Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: pointless videogame journalism

  1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,165
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default pointless videogame journalism

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/07/th...me_journalism/

    I agree with the author on some points. I haven't regularly read a videogame mag in a few years, but that's mainly because I get most of my info here. If there happens to be a good article worth reading, someone here will post about it.

    I've never been big on previews and why they take up so much space is a mystery to me. Half of the games either don't come out, don't come out when they're supposed to, or don't come out with the previewed features.

    As for reviews, it's either a love fest or a humorous trashing (admittedly I'm a fan of the latter). And apparently we are supposed to care what the writers are doing besides reviewing games and what they think is cool and not cool. Huh? Usually when I look at reviews I go to IGN or Gamespot, not to see what they think, but for factual info (ie what songs are on Guitar Hero) and video. If the game is THAT good, someone will post about it here.

    IMO the biggest problem is the emphasis on humor and "personalities". The original EG, which in my mind is still the gold standard for videogame journalism, had its humor in the right place...the emphasis was on facts about what was happening in the industry (I guess it helped that there was nowhere else to get that info).

  2. #2
    Cherry (Level 1) J2games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Farmingdale NJ
    Posts
    271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default Pointless

    I was on my way to DP just to post the "Pointless VideoGame Journalism" article, when I saw your post on the topic.

    Ahhh, for the good old days of EG....

    Curious who this fellow wrote for in th past, just so I can cancel a subscription!
    Be sure to check in on J2Games.com!

  3. #3
    Cherry (Level 1)
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    348
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    after i had followed the link and read that article, i had similar thoughts about the last couple of E3's as well, not too mention spaceworld 2000 which there are still a lot of people who have reserved bitterness towards wind waker, i guess it's another blurry line that no longer divides the good from the bad when a preview can build hype but not deliver, sort of like the way a movie preview can blow you away then bore you when you get there

  4. #4
    Peach (Level 3) sirhansirhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I've been waiting for an article like this to surface, but now that it has, I'm disappointed--the author isn't nearly thorough enough in his criticism of game criticism; his piece reads more of a quiet, petty argument more than the call to arms for game reviewers that was needed. One major point that I think he overlooked is the tendency of game reviewers to only give the best reviews to games that are sequels or are easily identifiable as being like a certain type of other game; they never seem to know what to do with a game that is truly innovative. For example, generally speaking, the original PS1 Tony Hawk got good reviews, but it wasn't until its sequels did the series start getting great reviews, arguably because the mainstream audience had embraced the series at that point where they hadn't when the original came out, and it was therefore safer to give the best reviews to the games that they knew the public would like. The same goes for Katamari Damacy vs. We Love Katamari, the PS1 Grand Theft Auto games versus Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City, and San Andreas (granted, the latter three are much better games than their PS1 counterparts, so that argument isn't as strong). The most recent example seems to be Guitar Hero (which we can't compare to a sequel yet, of course, but it is following the trend of good-but-not-great reviews). Granted, there are publications that were on the mark with these and other, similar games, but they are few and far between, and seem to be totally lacking in printed form (meaning that those reviewers who know what they're talking about are almost always online critics).

    And while the author of the linked piece mentions that there is too much stress on the reviewers making names for themselves and creating wacky personalities, I think that is only partially true--they seem to be distracted by being "funny," but the vast majority of game critics sound exactly the same, and are "funny" in the same way (I put funny in quotes because they are not, in fact, funny). This means that they seem to be bound by fitting into an assumed personality for the game critic as a whole, as opposed to cultivating their own personalities.

    Okay, I'll stop rambling now.
    Feedback thread here

  5. #5
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default Re: pointless videogame journalism

    Some of it's pretty obvious stuff, but he brings up some great points: previewers latch onto cool moves and shiny character models, but tend to ignore content.

    Obviously, it's impossible to expect a developer to have a great looking environment ready from the first preview, but journalists and developers can communicate. At some point, the developer should tell a journalist (who should be asking) what the game's world is like.

    As for the writer: if he wants to get back into the biz, he'd probably be well served not to create sentences like this:

    ...whilst reading various magazines and online publications for reviews, previews, features and editorials lately I've had a nagging feeling at the back of my mind which burst forth one morning into a revelation:
    Ugh!

  6. #6
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    For example, generally speaking, the original PS1 Tony Hawk got good reviews, but it wasn't until its sequels did the series start getting great reviews
    The author didn't get into this because he wanted to remain relevant. I would say that most of the reviews I've seen were mostly influenced by author opinion. In any case, this is a whole other issue, and I'd argue bringing up the question (which is still not proven as an "epidemic," or even a remotely common happening) would distract from his main thesis.

    arguably because the mainstream audience had embraced the series at that point where they hadn't when the original came out, and it was therefore safer to give the best reviews to the games that they knew the public would like.
    No, it doesn't work that way. A bit too much cynicism here.

