Reviewers

[Gimli]

There was a topic on another forum about what we thought were great moments in gaming. So I mentioned the intro to Desperados: Wanted dead or alive, and someone asked me what game was that. I went to Gamespot to find some screenshots and found out that the game got 6.8. Not believing my eyes I went on to read the review. From what I read, it seemed like it was another case of "this game is too difficult for the reviewer because it requires more than basic hand-eye coordination" disease that seems to be plaguing the reviewers. Don't get me wrong, I too love to sometimes just forget about everything and play some mindless arcade or shooter. And it's not just about this game, it's about a lot of other games which don't get the proper attention because most reviewers and gamers have the attention span of 1 nanosecond.

 

But the industry seems to have taken a big step in the wrong direction. Games which actually have innovations are getting rare and unrecognized, because the publishers have to suck out every last shred of money out of your pockets, with expansions which either add nothing interesting or feel like everything out of the original has intentionally been left out so people would think expansions are so incredibly original (Diablo II: LoD and Warcraft III: Frozen Throne first come to mind).

 

I'll add more when I think of it. What do you guys think about reviewers, and the state of the industry in general? Is it possible that there's nothing we can do to change this? I've been toying with the idea of making a site (blog, forum, whatever) which would be dedicated to reviewing the reviewers, the publishers, and developers (even though it seems developers are lately the least responsible of the staleness of the industry).

[FullAuto]

I remember some reviewer for the Official Xbox magazine reviewing a game, and mentioning how enjoyable the driving sections were. The game in question didn't have any driving sections.

 

I agree that most games reviewers are crap. If they're not working to harsh deadlines they've been sweetened up with free trips skiing down the side of the Leaning Tower Of Pisa or free goodies, or they're just bored and quite plainly taking the piss, because it's easier than getting another job.

[Strong Bob]

I remember some reviewer for the Official Xbox magazine reviewing a game, and mentioning how enjoyable the driving sections were. The game in question didn't have any driving sections.

Which game was that?

 

 

As for Desperados... Hmn, I didn't like that game all that much myself. Not because it was hard, it just wasn't my type. But I do remember seeing a review for it in PC Gamer. I remember it getting an above average score, but also being blammed a bit for difficulty. (And praised as well... I recall that the reviewer was saying it got hard too fast or something like that.) Didn't seem to get a lower score because of it though.

 

Meh... Nowadays, PC Gamer is the only review magazine I trust. I don't listen to anyone else. Frankly I've gotten tired of reviews having moved on from making detailed descriptions of particular games to simply talking about how much they liked it.

 

I recall reading a review of Xenosaga, the first one. There was over two pages worth, and it was nothing but ranting and raving about how good the game was. Even after I finished, I had no damn clue what even the genre of the game was.

[Azrael Strife]

The only reviews I trust are IGN's, they seem to have similar tastes to mine

[FullAuto]

Which game was that?

 

Headhunter: Redemption, if I remember right. The stupid prat must have assumed that because there were some in the first game, there would be in the sequel. Unfortunately, he was wrong.

 

Tried to find a link, but the thread on the forums was deleted almost as soon as it got going. I seem to remember Sega mentioning it somewhere online, though.

[Matri]

Case Study: Two reviewers, one strictly RTS, the other FPS.

 

Give Mr RTS a copy of Doom 3 to review, and Mr FPS a copy of C&C Generals.

 

I guarantee crappy scores for both.

[NKF]

Game magazine reviews must always be taken with a grain of salt. It's only the reviewer's thoughts, after all, and doesn't represent what everyone else thinks. They aren't the be-all and end-all of opinions.

 

Sometimes, when I'm thinking about picking up a new game title, I look at the player submitted reviews on Gamefaqs (it's the only general game resource site I have bookmarked - I is uncultured ) . The reviews range from the well thought out professional reviews to horrible and overly biased reviews that probably took a minute to prepere - which can generally be summed up as "This game r0xx0rzz!!! 10 out of 10!!!eleven1". I usually find the more honest reviews to be the ones that are close to the average rather than the ones at the extreme ends of the scale.

 

It's always good to take into account the various accolades and concerns of a variety of reviewers to get a feel of the game when deciding whether or not to get it.

