Bloody hardware reviewers (MyGaming column)

I think reviewers need to take a long hard look at themselves.


With the onset of social media, their relevance and influence has taken a HUGE knock. So they need to keep their relevance in terms of their market in creative ways.

OBJECTIVITY
This is key... the manufacturer will always sugar coat their products... ALWAYS. No exceptions! So we do need a clutch of completely neutral and faceless reviewers to come up with objective ways to compare apples with apples. One batch of people that do this really well are the diligent members of Tom's Hardware. They perform independent tests on new hardware components and show them side by side. Their site is a little difficult to understand if you're not familiar with the lingo and the benchmarking process. Their information makes very good reference material, but it leaves the average "Joe Soap" user a little confused.

PERSONALITY
the article mentions "Jeremy Clarkson". And this is an excellent case in point. The reason why JC is arguably the most famous motoring journalist of our day is because he differentiated himself from the rest of the monotonous car shows. Every car show before Top Gear would go the same way, it was Jeremy Clarkson who made a car show more about how a car "feels" than the boring stats that everyone else compares.
Computer hardware doesn't exactly lend itself to as much of an emotional connection as a car... but reviewers can learn from how to get through to a market that might not necessarily understand how the hardware works, but still wants to spend their dollars and rands on the latest kit.

BE TRUE TO YOUR MARKET... AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
A hardware enthusiast would see right through a very "general" review and a novice would not grasp all the technical differences in a jargon filled review... so the reviewers need to examine their market audience and strike a balance that would appeal to THEIR readers/viewers. When comparing one high end gaming mouse to another, the reviewer should at least understand what a gamer is looking for in a mouse in terms of performance and aesthetics... then make a subjective call on the pros and cons.
 
Overkill69 said:
I think reviewers need to take a long hard look at themselves.


With the onset of social media, their relevance and influence has taken a HUGE knock. So they need to keep their relevance in terms of their market in creative ways.

OBJECTIVITY
This is key... the manufacturer will always sugar coat their products... ALWAYS. No exceptions! So we do need a clutch of completely neutral and faceless reviewers to come up with objective ways to compare apples with apples. One batch of people that do this really well are the diligent members of Tom's Hardware. They perform independent tests on new hardware components and show them side by side. Their site is a little difficult to understand if you're not familiar with the lingo and the benchmarking process. Their information makes very good reference material, but it leaves the average "Joe Soap" user a little confused.

PERSONALITY
the article mentions "Jeremy Clarkson". And this is an excellent case in point. The reason why JC is arguably the most famous motoring journalist of our day is because he differentiated himself from the rest of the monotonous car shows. Every car show before Top Gear would go the same way, it was Jeremy Clarkson who made a car show more about how a car "feels" than the boring stats that everyone else compares.
Computer hardware doesn't exactly lend itself to as much of an emotional connection as a car... but reviewers can learn from how to get through to a market that might not necessarily understand how the hardware works, but still wants to spend their dollars and rands on the latest kit.

BE TRUE TO YOUR MARKET... AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
A hardware enthusiast would see right through a very "general" review and a novice would not grasp all the technical differences in a jargon filled review... so the reviewers need to examine their market audience and strike a balance that would appeal to THEIR readers/viewers. When comparing one high end gaming mouse to another, the reviewer should at least understand what a gamer is looking for in a mouse in terms of performance and aesthetics... then make a subjective call on the pros and cons.
Click to expand...

That it also why Jeremy Clarkson is good, if a car is shit he will tell you all the faults. Most reviewers just tell you the features not the issues that you won't enjoy after you bought the gear. Its much better to say this is what's wrong but here's why its good rather a list of 2 cons at the end.
 
Ike_009 said:
That it also why Jeremy Clarkson is good, if a car is shit he will tell you all the faults. Most reviewers just tell you the features not the issues that you won't enjoy after you bought the gear. Its much better to say this is what's wrong but here's why its good rather a list of 2 cons at the end.
Click to expand...

And he also says: "You'll look like a plonker if you pull up outside your girlfriend's house in one of these."
People can relate to that!!!

In the same way... Hardware reviewers should say things like: "If you want everyone at the LAN to know you have more money than sense, buy this case. There are fewer lights in Time's Square!"

or...

"This RAT screams: "I just dropped R1800 on a mouse that has 5 buttons you don't have fingers for! That means +25 to all stats!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top