  7. #7
    Kirby (Level 13) Push Upstairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    somewhere between the past and the future
    Posts
    5,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I read PC Gamer and thier humor and reviews seemed ok to me.


    Hell, they recently gave Quake 4 a 70% and they even had an article about the reaction they got from pissy fans.

    But I like it when they get a really shitty game...those are the best reviews.

    Possibility is infinity! You must be satisfied!

    You just can't handle my jawusumness responces. -The Sizz



  8. #8
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Push Upstairs
    But I like it when they get a really shitty game...those are the best reviews.
    Somebody didn't "get" this article, did they?

    He's arguing that the cathartic, pissy reviews represent a failure of the press to make known their wants (and, by extension, to present the wants of gamers who will eventually buy these products). Previews potentially could be even better than focus groups because you can determine, through reader feedback, whether the readers like what they're seeing.

  9. #9
    Cherry (Level 1) Yamazaki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Japan, Kyoto
    Posts
    391
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    "somebody" didn't get Push Upstairs post I'd say.
    Those magazines are also there to entertain us. No one is gonna dash into the stores to buy the games, they zines advise to do so. Reviews without puns, wit or humor would be like reading an essay in biology.



    If I want a good review I'll go and lend the game or try to play it somewhere. Or try to find videos. Mags can't give you that (even with dvd is limited).
    Guns don't kill people,
    Chuck Norris kills people!

  10. #10
    Ladd Spencer (Level 17) Captain Wrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    twiddle your ball sack Indiana
    Posts
    9,092
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Xbox LIVE
    Captain Wrong
    PSN
    Captain Wrong

    Default

    Who is this guy? I'm just curious because he states he's a game journalist, but he never says who he's written for.

    I kind of feel like this article...err, blog post...didn't say much really. I think we all can agree that pre-release hype has gotten out of hand and that holier than thou attidudes and juvenile humor is bad. So, what to do about it?

  11. #11
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yamazaki
    "somebody" didn't get Push Upstairs post I'd say.
    Oh man, I have been totally burned! No, not really.

    Of course the reason bad reviews get written is because game reviewers hate being forced to spend hours to a week with a lousy game. Yes, reviews of games like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing can be fun to read. What's not fun is reading the reviews that meander around a 7 score when their previews were glowing, from the same people who can exert a little bit of influence to get a game changed (I'm sure many do, but the author is arguing this should be a more transparent process to the reader).

    In theory, a good reviewer can change a game, just as good journalism can help change a government policy. Unlike a news writer, though, you actually have a grace period of months or even years (rarely) to work on them before they actually loose their creation on the public. It's not quite the same as having a crystal ball, but it's a huge advantage that I don't think the press or developers have a hard time playing just right.

    Also like news journalism, though, there's the chance that if you're too harsh you'll lose your sources. I would say that if a critical preview is written in a measured, fair manner (i.e. taking developer comments on their future plans into account, and not judging bugs that have yet to be fixed...the obvious stuff) there shouldn't be any trouble unless the developer is looking for a fight (ignoring for a moment the fact that all other previews give unexciting titles a pass).

    Those magazines are also there to entertain us. No one is gonna dash into the stores to buy the games, they zines advise to do so. Reviews without puns, wit or humor would be like reading an essay in biology.
    Actually, I've had to catch myself a few times and listen to people or actually read user reviews before rushing out. I'm thinking of three recent sci-fi shooters (two on Xbox, one on PS2...) that were supposed to be the best things ever, and none were capable of "rising" above the competition, or targeting that "zone" of quality (there's two...the last one had a wimpy guy with a gun follow around after some prisoner, I think).

    I long for a time when I could actually go to one of the big review sites, load up a preview, and get an idea what the chance the game will end up looking like.

    If I want a good review I'll go and lend the game or try to play it somewhere. Or try to find videos. Mags can't give you that (even with dvd is limited).
    I relatively rarely ever watch online trailers, and a monthly DVD probably would feature far more footage than I'll have time to watch. But yes, the depth of materials for a particular title will be limited.

    But even so, if you're hard pressed to find a review that you agree with (outside of a fellow gamer opinion, and even those can be suspect - thinking of Blowout here, a game I've saved at least four kids digging through bargain bins from so far), that suggests something is a bit troubled about that particular review site's/magazine's approach.

