Reviewers: Gave Duke Nukem a bad review? No more games for you!

[heybtbm]

I know Duke has it's own discussion going on, but this news requires it's own thread. Here's a little gem from the people (formerly) handling Duke Nukem Forever's PR...

"Too many went too far with their reviews... we r reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn't based on today's venom."

The story on Kotaku is great...http://kotaku.com/5812131/negative-duke-reviews-could-lead-to-pr-shitlist

Busted!

[Robocop2]

I don't really see what the big stink is about. I thought it was a well known fact that reviewer base their opinions at least partially on how much swag they get for a good review. Which is kind of in the same vein. In all fairness though I do read reviews just to hear opinions out curiosity but I take what they say with some caution.

[retroman]

its Duke..its all about mindless action and horrible story and cheesy sex innuendo's with bad one liners...but for some reason..im all over it..not that bad...

[retroman]

its Duke..its all about mindless action and horrible story and cheesy sex innuendo's with bad one liners...but for some reason..im all over it..not that bad...

[PapaStu]

And the PR guy who made the statements, came out later and apologized for saying what he did, as he says in the heat of the moment.

Seriously though, some of these reviews have been beyond bad. Games that are true crap like Darkest of Days, Jurassic the Hunted are scoring better than this, and I have a VERY hard time believing that the game is THAT bad.

[goatdan]

I have no doubt that stuff like that goes on in the game review business. Having said that, I do think that it suddenly became overly popular to hate on Duke for being Duke. It seems like sometimes the gaming press does this.

What's odd about Duke is that you had this huge amount of hype surrounding the demo and how great that was, and there were lots of articles talking about how cool that demo was...

With the game coming out, suddenly journalists are complaining about the same stuff that they were saying was so great earlier. The demo opens with Duke taking a pee. Okay, that was the same demo at PAX, where apparently that was really funny. Oh, the game is chlidish because you can pick up the poop and throw it around? Hello, welcome to Duke Nukem, where you could have him do weird stuff in the earlier games too. Don't like it? Unless I'm mistaken, at no point are you forced to pick up the poop and throw it around, so don't do it.

I canceled my pre-order on the game right before it came out because I had got the Ball of Steel edition when they were making a total of 6000 of them, and I saw a certificate that was over 83000. It doesn't make me any less interested in the game though, and I do feel like everyone decided to punish Duke more because it took so long to come out than for anything else.

[substantial_snake]

I'm a little confused about the hate for DNF as well.

Every video that I have seen with some critic bashing the game looks like an early PS3/360 title both graphically and gameplay wise. Nothing seems terribly broken or bugged the game, it just seems like a basic FPS with a character all its own...which if I'm not mistaken was what the Duke has been since 3D.

I've pretty much given up on "professional" game reviewers because of the amount of money pumped into them now and the politics that inevitably brings. In that light I can completely understand a company being upset with the treatment a game is given and therefore blacklisting those sites that go out of their way to bash your product.

That being said this should of been a budget title out of the gate, asking 60 bucks for the game was a mistake IMO and it cost them this sale. If released at 40 bucks I would of bought it new and probably loved every minute of its ridiculousness but now I'm waiting to pick up a used cheap copy.

[goatdan]

I'm a little confused about the hate for DNF as well.

Every video that I have seen with some critic bashing the game looks like an early PS3/360 title both graphically and gameplay wise. Nothing seems terribly broken or bugged the game, it just seems like a basic FPS with a character all its own...

The difference to me though is that the environments that I have seen in the game are all so wildly different. I've been playing through Killzone 2 lately, and everything looks very similar. Admittedly, I haven't beaten the game yet, but just in seeing some of the demo for DNF, it has more diverse environments in that short demo than Killzone 2 has had in the first three or so hours of play.

Too bad Duke isn't a space marine...

[kupomogli]

I've pretty much given up on "professional" game reviewers because of the amount of money pumped into them now and the politics that inevitably brings.

QFT

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1075772p1.html

Final Fantasy 13. 8.9/10

8.9/10

8.9/10

...and then later on rate it first in their most disappointing titles of the year.

Yeah. Reviewers are definitely getting paid to give crap games high ratings and then are offensive towards the a publisher when there aren't enough zeros on their check.

[Aussie2B]

I think you guys have a bit of a twisted view of professional game reviewers. They're not making a lot of money, and a lot of these mags/sites are on hard times too so nobody is really rolling in it. They are pressured to give high scores, but I'm skeptical that they're getting directly bribed. It's more a matter of publishers pulling advertising, which is the real way in which these publications make money, or denying exclusive access, which helps sell more mags/get more hits, allowing them to get more advertisers. If the reviewers give low scores that hurts the publication, they could theoretically lose their jobs or have their pay cut.

[retroman]

im not know pr...it aint that bad with what i said...go in with mindless fun and not much more...

[Dire 51]

It's more a matter of publishers pulling advertising, which is the real way in which these publications make money
I've seen firsthand evidence of how that affects professional reviews. Splatterhouse lost its advertising budget shortly before the game was released, and I firmly believe this was what caused all of the negative reviews from the big sites. The reader reviews were consistently in the average to above average range (which the game rightfully deserved), the professional sites gave it lousy reviews. That doesn't really jibe, does it?

Some places continued to trash the game after that, Joystiq in particular, prompting one member of my forum to say "Their 'coverage' of the game so far smacks of 'Namco's only sent promo items but no check, and my panties are in a bunch over it'."

[portnoyd]

8.9/10

Yeah, I feel no pity for the reviewers. FFXIII was total garbage in every respect.

They were definitely unnecessarily harsh with their Duke reviews. Most reviews were ones you'd expect to be tied to a 1/10 or 2/10... not 5/10 or 6/10.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I think you guys have a bit of a twisted view of professional game reviewers. They're not making a lot of money, and a lot of these mags/sites are on hard times too so nobody is really rolling in it. They are pressured to give high scores, but I'm skeptical that they're getting directly bribed. It's more a matter of publishers pulling advertising, which is the real way in which these publications make money, or denying exclusive access, which helps sell more mags/get more hits, allowing them to get more advertisers. If the reviewers give low scores that hurts the publication, they could theoretically lose their jobs or have their pay cut.

Which is why their output is suspect. Just like the News Media - Their access and pay is tied to playing ball. It's political, and worthless because of it. They're the twisted ones.

You get more useful reviews from some random gamer with a DV Cam and capture card on Youtube.

[Kitsune Sniper]

phreakindee / Lazy Game Reviewer said it's fun.

That's all I care about, really.

[Peonpiate]

QFT

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1075772p1.html

Final Fantasy 13. 8.9/10

8.9/10

8.9/10

...and then later on rate it first in their most disappointing titles of the year.

Yeah. Reviewers are definitely getting paid to give crap games high ratings and then are offensive towards the a publisher when there aren't enough zeros on their check.