 

Unfortunately, the only way to truly find out is to test the game yourself.

 

- NKF

[Gimli]

That's what I also wanted to say. I take reviews with a grain of salt, when it's a game that's interesting to me. And there are some good reviewers, but in the last few years, I've seen some horrible reviews (UFO: Aftershock being one). Also, it's perfectly OK if the reviewer says that it's not his kind of thing, everybody has their own tastes, but I can't stand it that they have so much power, because most people only listen to reviews (or at least, that's the impression I get), and some games which are worth a try don't sell enough, because the reviewer didn't have enough patience to even think about what he's writing, let alone see what other people think, or *gasp* going to some forums and seeing what people complain about and think about that, too He doesn't neccessarily need to include it in the review, if he thinks it's not true(which it sometimes isn't), but sometimes he'll pick something he missed. What I'm trying to say is, I wish they actually spend some time with it, not just throw it away after half an hour.

 

EDIT: This way it just seems like a big race to get the first review out.

[Accounting Troll]

The reviews of UFO: Aftershock were a real eye opener for me. I'm not saying the game is perfect, and there are a number of valid criticisms that can be made, but some of the reviewers just semed to be basing their review on the summary of the game on the DVD case

[Gimli]

That's exactly what I think. UFO:AS is far from perfect, and actually if the score had some good ground in that one review (the one that Slaughter made fun of, Gamespot maybe), I wouldn't say anything. But that review was a total disaster, and I can't help but wonder why people even believe some of those reviews anymore. I'll give a few examples. In one local magazine (highly respected long ago) there was a review of Civ 3. It was on 4 pages. Out of those, there was a big picture of a globe in the middle of two, a big picture of a part of a globe on another, and a few other big pictures. I think that totally the review barely went over 1 page of normal written text. How much info do you think the reviewers stored. And his comment next to the score was brilliant: "I won't give it more than 90% because it didn't bring any big changes, but I won't give it less - afterall it's Civ."

 

This touches on another point I'm trying to make: Are reviewers somehow afraid of gamers, of possible angry e-mails they'd get? Alos are they afraid to give a sequel a lower score because they do not wish to mess with the legacy it's predecessor(s) left? Are they afraid to give a lower score because it's made by id, Blizzard (random example of succesful companies, I'm not picking on their games)?

 

I'll give a perfect example: FIFA/Euro football games. I've been saying since 2001 that they're not very good, yet it took the reviewers in the mentioned magazine another three years to reduce the score from 90+ to below 80, and later to 50-60. Funny thing though, I stopped buying the magazine long ago, realizing that it's not very good, and guess what it ceased existing in the end of last years. Coincidence? I think not. I think gamers have slowly started realizing that there's nothing useful in these, news/demos are usually 1-2 months old, and articles come down to reviews and previews, and some hardware/software news. I've heard the same thing aobut some other gaming magazines, as well as that people are slowly starting to get information less and less from papers/magazines and more from the internet. But yeah, this would be a whole new subject, so I won't venture there.

[Bomb Bloke]

I think demos speak louder then reviews. Why do you think there's so little demand for GameCube games? Because you can't get hold of demo discs for the things, that's why. Play ten minutes of a given game and you'll know whether you're prepared to pay for it or not.

 

I also find that if a game has a decent sized forum, that means other people managed to get past the opening screens without getting bored. Unless the game had some flaw that prevented them doing so: A forum will also fill you in on those sort of things, which is uncommon in a review.

 

If a review gives you a good idea as to how a game actually plays, then you can take it seriously. If not, then you should entirely ignore the end mark.

 

But, I really don't think much has changed. Most reviews I have read are old (ei several years old), and they can suffer from the same problems as modern articles do. It really is quite common for a game to be marked down because of difficulty, or complex controls (which aren't plus points for all gamers, but they're pretty much compulsary factors for me).

 

Likewise, games are still coming out as cheap copies of each other, though at least "expansions" aren't called "sequals" anymore.

 

And innovation tends to come from the same companies. Take the last three Prince of Persia games, for example (I'm still working on the last few hidden goodies in Warrior Within, and even though the game has a Metroid Prime feel to it at times, it really is quite original).