  12. #12
    Peach (Level 3) sirhansirhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    arguably because the mainstream audience had embraced the series at that point where they hadn't when the original came out, and it was therefore safer to give the best reviews to the games that they knew the public would like.
    No, it doesn't work that way. A bit too much cynicism here.
    I backed up my argument (which is just that, an argument; not fact) with examples of why I believe it to be true, while you just tell me I'm too cynical and move on. In the interest of having an adult conversation here, give me some examples of why you find my argument to be incorrect.

    Too further elaborate my side, compare game reviewers to film, book, or music reviewers. Speaking in generalities, film, music, and book reviewers will give good reviews to mainstream products when a good review is warranted, but also spend a lot of their time trying to get their readership to track down those lesser-known but higher-quality products in their particular media (film reviewers recommending indie films, music critics recommending indie music or music not easily defined by genre, book critics recommending books from unknown authors and from small presses with low print runs, etc.). However, the best reviews from game critics pretty much always seem to go to games that are easy sells, like Resident Evil 4, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Mario and Zelda games, etc., whereas a game like Psychonauts or Guitar Hero or Shadow of the Colossus will get just-below-great reviews (like 8.5 out of ten). Now, the easy argument here is that the former three games I mentioned are near-perfect games in the reviewers' eyes and the latter three are just one step down from them, and this argument is hard to argue with, since we're dealing with people we don't know's opinions here, except that this pattern of familiar formula=10 out of 10 and innovation=8.5 out of 10 amongst almost all game reviewers almost all of the time gets pretty glaring after 20-something years.
    Feedback thread here

  13. #13
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    [Review scores for Tonky Hawk's Pro Skater 2 were higher [read the stats later on to see that they actually weren't] arguably because the mainstream audience had embraced [THPS2] at that point [and] they hadn't when the original came out, and it was therefore safer to give the best reviews to the games that they knew the public would like.
    No, it doesn't work that way. A bit too much cynicism here.
    I backed up my argument (which is just that, an argument; not fact) with examples of why I believe it to be true, while you just tell me I'm too cynical and move on. In the interest of having an adult conversation here, give me some examples of why you find my argument to be incorrect.
    I love it - I spend all day consciously giving adult, reasoned posts (well, most all of them! Look at the Sealed games thread...I think I acquitted myself reasonably well there), and suddenly I'm not up to the standard. This is an insult. Do I wish to insult you back? No, of course not. What I am going to do, however, is make you eat crow. Forgive my glee, it's nothing personal.

    To explain my early dismissal: you didn't give any specific reviews, so I'm inclined to think you've just got some nutjob's review stuck in your head and applied that across the industry. Now, since a deal has been struck, it is obviously essential that I look up many examples to see what the case is.

    Let's start with a look at Tony Hawk Pro Skater, to see if your claims match up with reality.

    Off the bat, I acknowledge that print magazines might be underrepresented here, but in place of that we have...the whole internet to look at. I make no promises, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were true of print magazines, as well.

    GameSpot gives THPS a 9.0 - 2 gets a 9.9, and 3 gets a 9.0.

    IGN gives THPS a 9.4 - 2 and 3 get 9.6 scores.

    GameSpy didn't have any reviews for the four THPS games on PlayStation.

    Rotten Tomatoes didn't have any reviews, and their link to PSXNation didn't work.

    Their link to PSXExtreme did, however - 9.7, pulled down by the control (the lowest category at 9.5 - all the others were 9.7-9.8).

    Now, I'm sure you need no introduction to GameStats. It takes scores from all across the spectrum of game journalism and applies them to each game, giving a pretty decent "industry average."

    GameStats has THPS pegged at 9.2

    GameStats has THPS2 pegged at 9.2

    GameStats has THPS3 (on PS2) pegged at 9.2

    GameStats has THPS4 (again on PS2) pegged at 8.9

    Too further elaborate my side, compare game reviewers to film, book, or music reviewers.
    ...instead of giving specifics, but that's not your concern, is it? Right, an interesting digression, forgotten the moment it's typed in...

    Speaking in generalities, film, music, and book reviewers will give good reviews to mainstream products when a good review is warranted, but also spend a lot of their time trying to get their readership to track down those lesser-known but higher-quality products in their particular media
    Yes, because I know Benjamin Turner, Fargo, and Warrior (the former lately of GameSpy; the latter two still employed) hate indie games passionately. Or take GameSpot's Greg Kasavin, who probably rues the day he gave a decent score to Dead to Rights, but still plugged ahead and focused on the title's gameplay (watch the video review). I could go on like this for a while.

    However, the best reviews from game critics pretty much always seem to go to games that are easy sells, like Resident Evil 4, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Mario and Zelda games, etc., whereas a game like Psychonauts or Guitar Hero or Shadow of the Colossus will get just-below-great reviews (like 8.5 out of ten).
    I can understand your consternation over titles like Zelda WW and GTA (Rockstar titles haven't ever really been graphical showcases for the Xbox or PC, have they), but that's no excuse for ignoring what these reviewers said or constructing a false history of game journalism (which I've deconstructed, in part, above).

    Let's compare some games, then, using GameStats (if you don't mind; it seems to me a pretty good filter and relatively unbiased). From your "innovative but undescored" list to some more popular ones.

    Psychonauts - 9.0
    Guitar Hero - 9.4
    Shadow of the Colossus - 9.3

    GTA:VC 9.5
    Super Mario Sunshine 9.0
    The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (9.5, and I feel that's a wee bit high, myself, but you should be pleased as the game's quite innovative in a number of ways).

    The "popular games" are only .3 points ahead! That's .3 out of 30, or 1/100th. That's insignificant.

    I hope you don't make me dredge up reviews for Fallout and System Shock 2! Suffice to say, NO, your good word is not sufficient for me to take you seriously, especially when you get something as wrong as you have this argument. Perhaps you've been playing games and reading reviews for the last 20 years, but you sure don't remember it all that well.

    As I said before, I don't believe this argument even belongs in this thread.

    Now, the easy argument here is that the former three games I mentioned are near-perfect games in the reviewers' eyes and the latter three are just one step [or 1/100th - Ed] down from them, and this argument is hard to argue with, since we're dealing with people we don't know's opinions here, except that this pattern of familiar formula=10 out of 10 and innovation=8.5 out of 10 amongst almost all game reviewers almost all of the time gets pretty glaring after 20-something years.
    You can throw a three legged dog at me and call that innovation. Is it an interesting experiment? Surely it is, but I - and game reviewers, too - prefer something polished and innovative, rather than a product that's innovative but not polished enough. Part of the problem with your choices is that you've selected games with known quirks and merely judged other games to be "less innovative" simply because they were mainstream. Grand Theft Auto, and the whole sandbox game concept, not innovative? That's laughable.

    I guess I'll wrap up this overly long and tortured post by saying that if you want me to really make an effort to discover the truth, you can always start by insulting me In all honesty, I was interested in presenting my findings without shying away, but it seems your argument is wholly without merit. Basically, don't waste my time, and I won't waste yours. I read every post as if it's a fresh experience without carrying over preconceptions about the poster into my judgement of their post itself, but I think it's safe to say you should provide examples next time, instead of wrapping up barely constrained biases and presenting them as a legitimate argument, or once again I will take you less seriously.

    Feel free to second-guess me any time; to me, the truth is the most important thing. Just make sure that your argument is worthwhile, okay?

    (Final note - no, I don't think I'm on the schedule to get any Meseta from this, but given that this has used up half an hour of my time between classes, I wouldn't mind one bit!)

  14. #14
    Peach (Level 3) sirhansirhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    I backed up my argument (which is just that, an argument; not fact) with examples of why I believe it to be true, while you just tell me I'm too cynical and move on. In the interest of having an adult conversation here, give me some examples of why you find my argument to be incorrect.
    I love it - I spend all day consciously giving adult, reasoned posts (well, most all of them! Look at the Sealed games thread...I think I acquitted myself reasonably well there), and suddenly I'm not up to the standard. This is an insult. Do I wish to insult you back? No, of course not. What I am going to do, however, is make you eat crow. Forgive my glee, it's nothing personal.
    You seem to be mistaking me for wanting to start a fight, or to be personally insulting you. Neither of these are true. I am not trying to start a fight--a conversation, yes; an argument, maybe. It was you who was flip in dismissing my initial post, where I just asked you to elaborate on your dismissal of it; I think if one or the other of us is due for being accused of insulting the other, it is most definitely you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    To explain my early dismissal: you didn't give any specific reviews, so I'm inclined to think you've just got some nutjob's review stuck in your head and applied that across the industry.
    That may be true, as I'm operating mostly from memory here. The vast majority of reviews I read are in magazines (the only internet reviews I read are GameSpot and Penny Arcade), most of which I do not have copies of that I can reference to defend my argument. Lemme grab the most recent Game Informer and see what (admittedly trivial and not all-encompassing) I find:

    Console games that got a perfect 10 out of 10 or a 9.75 out of ten (limited to their single-page-long reviews archive):

    Call of Duty 2 for the 360
    God of War for the PS2
    Resident Evil 4 for the PS2
    Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for the X-Box
    Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for X-Box

    Hmm... so, sequels and series seem to be the overriding trend here (with the exception of God of War, which, while having its own spin on it, is hopelessly derivative of the sex and violence of games like GTA).

