Thoughts on game reviews

[Graham Mitchell]

So, we've definitely debated to death on these forums about how basically useless number-based reviews are. Yet every time I get an issue of Game Informer and I read the review section I want to go punch the wall.

Now, I haven't even played the game yet, but the review that triggered me into this rage today was Game Informer's review of Shin Megami Tensei: Catherine. They gave it a 7 and talked about how boring and frustrating it gets. They recently gave the new Alice a 6.25 or something awful as well, but it's a perfectly fine game, and does what it's supposed to do admirably IMO.

I was pondering all of this and trying to figure out why I disagree with these guys so often (they take a shit on nearly every game that sounds interesting to me) and it suddenly hit me. I think that in order to write the review, the writers are expected to play the game compulsively and obsessively until they beat it and squeeze as much life out of it as they can. But that's not how I play. I change games a lot. I'll get into one game intensively one week, then shelve it and come back to it in a couple months. Know why? Because ALL games get boring after too much repitition.

Even the Zelda and Metroid games, as much as I love them, can get old. After 2-3 hours, sometimes I've just fallen down that hole in the dungeon one too many friggin' times, and I really don't feel like going through the whole level again. So I stop playing. When I pick it up the next day or whenever, it's fresher to me, and my interest is easily re-captured.

Anybody who's worked in game testing will tell you that compulsively playing a game for 40 hours+ a week will make you hate it. I have friends that play tested for Microsoft and Nintendo and they ended up just not playing video games at all for a year after they quit. If that's how reviewers are expected to play the games, then their interpretations are basically meaningless to a phenotypically normal person with no impulse control disorders who plays the game in a healthy fashion.

I also think this is why Heavy Rain got a 9+ from many reviewers, despite the fact that the gameplay is basically Dragon's Lair with more buttons and minimal replay value. The story has lots of sex and violence in it, and is pretty captivating at times. I think this lends to the game being more palatable in extended plays, despite it being not much of a game.

Thoughts? You guys think I'm nuts or am I on to something here?

[Icarus Moonsight]

I am certain getting high quality, objective with reasonable analysis and comparisons, review prior to or on release is entirely possible. As it stands, the people charged to doing it are failing at it. But then, print is dead, so who cares?

[Aussie2B]

I don't think professional game reviewers are playing games anything like game testers. I don't think they're playing games obsessively at all, and I definitely don't think their employers expect that of them either. The employers just want the piece done and written, as fast as possible, so they have something to go along with all of the ad space they're trying to sell. Because of that, it's true that the reviewers are sometimes forced to marathon games because they're given so little time to complete a review. They do aim to beat a game at least (but I can almost guarantee you that some games are written about without the credits ever being seen), which is is no sweat for a game under 10 hours, but it can be a nightmare for something like a long Japanese RPG. Because of that, I'd say the problem is the exact opposite. They're not playing the games enough. They're rushing like mad to get to the end, so they don't have the opportunity to dig deep and really learn and appreciate (or loathe) what it has to offer. Bottom line, reviewers need more time to more casually and extensively play a game, and their employers need to appreciate them more, pay them better, and encourage excellence in the quality of their work. There are indeed bad game journalists, no doubt about that, but the main problem is the structure of the industry created by the higher ups.

[Graham Mitchell]

I don't think professional game reviewers are playing games anything like game testers. I don't think they're playing games obsessively at all, and I definitely don't think their employers expect that of them either. The employers just want the piece done and written, as fast as possible, so they have something to go along with all of the ad space they're trying to sell. Because of that, it's true that the reviewers are sometimes forced to marathon games because they're given so little time to complete a review. They do aim to beat a game at least (but I can almost guarantee you that some games are written about without the credits ever being seen), which is is no sweat for a game under 10 hours, but it can be a nightmare for something like a long Japanese RPG. Because of that, I'd say the problem is the exact opposite. They're not playing the games enough. They're rushing like mad to get to the end, so they don't have the opportunity to dig deep and really learn and appreciate (or loathe) what it has to offer. Bottom line, reviewers need more time to more casually and extensively play a game, and their employers need to appreciate them more, pay them better, and encourage excellence in the quality of their work. There are indeed bad game journalists, no doubt about that, but the main problem is the structure of the industry created by the higher ups.

Well, if that's true, then it's no wonder all the JRPG's get dumped on all the time.

It's not so much the lack of objectivity that bothers me about these reviews. It's more the fact that so many of these reviewers (especially in the print world) seem to expect their games to be more of a movie than a game. If the game has any kind of story, they expect gameplay and cinematics to be seamlessly integrated like a Valve game or Mass Effect. I'm constantly reading how "out of place" the actual gameplay seems in the contrast to the cinematics. They comment about this in the Catherine review, in fact. I also remember Velvet Assasin getting just trashed on basically because it's level-based, and because each segment of the game is a little vignette, and none of them seem interrelated. They completely ignore the game's stellar visuals, intelligent writing, and all around FUN stealth gameplay. Yeah, when you die, you restart from the checkpoint. So what? That's a theme that's been around since Super Mario Bros. Why is it suddenly so uncool for a game to be challenging or demand a certain level of precision?

