What gaming publication would need to review shovelware if the target audience is already well aware it's shovelware?Originally Posted by bangtango
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.
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.
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.
You are startled by a grim snarl. Before you, you see 1 Red dragon. Will your stalwart band choose to (F)ight or (R)un?
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.
Last edited by bangtango; 07-22-2011 at 10:09 AM.
Gamepro always had faces and that made me smile no matter what review I read.
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.
Last edited by calthaer; 07-22-2011 at 05:07 PM.
You are startled by a grim snarl. Before you, you see 1 Red dragon. Will your stalwart band choose to (F)ight or (R)un?
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.
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 (:
Real collectors drive Hondas, Toyotas, Chevys, Fords, etc... not Rolls Royces.
So many comments! And I agree with so many of them!
Last edited by Zigfried; 03-23-2022 at 01:04 AM.
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.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
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.
Last edited by duffmanth; 07-23-2011 at 03:30 PM.
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.
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.
Last edited by Zigfried; 03-23-2022 at 01:04 AM.
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.
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.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 07-23-2011 at 12:39 PM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
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.
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.
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.
Writing for a site is a job, and people absolutely should treat it as a job.
Last edited by Zigfried; 03-23-2022 at 01:05 AM.
Posting Permissions
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from eBay, Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present of Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote
