Game Reviewers = Idiots?

[Tydeus]

It's been a while since I've seriously gamed -- probably a good 6 months, and before that all I really played was Halo 2, thanks to a lack of cash for other games and a powerful prediliction for sniping 7-foot-tall cyborg super soldiers.

Anyway, I just got a 360 about a month ago, and a few games have trickled into my life recently (Oblivion, Dead Rising, Call of Duty 2, and I recently rented 99 Nights). Also, reading recent rants (triple alliteration!) on Penny Arcade, I've come to agree with those folks that game reviewers these days have lost all conception of what makes a game good. Namely, fun.

It seems like all they talk about is "innovation," which, although well and good, does not equal fun. Now, I understand it -- game reviewers have played a ridiculous number of games, so, all they want is something new. Essentially, they're just tired of playing the same thing again and again, but, that's not true of most gamers, who don't play 100 games in a year.

Ninety Nine Nights is my big example here. It has a rating of 5.2 on 1up.com, with Dan Hsu from EGM giving it a mere 4.5. Wait, 4.5?!? You would think, in the age of any-game-with-a-lot-of-hype-getting-at-least-8.5, that a 4.5 must be a real piece of crap -- pure, unfiltered misery.

Spurred on by Penny Arcade's glowing review of Enchanted Arms (which I plan to buy shortly), I rented N3. To my surprise (and delight) it's really a lot of fun. The combat is varied enough to remain interesting, but simple enough so that you know all (or most) of your moves. Moves are unveiled level-by-level, so the combat adds more depth as you go along, instead of just giving you everything right from the start. The items are interesting, and there is definitely room for strategy in choosing appropriate combinations for any situation. Graphically, the game is insane -- the characters look as good as, if not better, than Dead Rising (the animations especially seem much more fluid and realistic), and yet they manage to cram even more characters on the screen, with more effects, a much larger draw distance, and incredibly short (to the point of not noticing them) loading times. Their solution is to make things in the distance seem fuzzy, which is both realistic and not as jarring as baddies/geometry simply appearing, or adding more polygons as you come closer.

However, there is nothing new about this game. Absolutely nothing. Totally been-there-done-that. So, yeah, it's a pretty standard title for the genre. However, it is a Dynasty-style action game, executed quite well. That is to say, the designers tried to make a certain kind of game, and succeeded almost without qualification. In essence, it is a very well-crafted, uninnovative, and totally enjoyable game.

Brian Intihar of EGM complains that "the action rarely chugs." Well, considering that I've been stringing together 1500+hit combos, flying through the air, and slaughtering dozens of enemies with a single swing of my blade, all so quickly it's almost hard to follow at times, that comment seems purely contrived, just as one more way to sh*t on a game that he seems to have an almost personal beef against. It does slow down at times, when there are literally 500+ enemies on screen at once, but it's still plenty playable, this rarely happens, and it's almost useful, sort of like an automatic "bullet-time" for really hairy situations.

He also says that the missions are all the same, saying they simply consist of "go from point A to point B while slaughtering as many foes as possible. Innovative? No." Well, the same could be said of Call of Duty 2, which EGM gave an 8.5, 9.0, and 9.0. In fact, at least in N3, you get to choose how to get from A to B, whereas in CoD2, your every move is painfully scripted, the game actually directing which piece of cover you should choose, and then forcing you to sit there, sometimes up to 20 minutes (on Veteran [CoD's Legendary] mode), picking off baddies who stand still and shoot at you from windows, doorways, and behind walls, popping up and down like 19th century shooting-gallery targets. Now if that's not innovative, what is?

Oh, and basically every FPS from Doom to Halo 2 has had missions that consist of "Go from A to B while killing as many foes as you can." So, shut the hell up.

But, CoD2 got 9.0. Hmmmm... perhaps EA's massive hype-machine and CoD1's huge success had something to do with that....

Anyway, I've found N3 to actually be more enjoyable than CoD2 thus far. Sure, CoD is unprecedentedly (at least at the time of its release) immersive, and really gives you the feel that you're in a battle, and in terms of art, sound, and general feeling, is a huge achievement. However, after about 2 hours I was getting pretty bored, and the only reason I've dumped 25+ hours into it is because I must get all the achievements, becuase I'm Obsessive Compulsive like that. Talk about action that rarely chugs though...holy crap. Veteran mode is just painful.

But, back to N3 -- a solid game with fun combat, an interesting (if a little lean) story (CoD 2 doesn't really even have any story at all), and enough freedom, control, and depth to entertain you for hours (hopefully for the full length of the game -- I'm not yet finished), and also a game that's been wronged by innovation-obsessed reviewers.

What do you guys think? Has the review-world gone mad with desire for innovation, and thrown fun to the wind?

[Random Ninja]

...

Not really. No.

I've seen games that are remakes get great scores. Remakes. That means it's the same game, just with a bit of a touch up. PS1 ports to the PSP are getting 4 out of 5's, or 8 out of 10's. I think game reviewers are just trying to tell us to avoid lesser variants of games that are already out there, and are better.

Like the billions of GTA clones. Why play the clone that's got maybe....1 or 2 new features when you can play GTA, which is just better?

Unless you count X-Play, who seem to have become less interested in reviewing games, and more interested in taking every possible chance to mock it and degrade it.

[Dwarfburg citizen]

Shouldnt this go in the games thread? Just wondering.

[ZERO.]

I don't really look a game reviewers for an opinion on the games I get.

If it looks fun then I rent it to check it out, simple as that.

[Random Ninja]

I agree with Zero. Infact, I think I've already said it in another thread. The smart gamer uses the review purely to look at the content through gameplay clips and descriptions of the gameplay.

The needs of a game reviewer and a regular gamer differ. Many of us can enjoy a game that sucks 100+ hours from our lives, these guys want one that's got great content around 40+ hours.

Then there's the fact that with most game review programs or magazines, there are only two or three reviewers. While this may not hold true for some of the bigger magazines, the fact is, most reviewers, most notably the X-play peeps, have the same tastes. Morgan and Adam have, as far as I know, never disagreed on a game, ever. It's like they don't even have opinions of their own, they're a single hive like mind.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

I love this:

Brian Intihar of EGM complains that "the action rarely chugs."

...

Ermm how exactly is THAT a complaint??!! He is saying the action never slows down, even with huge numbers of enemies on screen at once. He is PRAISING the game on it's technical acheivments, not complaining about it.

And since when are review scores ever important? I notice games like Fifa and Grand Turismo getting 80-90% scores but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE thinks they are exalent games if you don't like the genre it's in. Everyone has different opinions of every game. Some think a particular game is awesome, while others think it's a piece of shit. It depends on your own likes and dislikes. It is better to just read the actual REVIEW of the game and look at all the good and bad points that are being described and ignore the scores. More often than not more than one person will play the game before the review is published. They can't exactly expect every single reviewer to like every genre of game they might review can they?

As far as I can make out from your initial post, the "complaints" that have been made are not "too" critical or harsh. I haven't played the game myself but I'm sure those things that have been mentioned can easily be justified (at least from the reviewer's point of view).

And that is all it is realy; his "point of view", which you obviously don't agree with, whereas others might.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Morgan and Adam have, as far as I know, never disagreed on a game, ever. It's like they don't even have opinions of their own, they're a single hive like mind.

Given the number of reviews they do, I don't think Morgan & Adam usually end up playing the same game. So having no opinion on something you haven't played isn't a huge crime, is it?

SWB

[The Wandering God]

I think a good reviewer is one who is able to independently describe the game aside from their own personal feelings, but adding that in too.

After all, if it makes someone really angry/happy, it will probably have that affect on others.

However, they do need to be able to say, "This is who it will appeal to." Whether that includes themself or not, that's the part you should be looking for. Any reviewer for anything worth their salt should be able to say, "I don't like this, but I can appreciate it for what it is. And someone who likes this sort of thing should buy it."

