The Quality of games reviews
- Thread starter Captain Bland
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They gave the Witcher a crap score: Go look at metacritic - its a great gameChalee said:
They gave Black and White an amazing score and its a pile of crap.
Those are just 2 examples off the top of my head...
The only reviews i trust these days are those of my friends and peopel i 'know' on forums. However I WILL not buy a game (for more than £5 to £10) unless i have played a demo / full copy first...
This golden age never happened, in fact standards for reviewing have improved somewhat as they are now under closer scrutiny. The worst instance ever was when CBM Amiga gave Epic 92% 3 months before work on the game even started. That was the standard of early games journalism. Nowadays this kind of behaviour is rarer and easier to spot. That doesn't mean games reviews are all that much use, but they're all there is. Sometimes you just have to take a risk.
See that banner at the top?
Yeah, the thing where it says that the Escapist beats the majority of gaming magazines in the US?
I believe that.
A few months ago I picked up my usual copy of PC Gamer UK from my local borders. Usually they weigh in at 130 pages long, and feature everything ranging from exclusive previews from actual press conventions to premièring the best indie games on the market. It comes with a double-sided, 7GB DVD with demos, cheats and films on it. Reviews inside the actual print tend to be condensed and somewhat heavily edited, but they still remain thorough. As for being biased or falling for hype? Well, they gave the Halo 2 port 65%? Heh.
At the same time, I acquired a copy of PC Gamer US from the same month. And after even a quick flick through, it is easy to see why the tagline on this site (if PC Gamer US is anything to go by) is true. I mean, really, no offence to PCGUS readers; but for Christ's sake! It was literally thirty pages long, included more advertisements than a daytime television show, and any exclusives they did obtain were literally half a page long. I was slightly disappointed that I'd spent so much money on such a poor product. Even the DVD contained demos four months old and the infamous US videocast which seems to be the entire selling point of the magazine, not vice versa.
Now, the reason why I read The Escapist online is because of how original it is. From the science behind Half Life to a single guy ranting constantly into his headset mic; we have it here. Plus, the entire thing is backed up by a great community (OMFG3SCAPISM [http://3scapism.blogspot.com]PLUG). I don't need to venture into the dark worlds such as GameSpot or whatever because my local published magazine happens to have everything I need.
The US reviewers sell themselves because, mainly, they believe that no one will notice. Heck, if everyone else is giving Halo unconditional love, then certainly they must follow trend because it would upset the audience otherwise, right? But although I'm not denying that European magazines can be biased (too much Meier and Molyneux love in PC Gamer UK for my liking), the quality of writing certainly makes up for it. Unlike the bland, uninteresting and downright short content found elsewhere.
Yeah, the thing where it says that the Escapist beats the majority of gaming magazines in the US?
I believe that.
A few months ago I picked up my usual copy of PC Gamer UK from my local borders. Usually they weigh in at 130 pages long, and feature everything ranging from exclusive previews from actual press conventions to premièring the best indie games on the market. It comes with a double-sided, 7GB DVD with demos, cheats and films on it. Reviews inside the actual print tend to be condensed and somewhat heavily edited, but they still remain thorough. As for being biased or falling for hype? Well, they gave the Halo 2 port 65%? Heh.
At the same time, I acquired a copy of PC Gamer US from the same month. And after even a quick flick through, it is easy to see why the tagline on this site (if PC Gamer US is anything to go by) is true. I mean, really, no offence to PCGUS readers; but for Christ's sake! It was literally thirty pages long, included more advertisements than a daytime television show, and any exclusives they did obtain were literally half a page long. I was slightly disappointed that I'd spent so much money on such a poor product. Even the DVD contained demos four months old and the infamous US videocast which seems to be the entire selling point of the magazine, not vice versa.
Now, the reason why I read The Escapist online is because of how original it is. From the science behind Half Life to a single guy ranting constantly into his headset mic; we have it here. Plus, the entire thing is backed up by a great community (OMFG3SCAPISM [http://3scapism.blogspot.com]PLUG). I don't need to venture into the dark worlds such as GameSpot or whatever because my local published magazine happens to have everything I need.
The US reviewers sell themselves because, mainly, they believe that no one will notice. Heck, if everyone else is giving Halo unconditional love, then certainly they must follow trend because it would upset the audience otherwise, right? But although I'm not denying that European magazines can be biased (too much Meier and Molyneux love in PC Gamer UK for my liking), the quality of writing certainly makes up for it. Unlike the bland, uninteresting and downright short content found elsewhere.
I think the lesson we've all learned is that unlike movies games give us a multitude of ways to preview the game without spending our hard earned cash. Rent it, play the demo, shoplift it, or watch your friends play first. These are all things that you can not do with movies when they are released. If you're buying bad games at other people's behest then it's your own stinkin' fault for being a dumb consumer.
