1

Meade
Ethan Meade

Writing Project 1

Online Video Game Reviews: A Genre of Writing?

You have probably heard of movie reviews, restaurant reviews, or perhaps something

more esoteric like model rocket reviews. But have you heard of online videogame reviews? It

may seem silly to write about what you thought about a game you played, but online videogame

reviews are now a well-established genre.

Indeed, online video game reviews (hereafter referred to as VGRs) fit Boyd’s definition

of a genre1; they are distinguished by characteristics unique to them. These traits that define a

genre are known as genre conventions.2 Examples of VGRs conventions are an analysis of the

game’s facets (gameplay, graphics, storyline, etc.), commentary on favorable or unfavorable

traits, and a final recommendation with regards to the game. It is important to note that an

individual VGR will not necessarily conform to all the genre’s conventions; the same is arguably

true for anything belonging to a genre.

VGRs, like all writing, occurs within a rhetorical situation. Rhetorical situations are a

combination of a target audience, limitations on what may be written, and a motivation for

writing. This combination creates a scenario that influences a writer’s decisions (or writerly

choices) regarding their work3.

For VGRs, a common rhetorical situation is that the author wants to advise a group of

gamers (the audience) about a new game and whether it is worth investing time and money in

1
Janet Boyd, “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking),” Gauchospace, accessed January 27, 2020.
https://gauchospace.ucsb.edu/courses/pluginfile.php/5937056/mod_resource/content/1/Boyd%20-%20Murder
%21%20%28Rhetorically%20Speaking%29.pdf
2
Boyd, “Murder.”
3
“Rhetorical Situation,” Gauchospace, accessed January 27, 2020.
https://gauchospace.ucsb.edu/courses/pluginfile.php/5934321/mod_resource/content/1/Rhetorical
%20Situation.pdf
2
Meade
(the motivation). While writing the review, the author will face limitations, like keeping their

review under a certain length due to space constraints.

Looking at the bigger picture, many VGR authors do not write VGRs as a hobby- they do

it as a job. How they profit from their VGRs modifies the rhetorical situation, and therefore

impacts their work. For example, some writers decide that the optimal way to attract an audience

– and funds – is to prioritize humor and entertainment rather than informativeness. These

reviewers exaggerate the negative traits of a game, often acerbically attacking its downfalls and

interspersing their assessment with sarcasm. This results in inaccurate reviews; however, they

still qualify as VGRs because of their adherence to the genre conventions. More importantly, this

strategy has proven successful, filling a niche within the genre.

It may be easier to define VGRs by comparing them to their antecedent genres: genres

that both precede VGRs and share similarities with VGRs. One such antecedent genre to VGRs

is tabletop game reviews. Tabletop game reviews were typically posted in a magazine, Dragon4

for example. They would analyze a “module” (a storyline, essentially), comment on positive or

negative aspects of their subject module and give a recommendation. These are conventions that

they share with VGRs. However, there are differences between the two genres. For instance,

there were no graphics to critique; more importantly, tabletop game reviews typically focused on

the positives of what they reviewed.

There is a good reason for this: rhetorical situation. In this case, the rhetorical situation is

that the authors are writing reviews for the review magazine. These magazines were owned by

the same company that publishes the tabletop games. Naturally, these authors prioritize

promoting the products of their employers, not necessarily to writing a completely honest

4
To clarify, Dragon magazine was owned by the same company that publishes many of the modules (TSR at first,
Wizards of the Coast later).
3
Meade
review. Indeed, an honest review that discourages sales has little value to the author’s employers;

the authors would probably find themselves unemployed.

This focus on positive aspects was a defining feature of the genre partially because the

audience was too small to support independent writers; hence, most if not all reviewers worked

for the game publisher. This is where the nature of the audience asserts itself as part of the

rhetorical situation.

Another antecedent genre of VGRs is their ancestors: print game reviews. Naturally, print

game reviews share some similarities and differences with VGRs. They cannot create a link to

another article whenever referring to another game or previous review, obviously. Print game

reviews are usually more positive than their online counterparts, a trait they share with tabletop

reviews. This phenomenon exists in print game reviews for similar reasons that it does in

tabletop game reviews. Print game reviews mainly profit from advertisements within their

magazine. Video game publishers are the most likely to advertise in a video game review

magazine, because the target audiences align. It follows that the reviewer would be encouraged

to write a more positive review to avoid antagonizing these clients. In summary, the authors for

print game reviews are not paid directly by game publishers but are still motivated to avoid

alienating them lest they indirectly jeopardizing their income.

A theme is apparent between the two antecedent genres and VGRs: the authors of the

antecedents are financially affiliated with the publishers and write favorable reviews for them,

while VGRs are less prone to downplaying perceived negatives. For instance, the print video

game review magazine Game Informer gave Anthem a score of 7, which is considered ‘decent’.

In their summary they praised the game’s positives before gently noting its negatives: “[Anthem]
4
Meade
soars with combat but struggles with story”.5,6 Note that the language in the summary is ‘soft’

and downplays the issues found. It starts with the positives and mentions the negatives as an

afterthought. Connotatively, it chooses the strong word “soar” with respect to the positive aspect

while using the weak word “struggles” when describing its downfalls. The authors deliberately

avoided using strong language like “flounders” with respect to the negative in order to avoid

estranging game publishers.