From what I saw of videos, I would find N3 very boring. I am, however, interested in Okami, even though everyone points out "been there, done that." I think the problem reviewers where having with N3 is that it was basically Dynasty Warriors with next gen trappings (and next gen price), whereas Okami took the formula and tried to do unique things with it (artstyle, story, and canvas).

Honestly, how interesting is the story mode for N3? Is it secondary to killing fools? Because I wouldn't be interested in that. But for you, it might be just the thing.

And of course, it is also up to the person reading the review to see how they might feel if exposed to the same gameplay, which requires a little effort.

The Wandering God

[Random Ninja]

Given the number of reviews they do, I don't think Morgan & Adam usually end up playing the same game. So having no opinion on something you haven't played isn't a huge crime, is it?

SWB

Exactly what I mean. They DO have opinions on the game, even if they haven't played it, they automatically agree with their co-star.

[Tydeus]

Ermm how exactly is THAT a complaint??!! He is saying the action never slows down, even with huge numbers of enemies on screen at once. He is PRAISING the game on it's technical acheivments, not complaining about it

Hmmmm... I guess I just wasn't clear on the meaning of the word "chug." It makes me think of "chuggin' along" or similar phrases, which imply speed. Also, if I remember correctly, from context, he seemed to be saying that it was slow.

Seems like most people here really don't give a sh*t about reviewers in the first place, which makes me reconsider my idea of starting my own review site, aimed at gamers, where I wouldn't review as many games, because of school and lack of cash, and also because I just wouldn't review anything I couldn't honestly review becuase I hate the genre. I might get someone else for that, but I'm not sure. So, yeah, I might not do that after all.

Well, what do you think? I mean, it's obvious you guys don't really care about reviewers, but would you appreciate a review site from someone who is not primarily employed as a reviewer, and tries to target real gamers, and not fellow reviewers, and who admits when he really just can't honestly appraise a game? Or would you not care?

[Magus]

There are already a lot of sites like that, where you can get a deep indepth look at specific games. Insert Credit is my favorite. So I can say I would support your endeavour but you're going to have as much competition as if you tried to make something approaching 1Up

People rely on these huge sites (IGN, Gamespot, 1Up) because they do have an opinion on EVERYTHING, and even if it is generalized and barely realized at least you got a summary of the gameplay and some of the plot and you can make your own decision.

Though some popular about games site (might've been Penny Arcade) or other supported Gamespot's reviews as being decent, since they actually have a standard system they use to review each game.

Oh, and magazine reviews? Forget it. Terrible. Most of them are trash and stupid and worthless, AND you paid money for them. Why not get your stupid, worthless trash on the internet for free? Other than hardcopy screenshots there is not much appeal, and I know from experience that Game Informer is always something like two months behind on EVERYTHING. The big joke about them was they kept calling the Wii The Revolution for THREE months after the name was revealed. THREE MONTHS. One is excusable, maybe even two if somehow or other it missed the deadline by a hair, but three? Gah.

In the end I think most reviews are rather worthless, though. Anything rated 7 and higher you'd probably like to play, for one thing, maybe not pay 50 bucks for but probably play, as long as you like the genre. But they need reviews to keep us away from Eve of Extinction and such.

[Fifthfiend]

Shouldnt this go in the games thread? Just wondering.

That's so crazy it just might work!

*bamf!*

[Zeran]

Game reviewers are like movie reviewers, so most of the time i ignore them. The only time i really take heed is if there is mention of poor mechanics or control respose. When it comes down to it, reviewing is for the most part a matter of opinion. Some people will agree with you, some people wont.

[Jagos]

*Second Zeran's opinions

As long as Ziff Davis owns a majority of game magazines, you won't really have an unbiased view. Think about it...

You have 10-20 people reviewing games that come out seasonally and they can't sit down and finish a game because guess what?

They got more games to review for next month. It's stupid and insane but I guess something's gotta be done.

That's why something like Brian or people on PA are more likely to have a better review. They get to a game's nitty gritty, not looking for the next NEWNESS, just something that may agree with you more.