But, maybe you're right, Icarus. Maybe it all just because of a lack of objectivity. But I think if these people went back and played stuf from the pre-PS1 era they might understand that a game can be enjoyable despite not having scripted sequences and being slightly hard.

Just my 2 mesetas.

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's genuinely hard to write about experiences while taking yourself out of the picture. Reviewing works well also requires a broad experience base in the area you are writing about. Seems to contradict, but that's how it is. The only way I could write a review for a shmup is for other shmup fans without really pulling hard on bias to get it down in a fair light. I couldn't write a Star Trek game review for a similar reason, but rather for people that generally dislike it. And when I say could/couldn't I mean, with my integrity intact. If you are just doing the review for yourself and anyone that cares to look and read, then the standards relax quite a bit.

Perhaps they are serving their positions completely well to these points and expectations, we're just on the outside of it. I'm also fine with that. LOL

[Aussie2B]

Objectivity is impossible, seeing as reviews are critiques, which are completely subjective by definition. I think what you're getting at is bias. There are too many reviewers out there that will love any garbage just because it's in a particular genre or features some kind of content that they worship, or, conversely, will rag on something just because it's in an unfavored genre or such.

[G-Boobie]

On the subject of numbered reviews being worthless, its interesting to note the difference in perceived value between a literary, movie, or music critic and a game reviewer(the fact that the word 'critic' is seldom applied to game reviewers is pretty telling, too).

A critic of film, novels, or music is held in high regard, and his opinion is often weighed when formulating an opinion on something when you're deeply into whatever their chosen subject is. A professional game reviewer is an asshole and pretty much everyone hates him. There are certain people whose opinion I trust in the gaming world, like Jeremy Parish or the Rock Paper Shotgun guys, but normally I just consult the forums.

[dgdgagdae]

They comment about this in the Catherine review, in fact.

You mention the review of Catherine twice. Is that really what's upsetting you? And have you played the demo? That was enough to tell me that the gameplay had nothing whatsoever to do with the story, and that I wasn't going to play slideyblocks to watch some amime film.

To summarize: The Japanese are weird.

[Graham Mitchell]

You mention the review of Catherine twice. Is that really what's upsetting you? And have you played the demo? That was enough to tell me that the gameplay had nothing whatsoever to do with the story, and that I wasn't going to play slideyblocks to watch some amime film.

To summarize: The Japanese are weird.

No, this has been bugging me for years. But the Catherine article was what prompted me to write this post. It's also just an example that's fresh in my mind because I read it yesterday. I haven't played the demo yet because I preordered the game and I prefer to be surprised when it shows up.

I do agree with some of their reviews. I just saw that they gave Portal 2 a 9.5, and I think it deserved it.

Definitely, this stuff is not worth freaking out about. But I am/was curious to understand why my they consistently knock just about anything that's not a 2-D fighting game from Capcom or an FPS.

The bottom line is that you have to just digest these reviews as entertainment, I guess. Trying to understand why I disagree with them so often is basically pointless. I don't think I'll ever have an answer. And that's fine. :)

[Icarus Moonsight]

The bottom line is that you have to just digest these reviews as entertainment, I guess. Trying to understand why I disagree with them so often is basically pointless. I don't think I'll ever have an answer. And that's fine. :)

Bingo. We want information, sopping dripping meaty information. It's like the difference between technical articles and articles in People Magazine. This isn't serious, it's fluffy soft-propaganda funded primarily through media monopolies and payola. Might as well read National Inquirer.

[Rob2600]

So, we've definitely debated to death on these forums about how basically useless number-based reviews are.

To me, 10-point and 100-point rating scales are useless and juvenile. What's the difference between a 7.1 and a 7.2?

All we really need is a 3-point scale:

3 - Totally worth playing.
2 - Maybe worth playing. Rent it and see.
1 - Not worth playing at all.

[kafa111]

To me, 10-point and 100-point rating scales are useless and juvenile. What's the difference between a 7.1 and a 7.2?

All we really need is a 3-point scale:

3 - Totally worth playing.
2 - Maybe worth playing. Rent it and see.
1 - Not worth playing at all.

i would write 2 everytime. impossible to mess up

[kafa111]

wah double post

[Berserker]

I look at professional game reviews the same way I look at Ron Popeil infomercials: as chunks of paid programming. Does anyone actually base their purchases on what comes out of this small handful of institutions?

It seems to me that, by this point, we've almost completely cast aside any pretense that these serve to inform us in any real capacity. Instead, we view them now only as public measurements of games we've already purchased and played, having been informed by sources we find trustworthy, such as peer recommendation or our own intuition.