    And now for the innovative games I referenced in my original posts (if the reviews are archived here):

    Psychonauts for X-Box: 8.75
    Guitar Hero for PS2: 9.0
    Shadow of the Colossus for PS2: 8.75

    Well, this one magazine seems to hold up my argument. Before you say it, yes, I concede this is only one magazine while you had a much wider survey of online reviewers, and yes, I read this magazine on a regular basis, so its inadequacies may have tainted my recollection of what other reviewers gave certain games. This is why I was pushing for a discussion of the topic at hand, see? Learning stuff and having more solid opinions about matters can come in handy.

    Quote Originally Posted by "Ed Oscuro
    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    Speaking in generalities, film, music, and book reviewers will give good reviews to mainstream products when a good review is warranted, but also spend a lot of their time trying to get their readership to track down those lesser-known but higher-quality products in their particular media
    Yes, because I know Benjamin Turner, Fargo, and Warrior (the former lately of GameSpy; the latter two still employed) hate indie games passionately. Or take GameSpot's Greg Kasavin, who probably rues the day he gave a decent score to Dead to Rights, but still plugged ahead and focused on the title's gameplay (watch the video review). I could go on like this for a while.
    Well, again, maybe I'm just reading my game reviews in crappy sources, because I never really come across reviews of AgeTec games or Eidos games or things like that.

    Still, my point is that reviewers of other media tend to push for intelligent, socially relevant, medium-advancing works of art, while the widely-read game reviewers push for more of the same, rehashes of things already proven popular, pandering to its stereotypically young male audience, etc. Reference the recent thread about Roger Ebert saying video games will never be the art form that movies and books and music are in the future. Not to say that I agree with Ebert on that front, but until the gaming world successfully creates games that interest all ages, races, genders, etc., games that advance the art form of the video game in the eyes of the world, how can one really compare the industry to that of the widely-accepted art forms? And why I included this mini-rant here in this thread is because one could argue that a lot of this comes from game reviewers only hyping and giving the best reviews to the aforementioned sequel/series/rehash bullshit and not giving due coverage to the games that attempt this crossing over. Granted, this is far from the only reason, but a reason nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    You can throw a three legged dog at me and call that innovation. Is it an interesting experiment? Surely it is, but I - and game reviewers, too - prefer something polished and innovative, rather than a product that's innovative but not polished enough. Part of the problem with your choices is that you've selected games with known quirks and merely judged other games to be "less innovative" simply because they were mainstream. Grand Theft Auto, and the whole sandbox game concept, not innovative? That's laughable.
    Now here you're just being ridiculous. In my discussion of innovative games, I specifically named a handful of good examples of innovative games that eventually caught on. It was never my argument that any innovative game should get a good review; only the good ones should, clearly. My argument was that when an innovative game comes out and is fun and is polished, most game reviewers (or the ones I read, anyway) don't seem to know what to do with it. I think the examples I cited would generally be agreed upon by the average DPer as games that are both innovative and very well polished and fun.

    And also, yes, GTA3 was very innovative. Was it more innovative than the PS1 GTA1? Maybe, maybe not. GTA3 was certainly more polished, though. I stated in my original post that those games were not necessarily the best examples here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    I guess I'll wrap up this overly long and tortured post by saying that if you want me to really make an effort to discover the truth, you can always start by insulting me LOL
    Again, you're accusing me of insulting you. When did I insult you? Was it that thing about having an "adult conversation"? Because if it was, I implicated myself in that, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    In all honesty, I was interested in presenting my findings without shying away, but it seems your argument is wholly without merit. Basically, don't waste my time, and I won't waste yours. I read every post as if it's a fresh experience without carrying over preconceptions about the poster into my judgement of their post itself, but I think it's safe to say you should provide examples next time, instead of wrapping up barely constrained biases and presenting them as a legitimate argument, or once again I will take you less seriously.

    Feel free to second-guess me any time; to me, the truth is the most important thing. Just make sure that your argument is worthwhile, okay? :)
    Tell you what; I'll try to be sure my argument is worthwhile in the future, so long as you try not be be so defensive. Sound like a deal?