So true, its always been that way though. And Square games have been the golden cow for "OMG ITS AWESOME111" reviews ever since the print mags were in force. As soon as a FF game is announced, even if its a utter turd like FF13 is its a good bet it will get a good review.

[goatdan]

The thing that I think that a lot of people are forgetting, which is I think what we're seeing with Duke Nukem, is that there are two prongs for how publications get their money -- advertising is one, but the other is traffic. If your web site has 5000 people coming to it a month, it's going to demand a lot less money for ads than if it has 5000 people coming to it per hour.

With DNF, when the reviews started coming out, I think it became a feeding frenzy to pick up on new and different parts of the game to complain about to drive traffic to those sites. The delay of DNF made it so this release was / is perhaps the most compelling release in years, and so when researching the game, would you be more interested in hearing an average review that touches on nothing new, or a review that complains bitterly about the humor, or the tiny Duke sections, or the driving sections, or the lack of enemy AI, or whatever?

Game reviews are like network news -- if you add a partisan slant to it to excite or inflame your audience, you have a better chance that people will stick with it longer to see what else is going on. That's what I think happened with Duke -- the reviews seemed to start out as average (when I first checked meta critic, it had two positives, seven mediums and two negatives, now it is 2 / 22 / 17, including 1up.com giving it a zero).

Why did they do this? Well, because it makes you go, "Oh my! 1Up gave it a 0! Let me see that!" Hell, it even worked on me. And thus, they can charge more for advertising.

It's crap, but there really is very little "journalistic integrity" left in any medium since everything is more or less run by the industry they seek to cover.

[Graham Mitchell]

I know the topic here is mostly about about game reviewers, and I agree that most of them confuse the hell out of me. (the new alice game got trashed, but I think it's great.)

However, what I find interesting about this story is that it's another example of people getting in trouble because of twitter.

Every week we hear about somebody's career being in jeopardy because of some stupid shit they said on twitter.

People in the public eye should be forbidden to have access to a twitter account. If they have one for pr reasons, the tweets should be composed by an objective writer. When people get pissed they can say some crazy stuff. The world doesn't need to be privy to that.

This pr guy deserves what he gets. Twitter is a public forum. He might as well have held a press conference saying game informer is a bunch of fags, because thats essentially what he did.

[Rob2600]

it suddenly became overly popular to hate on Duke... It seems like sometimes the gaming press does this.

Yeah, it's weird. Sometimes a game comes out and critics feel the need to out-bash each other in their reviews. Once the downward spiral of negative press starts, it's almost impossible to stop.


What's odd about Duke is that you had this huge amount of hype surrounding the demo and how great that was... With the game coming out, suddenly journalists are complaining about the same stuff that they were saying was so great earlier.

This happens a lot in video game "journalism." I used to read IGN every day and the writers there would hype up games like crazy in the previews, only to bash them in their final reviews. Eventually I recognized that pattern, stopped getting excited about game previews, and stopped reading IGN (and every other gaming publication).

All the publications are guilty of doing that. Before the game comes out: hype! hype! hype! After the game comes out: meh. It really seems like "previews" are just paid advertisements in disguise.



what I find interesting about this story is that it's another example of people getting in trouble because of twitter. ... People in the public eye should be forbidden to have access to a twitter account. ... When people get pissed they can say some crazy stuff. The world doesn't need to be privy to that.

I disagree. The world needs to see *more* of the truth, not less. Each time something like this happens, the curtain gets pulled back another inch, exposing more behind-the-scenes shenanigans (a.k.a. "industry secrets") and revealing the way things *really* are. It's a good thing.

[InsaneDavid]

People in the public eye should be forbidden to have access to a twitter account. If they have one for pr reasons, the tweets should be composed by an objective writer. When people get pissed they can say some crazy stuff. The world doesn't need to be privy to that.

I think it's more that people need to learn to keep business and their personal life / thoughts separate.

[Graham Mitchell]

I disagree. The world needs to see *more* of the truth, not less. Each time something like this happens, the curtain gets pulled back another inch, exposing more behind-the-scenes shenanigans (a.k.a. "industry secrets ") and revealing the way things *really* are. It's a good thing.

To some degree, yes I agree with the spirit of what youre saying. But at the same time, I realize that everybody says stupid shit when theyre mad because theyre not thinking clearly. It doesn't necessarily reflect what people really think. Thats just human nature, unfortunately.

People in the public eye should know better than to use a social networking utility for venting personal frustration, but they don't. I'm just surprised that employers don't protect them from this type of thing somehow.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think you guys have a bit of a twisted view of professional game reviewers. They're not making a lot of money, and a lot of these mags/sites are on hard times too so nobody is really rolling in it. They are pressured to give high scores, but I'm skeptical that they're getting directly bribed. It's more a matter of publishers pulling advertising, which is the real way in which these publications make money, or denying exclusive access, which helps sell more mags/get more hits, allowing them to get more advertisers. If the reviewers give low scores that hurts the publication, they could theoretically lose their jobs or have their pay cut.
I agree with this.

On top of that, let's not forget there's a review scandal every few years so some of the worst excesses of bribery are avoided.

Basically, I think most of the bias you see in game reviews is pretty obvious to any reader - just look at the ways they usually term problems. But most of the game reviewers I've liked over the years have been very straightforward in describing problems, and describe what they see in a way that's not hard to dismiss.

The other half of that is in previews, in which reviewers are very "let's wait and see" even in games where you'd be hard pressed to bet that the game will shape up before release. THAT is where the most damage is probably done - do you think that game publishers would pay to skin a review website with their game's logo and characters if there was a bad preview? Yet the preview is the time when criticism about what works and what doesn't would be best. On the other hand, there have been some games that were restarted when near completion and it helped out a lot - although the only example I can think of (TimeShift) ended up being forgotten anyway.

About Duke, well, you can just about say "Always Bet Against Duke" at this point. It's a shame really, but I am so incredibly tired of seeing that boxart. Very Do Not Want.

[Rob2600]

I think you guys have a bit of a twisted view of professional game reviewers. They're not making a lot of money... If the reviewers give low scores that hurts the publication, they could theoretically lose their jobs or have their pay cut.

In other words, professional video game "journalists" aren't allowed to be completely objective. They're merely salespeople hired to hype games so that ad revenue keeps rolling in from the game publishers.

I know that's an oversimplification, but it's truer than many gamers would like to believe. I briefly worked for a book review magazine and it was the same exact situation. I was shocked at first, but that's how the world works. "This book only deserves two stars, but the author has been paying for ads in our magazine, so we'll bump the review up to four stars. We want to keep her happy so she keeps paying for ads!"

Ultimately, is it better to lie to readers just to keep a low-paying job and keep advertisers happy...or tell the truth and have integrity, but risk losing advertisers and/or being fired? (FYI, I couldn't take it anymore and left that job after 8 months.)