Whatever discussion occurs now focuses only on the public measurement as an object, and how close or far it comes to our own personal measurements; but the question of whether or not they are at all genuine or uncompromised is beyond discussion.

In a nutshell, we've twisted our views of these things to synchronize with the advertising industry that created them, because that's the only way their existence makes sense to us.

So my thought isn't that professional game journalism is bad - it's that it hasn't been invented yet. My hope is that at some point, the number of professional writers who are disillusioned and tired of trying to conform to this medium's boney grip reaches some sort of critical mass which might lead to its true birth.

[Icarus Moonsight]

To me, 10-point and 100-point rating scales are useless and juvenile. What's the difference between a 7.1 and a 7.2?

All we really need is a 3-point scale:

3 - Totally worth playing.
2 - Maybe worth playing. Rent it and see.
1 - Not worth playing at all.

Traffic light gaming reviews. That could serve well for a fast at-a-glance reference, at least when it comes to plow-in or full-stop. The middle ground is always the murkiest waters to navigate, and if you look, that's where a majority of the reviews range already. That's when the article itself is critical for informing a potential customer. The Metacritic aggregate review process just makes the middle-ground wider, but also accentuates the top and bottom. I've been using this myself already, so it does have some pragmatic quality.

Berserker is spot on. There is a better way, not yet realized. For most of us, at our level of involvement, we can disseminate information extremely well on our own. So the need to invest in this new way is somewhat diminished. But, as more folks come over to the dark-side that incentive will increase, and the usual sources will become that much less relevant. It will emerge when it's needed, like the Hero of Time. :)

[kupomogli]

I read reviews to find out what a game is like rather than whether I should purchase it or not. I do look and see how people have enjoyed it, but it's really if I find a value in it for myself before I purchase it or not.

As for the 10 point scale, it's not that it's bad, it's just that no one uses it properly. A 6/10 is supposed to be an decent game, yet the way professional review sites make it look is that 6/10 is the crap shovelware. It's rare that a game is 6/10 at all if it's at any of the professional revew sites. I think most of the games this gen should be below 6/10 or 3/5.

I think everything should really go by the five scale. It's more simple. When you have people looking at it and Infamous comes at a 3/5, it's giving the game a 6/10, where on the 10 scale people would flip out about it but on the five scale they'll be more like "oh, okay."

With the five scale. Five is near perfect or perfect. Four is very good, three is good, two needs some work, and one is crap. I don't really like the "three is average" as most games would fall under three then, and rather than looking like the game should be skipped, it looks like it should be played instead. Three being average is nice when over half the games in that specific gen don't suck.

[Gameguy]

I usually use Metacritic to average out reviews from many sources, rather than just use one source. Idealy it's best to find a reviewer who has a similar taste to yours rather than someone who's just "objective". Also, plenty of reviewers don't like certain genres and when they have to review a game from a genre they don't like the review is obviously more negative than it should be.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Just objective is boring, more so than just opinion that may or may not entertain (entertaining articles are popular for a reason, while technical articles are not popular but factors more important than a populist one), but it's a very important part because those points are relevant to anyone. For example, if a game is broken in some way. It should also be easy to tell from which angle the review is taking on an issue. Which is an existing problem. Of course it should be fun and engaging to as many as possible, I just would like that the vital wasn't sacrificed to the LCD.

[bangtango]

Biggest problem for me with Game Informer isn't their scoring system for reviewing games. You'll notice numerous people write the reviews, so obviously one person's 7 won't carry as much weight as somebody else's 6. Best you can do is figure out which of their writers you agree with the most and stick with their reviews.

With GI, I notice they leave out a lot of games. For example, I don't care if PS2 Madden 12 is the same as Madden 08 or 09 for the system. Write a damn paragraph for it and give it a damn score and don't give me some bullshit about EA didn't send you a copy to review because they probably did. But you and I know they won't even mention it.

I wish there was a legitimate magazine or a web site that had the balls to review the 5th consecutive roster update game, the $12 budget titles or the horrendous shovelware for each of the systems on the market, but nobody will do it.

[Gamereviewgod]

Because of that, it's true that the reviewers are sometimes forced to marathon games because they're given so little time to complete a review. They do aim to beat a game at least (but I can almost guarantee you that some games are written about without the credits ever being seen), which is is no sweat for a game under 10 hours, but it can be a nightmare for something like a long Japanese RPG. Because of that, I'd say the problem is the exact opposite. They're not playing the games enough.

The thing is, with games, they don't really need to develop.

Today, I sat down with Call of Juraez: The Cartel. The second I fired the gun it was trouble. It was sloppy, collision was suspect, and the guns were weak. It was 30 seconds. Four hours later, I'm taking a break for a bit, and I can assure you, for another four hours today I'll be using those same mechanics, doing the same things. I don't really need those other 10 or so hours to know it's pretty much a mess. The story is only the hole in the process now.