    And on the subject of wasting one another's time, don't you hate it when people get in long-winded arguments in a thread and you aren't one of the two people arguing? If that's what you non-involved DPers are thinking right now, well, sorry. I don't want to be the guy who is posting long, dumbass responses, at the sight of which other DPers groan. Too late, I guess.
    Feedback thread here

  15. #15
    Kirby (Level 13) Push Upstairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    somewhere between the past and the future
    Posts
    5,464
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    Quote Originally Posted by Push Upstairs
    But I like it when they get a really shitty game...those are the best reviews.
    Somebody didn't "get" this article, did they?
    I'll admit that the sub-30% reviews are fun and on alot of occasions hilarious., but the reast of thier reviews are informative about any flaws (bugs, control problems, missing features) and in the end thats what i want to know about PC games.

    Thier humor is funny, but its limited to areas of the magazine that have nothing to do with reviews. Nobody comes off as "hardcore", "wacky", "loud" or "in your face". And even if they did it still wouldnt help talk me into buying "Neverwinter Nights".

    Besides, PC Gamer has, on a few occasions, had some very well done articles relating to the ongoing "video game violence" fiasco.

    If i am talking that guys topic incorrectly then so be it. I interpreted (part of) what he said as an overall disliking of reviewers putting on some faux-personality to make thier reviews stand out only to be lost in a sea of "big personality" reviews.

    Possibility is infinity! You must be satisfied!

    You just can't handle my jawusumness responces. -The Sizz



  16. #16
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    It was you who was flip in dismissing my initial post, where I just asked you to elaborate on your dismissal of it; I think if one or the other of us is due for being accused of insulting the other, it is most definitely you.
    I saw a post that holds mainstream games to somehow be deserving of lesser status (sequels, oh no!) and that didn't bother to link any actual statistics. Of course I'm going to be a bit "flip!" All things considered, I did us both a favor by getting some facts and trying to discuss that. I still feel you haven't brought any convincing arguments and have your judgements clouded by some sort of grudge against mainstream titles. Basically, you seem to be saying that Psychonauts should have a score higher or equal to that of Resident Evil 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    To explain my early dismissal: you didn't give any specific reviews, so I'm inclined to think you've just got some nutjob's review stuck in your head and applied that across the industry.
    That may be true, as I'm operating mostly from memory here. The vast majority of reviews I read are in magazines (the only internet reviews I read are GameSpot and Penny Arcade), most of which I do not have copies of that I can reference to defend my argument. Lemme grab the most recent Game Informer and see what (admittedly trivial and not all-encompassing) I find:
    I also have Game Informer, and I must admit that my knowledge they are owned by GameStop gives me pause. That said, I don't especially mind their reviews, and indeed they write intelligent commentary (take the note from the editor in the last GI - talking about the month's cover. Heh!) While they aren't exactly in line with the rest of the mags/sites covered by GameRankings, the scores you've provided seem right in line. Graphics aside (potentially, as I haven't played the PS2 version, just seen comparison shots), I see no reason why RE4 doesn't deserve that score. I didn't play any other game - outside of multiplayer modes/mods for Half-Life 2, which was by far my biggest time waster - nearly as much as RE4 on the GameCube.

    I also must question why you brought this up in the first place if it turns out that you do read GameSpot, and that you in fact don't have a problem with (among other things) their Tony Hawk Pro Skater scores. Even from this small sample, one of your three sources contradicts this assertion.

    On a side note, you'll be interested to know that I quoted the wrong figures from GameRankings - their "average score" gloms together user and industry reviews. The press gave Psychonauts a 8.9 on the Xbox, and an 8.8 on the PS2 - here the user score is what's skewing it, as the public gave the XBox port a 9.2 while docking the PS2 five tenths of a point, down to 8.7 - lower than the press. The press was nothing if not consistent.

    I don't see the crisis here. These are perfectly good scores. While my lack of a PS2 and lack of money for Psychonauts cripples my ability to judge from the start, it seems those ratings are right in line from what I'd expect out of the games from the wide variety of reviews I read - reviews which highlighted the great ambience and design of the games while also pointing out some flaws with the platforming. The GTA series is getting long in the tooth, but even today again the developers have polished an original, innovative concept - and they add to the content, most importantly. Who criticizes Guardian Heroes Advance for borrowing too much from Gunstar Heroes?

    Hmm... so, sequels and series seem to be the overriding trend here (with the exception of God of War, which, while having its own spin on it, is hopelessly derivative of the sex and violence of games like GTA).
    Again, somebody's on a crusade, looks like. I've read a lot of very positive reviews of God of War; just because you and I are more in touch with our feminine sides and turn our noses up at violent games (i.e. Stubbs the Zombie, in my case) doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to enjoy those, or that the game's hopeless crap.