OMG! That's JUST what a bot would say!Copter400 said:
I have...many problems with games journalism and reviews, but I find that Edge does some good work. For the most part though, games magazines really do feel like one of those in-flight magazines published by the airline. They generally try not to say anything different, for the most part it's hard to tell one writer from the other, and it all feels as safe as a room made entirely with marshmallow.
Also 3scapsim is good. *cough*
Your argument that 'they gave this game a low score, but in fact is great, and therefore they are a rubbish magazine' simply does not hold water.Lightbulb said:
There is a high degree of subjectivity involved in any review, and your views will necessarily tally with that of the reviewer - a high metacritic does not indicate that the game is *objectively* good, but only that a lot of people like it. What makes a review good is whether or not the reviewer gives valid reasons for his score, and whether the review he writes helps you in deciding whether or not to buy the game. It's for these reasons that I find pcg to be a good mag (and the generally good quality of the writing as well)
Having said that I haven't read The Witcher review and I haven't played the game, so I can't comment on the specific example you have chosen.
The state of journalism has been in decline since the advent, and mass popularity of the internet. I'm sure there are some really great indie journalists, but unfortunately, since the internet became a place where everyone and their mother could post their opinions, major magazines and news programs faced competition from their own consumer base. So the magazines and news shows did what they do best, something the public will automatically respond to: fear, bias, pretty much hate speeches. (Example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_effect#Controversies])
I have two takes on the situation. First of all, not buying a game for being 7/10 seems ridiculous to me, but perhaps on a different level than others. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with being a 7/10. It means that it's above average to good, just not quite great. Or in the case with the Enchanted Arms review: 5/10 means it's average, and if you're a fan of the genre, that shouldn't have to be a particularly bad thing. It just means that it's not bringing anything new to the table.
As for me personally, I think it's just moving with the times. Being an old-school gamer, moving on is something I often do reluctantly, but in this case, there's no avoiding it. Back in the days of Nintendo Power, people liked video games. They were fans of video games. And there were two types of video game, and they were "good games" and "bad games." Games were based on their game mechanic being good (ie: fun) or not good (ie: not fun). Trace back far enough, and you'll find that there's at least one game from each genre that we know today that I really enjoyed, because it was a fresh new mechanic. FPS, RTS, RPG, hack and slash, dungeon crawls, adventure games, and so on and so forth. But now, those games that were innovative have splintered off and become their own sub-genres of video games, and things are getting convoluted. Now we have loyalties between one genre over another. Now we have to start thinking about games in terms of individual merits as well as where they stand within their fanbase. Now we have epic wars over whether or not Halo is a good game, because hardcore gamers say one thing and the mainstream millions say another.
What is good and bad anymore? Video gaming has become so widespread, and games have come so far since their roots that we constantly have to redefine what merits to base our reviews and criticisms on. A reviewer criticized Fire Pro Wrestling Returns on the PS2 because the graphics were sprite-based. Although I've been a fan of FPW for a long time and didn't need convincing to buy the game, I do have to say that one of my favourite aspects of the series is that it stuck to its sprite-based roots and chose not to move ahead to 3D polygons.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that reviews are useless, but I do think we should think about how we look at reviews. A few rules of thumb: 1) don't trust one opinion, look around and see what the general consensus is, and 2) more importantly, try to ignore the opinionated aspects and look to find the objective points. Don't read about whether or not the reviewer hated a certain feature, think about whether or not you would like that feature. Combine those two and reviews can be a fairly useful tool to helping you determine where your money should go.
Or, better yet, you could just rent the damn things.
But anyhow, I'm doped up on NyQuil right now, so I have no idea where to go from here or how to end it, so I'll just stop.
As for me personally, I think it's just moving with the times. Being an old-school gamer, moving on is something I often do reluctantly, but in this case, there's no avoiding it. Back in the days of Nintendo Power, people liked video games. They were fans of video games. And there were two types of video game, and they were "good games" and "bad games." Games were based on their game mechanic being good (ie: fun) or not good (ie: not fun). Trace back far enough, and you'll find that there's at least one game from each genre that we know today that I really enjoyed, because it was a fresh new mechanic. FPS, RTS, RPG, hack and slash, dungeon crawls, adventure games, and so on and so forth. But now, those games that were innovative have splintered off and become their own sub-genres of video games, and things are getting convoluted. Now we have loyalties between one genre over another. Now we have to start thinking about games in terms of individual merits as well as where they stand within their fanbase. Now we have epic wars over whether or not Halo is a good game, because hardcore gamers say one thing and the mainstream millions say another.