Reviewing games is vastly different than other media. Movies need to be a complete narrative, so do books. Games are really mechanical, selling themselves on their feel. You don't always have to play a game "enough" to know where you stand. You do because it's a job and it's required of you, but the opinion isn't going to change whether or not you beat it. I'm not going to hate Juarez anymore than I do now simply because I have a deadline.

People love to pick apart reviews, like the Catherine thing. I talk to the reviewer all the time. He was prepared for a backlash. Gamers are simply rabid when it comes to this stuff. They see a "7" and freakout. Alice? Yeah, Alice was rough. Levels dragged on for hours with no end in sight. One sitting, two sittings, doesn't matter. Maybe that didn't bother you. I was invested in the world but there was too much of it. A 6.5 is more than fair in my eyes, maybe not in yours. 'Tis the nature of reviews.

Keep in mind that in a great game, something truly special, you're never tired of it. The design is such that it takes an inherently repetitive medium and makes it something spectacular. Most games today are a lot of filler to fill some requisite length, and they're going to be called on it. The great ones stand out and you don't want that marathon session to end.

[Gamereviewgod]

I wish there was a legitimate magazine or a web site that had the balls to review the 5th consecutive roster update game, the $12 budget titles or the horrendous shovelware for each of the systems on the market, but nobody will do it.

What gaming publication would need to review shovelware if the target audience is already well aware it's shovelware?

And seriously, if more people actually PLAYED EA sports updates, they would see what's changed, been improved, and tweaked for dramatic effects. Every year? No, of course not. Most of the time? Yes.

[Aussie2B]

The thing is, with games, they don't really need to develop.

Today, I sat down with Call of Juraez: The Cartel. The second I fired the gun it was trouble. It was sloppy, collision was suspect, and the guns were weak. It was 30 seconds. Four hours later, I'm taking a break for a bit, and I can assure you, for another four hours today I'll be using those same mechanics, doing the same things. I don't really need those other 10 or so hours to know it's pretty much a mess. The story is only the hole in the process now.

Reviewing games is vastly different than other media. Movies need to be a complete narrative, so do books. Games are really mechanical, selling themselves on their feel. You don't always have to play a game "enough" to know where you stand. You do because it's a job and it's required of you, but the opinion isn't going to change whether or not you beat it. I'm not going to hate Juarez anymore than I do now simply because I have a deadline.

People love to pick apart reviews, like the Catherine thing. I talk to the reviewer all the time. He was prepared for a backlash. Gamers are simply rabid when it comes to this stuff. They see a "7" and freakout. Alice? Yeah, Alice was rough. Levels dragged on for hours with no end in sight. One sitting, two sittings, doesn't matter. Maybe that didn't bother you. I was invested in the world but there was too much of it. A 6.5 is more than fair in my eyes, maybe not in yours. 'Tis the nature of reviews.

Keep in mind that in a great game, something truly special, you're never tired of it. The design is such that it takes an inherently repetitive medium and makes it something spectacular. Most games today are a lot of filler to fill some requisite length, and they're going to be called on it. The great ones stand out and you don't want that marathon session to end.

That works for bad games and for games that are awesome all throughout, but it's not like there isn't anything in between. I've played many games in which I found them reasonably enjoyable until something soured my experience near the end. Be it a game that's fun for awhile but goes on for too long and gets far too repetitive and boring or a game that just has something completely unenjoyable near the end, like a final area that's really annoying and also huge so you're stuck dealing with it for a considerable amount of time. There are definitely games I'd be more favorable to without the final 5, 10, however many hours. It's always valuable to beat a game before reviewing if at all possible, unless the game is so wretched from the get-go that even a complete 180 (as unlikely as it would be) wouldn't make up for the unbearable portions at the beginning.

[calthaer]

I believe that game reviewers are at a distinct disadvantage vis a vis journalists (or "journalists", depending on one's view of the game-news business) who review movies, books, and so forth. Games typically take much longer to complete; it's almost impossible to do so in a reasonable amount of time. It's often a year or more before some games are revealed to be the true gems that they are; sometimes, it takes several years, if the game is niche and it takes a while for people to slot the game into their personal play-schedules.

I'm going to float an idea here - and I expect it to be a bit controversial even as I formulate this idea - but anyways...

It is in the best interests of everyone involved, I think, if game creators were to either create a "special version" of their game or to inherently enable "cheat codes" into all versions of the game to enable people to automatically skip around to any and all places in the game at any time. I'm sure that the creators must have something like this internally to enable them to test the game before sending it out; it's not too much of a stretch for them to create some kind of "test" version for game reviewers.

I realize this is kind of a dangerous concept. It means that there might arise a whole "bootleg" market for these "test versions" of the games, even if the companies required the game (which could certainly be copied) to be returned to them after the reviewer is done playing. I suppose each "test" version could have hard-coded info on the person to whom it went, but there are probably ways around that, too. That's why I'm suggesting the possibility that game developers would incorporate a "skip to the end" or "god mode" feature in each and every copy of the game they sell - possibly unlockable via an inputted code, or something.