In comparison, the online video game review publisher IGN gave Anthem a slightly lower

score of 6.5. However, it was more negative in its summary, claiming that “Anthem has

energetic combat but it saves too much of [its content] for the endgame, making playing through

its mismatched story a tediously repetitive grind.”7 Note the harsher tone and connotative words,

and the focus on the negative with the positive aspect merely acknowledged.

Another example of this trend is how the two publications handled Fallout 76. Game

Informer (GI) rated it a 6, concluding that it “is easy game to lose yourself in, as meaningful

discoveries are everywhere. But those moments are often destroyed by glitches, crashes, and

technical issues”.8 This review is notably harsher than GI’s stance on Anthem, focusing more on

the negatives both through connotation and by-word count. However, IGN’s review is even

harsher, stating that “the rich wasteland map of Fallout 76 is wasted on a mess of bugs,

conflicting ideas, and monotony”.9 This summary barely acknowledges the positive aspects of

the game; most of the words are spent describing the game’s problems.

5
Andrew Reiner, “Anthem,” Game Informer, last modified February 26, 2019,
https://www.gameinformer.com/review/anthem/grinding-gears.
6
It is worth noting that the given source is an electronic copy of the actual print magazine.
7
James Duggan, “Anthem Review,” IGN, last modified December 9, 2019,
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/02/21/anthem-review.
8
Andrew Reiner, “Fallout 76,” Game Informer, last modified November 21, 2018,
https://www.gameinformer.com/review/fallout-76/over-encumbered.
9
Brandin Tyrrel, “Fallout 76 Review,” IGN, last modified November 26, 2018,
https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/11/22/fallout-76-review.
5
Meade
When one examines the average score for each of these games, it becomes apparent that

IGN is closer to the ‘accepted’ (average) score than GI. For instance, the average review score

for Anthem was 5.910 in comparison to IGN’s rating of 6.5 and GI’s rating of 7. The average

rating for Fallout 76 was 5.211 in comparison to IGN’s rating of 512 and GI’s rating of 6.

The advent of the internet allowed VGRs to break this trend by lowering the barrier to

distribution. The distribution cost for print media is high- you need to print and transport

magazines. The same is untrue for internet articles- it costs very little to maintain a website and

create new articles on it. This plummet in overhead lead to an influx of content and content

creators, some of which were not aligned to any publisher. Subsequently, this generated a

broader spectrum of rhetorical situations, as authors were no longer financially mandated to stay

in a publisher’s good graces. Naturally, some of these authors created reviews contrary with the

antecedent genre’s uniform positivity as an intentional rhetorical decision. To summarize, the

rhetorical transition between the antecedent genres and VGRs is a result of the internet allowing

for cheap distribution.

Of course, the growth of the internet was not the only factor responsible for this change

between VGRs and its antecedent genres. The growth of videogames themselves was a factor;

they became more common over time. Tabletop game reviews and most print video game

reviews were written while their subject media were small; tabletop games were relatively niche,

and videogames took time to become widespread. Because of this, the audience interested in

these two media was proportionally smaller, and the two review genres were incapable of

supporting as many writers fulltime. The ‘space’ that was available within these genres was

10
“Anthem,” Metacritic, accessed March 16, 2020, https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/anthem/critic-reviews.
11
“Fallout 76,” Metacritic, accessed March 16, 2020, https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-76/critic-
reviews.
12
Reiner, “Fallout 76.”
6
Meade
occupied by the writers who had an interest in downplaying the negatives of what they reviewed,

hence the trend of positivity in tabletop game reviews and print video game reviews.

In conclusion, online video game reviews are indeed a valid genre due to their

distinguishing genre conventions. Its antecedent genres, tabletop game reviews and print video

game reviews, share many of these inherent traits. Online video game reviews are different from

its antecedents mainly in that their lower barrier to entry allows for a greater variety of tones and

attitudes regarding the reviewed material. Ultimately, they are each their own unique genre.
7
Meade
Bibliography

“Anthem.” Metacritic, accessed March 16, 2020.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/anthem/critic-reviews.

Boyd, Janet. “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking).” Gauchospace, accessed January 27, 2020.

https://gauchospace.ucsb.edu/courses/pluginfile.php/5937056/mod_resource/content/1/B

oyd%20-%20Murder%21%20%28Rhetorically%20Speaking%29.pdf

Duggan, James. “Anthem Review,” IGN, last modified December 9, 2019.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/02/21/anthem-review.

“Fallout 76.” Metacritic, accessed March 16, 2020.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-76/critic-reviews.

Reiner, Andrew. “Anthem.” Game Informer, last modified February 26, 2019.

https://www.gameinformer.com/review/anthem/grinding-gears.

Reiner, Andrew. “Fallout 76.” Game Informer, last modified November 21, 2018.

https://www.gameinformer.com/review/fallout-76/over-encumbered.“Rhetorical Situation.”

Gauchospace, accessed January 27, 2020.

https://gauchospace.ucsb.edu/courses/pluginfile.php/5934321/mod_resource/content/1/R

hetorical%20Situation.pdf

Tyrrel, Brandin. “Fallout 76 Review.” IGN, last modified November 26, 2018.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/11/22/fallout-76-review.