[Aussie2B]

I'd actually say it's more a matter of the professionals not being allowed to be completely subjective, rather than objective. A critique is a completely subjective thing, but I think the professionals are pressured to be more "objective" and attempt to predict how the industry and consumer base will respond to a game, rather than be truthful and state the conclusions that they genuinely came to. That's why you see something like Final Fantasy always get high scores and praise. Big-name games like that are expected to be good, and the publications not only don't want to tick off the advertisers but also don't want to go against the mainstream opinion of their readers. The readers are often young and petty, and if you give a score 1/10th lower than what they feel is the "correct" score, that can be enough to lose a subscription. General rule is that if a big-name product is released, it score has to be inflated, while the low profile stuff can get honest reviews (although those can swing the other way in which if they think the mainstream won't give a crap, they can't seem "outlandish" by giving a particular game a really high score; advertisers might also take issue if a low budget, no-name game gets more praise than something they've dumped money into).

As for previews vs. reviews, I don't think negativity in previews is really call for. But neither is gushing. Previews and reviews are two entirely different animals. A review is a critique, designed for no purpose but to assess the quality, while a preview is more about showcasing data and images/videos. A preview should be pretty neutral, but I think some level of optimism is fine, since Lord knows we have enough jaded, snarky professionals. If the person writing the preview hasn't even played the game, he/she really is in no place to criticize it, and if they've only briefly tried a demo, that's not enough to come to any serious conclusions either. Any criticism, like if the controls aren't so hot for example, should be accompanied by about how far along the game is.

[goatdan]

I'd actually say it's more a matter of the professionals not being allowed to be completely subjective, rather than objective. A critique is a completely subjective thing, but I think the professionals are pressured to be more "objective" and attempt to predict how the industry and consumer base will respond to a game, rather than be truthful and state the conclusions that they genuinely came to.

To be completely fair to game reviewers, I think that game reviewers are human -- and, what I mean by that is that those game reviewers for the most part do believe what they are writing...

But the thing is that game reviewers can form their opinions by reading the opinions of others. For example, let's say that you really enjoy game X, and you go to type up a review about it. You didn't think it was the greatest game ever, but you notice that all the other reviewers have given the game a 4 / 10 or below. You were going to give it an 8, so you decide to read those reviews, where you have people who talk about the camera being a little wonky in this one part -- which it was, you had forgot about that, another person pointing out some story inconsistencies that you hadn't really noticed, but now that you've read them yeah, it's weird they are in there, and another person who was really disappointed that the game didn't include a few multiplayer modes. You hadn't thought of this before, but now that you've read it, it too makes a lot of sense.

Suddenly, are you going to review that game as a 8 out of 10? you were just reminded of a bunch of issues that it has, and you agreed with a bunch. There was an issue recently about this in EGM actually where one of the editors noted that people were complaining that he said a bunch of negative things about I think it was Splatterhouse, but still graded it as like a 7 / 10, and he answered that while he saw the flaws that the game definitely had, he still had a lot of fun playing it and therefore even though his review sounded more negative, he stood behind the 7 / 10 (or whatever it was). He also pointed to another game that he reviewed pretty positively earlier, and noted that he scored it low because again of the intangibles.

But I don't think that many people do that in their reviews, but I don't necessarily think people do it on purpose. I do think things like where that 1up review that I read earlier stated things in it like it was "pretty fun at points" and stuff like that that the real reason it got such a low grade was simply to drive people to the site to read it.

Having said all that, maybe I'm wrong -- I know that I would grade White Men Can't Jump for the Jaguar as the worst game I've ever played, but I would also tell you that the reason why isn't that the game is completely horrible, but instead that the game builds you up for something that it completely fails to deliver on, and because of that in particular, it brings out all of the other flaws in the game and magnifies them.

I played through and *beat* White Men Can't Jump, something I probably can't say for even 25% of the games that I get. Yet, although I'll admit that it had fun moments, thanks to it completely crapping on me for playing it by basically just cutting the game off, all that I really remember about it was the horrible, horrible taste it left in my mouth.

Based on what I've been reading with some of the Duke reviews, my guess is that the aliens impregnating women thing that does sound pretty crass and tasteless being so near to the end of the game really was the thing that stuck out in a lot of reviewers minds when writing the review. Having said that, South Park tends to do things of equal or greater shock value, and doesn't get lampooned nearly as much as Duke is getting...

[Rob2600]

game reviewers can form their opinions by reading the opinions of others.

with some of the Duke reviews, my guess is that the aliens impregnating women thing that does sound pretty crass and tasteless... South Park tends to do things of equal or greater shock value, and doesn't get lampooned nearly as much as Duke is getting...

This goes back to what I posted before: Sometimes a game comes out and critics feel the need to outdo each other with excessive bashing. It's immature, but happens all the time.

And South Park doesn't get lampooned because it's smart and has substance. There's a difference between being crass to cleverly and humorously illustrate flaws in our society...and being crass because the writers are in a state of arrested development.


let's say that you really enjoy game X, and you go to type up a review about it. You didn't think it was the greatest game ever, but you notice that all the other reviewers have given the game a 4 / 10 or below. You were going to give it an 8, so you decide to read those reviews... Suddenly, are you going to review that game as a 8 out of 10? you were just reminded of a bunch of issues that it has, and you agreed with a bunch.

This is why 100-point review scales are completely useless. If a video game is worth buying and playing, it doesn't matter if it receives an 8.6 or an 8.4 or a 7.9.

Seriously, what's the difference between an 8.0 and an 8.1? Nothing. So why bother with such a granular scale? Supposedly it's for readers' psychological benefit, but it serves no practical purpose and is actually quite silly.

In reality, all entertainment media reviews should use a 3-point scale: three stars (totally worth it), two stars (maybe worth it), and one star (not worth it at all, skip it). It's as simple as that.

[heybtbm]

Based on what I've been reading with some of the Duke reviews, my guess is that the aliens impregnating women thing that does sound pretty crass and tasteless being so near to the end of the game really was the thing that stuck out in a lot of reviewers minds when writing the review. Having said that, South Park tends to do things of equal or greater shock value, and doesn't get lampooned nearly as much as Duke is getting...

Apples and oranges. From the Kotaku review...

People laugh at South Park because, while it can be vile, it knows what needs to underpin the gags to make them work. People can laugh at racial jokes, normally a taboo, from the likes of Richard Pryor or Dave Chapelle for the same reason. Heck, you can even make good Nazi jokes if you're smart enough.

Duke Nukem Forever isn't smart enough. It's not even close.

[goatdan]

Apples and oranges. From the Kotaku review...

People laugh at South Park because, while it can be vile, it knows what needs to underpin the gags to make them work. People can laugh at racial jokes, normally a taboo, from the likes of Richard Pryor or Dave Chapelle for the same reason. Heck, you can even make good Nazi jokes if you're smart enough.

Duke Nukem Forever isn't smart enough. It's not even close.

The thing here is you're quoting Kotaku, who of course would want to write something like that to back up what they are saying.