What is good and bad anymore? Video gaming has become so widespread, and games have come so far since their roots that we constantly have to redefine what merits to base our reviews and criticisms on. A reviewer criticized Fire Pro Wrestling Returns on the PS2 because the graphics were sprite-based. Although I've been a fan of FPW for a long time and didn't need convincing to buy the game, I do have to say that one of my favourite aspects of the series is that it stuck to its sprite-based roots and chose not to move ahead to 3D polygons.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that reviews are useless, but I do think we should think about how we look at reviews. A few rules of thumb: 1) don't trust one opinion, look around and see what the general consensus is, and 2) more importantly, try to ignore the opinionated aspects and look to find the objective points. Don't read about whether or not the reviewer hated a certain feature, think about whether or not you would like that feature. Combine those two and reviews can be a fairly useful tool to helping you determine where your money should go.
Or, better yet, you could just rent the damn things.
But anyhow, I'm doped up on NyQuil right now, so I have no idea where to go from here or how to end it, so I'll just stop.
One thing that I think that many people fail to grasp is that the point of a review is to be a guide that people can read and get an idea about the content of a game. Too many people take reviewer's words as dogma, and that a reviewer's tastes may not be exactly the same as their own. For example, I read many reviews of Ocarina of Time before buying it, which all praised it as if it were the second coming. I, however, found it to be a fairly good game, but nothing too special. Also, Kane and Lynch has been getting some bad scores in reviews recently, but I am currently enjoying it immensely, although the difficulty of the level that I am on now is giving me flashbacks of Turrican.
This may be true, though if it is, the other reviewers have chosen to do nothing about it, which makes me dislike them even more.Altair-Ego said:
In general, I don't trust ANY reviewer. Yahtzee is funny, but I don't trust him either. My problem is that every paid reviewer worships graphics and hates JRPGs. Seriously, is there any reviewer that doesn't?
So many things to cover, so little time... let's start here: I've been paying attention to IGN for a little while now, and I'm fairly confident that they're not paid off. To be honest, the notion that so many of these companies are just paid for their good reviews makes me just laugh. You have to be kidding? Am I saying it's never happened, heavens no. But certainly it's the minority of cases, by a fair deal. That's like saying movie studios are buying off Entertainment Weekly or IGN's movie site. That's just ludicrous. Again, I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I'm fairly positive most places have their act together and their integrity in place. IGN is one such place that I defend whole heartedly.
I do think one problem I have with reviews is that little number that so many people are so obsequious to. It's just a number, and by no real means a good guide. Reviews should certainly focus more on what's there and what isn't, and whether or not the game comes together coherently. Trying to tell a die-hard shooter fan that Picross is an amazing game seems rather... pointless, don't you think? So, logically, trying to convince a shooter fan that a simple puzzle game deserves a high mark seems rather counterintuitive. They may try and argue that it's boring and isn't fun because it's not a shooter game. Not picking on shooters, saying their idiots or anything, just picked it out of the air.
As for the quality, well... I think as the medium evolves, so does the rest of the industry. It's still in it's adolescent stages, when you think about the industry as a whole. There's plenty of room to maneuver here. Certainly going to Nintendo Power or the official X-Box magazine will be a terrible idea for anything other than a release date or preview here and there.
As a side note, I love Ben Croshaw, but I find that his reviews tend to be so biased towards the "what's wrong with them" that he doesn't seem to give them their proper dues. That being said, I think he's hilarious and hope he never stops. I enjoy a good roast.
Thank you if you actually choked that all down.
I do think one problem I have with reviews is that little number that so many people are so obsequious to. It's just a number, and by no real means a good guide. Reviews should certainly focus more on what's there and what isn't, and whether or not the game comes together coherently. Trying to tell a die-hard shooter fan that Picross is an amazing game seems rather... pointless, don't you think? So, logically, trying to convince a shooter fan that a simple puzzle game deserves a high mark seems rather counterintuitive. They may try and argue that it's boring and isn't fun because it's not a shooter game. Not picking on shooters, saying their idiots or anything, just picked it out of the air.
As for the quality, well... I think as the medium evolves, so does the rest of the industry. It's still in it's adolescent stages, when you think about the industry as a whole. There's plenty of room to maneuver here. Certainly going to Nintendo Power or the official X-Box magazine will be a terrible idea for anything other than a release date or preview here and there.
As a side note, I love Ben Croshaw, but I find that his reviews tend to be so biased towards the "what's wrong with them" that he doesn't seem to give them their proper dues. That being said, I think he's hilarious and hope he never stops. I enjoy a good roast.
Thank you if you actually choked that all down.
Wha?? Until I came to these forums, I thought I was the outcast for not liking JRPGs. Seeing that Yahtzee also disliked them was my first taste of vindication that somebody out there shared my opinion. Every gamer I know likes JRPGs. Every review I read about JRPGs score them highly, or at least a lot higher than I would have. Obviously, my opinion is not the one you would read if you are a JRPG fan.Yerocha said:
No. Also, I hate JRPG's except Zelda, which is more adventure, and Pokemon. It's fun to have animal slaves.end_boss said:
I seem to recall FFXII and Dragon Quest VIII getting rave reviews all over the internet...when did Squeenix move to the U.S.?