    No, I'm not calling you a girl (or myself, either!). You get my meaning, though - it's nice to be an advocate of "smart" politically correct titles and art house films, but simply disregarding it out of hand just because it's not highbrow...that seems snobbish.

    Remember Unreal 2? Got 7s all around from the press, as I recall, deservedly so (7.5 press, 8.0 gamers, via GameStats). Unfortunately, my GI sub started long after even RE4 arrived, so I couldn't tell you what they scored it. That said, this title recieved a solid drubbing from the reviewers for being just another FPS, and not the successor to one of the three 'greatest' franchises in the genre (those being DOOM/Quake, Half-Life, and Unreal. My apologies to Goldeneye/Marathon-Halo fans, etc, but this is a reflection of the public opinion).

    Killer 7? Got high scored indeed from most every player who decided to like it (8.6), considering the shallow gameplay aspect, while the press were harsher (7.5, ouch!) I myself don't mind a bit - this reflects the need of the press to review a title's longevity and playability, and to cater to gamers, not people who enjoy interactive movies. Great storyline and polish, but was the gameplay there? I was pretty nuts about it for a while, but looking back at it I'm definitely glad for the lower price point. It didn't have the longevity or fantastic gameplay of RE4.

    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    Still, my point is that reviewers of other media tend to push for intelligent, socially relevant, medium-advancing works of art, while the widely-read game reviewers push for more of the same, rehashes of things already proven popular, pandering to its stereotypically young male audience, etc. Reference the recent thread about Roger Ebert saying video games will never be the art form that movies and books and music are in the future.
    It's a sad day indeed when we ask for games to become un-fun, isn't it? That's what I'm getting out of that.

    [Deleting some stuff that I addressed above. There's no reason to accuse reviewers of being unjust when it's pretty apparent these opinions are reflected by the mainstream, and indeed necessary to bring down the "religious following hype" some people start up about underdog titles.]

    Tell you what; I'll try to be sure my argument is worthwhile in the future, so long as you try not be be so defensive. Sound like a deal?

    And on the subject of wasting one another's time, don't you hate it when people get in long-winded arguments in a thread and you aren't one of the two people arguing? If that's what you non-involved DPers are thinking right now, well, sorry. I don't want to be the guy who is posting long, dumbass responses, at the sight of which other DPers groan. Too late, I guess.
    You need not worry so much. I and (to some extent, I think) Anthony1 have that territory firmly under our control

  17. #17
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Push Upstairs
    If i am talking that guys topic incorrectly then so be it. I interpreted (part of) what he said as an overall disliking of reviewers putting on some faux-personality to make thier reviews stand out only to be lost in a sea of "big personality" reviews.
    From what I've read, it's a kind of catharsis for powerless reviewers. Bash a game, make it witty. You're absolutely right that it's hillarious, but it's their only outlet at times.

    This is one point on which all of us should agree - reviewers should use their ability to criticize (but mostly just prod) developers to create a product that you'd want to see.

  18. #18
    Peach (Level 3) sirhansirhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    I saw a post that holds mainstream games to somehow be deserving of lesser status (sequels, oh no!) and that didn't bother to link any actual statistics. Of course I'm going to be a bit "flip!" All things considered, I did us both a favor by getting some facts and trying to discuss that. I still feel you haven't brought any convincing arguments and have your judgements clouded by some sort of grudge against mainstream titles. Basically, you seem to be saying that Psychonauts should have a score higher or equal to that of Resident Evil 4.
    Ahh... the favorite, lazy-ass, ill-informed argument of people who haven't seen/read/heard/played the more obscure, more acclaimed forms of media: "You have a grudge against the mainstream." I only have a grudge against mainstream games that suck, and that grudge is equal to my grudge against obscure things that suck. I'm in total agreement that Resident Evil 4 is a great game and deserving of all of the 10 out of 10 scores it has been getting--note that I never name dropped that game as being undeserving of its praise. I've been playing and enjoying Mario Kart DS and Animal Crossing: Wild World pretty much around the clock for the past month. I have not, however, been playing GTA:SA, God of War, or any of that type of useless, derivative crap (although I have played both of those, as well as the other mainstream titles I complained about). You, on the other hand, admit to not having played a lot of the games under discussion here. So between the two of us, who is the expert on which games deserve praise and which don't? The guy who has played them all, or the guy who hasn't? Of course, it would be disingenuous of me if I failed to point out that game reviewers have played more games than me, and that it comes down to a difference of opinion. Even so, you are not even in the same field re: expertise on this debate if you haven't even played the games we're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    I also must question why you brought this up in the first place if it turns out that you do read GameSpot, and that you in fact don't have a problem with (among other things) their Tony Hawk Pro Skater scores. Even from this small sample, one of your three sources contradicts this assertion.
    Well, I don't read GameSpot religiously, because I have a 56k connection and it takes forever for me to load it. I read it when I get the chance, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    While my lack of a PS2 and lack of money for Psychonauts cripples my ability to judge from the start, it seems those ratings are right in line from what I'd expect out of the games from the wide variety of reviews I read - reviews which highlighted the great ambience and design of the games while also pointing out some flaws with the platforming. The GTA series is getting long in the tooth, but even today again the developers have polished an original, innovative concept - and they add to the content, most importantly. Who criticizes Guardian Heroes Advance for borrowing too much from Gunstar Heroes?
    There's a big difference between milking a franchise and releasing a sequel that is a worthy successor. This is why you don't hear people complaining that Advance Gunstar Heroes borrows too heavily from Gunstar Heroes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    Again, somebody's on a crusade, looks like. I've read a lot of very positive reviews of God of War; just because you and I are more in touch with our feminine sides and turn our noses up at violent games (i.e. Stubbs the Zombie, in my case) doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to enjoy those, or that the game's hopeless crap.