[Tydeus]

Hmmmmm... didn't realize there was so much competition for a slice of the game-review pie.

You people are making me wonder if it's really worth it to even try my hand at the whole game-review-site thing. Well, I guess I'll tell you how my reviews would work, and if that's not sufficiently different to, uh, differentiate me from the crowd, then screw it.

Anyway, I'd start off the review with an admission of bias. Like, with CoD 2, I'd tell people up-front that I don't like FPSes where it only takes 2-3 shots to kill you. Mainly because I suck at them, but also because I'm a control-freak, and I hate not having time to react. This is why I love Halo.

After the bias alert, I'd proceed with the the main review of the game -- that is, a detailed description of gameplay, without making any judgements what so ever. Then, I'd proceed to my scoring of the game, providing well-evidenced reasons why I gave the game the score it got, making sure to fully flesh out each criticism or compliment.

Finally, I'd recommend to the reader whether they should buy, rent, or pass.

Is there anything new in that formula? Reading it back to myself, I kind of doubt it...

[Jagos]

Sounds like you'd make a great Play reviewer. :)

Seriously, the mags cater to a certain customer. The right one isn't always the most prevalent.

[Mirai Gen]

Honestly, I think that as a general rule, game reviews and game reviewers are perfectly fine. There are some areas where exceptions pop up, and I think that 99 Nights is one of them.

I mean, let's face it; It's Dynasty Warriors. And Dynasty Warriors is the KISS of gaming. It's got a million and a half die-hard fans, and the rest of the world just kind of stares and scratches their heads in confusion. So there's going to be some conflict, especially when the game doesn't have "Dynasty Warriors" as the tag to make sure you understand "people really like this game."

That, and I'm trying to get into gaming journalism as a profession, so don't kill my hopes.

[Tydeus]

Although 99 Nights was a great rent -- I'm just gonna go head off-topic now, if that's cool with everyone -- but I wouldn't buy it; I sort of wonder nowadays if any game is worth $50-$60 unless it has multiplayer. Oblivion certainly is an exception. But beyond that? I really want my money's worth, and if I'm only gonna play a game for 10-20 hours, why buy?

Halo 1 was another exception, but only thanks to co-op. My mom's boyfriend and I got about 500 hours of play out of that thing. That's only $.01 per hour of entertainment! Sure makes the movies look like highway robbery. I've gotten similar amounts of play out of Halo 2, thanks largely to multiplayer, because the campaign mode isn't half what Halo 1 was.

I mean, it's 2006, nearly 2007 -- shouldn't companies just consider multiplayer mandatory?

And, as to N3 (Ninety Nine Nights), the thing that frustrated me the most about it is what could've been. For some reason, the American gaming establishment seems to ignore action hack-and-slash titles like N3, but I don't know why. I mean, in theory, the Platonic ideal of that genre would be playing Advent Children. And who wouldn't want to do that?

N3 could have been so much more if they had just made a few different design choices. (1) More complex fighting system. Plenty deep for 10-15 hours, but gets repetitive after that. Soul Calibur hit the right level of complexity -- mimic that. (2) Spells. The D-pad and the bumpers kind of went to waste in N3, as did the right trigger. Also, the clicking function of the thumbsticks went totally unused. Any of these could have been used for Fable-style spell menus, or the D-pad could have been used for Oblivion-style hotkeys. (3) Interactive environment. They made some stuff destructible -- so why not insert Assassin's Creed-style interaction with the environment? Clamboring, hanging, multiple jumps, etc. This of course makes me picture the scene in Advent Children where Cloud is fighting the massive Summon, ricocheting all over the skeletal steel frameworks of skyscrapers. Anything that brings an action title closer to Advent Children is a good thing. (4) Better effects for spells and large combo attacks. Think FFXII, or FFXIII. The screenshots for the spell effects in those games look insane (even if the gambit system is a blight upon humanity, games, and all things good and decent). Gothic 3 is another such example, as is that game that has a witch with a gun (what was that called?). (5) Closer view, fewer baddies on screen at once. Now, the massive crowds are awesome, but pulling in the view better sets the stage for my #6 suggestion. (6) More boss fights. Well, not necessarily just bosses, but generally more one-on-one to five-on-one intense battles. Again, this is because the focus gets put on more complex combat. Forces you to be more engaged and do less button-mashing. (7) Make the environment a bigger character. The mission-style setup of N3 is irritating -- the massive openness of Oblivion or Alan Wake is far preferable. (8) RPG-style item management. As in, having potions on hand, paying merchants for items, etc. Basically this boils down to more customization. (9) For God's sake multiplayer!