I know people, my wife included, that it doesn't matter what surrounds the gags, she finds things like South Park completely unwatchable. I know people who love South Park, but find Family Guy too over the top.

I'm certain that there are some people that will think DNF is over the top. I also believe that there will be some that think that it has formed enough of a case based on the earlier things that have happened in the game to make the jokes work. That spectrum is what it seems like a lot of people are refusing to accept, or even acknowledge with DNF.

[Icarus Moonsight]

phreakindee... ...said it's fun.

That's all I care about, really.

Speaking of which, the whole story here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_EESRrn-Ck

[Kitsune Sniper]

The thing here is you're quoting Kotaku, who of course would want to write something like that to back up what they are saying.I'd take the opinion of a drunken hobo over Kotaku's any day.

I can't believe people still take them seriously.

[The 1 2 P]

I knew this was going to happen ever since Duke Nukem Forever finally became a reality last fall after Gearbox stepped in. While John St John and other Duke supporters want to remind people that Duke is all about it's sophomoric humor, the fact remains that it's an fps game launching in a very competitive fps market, especially this year with new iterations of Halo, COD, Battlefield, F.E.A.R., Crysis, etc.

I myself was wondering what exactly DNF was going to bring new to the table and according to reviews it hasn't brought much(if anything). But I'm still going to reserve judgement until I play a demo(or rent it from Redbox). I haven't been impressed with what I've seen so far but I still want to give it my own play test(even though my friends who have played it have already been telling me it sucks).

[flyngryter711]

The game wasn't the best but was unfairly bashed by critics. Although you hear about the dark side of the industry this story proves that this stuff really happens.

__________________
Cars 2 toys (http://hubpages.com/hub/Cars_2_toys) are expected to deliver as much fun as the movie that is if you can find cars 2 toys (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cars-2-Toys/194598127256909).

[Icarus Moonsight]

Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s

He nailed it.

Stay tuned for a great critique of 'pro' critics (Game Informer Witcher 2 review).

[Flashback2012]

I've been playing through it. It's not horrible by any stretch of the imagination but it's not lights-out the best thing I have ever played. I don't play many FPS games anymore, the last one I did play was Portal 2...if that even counts. If it does, that game had me WAY more engrossed than what I've gotten out of Duke so far.

If I were a reviewer, I wouldn't give DNF a bad review. Then again, I certainly wouldn't give it a good one either. :ass:

[TonyTheTiger]

I myself was wondering what exactly DNF was going to bring new to the table and according to reviews it hasn't brought much(if anything).

The question on my mind, though, is why should it have to? It was never a secret that the FPS genre evolved from Duke Nukem's day and that Duke himself was completely absent from that evolution. Ok, fair enough. But what was this game supposed to be? Was it supposed to leapfrog that period of time and become a contender on equal terms with modern games or was it supposed to be a throwback?

Given the amount of time it took for DNF to come out, the general atmosphere seemed to change from "this is the newest iteration of Duke" into "this is going to be a throwback to a bygone era/series." Because of the nature of DNF and it's legacy, I was always much more ready to compare it to something like Mega Man 9 or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World than the most recent CoD or Halo. It just doesn't feel like a fair complaint.

Admittedly I think the game got lost somewhere in between. It tried to keep to the classic Duke but at the same time not be too faithful to those early days. And maybe that's where it's real failings are. That it did both halfheartedly instead of picking one direction wholeheartedly.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

A counterpoint to this whole thread would be, maybe DNF is actually a bad game and the reviewers have it right. I don't buy into all this reviewer conspiracy stuff.

Check out how close the "critic" average score is to the "user" average score are on Gamespot. Keep in mind that users are just regular gamers like us, many of which bought or rented the game:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/duke-nukem-forever/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B1

So you have an average of around 5/10 from about 1,000 separate reviewers. That's pretty convincing to me. Also, if you read some of the user reviews, a lot of them are fans of the older Duke games, so I don't think the low scores come from people who don't understand what the Nukem franchise is all about.

[Xtincthed]

i'm really fed up with the reviewers that first explain about the history of DNF.. and then review it to todays standards

the graphics arent great, the gameplay is old fashioned.. but if this game was released at it's original time (or 5 years ago) it would have been mind blowing

now it's a mediocre game, which i enjoyed and finished (which i rarely do)

[Xtincthed]

Just watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s

He nailed it.

Stay tuned for a great critique of 'pro' critics (Game Informer Witcher 2 review).

QFT, he nailed it indeed :)

[MarioMania]

Point and Simple, if it's not Call of Duty, There will trash it

[heybtbm]

I'd take the opinion of a drunken hobo over Kotaku's any day.

I can't believe people still take them seriously.

Any specific reason why?

[Leo_A]

i'm really fed up with the reviewers that first explain about the history of DNF.. and then review it to todays standards

the graphics arent great, the gameplay is old fashioned.. but if this game was released at it's original time (or 5 years ago) it would have been mind blowing

Yet it wasn't released 5-10 years ago. It was released a few days ago after being completed this year. And there probably isn't even 5-10 year old code still there.

Why shouldn't it be graded by the standards of today?

[kupomogli]

i'm really fed up with the reviewers that first explain about the history of DNF.. and then review it to todays standards

I'm one who thinks all reviewers should review games based on all games available. I'm a Dragon Warrior fan, used to love the original Dragon Warrior, but now think it sucks. You know why? When it was the only game of its type out there, then obvioiusly it was a great game, but with more games released there's something to compare it to, and what I come up with is that the original Dragon Warrior is one of the worst JRPGs ever developed.

We bash games like Final Fantasy 13 for being worse than other games in past generations, so why should Duke Nukem Forever be any different on newer games? I have no interest in Duke Nukem Forever and really don't know if it sucks or not, but you're saying the same things people say about an old game that is clearly a pos says when defending a favorite of theirs. "It was great for its time." Except that Duke Nukem Forever's time is right now, in the year 2011.

However, review sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc, don't even follow that. Going by their ratings, nearly ever game released in the past few years is 3/5 or better. Meaning that every game is worth playing. And it's the worst games with the best scores.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Why shouldn't it be graded by the standards of today?

Why shouldn't the standards be examined? Because you'd quickly find that there is none. Your question becomes, "Why shouldn't a game be graded by no standard?"

DNF is what it is, and it's not a 3/10. The Witcher 2 review basically said the game was gorgeous and had an interesting storyline, but everything else was utterly broken... 9/10

Have you ever seen an amateur review like this:
Gameplay: 9
Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Story: 5
Replay: 8
Overall: 4

Or
Gameplay: 4
Graphics: 9
Sound: 6
Story: 8
Replay: 3
Overall: 9

That's some budding 'pros' right there.

[j_factor]

i'm really fed up with the reviewers that first explain about the history of DNF.. and then review it to todays standards

the graphics arent great, the gameplay is old fashioned.. but if this game was released at it's original time (or 5 years ago) it would have been mind blowing

now it's a mediocre game, which i enjoyed and finished (which i rarely do)

How on earth would this game have been mind blowing 5 (or more) years ago? Today's standards? I really don't think standards have changed all that much in the last five years. Five years ago, the standards for graphics an AI were a bit lower, but that's about it.

That's not to say every ounce of negativity is justified; some may be going too far. But it's not as though (many) people are saying "old game sucks 3/10".

[kupomogli]

Have you ever seen an amateur review like this:
Gameplay: 9
Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Story: 5
Replay: 8
Overall: 4

Or
Gameplay: 4
Graphics: 9
Sound: 6
Story: 8
Replay: 3
Overall: 9

That's some budding 'pros' right there.

Maybe journalists aren't required to know simple math any longer? Maybe Duke Nukem Forever scored higher, they're just too stupid to see the average is much higher than a four.

If those are really the review scores, I see them having a conversation like this.

"The gameplay is shit so we should give it a four, but overall the game needs to get a nine because we've got these advertisements up everywhere. Six months from now it'll go in our most disappointing games of 2011 list."

[Icarus Moonsight]

No, that's not taken from this specific instance. It's just simplified examples of "user" type reviews that sort of set a comparison and gives a similar review scenario with DNF and Witcher 2. It's not a direct parallel, but the outcome is just about the same, fan supplied or done for pay.

It seems to be the only standard I'm seeing as of late when there is room for doubt or argument. One of two things happen; either something actually decent gets shit on, or an over-hyped and flashy turd is lauded.

[InsaneDavid]

Why shouldn't the standards be examined? Because you'd quickly find that there is none. Your question becomes, "Why shouldn't a game be graded by no standard?"

DNF is what it is, and it's not a 3/10. The Witcher 2 review basically said the game was gorgeous and had an interesting storyline, but everything else was utterly broken... 9/10

Have you ever seen an amateur review like this:
Gameplay: 9
Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Story: 5
Replay: 8
Overall: 4

Or
Gameplay: 4
Graphics: 9
Sound: 6
Story: 8
Replay: 3
Overall: 9

That's some budding 'pros' right there.

Which is precisely why number ratings are stupid, period.

[j_factor]

Which is precisely why number ratings are stupid, period.

I give this post a 6 out of 10.

[Leo_A]

Why shouldn't the standards be examined? Because you'd quickly find that there is none. Your question becomes, "Why shouldn't a game be graded by no standard?"

DNF is what it is, and it's not a 3/10. The Witcher 2 review basically said the game was gorgeous and had an interesting storyline, but everything else was utterly broken... 9/10

Have you ever seen an amateur review like this:
Gameplay: 9
Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Story: 5
Replay: 8
Overall: 4

Or
Gameplay: 4
Graphics: 9
Sound: 6
Story: 8
Replay: 3
Overall: 9

That's some budding 'pros' right there.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, or with the post I was replying to.

He's complaining that a brand new game that was just released is being graded against other games of today.

He isn't complaining that reviewers were praising several elements of the game, but seemingly out of no where, gave it a low average score that made no sense despite praise for the humor, graphics, gameplay, etc.

They're pretty much being critical of every element of the game.

[Icarus Moonsight]

This is utterly confusing even me now... I'll restate it so to make it clear.

The Witcher 2 is a game released in the same time window as DNF... And by their (Game Informer) review (not by their scoring), it's a worse game than DNF. How? They said it did have excellent graphics and a compelling story, but the rest was broken. That gets a 9.25

:help:

[Leo_A]

This is utterly confusing even me now... I'll restate it so to make it clear.

The Witcher 2 is a game released in the same time window as DNF... And by their (Game Informer) review (not by their scoring), it's a worse game than DNF. How? They said it did have excellent graphics and a compelling story, but the rest was broken. That gets a 9.25

:help:

Clearly, they apparantly think the graphics and story makes it worth putting up with the rest. And somehow I doubt they used those words and gave it that score, or said anything of the sort (Edit: I looked it up and they praised a heck of a lot more than just that; I don't see the harm in being open that there are some significant problems with a game, yet still being so impressed with it that you give it a excellent score).

And again since you don't seem to understand this, he said that DNF (A just released game) should be graded by standards from years ago rather than today. He wasn't complaining that reviewers criticized many elements of the game yet gave it a high overall score, or the opposite, that they praised many elements of the game yet still gave it a low overall score..

If you look up reviews for the score from major media sources for game reviews, the overall score reflects what they think of the individual components. So exactly what the heck does this Witcher 2 example, from a single review source, have to do with this like you seem to think it does?

I'd love to know, since I'm clearly puzzled and can't establish the connection that you think is there with those post.

[Aussie2B]

All this stuff about "today's standards" and games being "good for their time" is a big pet peeve of mine. Games aren't any better now than they were in the past, and games don't magically change and get worse as they age. If your opinion on a game changes later on, it's either because your tastes changed or because you were blinded as to how the game really was back when you first played it (probably because of hype convincing you that it's awesome because it's shiny and new). Standards for games have never changed either. All that people expect out of a game, whether made in the '70s or made in 2011, is that it's fun to play, has well-functioning code, and, in terms of audio and visuals, is artistically pleasing and puts the capabilities of the hardware to good use.

DNF is definitely caught up in a huge hype machine right now, and even though I couldn't care less about the game, it's been fun to watch the internet implode over it. I think many of these people coming to dramatic conclusions about it need to give the game a try again in a year or two or five, when the hype is gone and people can play with a clear perspective. Then we'll see how many people still think it's terrible/awesome.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Clearly, they apparantly think the graphics and story makes it worth putting up with the rest.

92.5% is not what you grant something that nails the surface and a story arch, but fucks up everything else. It has no foundation, the main points that constitute a game are broken... Put it up with the upper 10% :roll:

Sounds to me like it would have done very well as a passive movie experience, rather than a video game - which it fails at, if the review is accurate (YT guy backed up their points... So, until I hear or experience otherwise, that's what I got to go from).


And again since you don't seem to understand this, he said that DNF (A just released game) should be graded by standards from years ago rather than today.

I responded to your standards question. What he says doesn't bear to me. What I say does. Obviously, I think you are both mistaken. Time is irrelevant in regard to quality.


If you look up reviews for the score from major media sources for game reviews, the overall score reflects what they think of the individual components. So exactly what the heck does this Witcher 2 example, from a single review source, have to do with this like you seem to think it does?

I'd love to know, since I'm clearly puzzled and can't establish the connection that you think is there with those post.

Double standards -- The art of appearing to have a standard while actually having none.

[PentiumMMX]

To be honest, I stopped caring about what the mainstream reviewers say after how badly they trashed Hyperdimension Neptunia. Sure, it does have some problems, but it is a solid game; certainly better than the trainwreck that was Diddy Kong Racing DS, which has a much higher score on Gamespot

[goatdan]

All this stuff about "today's standards" and games being "good for their time" is a big pet peeve of mine. Games aren't any better now than they were in the past, and games don't magically change and get worse as they age. If your opinion on a game changes later on, it's either because your tastes changed or because you were blinded as to how the game really was back when you first played it (probably because of hype convincing you that it's awesome because it's shiny and new). Standards for games have never changed either. All that people expect out of a game, whether made in the '70s or made in 2011, is that it's fun to play, has well-functioning code, and, in terms of audio and visuals, is artistically pleasing and puts the capabilities of the hardware to good use.

I'd like to respectfully disagree with you here, and I'll explain why...

If you look at a game like, say, Cybermorph for the Jaguar, which was really the first console based "go anywhere, do anything you want next" type game for any console. When it came out, it was a pretty mindblowing experience, and it was reviewed mostly positively.

When people look back at it, the game does not get the same sort of positive reaction. The reasons cited is a very poor draw distance, missions that are all the same, and so on. If fact, if you compare it even to Battlemorph which was released on the Jaguar CD about two-ish years after Cybermorph came out, it's clear that it was superior to it in basically every way.

Were reviewers who gave it a good score wrong to have reviewed it positively initially? No, I don't think so -- it was so different.

Did it not age gracefully because within a couple years a ton of new games had taken the idea and ran with it, improving on it greatly? Absolutely.

So how does this apply to Duke? I agree -- it should be reviewed as a game with the standards of 2011 and put up against the other similar games that came out. I have no issue with a reviewer comparing DNF to, say Killzone 3 and pointing out gameplay discrepancies that they have with it. I do think a number of reviewers are jaded by the fact they play so many games, and they can't look at it through the lens of that some people don't like the newer Halo gameplay, and that isn't wrong either, but it is wrong to say, "hey, this was good, and this was good, and this was okay, and this was good, and this wasn't the best, and I didn't like the humor -- It's worthless."

[Aussie2B]

I would say the feeling of "Wow, I've never done this before in a game!" falls squarely in the realm of hype. Innovation is a wonderful thing, but even if it's a new type of game, it still needs to be a fun, solid game. Those problems with Cybermorph that people cite now were there from day one. The draw distance was always poor, the missions were always repetitive. Why didn't people notice then? Hype.

I can think of many examples in which a game was a very new experience for most people while still being loved and respected today like Super Mario 64, Katamari Damacy, etc. Cybermorph just isn't as good as those, and it never was.

[Bojay1997]

I would say the feeling of "Wow, I've never done this before in a game!" falls squarely in the realm of hype. Innovation is a wonderful thing, but even if it's a new type of game, it still needs to be a fun, solid game. Those problems with Cybermorph that people cite now were there from day one. The draw distance was always poor, the missions were always repetitive. Why didn't people notice then? Hype.

I can think of many examples in which a game was a very new experience for most people while still being loved and respected today like Super Mario 64, Katamari Damacy, etc. Cybermorph just isn't as good as those, and it never was.

As others have, I respectfully disagree with this argument. Yes, there are certain games that have a timeless quality because of the strong nature of their play mechanics. I agree that Super Mario 64, Katamari, etc...fit into this category. Those games will still be fun years from now because technology does very little to improve their capabilities. You can also think of these as fitting a similar mold to classic films.

There are also games that are so unique or innovative when they are released, largely because of technological breakthroughs, that they keep the attention of gamers at the time because of their very innovative or unique nature. Hype might be enough to get someone to buy a game, but it doesn't keep them playing it. I recall getting my Jaguar and being blown away by how amazing Cybermorph was at the time. I played it for days and days. I wasn't reacting to hype or convincing myself it was great. For that time period, it was a great game. It was fun and addictive and let me experience something I hadn't before. Over the years, however, as technology and the skills of development teams have improved, there were many other similar games that improved on Cybermorph in every way. Duke Nukem is like this in many ways. At the time, the humor and uniqueness of some of the gameplay innovations were very addictive to players, including myself. A decade and a half later, however, there are lots of games doing the same exact thing in many, many better ways. As such, Duke Nukem was one of those innovation based games that needed to keep pace with other similar games to be great. It did not, unfortunately, do it with this release.

[Aussie2B]

There were people just as skilled at design, programming, graphic design, etc. in the 70s as there are now. That hasn't changed. You can say that certain individuals become more skilled as they increase their experience and knowledge, but not game developers as a whole. If that was the case, then why would anyone play older games if all new games were superior? Why would anyone still listen to Mozart and Beethoven?

The only thing that changes is the technology, which mostly only affects graphics and sound (once we got to the point that the storage mediums could hold as much code as a programmer would ever dream of writing, but more lengthy/complicated code doesn't necessarily make a game better either).

With Super Mario 64, technological breakthroughs were absolutely essential to it. The concept for it existed for many years and had to wait for technology to catch up. The N64 hardware was built basically for the sake of Super Mario 64. But despite all that reliance on hardware and technology, people still love SM64, regardless of the fact that 3D games are the norm now and that 3D hardware is far more powerful. There have been plenty of 3D platformers with more detailed graphics, larger worlds, more moves, etc. etc., but Super Mario 64 is still appreciated because it's a fun, solid game. It's exactly the same as the day it came out, and any game that was viewed as awesome in its time but lame now is no different. They were lame on day one, but no one realized it yet because they were too excited about having something new.

[Bojay1997]

There were people just as skilled at design, programming, graphic design, etc. in the 70s as there are now. That hasn't changed. You can say that certain individuals become more skilled as they increase their experience and knowledge, but not game developers as a whole. If that was the case, then why would anyone play older games if all new games were superior? Why would anyone still listen to Mozart and Beethoven?

The only thing that changes is the technology, which mostly only affects graphics and sound (once we got to the point that the storage mediums could hold as much code as a programmer would ever dream of writing, but more lengthy/complicated code doesn't necessarily make a game better either).

With Super Mario 64, technological breakthroughs were absolutely essential to it. The concept for it existed for many years and had to wait for technology to catch up. The N64 hardware was built basically for the sake of Super Mario 64. But despite all that reliance on hardware and technology, people still love SM64, regardless of the fact that 3D games are the norm now and that 3D hardware is far more powerful. There have been plenty of 3D platformers with more detailed graphics, larger worlds, more moves, etc. etc., but Super Mario 64 is still appreciated because it's a fun, solid game. It's exactly the same as the day it came out, and any game that was viewed as awesome in its time but lame now is no different. They were lame on day one, but no one realized it yet because they were too excited about having something new.

I strongly disagree and I think most classic game programmers would as well. The very means by which commercially released games are developed and programmed today is massively different than it was in the 70s, the 80s and even the 90s. There are entire teams of people devoted to various aspects of the design and programming and middleware tools for developing various aspects of the games. While a single programmer can develop what is generally described as a "casual game", they cannot successfully develop and program a 3D game without learning and using lots of tools that simply didn't exist decades ago. If all you knew is the same machine language or other programming languages that the Atari 2600 developers used, you absolutely could not be a successful programmer today. Things have changed way too much.

As for Super Mario 64, while I agree that the technology became available to realize games of that type, the game itself had charm, well designed levels and addictive gameplay that went well beyond the technology. There were lots of 3D platform games on the N64, many of which were popular at the time and fun to play, but they didn't have the timeless quality of Super Mario because over time, the gameplay didn't hold up.

People change, people grow and tastes change. Look at all the movies over the years that have won Academy Awards that people have zero interest in watching today. It doesn't change the fact that they were good movies, but it does reflect the fact that society and art progresses. Video games are the same way. Some games will always be classics because that particular part of society doesn't change and some games will only be great in the context of the time in which they were released because that part of society or our shared experiences has.

[kupomogli]

If you look at a game like, say, Cybermorph for the Jaguar, which was really the first console based "go anywhere, do anything you want next" type game for any console. When it came out, it was a pretty mindblowing experience, and it was reviewed mostly positively.

When people look back at it, the game does not get the same sort of positive reaction.

I've never played Cybermorph so I can't really say if it sucks or not, but what I've said about Dragon Warrior is similar.

Dragon Warrior was the only game of its type at its time and it was only good for that very reason. Out of all the later RPG releases that I've played, I don't think I've played a worse NES RPG than Dragon Warrior.

GTA3 and Vice City are two other games that fit except these two games were worse than either the Driver series or the earlier GTA titles.

So Cybermorph may have been a great game because it was the only thing available. There was just nothing else to compare it to, so it may have sucked, just not apparent because it was unique.

[TonyTheTiger]

My own personal take on the "it's good for it's time" argument is that there's some unquantifiable element that people tap into when judging games, or any medium for that matter.

I don't necessarily think that a game is merely the sum of it's parts. You know that vague and oft-parodied concept of "it"? Why does one game have "it" while another doesn't? Call it some kind of sixth sense for quality, call it some emotional trigger, call it whatever you want. But I think most people have some way of connecting with a piece of entertainment that they need activated in order for them to consider the product anything beyond "decent" or "pretty good."

Mega Man 9 is one of my favorite games of recent memory. And I'm not naive or blind enough to not acknowledge that there are some meta reasons for that. You could say the same thing for people who really love the Scott Pilgrim stuff.

I think Duke Nukem Forever was meant to trigger something similar. If it failed to do so then that could mean one of two things. 1) The game didn't do enough to harken back to those early FPS days or 2) Duke Nukem as a product just doesn't have enough behind it to trigger it in general, and was merely a fun relic of the 90s most people are satisfied to leave there but needed a new game to come to that realization.

I don't know the answer. But I don't think it's as simple as Duke Nukem Forever not being a match for Call of Duty and getting assaulted for it. If it had triggered those unquantifiable things, even being the exact same game it is now, it would not be getting lambasted.

[The Shawn]

Well, I played the demo yesterday. Yes it's a duke nukem game, no it's not worth fasting for 14 years over. Honestly it just reminded me of every other duke game I've played, nothing less/nothing more.

I'm sure all the hype over it for a decade didn't help when people were making their reviews. To be honest I'll pick it up when it hits $20. And am glad I didn't drop 60 clams on it like some other people, or $100 for the limited collectors edition that they only made 6 million of.

*me throws in Splatterhouse

[Leo_A]

I responded to your standards question. What he says doesn't bear to me. What I say does. Obviously, I think you are both mistaken. Time is irrelevant in regard to quality.

I wasn't really asking a question. It was a rhetorical question in an attempt to make him realize just how odd the thing he was proposing was (That reviewers should rate a game released in 2011 like it was actually 2005, just because of the long gestation period of the game; although I hardly think the fps genre has really changed that much in the past half decade).

So you're suggesting that time should be irrelevant when it comes to review scores? I couldn't disagree more and I don't think you'd find much support for such a concept. I think it's a near sighted suggestion to even propose such a thing. It might be a fine concept in something like a philosophy class, but this is the real world and not your classroom. People rate games by how they enjoy them. And when something like a new technological advancement or new game concept is a critical component to someone really enjoying a game, it's easy to see why the passage of time can diminish that opinion as people take a concept, advance it, and improve upon it.

That's why some people actually really enjoyed a poor game like Cybermorph in 1993, and almost no one comes to its defense in 2011 (Beyond a handful of rabid Jaguar fans). It's not because of these corrupted reviewers that you seem to think are fooling us into liking bad games or are making us think a good game is actually subpar, or even because review standards aren't correct somehow. It's because it's value was almost completely based upon it's technology. People were positive about it because it introduced to many people a new way to play a game and had them excited thinking about possibilities in the future as people built upon it. Once the march of technology progressed and made it obsolete, it's value quickly disappeared.

And I don't see the harm in that at all. That said, I think a great game will always be a great game. There are some games that are so well done that they're timeless. And I think a really good game will always be a good game, even if advancement in the art of gamemaking has somewhat diminished its value.

That's why I'm a classic gamer.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Not should be, is.

[Leo_A]

Not should be, is.

And that's nonsense.

Have your personal standards for quality of writing changed as you've grown older? Or do you still view your own writing exactly the same as you did when you were 5 or 6 and were learning how to write?

Standards are always in shift. That's life, my friend. They're not static and they never will be. To suggest that not only should they be static, but actually are, is just ignoring reality. People's taste are always changing and game development is always changing. It's an impossibility that how we view games isn't also changing right along with it.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Well, then all your arguments could be invalid tomorrow if that's true. Sounds like you don't believe it yourself either.

[Xtincthed]

How on earth would this game have been mind blowing 5 (or more) years ago? Today's standards? I really don't think standards have changed all that much in the last five years. Five years ago, the standards for graphics an AI were a bit lower, but that's about it.

That's not to say every ounce of negativity is justified; some may be going too far. But it's not as though (many) people are saying "old game sucks 3/10".

the problem is that we'll never know how much of the final game, was in earlier builds

for instance (like the guy in the video said) some of the parts like the fuel run - drive - fuel run zone, has been done by Half-Life 2.. but if that was in an earlier build of DNF and that got released it would have been "revolutionary"

[duffmanth]

I knew this game was gonna get trashed in the reviews as soon as it hit retail. In all fairness I actually did rent it just for the hell of it and I'm glad I did. It's a mindless and very dated shooter that's gonna be in the bargain bin by the end of summer.

As far as game reviews overall these days, like someone mentioned earlier, I read them with caution and if I'm not sure about a particular game I simply rent it first.

[Gameguy]

When reviewing a game it's fair to compare it to other games that are also available. For current games, you can compare it to any game that came before it. If you're reviewing older games years later, it's better to compare it to other games on the same platform or general time period when it was released(as well as any game available before it no matter how old).

