Game Reviewers = Idiots?

[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]

Originally Posted by Dwarfburg citizen

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.