Now, I think that there, while somewhat ambitious (though most of the features have already been worked out with great success in other titles), is the recipe for a near-perfect action title. I just wonder why no one attempts it. My first feeling is that because people don't take the genre seriously, the developers don't bother to attempt something epic. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, vicious circle, shame spiral, pick your cliché.

[ZAKtheGeek]

"This game lacks innovation"/"I've seen all of this before" isn't very good reviewing. It attacks the existance of the game in general, which some people care about and some don't.

"This is mostly a clone of [blah], so go play that instead" is actually helpful.

[Redhawk]

Ninety-Nine Nights looks bitching fun. Bitching. Clearly the appeal of slicing up endless hordes of foes never dies, if the continued success of Dynasty Warriors and its many copies is any indication. But when you just played Dynasty Warriors 39 and have to turn to Ninety-Nine Nights, I can understand a certain amount of bitterness. Game reviewers play games for money and so I imagine it becomes a certain amount of fatigue and irritation with the industry. You can sing the praises of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas but when you have to turn to any one of its numerous clones, you tend to get a little pissed off I imagine and mental comparisons are uavoidable. I'm willing to bet that's why the reviewers are ecstatic over the Wii. It's something almost completely new, no matter how you slice it.
In essence, read game reviews between the lines. To me (On IGN's scale) anything that ranks above a 6.0 is still fun and worth playing. When you're dealing with a person that has to look a specific features, fun gets shoved to the back behind structure and gameplay. I guess its the reader that has to look for it.

Gah, that's a terrible post.

[Fifthfiend]

I think the problem with game reviews is they're boring as hell to read. They go way too far out of their way to establish some kind of pose of objectivity, which throttles all the voice and passion out of whatever it is they're trying to say. Basically they end up describing games in a way that bears no relation whatsoever to the experience of actually playing the games.

I can usually enjoy, say, a Penny-Arcade review of the game, because Penny-Arcade's review will be like "This game is totally awesome, up until it makes you burst a blood vessel in your eyeball and choke the hell out of your best friend." See? That's the simple, base-line description of the experience that I want to have in hand when I'm trying to decide where to allocate my game-buying dollar.

[Mirai Gen]

I think the problem with game reviews is they're boring as hell to read. They go way too far out of their way to establish some kind of pose of objectivity, which throttles all the voice and passion out of whatever it is they're trying to say. Basically they end up describing games in a way that bears no relation whatsoever to the experience of actually playing the games.

I can usually enjoy, say, a Penny-Arcade review of the game, because Penny-Arcade's review will be like "This game is totally awesome, up until it makes you burst a blood vessel in your eyeball and choke the hell out of your best friend." See? That's the simple, base-line description of the experience that I want to have in hand when I'm trying to decide where to allocate my game-buying dollar.
See, that's why I like Game Revolution (normally).

They don't just write a review. They write funny shit. (http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/survivor)

[QuackNate]

Hopefully with services like XBox live where you can just download demos all willy-nilly, reviews will become largely unnecessary in the coming times.

[Jagos]

I doubt it. We can get demos now. Doesn't mean the final game is going to be as fun.

[Monkeybonk]

Oblivion is the most cliche dumbed-down game I've played in YEARS and look at the reviews THAT got.

Reviews are all about graphics and marketability. Not really REVIEWING anything.