It's like reviewing cars. Lets say it's 1994 and you're reviewing a car, compare it to other cars already available in terms of fuel efficiency, safety features, and overall reliability(aesthetics and comfort obviously count too). 17 years later it's obvious that new cars will be more fuel efficient and have much better safety features, does it mean that cars from 1994 always sucked and people just didn't realize it at the time? I don't think so, but if a car is released today and has the fuel efficiency and safety standards of a car from 1994 then it's fair to say it falls well short. With games though what matters most is how much fun it is to play, compared to cars that's like reliability which is pretty much a constant benchmark that doesn't change much over time(Super Mario Bros is fun like Phoenix Wright). No matter what it's still fair to compare it to what else is currently available.

[The 1 2 P]

I finally got to play the demo today. From a shooter standpoint I was very unimpressed. If the demo is an accurate representation of what to expect from the full game then I'll be waiting for it to hit the bargin bins before I pick it up. I know that alot of the stuff Duke does is because thats how the character is suppose to be portrayed but his lame one-liners just don't do it for me. And while I can probably say that this game isn't the worst shooter I've ever played it probably should have remained as vaporware. Or at the very least Gearbox could have took the work that was done and crafted it into another Duke game.

[Ed Oscuro]

When reviewing a game it's fair to compare it to other games that are also available. For current games, you can compare it to any game that came before it.
I am just going to jump in and play devil's advocate a bit to disagree with your argument.

When you review a car, is your purpose to be "fair" to the car? No, your purpose is to find which of the reviewed models meets your criteria. A car made in the 1930s and one made in the 1980s will reach for those points differently. You might style the Model B better looking than the Taurus, but you will probably give the edge in other areas to the "Robocop"-era Taurus.

So it is (or, as I like to think, should be) with games or any other thing. Is the purpose to artificially weigh the competition so the crap game gets a free pass? Time is limited, and just like some cars are unsafe at any speed, some games are less worthy of being played than others when you only have so many hours of living to do. (And even if that wasn't the case, you could find other things to do with that time, even if it were just replaying your favorite game.)

It's obvious (to me at least) that any game can be compared, apples-to-oranges, with any other game. For me the major issues are how successful each game was for its format or in its time, after how fun it is to play. A game that really pushed the boundaries of technology, at a time when the developers had to wait on tape drives or an old debugger or worse to even test it out, and is still a fun game, obviously gets better marks than some new era game that may have more art in it and more code but all done in a sloppy fashion while not being particularly fun. Of course, if those categories aren't so clear-cut then you have to do more thinking, sure, but it's just that - not letting some formula of "old = more free passes" that means you get to avoid the hard thinking.

[j_factor]

There are also games that are so unique or innovative when they are released, largely because of technological breakthroughs, that they keep the attention of gamers at the time because of their very innovative or unique nature. Hype might be enough to get someone to buy a game, but it doesn't keep them playing it. I recall getting my Jaguar and being blown away by how amazing Cybermorph was at the time. I played it for days and days. I wasn't reacting to hype or convincing myself it was great. For that time period, it was a great game. It was fun and addictive and let me experience something I hadn't before. Over the years, however, as technology and the skills of development teams have improved, there were many other similar games that improved on Cybermorph in every way. Duke Nukem is like this in many ways. At the time, the humor and uniqueness of some of the gameplay innovations were very addictive to players, including myself. A decade and a half later, however, there are lots of games doing the same exact thing in many, many better ways. As such, Duke Nukem was one of those innovation based games that needed to keep pace with other similar games to be great. It did not, unfortunately, do it with this release.

I have to agree with Aussie here. Innovation isn't the same thing as actually being a good game. I played Cybermorph when it came out, and I think it was a lot more impressive at the time, but that doesn't mean that it was actually better as a game. Perhaps you didn't see the flaws, but they were always there, and I do clearly remember some people complaining that you can't see very far and the game gets repetitive. (The game was never exactly a sensation after all.)

Look at Sonic Adventure. The recent release of it (on XBLA) has gotten some pretty mediocre reviews. When it came out it got some pretty glowing reviews. But personally, I disagreed with the glowing reviews, in 1999, pretty much for the same reasons that are outlined in the new reviews. I was arguing about it on message boards 10-11 years ago. Nothing has changed about this game. My opinion of it now is exactly the same as it has always been. People are wrong to say it has "aged badly", and they were wrong to praise it to the extent that they did in the first place.

[Gameguy]

I am just going to jump in and play devil's advocate a bit to disagree with your argument.

When you review a car, is your purpose to be "fair" to the car? No, your purpose is to find which of the reviewed models meets your criteria. A car made in the 1930s and one made in the 1980s will reach for those points differently. You might style the Model B better looking than the Taurus, but you will probably give the edge in other areas to the "Robocop"-era Taurus.

So it is (or, as I like to think, should be) with games or any other thing. Is the purpose to artificially weigh the competition so the crap game gets a free pass? Time is limited, and just like some cars are unsafe at any speed, some games are less worthy of being played than others when you only have so many hours of living to do. (And even if that wasn't the case, you could find other things to do with that time, even if it were just replaying your favorite game.)

It's obvious (to me at least) that any game can be compared, apples-to-oranges, with any other game. For me the major issues are how successful each game was for its format or in its time, after how fun it is to play. A game that really pushed the boundaries of technology, at a time when the developers had to wait on tape drives or an old debugger or worse to even test it out, and is still a fun game, obviously gets better marks than some new era game that may have more art in it and more code but all done in a sloppy fashion while not being particularly fun. Of course, if those categories aren't so clear-cut then you have to do more thinking, sure, but it's just that - not letting some formula of "old = more free passes" that means you get to avoid the hard thinking.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, what exactly are you disagreeing with? What you're saying is pretty much the same as what I said, I never meant "old = more free passes" so I'm not sure where you got that from. With reviewing cars, it's pretty obvious that the 1930's one won't be suitable for everyday driving, if someone wants one they'll already be fans of cars from that era and are fine with the extra costs and difficulties with finding replacement parts. If they're set on a car from back then, reviews comparing different cars from that same era might help them decide on which make and model to get.

I mostly meant that you could compare current games to older ones in terms of originality. If a new game plays pretty much the same as several older games but just looks better, it should be mentioned in reviews. It's great if you want more of the same, but if you've already had your fill then it's nothing ground breaking. If a new game does lots of stuff much better than the older title, that should be mentioned in detail. Explaining why the new game is better and offers something new for people who liked the older game will really be helpful. Like reviewing Arkanoid and comparing it to the original Breakout, it plays like it but adds so much more which makes it worth playing.

As for reviewing older games, I meant if you're reviewing 20 year old games today then they shouldn't be compared to current ones unless they really have major problems that were corrected in newer games. Kind of giving an example of something that feels wrong in the old game, while giving another example of how those problems were done right in newer games. If someone wants to hear a review about an NES game today then they probably are already fans of that system and want game comparisons to other NES games and other games from that time period, not hear how it sucks compared to a newer X-Box game. I swear I've heard some Youtube review where someone was complaining how some 8 or 16 bit game looked and played like crap compared to Halo or something.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Gee, our old LaSalle ran great...