The ramifications for that would be enormous. Imagine having every long JRPG having a god mode, that would allow one to skip at any point in the story (possibly with cookie-cutter party setups), at any time, and / or to give one's self any item at any time. It has the potential to completely "ruin" the game.

But - you know what? Who cares? With the possible exception of something like Pokemon, where players are trading with each other, and where they'd obviously want people not to be able to cheat like this, the "cheater" here is "hurting" nobody but themselves. Even with Pokemon, people already give themselves these "god-like" powers with just a little bit of effort and a flash-cartridge / save editor. Game Genie or Gameshark or Action Replay or whatever its current incarnation is these days would become obsolete - but their existence proves that there is a demand for this kind of feature.

It's the kind of feature that any and all board games have always had. It's totally possible to create a chess game that is halfway, or three-quarters, or whatever amount near its conclusion - a lot of good chess players probably do this to put themselves into various scenarios. One could do the same with any board game - it's just that people typically don't. They do have the freedom to do so, though.

I think video game designers / creators need to start recognizing the need for this sort of feature. This would allow any reviewer - great or small - to play a more comprehensive part of the game, and to give it a much fairer and balanced review than they'd otherwise be able to do. This might, in turn, help the good games to shine, and the bad games to be revealed, a lot more easily. At least...that's my theory. Maybe there are holes in it.

[bangtango]

What gaming publication would need to review shovelware if the target audience is already well aware it's shovelware?

And seriously, if more people actually PLAYED EA sports updates, they would see what's changed, been improved, and tweaked for dramatic effects. Every year? No, of course not. Most of the time? Yes.

Shovelware or not, any serious publication who gives a damn about covering the industry fully is going to review as many new releases as they can get ahold of and "test."

Besides, not everyone knows that shovelware is shovelware and sooner or later someone is going to buy it or think about buying it. So yes, a review of this stuff would help.

You can find well-written, professional reviews for darn near any movie that gets released whether it is a theatrical hit, direct-to-dvd rubbish or tv movie.

Any decent Atari, Sega or NES site/publication (dedicated ones) will give write-ups on the most horrendous stuff that those consoles saw because they are aware they have some degree of responsibility to their readers and to consumers.

Why should only AAA or niche video game titles get covered by a modern publication or web site? The "pick and choose what we want to score" nonsense doesn't sit well with me, especially when web sites with no genuine deadlines employ the same mentality.

[calistarwind]

Gamepro always had faces and that made me smile no matter what review I read.

[Aussie2B]

I think video game designers / creators need to start recognizing the need for this sort of feature. This would allow any reviewer - great or small - to play a more comprehensive part of the game, and to give it a much fairer and balanced review than they'd otherwise be able to do. This might, in turn, help the good games to shine, and the bad games to be revealed, a lot more easily. At least...that's my theory. Maybe there are holes in it.

It would be better than not beating a game at all, I suppose, but skipping around would give no sense of the pacing and flow of a game, which I think are pretty critical.

[calthaer]

It would be better than not beating a game at all, I suppose, but skipping around would give no sense of the pacing and flow of a game, which I think are pretty critical.

I'm not disagreeing with you that this method will miss what you're saying it will, but realistically and pragmatically I think we need to face the fact that game reviewers are never going to be able to play and write a review for most games that average longer than 10 hours in duration. They will cherry-pick some big releases to do this with, but for many of them, they're going to skip it.

Quite frankly, I think it would be better for reviewers to be able to judge the pacing and flow at any point in the game that they want by picking it up, rather than having designers "game the system" by polishing the first .1-.25 of a game for the reviewers and leaving the rest of it an unpolished turd for the unwary consumer to discover.

[Gamereviewgod]

Shovelware or not, any serious publication who gives a damn about covering the industry fully is going to review as many new releases as they can get ahold of and "test."

Besides, not everyone knows that shovelware is shovelware and sooner or later someone is going to buy it or think about buying it. So yes, a review of this stuff would help.

You can find well-written, professional reviews for darn near any movie that gets released whether it is a theatrical hit, direct-to-dvd rubbish or tv movie.

Any decent Atari, Sega or NES site/publication (dedicated ones) will give write-ups on the most horrendous stuff that those consoles saw because they are aware they have some degree of responsibility to their readers and to consumers.

Why should only AAA or niche video game titles get covered by a modern publication or web site? The "pick and choose what we want to score" nonsense doesn't sit well with me, especially when web sites with no genuine deadlines employ the same mentality.

Retro sites review everything because they've had 20 years to play them, and a lot them can be completed in an hour. I could review Contra right now without even playing it because of how much experience I have it with. Retro is a completely different beast.

Why should only AAA and niche stuff get covered? Because there's only so much time in the day. A magazine isn't going to give the shovelware space because, well, they don't have space. A website isn't going to do it because there's so little money to pay writers for all but the most major sites, and it's doesn't make sense to pay someone to review "Garbage Wii Shovelware 87" as opposed to the latest Call of Duty. COD will pull in endlessly more traffic.