    No, I'm not calling you a girl (or myself, either!). You get my meaning, though - it's nice to be an advocate of "smart" politically correct titles and art house films, but simply disregarding it out of hand just because it's not highbrow...that seems snobbish.
    Well, look at this: one of us has played God of War and one hasn't. Shocking. Defend it all you want; you're just hurting your credibility.

    I liked Stubbs the Zombie, by the way. I didn't love it, but there were some admirable qualities there. Many more than God of War had, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    Quote Originally Posted by sirhansirhan
    Still, my point is that reviewers of other media tend to push for intelligent, socially relevant, medium-advancing works of art, while the widely-read game reviewers push for more of the same, rehashes of things already proven popular, pandering to its stereotypically young male audience, etc. Reference the recent thread about Roger Ebert saying video games will never be the art form that movies and books and music are in the future.
    It's a sad day indeed when we ask for games to become un-fun, isn't it? That's what I'm getting out of that.
    Oh yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, genius. Because all movies that are intelligent are not entertaining, all books that are socially relevant aren't easy to read, and all music that is challenging is noise, etc. Everything should cater to the uneducated masses. Mandatory lobotomies should be enforced, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    You need not worry so much. I and (to some extent, I think) Anthony1 have that territory firmly under our control :)
    What's this about Anthony1?
    Feedback thread here

  19. #19
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Easy there. I didn't think I was coming off as aggressive that time, but you definitely are starting to throw punches. Don't get worked up because you've played a few games I haven't - I'll gladly cede that ground

    You originally asserted that THPS got bad reviews because it was an early title, and that simply wasn't the case (and, now that I look at it, Katamari Damacy...the only review I've seen which even questioned the title's longevity was off 1up, one of the more surreal reviews I've seen, at that, and actually very well done).

    Yes, you're right in that I can't comment from firsthand knowledge about Psychonauts or God of War. I, personally, could bring up Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath and set it in its place (you'll have to tell me if they're of similar quality, of course), but that's a distraction from the issue of whether game reviewers go soft on mainstream titles and get soft in the head when reviewing innovative or obscure titles.

    That aside, there is something wrong when you start out with a sweeping assertion, then retreat onto the only ground that you can claim - owning a PS2 and having played a handful of games I haven't - and calling that a victory. Were we talking about a handful of game reviews, or the whole state of game reviews?

    What I still want to know is whether you believe, after all this, that

    ...game reviewers [tend] to only give the best reviews to games that are sequels or are easily identifiable as being like a certain type of other game; they never seem to know what to do with a game that is truly innovative.
    I can't comment on the statement that
    there are publications that were on the mark with [innovative games like Guitar Hero, We Love Katamari], but they are few and far between, and seem to be totally lacking in printed form
    and you might be right on the lack of good reviews in print mags. I think we've pretty well deconstructed the online part as a myth, though.

    In any case, yes, I think I overreacted to the lack of evidence in that first post (happens all the time), and I'm still receptive (as always) to anything new you have to say on th subject.

Similar Threads

  1. Nevermind, pointless
    By Oobgarm in forum Buying and Selling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-20-2012, 06:15 AM
  2. A new wave of game journalism
    By YoshiM in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-12-2004, 07:18 AM
  3. Jail Sentence for Bad Journalism (and Mod Chipping)
    By IntvGene in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-10-2003, 09:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •