Out of all the gaming genres, fighting games get the worst when it comes to actual reviews. Most the time the people reviewing them aren’t fighting game players or fans. We have Haunts who does his reviews on 1up occasionally but its hard to review fighters for the general public. How would you review fighting games? What parts would you consider important? (ie: offline, online, content). How would rate the engine? How would you review sequels? Would you re-review games if a sequal came out? How would you compare fighters?
i used to do videos with friends under the team name"team best from now". was a tun of fun
we’re too busy playing and getting good at games, I personally don’t have time for reviews…
Reviews for FGs are hard because they tend to be played for 10 years at a piece, with 99% of the games depth only being found bit by bit, and stuff like graphics being largely irrelevant.
It’s easier to review a standard EA sports game and go "Game is exact same as last year, but this guys face looks a bit better, uuuuh 91%!"
Reviewers generally have no idea what they’re talking about… but that’s the case for all games/genres; it’s not exclusive to fighters (see: MoH, WoW, GW2, LoL, HeavyRain etc getting good scores)
There’s a start question as to whether a game is good after you tack down some objective analysis, or whether a game is good based simply on how many people enjoy it (which technically should be the goal of the game, so they must be doing something right).
Anyhow I’d review an FG by looking at base design decisions, comparing them with my “ideal FG”, and then waiting 10 years to see whether people still play it - if yes, that game is probably not too bad. If no, but the game did a lot of thing right, it’s also good. If not and I don’t like it either, it sucks.
All your theoretical questions regarding reviewing are already solved.