked by Tony over 8 years ago

Well, buying a game and being given a walkthrough document are not the same thing. Most of the time, the publisher would supply me with a copy of the game -- sometimes final retail boxed copies, but because I spent so much time on print magazines, it was more often pre-release 100% or "near 100%" versions of the game that would run on special development hardware (or in the case of the older cartridge-based games, an EPROM, which was a naked circuit board with interchangable chips). These pre-release versions were necessary in the days of print if you wanted to have the review appear in the magazine around the same time that it became available in stores, since print magazines had, on average, a six-week "lead time" between the time they'd need the game and the time the issues would appear in mailboxes. Pre-release games always had to be returned or, once we got into CD-ROM based games, destroyed after we were done reviewing them -- the choice was up to the game company as to whether they wanted it back or they trusted us to shatter the disc. A build that could not be accounted for when it was asked to be returned was (and still is!) a serious offense. On occasion I would receive retail games for review and then I'd be asked to return them or even pass them on to another reviewer who was next in line -- Working Designs requested that with a few of their Sega CD games. Often when the game was done, your media outlet would get a copy of the final game for their permanent reference library, and if the PR team had any to spare, they might send one or two extra copies for the editors to keep for themselves. But the first copy, if one was sent, always went to the archive, to be used for future research, sequel comparison, cheat code testing, strategy guide work, or whatever else you might need it for down the road. I have bought plenty of games that I reviewed simply because I wanted a personal copy; freebies were nice, but not something to be expected. Almost always, a review game came with a fact sheet, and sometimes those games came with a walkthrough document, which would actually offer instructions on exactly how to get through the first two or three levels. These were really for people who were not specialist reviewers in games -- they were really for the newspaper entertainment reporter whose natural field was movie or music reviews, but who had to cover games as part of their assignments, even if it wasn't really their area of expertise. For most enthusiast publications, a walkthrough wasn't needed, but the fact sheet made sure we got the spelling of the development studio's name right, the number of players in multiplayer, things like that. Every reviewer has a different process for reviewing a game; mine was to start playing and take notes as I played through. Most of the time, my first instincts were correct, so the phrases and descriptions that came to mind while the game was fresh usually wound up making it into the final review. As I played through the rest of the game, I was constantly taking more notes and refining my comments with specific examples. I set up my desk so my game machine and writing computer were at 90-degree or 180-degree angles, so I could easily swivel my chair, type out a phrase or sentence in full, then unpause the game and keep going. It's still the way I like to do it today. Then the actual writing is a series of self-edits, as you make a cohesive argument or take a position, then refine it and reduce the word count, making it more efficient with each edit. That part just takes practice.

Nintendo Ice Hockey, NHL ‘94 (one-timers, ldo), or Blades of Steel?

Asked by Ericmoz over 8 years ago

NHL Open Ice.

Do you think gamers of today are missing out on the arcade experience that was more prevalent in the 80s and 90s? Obviously the current games & consoles of today are way more advanced, but the in-person, social experience is lost.

Asked by DigDoug over 8 years ago

The social experience has simply changed, I think. I could not have dreamed of a day when I'd have voice chat while playing something as sophisticated as we have now. My mom never liked it when I went into arcades because of all the unsavory elements you heard about -- people getting into fights, people dealing drugs, you name it. It's a dark room; bad things are invited by that, I guess. So while I never had any issues (one guy did try to hustle me out of money if I could beat him at NBA Jam, but I declined), the worst someone can do over Xbox Live is call me names. And they do, all the time -- but they can only *virtually* stab me, which is a rarely touted plus.. My social experience with gaming is now on a headset, hanging with friends as we play WoW or COD -- we talk about things other than the game, but game discussions like "OMG I aggroed the spiders HALP HALP HALP" takes priority. People still like playing games with people, but I no longer believe you need to be in the same room to have a quality interaction. I guess the big thing that's been lost is "good game." When you play someone in person, you have to acknowledge them, and there was often a begrudging sense of sportsmanship. Now we have people who instantly mute everybody else in a lobby, which means they don't hear compliments and they don't work as a team to win. Imagine playing football with earbuds in, intentionally blocking out all of your teammates -- then blaming everybody else for sucking. That's admittedly a situation I don't think I would find in arcades.

What do you see as the future of videogames in the next 5 - 10 years? What's the "Next Big Thing"? Is there a technological breakthrough on the horizon that will make things possible that up til now haven't been?

Asked by bort_wins over 8 years ago

I'm really not much of a prognosticator, nor am I an engineer. I don't make the games and I don't have a functional knowledge of the technology required to create them, so I don't have a good perspective on the next big thing. Besides, if I knew the answer to this, I'd be investing heavily in it. :) I do think digital distribution is inevitable -- it's a good idea and it's worked so far -- so I expect there to be more and more games bought digitally, and the storage media sizes will climb to meet it.