As for movies, believe me, they don't get reviewed. I've been thanked for reviewing oddball Blu-rays in the past because the major sites wouldn't cover them. What happened? Something major that week didn't get covered.

Sites do review as much as they can; hell, I review as much as I can. There's only so much time and so much money to pay people though. If games were significantly shorter like they were before, this would be an entirely different conversation.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

Game reviews are helpful, but they are not the end all be all. If a game is unanimously getting ratings of 1, 2, or 3 out of 10 from many gaming magazines and websites, chances are that it is just a poor quality game that should only be approached with a hazmat suit, but some people with weird tastes may love the game. 8, 9, and 10 games from many magazines and websites are the opposite: they are LIKELY to be a game you'll enjoy, but it isn't a guarantee. If a game has mixed or average review, you may just as easily love or hate the game, or just find it indifferent.

What I'm saying is: someone is far more likely to enjoy Super Mario 64 (a great game with consistent 9-10 reviews) than Plumbers Don't Wear Ties (a bad game with 1-2 reviews) but not everyone will enjoy Mario more. I, happily, do (:

[Zigfried]

So many comments! And I agree with so many of them!

[kupomogli]

People love to pick apart reviews, like the Catherine thing. I talk to the reviewer all the time. He was prepared for a backlash. Gamers are simply rabid when it comes to this stuff. They see a "7" and freakout. Alice? Yeah, Alice was rough. Levels dragged on for hours with no end in sight. One sitting, two sittings, doesn't matter. Maybe that didn't bother you. I was invested in the world but there was too much of it. A 6.5 is more than fair in my eyes, maybe not in yours. 'Tis the nature of reviews.

Even a 6.5 is way too high for a game with as many problems as I've heard Alice 2 has. All the reviews I've read would translate to the usual 2/5 I'd rate for this gen, or on the 10 scale 4 or 5/10. 6.5/10 is 3/5, basically saying the game is worth playing, and most games this gen just aren't worth playing.

The problem is that reviewers rate everything too high. It's a combination of both the fanboys that flip out with anything lower than a certain number as well as the developers who will pull advertising unless they get a certain rating. Regardless. You're defending the reviewers when they're just as bad as the fanboys who rant about the ratings. Professional review sites are the reason why review scores are inflated.

[duffmanth]

I find most game reviews to be fairly objective, but some reviews just make me shake my head. IGN use to do solid reviews for the most part, but the last few years has been anything but. I think some reviewers find 1 or 2 minor things they don't like about a certain game and they end up trashing it with low scores. The gamespot review for Infamous 2 is a perfect example of this. The guy doing the review mentions he doesn't like how the screen goes grey for so long when you're low on health, and he found some of the gameplay and fighting sequences to be repetitive. I don't know that I haven't played a game where it doesn't get repetitive at some point?! So in the end, gamespot gives the game a 7.5/10 while most other sites are giving it a 9/10.

[bangtango]

Why should only AAA and niche stuff get covered? Because there's only so much time in the day. A magazine isn't going to give the shovelware space because, well, they don't have space. A website isn't going to do it because there's so little money to pay writers for all but the most major sites, and it's doesn't make sense to pay someone to review "Garbage Wii Shovelware 87" as opposed to the latest Call of Duty. COD will pull in endlessly more traffic.

Sites do review as much as they can; hell, I review as much as I can. There's only so much time and so much money to pay people though. If games were significantly shorter like they were before, this would be an entirely different conversation.

Who says a person has to get paid to review a $10 Wii fishing game or Ford Racing on the PS3? A web site like IGN, Gamespot or somebody smaller will have no trouble finding people who could write a good review, throw up a couple screen shots and do it for nothing just so they can have the opportunity to be published someplace and potentially get noticed.

That could include either an intern or a well-established member of their forums who has a good reputation.

I can understand some people who are there collecting a paycheck only having time to review Duke Nukem Forever, a new Call of Duty/Resident Evil entry, etc. but the lesser stuff on the market could be completed by "regular contributors" not on the payroll.

We may have to agree to disagree but I can't help but find it lame that to find reviews for over 50-60% of the modern games on the market that you have to wade through content with no capitalization or punctuation on Amazon.com or GameFAQ's.

[Zigfried]

The review actually says more than that, but even if it were exactly as you describe, 7.5 is a good score for a repetitive game that has a few other issues.

[Aussie2B]

Who says a person has to get paid to review a $10 Wii fishing game or Ford Racing on the PS3? A web site like IGN, Gamespot or somebody smaller will have no trouble finding people who could write a good review, throw up a couple screen shots and do it for nothing just so they can have the opportunity to be published someplace and potentially get noticed.

That could include either an intern or a well-established member of their forums who has a good reputation.

