Game Reviewers = Idiots?

Tydeus · 10-01-2006, 11:07 PM

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 · 10-01-2006, 11:17 PM

...

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 · 10-02-2006, 06:11 AM

Shouldnt this go in the games thread? Just wondering.

ZERO. · 10-02-2006, 07:11 AM

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 · 10-02-2006, 10:31 AM

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 · 10-02-2006, 12:05 PM

I love this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drusus

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 · 10-02-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Random Ninja

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 · 10-02-2006, 12:57 PM

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 · 10-02-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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 · 10-02-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk of Battle

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?

10-01-2006, 11:07 PM	#1
Tydeus Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: L.A. Sprawl Posts: 589	Game Reviewers = Idiots? 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 sht 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?

10-01-2006, 11:17 PM	#2
Random Ninja Canada's Secret Weapon. Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 278	... 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. __________________ :rmage: :You know, the last time we screwed with Canada, they burned down the White House (circa 1812AD, Planet Earth). Ever since then, they've been sitting up there...waiting... Waiting for us to let down our guard...I wouldn't be caught dead saying anything bad about those brave, handsome psychopathic pyros up in the Great White North. Not when we're 0 for 1.

10-02-2006, 06:11 AM	#3
Dwarfburg citizen Thinking profoundly... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: In the cave that is my room Posts: 241	Shouldnt this go in the games thread? Just wondering. __________________ NPF Zombie Horde: The nonsensical juggler / Unintimidating member of the Horde

10-02-2006, 07:11 AM	#4
ZERO. Geek/Nerd extraordinaire Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: In my computer. Posts: 691	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. __________________ p\|_\|7 \|_\|R h4\|\\|d 0\|\\| 4 H07 570\/3 Ph0R 4 \|\/\|I\|\\|\|_\|73, 4\|\\|D i7 533\|\/\|Z lIk3 4\|\\| h0\|_\|R. 5I7 \/\/I7h 4 pr377y GiRl Ph0r 4\|\\| h0\|_\|r, 4\|\\|D I7 533\|\/\|Z Lik3 4 \|\/\|i\|\\|\|_\|73. 7h47'Z r3l47i\/i7y. Albert Einstein leetified.

10-02-2006, 10:31 AM	#5
Random Ninja Canada's Secret Weapon. Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 278	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. __________________ :rmage: :You know, the last time we screwed with Canada, they burned down the White House (circa 1812AD, Planet Earth). Ever since then, they've been sitting up there...waiting... Waiting for us to let down our guard...I wouldn't be caught dead saying anything bad about those brave, handsome psychopathic pyros up in the Great White North. Not when we're 0 for 1.

10-02-2006, 12:57 PM	#8
The Wandering God THE SUPREME COURT DID WHAT? Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas (for now) Posts: 1,477	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