I can understand some people who are there collecting a paycheck only having time to review Duke Nukem Forever, a new Call of Duty/Resident Evil entry, etc. but the lesser stuff on the market could be completed by "regular contributors" not on the payroll.

We may have to agree to disagree but I can't help but find it lame that to find reviews for over 50-60% of the modern games on the market that you have to wade through content with no capitalization or punctuation on Amazon.com or GameFAQ's.

There are already people being taken advantage of enough as it is, so I don't think we should encourage this. If people want to write amateur reviews, wonderful, but let them do that on sites that cater to that. The last thing we should do is ruin it for people trying to make a living by pushing their companies into using free labor even more.

Take the manga localization/publishing business. Back in the 90s, people could sometimes make over $10 editing a page, but Tokyopop decided they didn't want to play by the industry's standards. Unpaid interns were brought on along with newly graduated kids so desperate to get their foot in the door that they'd edit for $3 a page. This set a precedent that has damaged the industry since, and pay rates have been depressed across the board.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Manga and anime translation is sort of a tangential here, but there is one aspect that strikes true in both that and game reviews. It's hard to sustain a for-profit business when other people are doing the work, in some instances better, for free access and don't have to deal with the overhead cost either.

Edit: Point taken, not really what I meant either. In other words, fixed. :)

[Aussie2B]

I wouldn't say it's better work. I mean, there are amateur reviewers producing much better work than the professionals (see: HonestGamers), but they're in such miniscule numbers. Take a look at reviews on GameFAQs and just try to tell me that 99% of the reviews aren't complete trash and definitely worse than the professionals, as poor as the professionals can be at times. Same with scanlation. There are some groups that are very talented and maintain high quality, but the majority consist of fans that aren't skilled enough to cut it as a professionals (a lot of these translators aren't even fluent enough in English and the editors haven't mastered English well enough to repair the script properly). That's why I really hope the Digital Manga Guild takes off and that the members can make a decent amount of money. Hopefully it can render a lot of the bad scanlations obsolete, and the good scanlators will finally realize that they deserve to be paid for their services and not just offer high quality content to ungrateful fans that only bitch when the scans don't come out fast enough.

[bangtango]

There are already people being taken advantage of enough as it is, so I don't think we should encourage this. If people want to write amateur reviews, wonderful, but let them do that on sites that cater to that. The last thing we should do is ruin it for people trying to make a living by pushing their companies into using free labor even more.

I can understand the need to make a living because there are mouths to feed.

However, if a "writer" is in the business mostly for a paycheck, above all else, then are they in it for the right reasons to begin with? Not to mention it raises questions as to whether the reviewer or publication could have been coerced into upping their scores to please someone.

Besides, talented writers who have already made a name for themselves won't have trouble finding or keeping a paying job regardless of the large number of people who would or could (in their minds) do the same jobs for free.

I was also disappointed to see this page distance itself from game reviews, which are no longer linked on the sidebar, though that was already discussed in prior threads.

[bangtango]

I wouldn't say it's better work. I mean, there are amateur reviewers producing much better work than the professionals (see: HonestGamers), but they're in such miniscule numbers. Take a look at reviews on GameFAQs and just try to tell me that 99% of the reviews aren't complete trash and definitely worse than the professionals, as poor as the professionals can be at times.

Exactly my point. I don't like seeing recent/new games on the shelves only to come home, look it up online and find no reviews anywhere on the web other than the likes of GameFAQ's or Amazon. Not even MetaCritic or GameRankings will turn up a lead for some of them.

That is why it baffles me that a lot of "new" game releases go unreviewed by so-called major print or web sources. For me, that is a bigger problem than an inconsistent scoring system in Game Informer, etc.

[Zigfried]

Writing for a site is a job, and people absolutely should treat it as a job.

[Aussie2B]

However, if a "writer" is in the business mostly for a paycheck, above all else, then are they in it for the right reasons to begin with? Not to mention it raises questions as to whether the reviewer or publication could have been coerced into upping their scores to please someone.

Besides, talented writers who have already made a name for themselves won't have trouble finding or keeping a paying job regardless of the large number of people who would or could (in their minds) do the same jobs for free.

Yeah, because there are people reviewing games and editing manga to strike it rich. :roll: Unless someone already has it made and is only working a job to keep occupied, pretty much EVERYBODY with a job is in it mostly for the paycheck, no matter how much passion and love they may have for what they do. Most people don't have the luxury to offer large amounts of their time and service for free or for a pittance. I don't get this false noble viewpoint that people have about games/manga/anime, as if that, if you're lucky enough to be a professional, it should be about nothing but love for the creators and the fans. As if people in those fields should feel guilty about the money they earn and that they should be content to take in less than those in comparable fields.

Also, you couldn't be more wrong about your second point. You can't throw a rock without hitting a talented writer that's unemployed, underemployed, or underpaid. And who has made a name for themselves? That's next to impossible when no one values talent, and it's hard to foster talent when there's little reward for it.

[bangtango]

Yeah, because there are people reviewing games and editing manga to strike it rich. :roll: Unless someone already has it made and is only working a job to keep occupied, pretty much EVERYBODY with a job is in it mostly for the paycheck, no matter how much passion and love they may have for what they do. Most people don't have the luxury to offer large amounts of their time and service for free or for a pittance. I don't get this false noble viewpoint that people have about games/manga/anime, as if that, if you're lucky enough to be a professional, it should be about nothing but love for the creators and the fans. As if people in those fields should feel guilty about the money they earn and that they should be content to take in less than those in comparable fields.

Also, you couldn't be more wrong about your second point. You can't throw a rock without hitting a talented writer that's unemployed, underemployed, or underpaid. And who has made a name for themselves? That's next to impossible when no one values talent, and it's hard to foster talent when there's little reward for it.

Welp, what can I say? You "got" me @_@

This is the part of the script where I fall down like a large oak tree and go boom.

I feel like a dude who gets a brain freeze from the local 7-11 Slurpee.

[PapaStu]

Many reviews are written months in advance, and often written based on review and beta copies of games that are not complete. You see on occasion that magazines either re-review a game or say they won't review it because it was broken.

I'll look at reviews just to see some other takes on the games. If I really want it, I won't be persuaded by it good or bad. But I've gotten games because of reviews that were never on my radar, either because it was reviewed so well, or so poorly.

[Gamereviewgod]

Who says a person has to get paid to review a $10 Wii fishing game or Ford Racing on the PS3? A web site like IGN, Gamespot or somebody smaller will have no trouble finding people who could write a good review, throw up a couple screen shots and do it for nothing just so they can have the opportunity to be published someplace and potentially get noticed.

That could include either an intern or a well-established member of their forums who has a good reputation.

I can understand some people who are there collecting a paycheck only having time to review Duke Nukem Forever, a new Call of Duty/Resident Evil entry, etc. but the lesser stuff on the market could be completed by "regular contributors" not on the payroll.

We may have to agree to disagree but I can't help but find it lame that to find reviews for over 50-60% of the modern games on the market that you have to wade through content with no capitalization or punctuation on Amazon.com or GameFAQ's.

Why have random people review stuff for the site with no training to speak of when the sites you mention already have user reviews? They would be the same ones reviewing it for the site. Those reviews exist because people were willing to do it in their free time. Asking someone to work for free from a site that large? It's should be considered offensive and honestly illegal. Fan sites get away with it based on their nature, and user reviews work more like extended comments. IGN and Gamespot have major dollars behind them. They have taxes, payroll, etc. They're big business.

Never mind that user reviews are beyond warped because people begin to justify their purchases. That's why a lot of reviews have backlash, people offended they bought a $60 coaster so they rant and rave, "It's at least an 8!" In the case of a paid critic who gets the game for free, no, they don't care. They have no investment in it. A bad game is a bad game, something that takes time away from other things.

You seem to have this idea that reviewing games for a living is all cookies and roses. It's not. Very few publications (if any) have dedicated critics, which is another problem all together. You need to be multi-faceted, so your time is split between previews, news, reviews, uploading new screens, reading PR, interviews, etc. How much time is left after that to actually review something? Not much, and as such, only the stuff the site's specific readership cares about gets reviewed.

[bangtango]

Why have random people review stuff for the site with no training to speak of when the sites you mention already have user reviews? They would be the same ones reviewing it for the site. Those reviews exist because people were willing to do it in their free time. Asking someone to work for free from a site that large? It's should be considered offensive and honestly illegal. Fan sites get away with it based on their nature, and user reviews work more like extended comments. IGN and Gamespot have major dollars behind them. They have taxes, payroll, etc. They're big business.

Never mind that user reviews are beyond warped because people begin to justify their purchases. That's why a lot of reviews have backlash, people offended they bought a $60 coaster so they rant and rave, "It's at least an 8!" In the case of a paid critic who gets the game for free, no, they don't care. They have no investment in it. A bad game is a bad game, something that takes time away from other things.

You seem to have this idea that reviewing games for a living is all cookies and roses. It's not. Very few publications (if any) have dedicated critics, which is another problem all together. You need to be multi-faceted, so your time is split between previews, news, reviews, uploading new screens, reading PR, interviews, etc. How much time is left after that to actually review something? Not much, and as such, only the stuff the site's specific readership cares about gets reviewed.

*jab, right cross, uppercut* THUD


*bangtango kisses the canvas and has officially been sent "packing" as he scurries back to the rock he crawled out from under deep in the mists of the woodwork*

[scaryice]

1-10 is a horrible scale. Should be 1-5 max.

[Doonzmore]

One of my bigger gripes with current reviews is that they've rendered a lot of adjectives and phrases meaningless. Isn't there some other way to talk about a game's frame rate other than calling it "smooth"? That's how most reviewers fail to distinguish themselves from one another.