Video game sites/mags, and why they suck

[AndrewTS 0]

in response to Flik's post:

 

Oh, I understand. I'm just saying that 100/10 point scales are overused and used poorly, and often a game will get "panned" in that range if a reviewer doesn't think it is "innovative" enough (or some BS like that). Plus, I've seen games that were allegedly "reviewed" where if you read the review, and played the game, you're wondering what the hell the reviewer is talking about.

 

Of course, as a site I frequent mentioned, game reviewers aren't journalists, they're "moderately independent PR reps." Everyone knows certain companies have certain sites/magazines in their pockets, and when *half* of a magazine is ads, it's obvious just what the priority of the magazines are. Hell, GMR and Game Informer both are tied in with major video game speciality chains.

 

I think the Driv3r debacle is well known by now.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I think the Driv3r debacle is well known by now.

I don't know the Driv3r debacle, please explain that to me.

[Red Baron 0]

There's a lot of games out their that are over-rated.

 

I mean IGN gave Raw 2 a fairly high score.

 

Also, Panzer Dragoon Orta gets a high score, and I don't see a big deal about it.

 

AndrewTS does not like Halo, because of its controls, yet its a highly recommened game.

 

Everyone has their perks, and whether its a great game.

 

Too me, I hate most EA games because they are just a fancy arcade game.

[AndrewTS 0]

 

I think the Driv3r debacle is well known by now.

I don't know the Driv3r debacle, please explain that to me.

A brief look at it:

http://news.spong.com/detail/news.asp?prid=7014

 

And a longer, opinion-oriented piece:

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/driv3r.htm

 

"So here's the real lesson of Drive-three-er, chums. Videogames magazines and videogames publishers nowadays exist solely as a mutual-support network aimed at squeezing money out of your pockets and into theirs. They know only too well that the days of games mags are numbered, so they have no interest in building reader loyalty, and hence no interest in integrity. All they want is to get as much cash out of you as possible before they die forever. And the best way of doing that is by hyping publishers' games, artificially inflating readers' enthusiasm, getting lucrative advertising from the publishers in return, and meanwhile cutting back on staff and budgets to the point that even reviewers naive enough to want to do their job properly simply don't have the time or the resources for it."

 

AndrewTS does not like Halo, because of its controls, yet its a highly recommened game.

 

I never said it wasn't an excellent game, I just suck at FPSers in general that use that control scheme, so I can't exactly get into it.

 

It's rather insane that the original was in top ten sales lists for over a *year* after the game's release. Who was buying all those?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Game Informer sucks the most. This is most evident in what I call the Paper Mario 2 Debacle. Game Informer gave Paper Mario 2 the lowest score it got from any publication or website (6.75/10, whereas it was getting 8+/10 ratings everywhere else).

 

This was posted on the GI Forums (and subsequently deleted as well..)

 

"GI-Jeremy wrote:

 

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

 

For example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not.

 

I hope this helps."

 

Thats probably the unwritten, unspoken rule of reviewing just about anything, but the fact that they came right out and said it pisses me off. And I've seen that they've given some extremely crappy games that everyone else pisses all over high ratings, so Im almost to believe that it goes beyond "We rate games based on how the gaming public will like them", more like "We rate games based on who pays us the most to do so".

 

And since the gamng public for the Gamecube happens to be the same "kiddie" demopraphic that they said would enjoy the game, I dont get why it didn't get a higher rating. Thats what doesn't make any sense. I could see it if it was an X Box game or something, but using the "its a kiddie game" excuse doesnt work for a Nintendo made game on the Gamceube.

[Ced 0]

People actually read Game Informer? Wow...

 

Thankfully I have friends at GameCrazy that will let me test games out as long as they have an open copy lying about. Takes alot of guesswork out of my purchases.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

That's a good reason why gaming sites/mags/etc shouldn't ever be trusted.

 

Also, for the most part..the people doing the reviews aren't too bright.

 

(My particular favorite example was Gamespot letting a guy review Steel Battalion..who hated mecha games. Go figure. Another favorite was lots of people calling Splinter Cell "too hard". Whiny bitches.)

 

The only publication's scoring system I like (not the reviews necessarily, but the system) has to be Official Xbox Magazine''s. They've never given anything a perfect ten, unlike a lot of other magazines/websites.

 

I don't think anything should ever score perfect..because nothing ever IS. No matter how good the game is, it's gonna have faults.

[AndrewTS 0]

People actually read Game Informer? Wow...

I'd never look at an issue if it didn't come with my Gamestop value card, thus being free for me. 90% of the games I buy are used, so it's well worth it. Although, yes--GI is really awful.

 

Also, in an e-mail to one of the GI folks (which I posted a while back), everyone at GI basically hates 2D games.

 

Despite their ties to EB, sadly the best magazine I check out these days is GMR. Tips n' Tricks is great, but their content is limited.

 

I used to read Gamefan all the time, and they certainly gave a deserved look at a lot of titles that people would never hear of otherwise. However, they had a horrible tendency to overrate games they personally favored, and they'd change their minds a lot (a game would get a fairly good review, then a few issues later they'd mention it as being mediocre).

 

A friend of mine really likes Play...but the reviews seem to never pan anything, and I think it even gave Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness a higher-than-average score.

[Vanhalen 0]

Hey, I've got a great suggestion, why dont you just read Edge, and fuck everything else

 

http://www.futurenet.com/edge/magazine/def...bsectionid=1344

[Renegade 0]

Hey, I've got a great suggestion, why dont you just read Edge, and fuck everything else

 

http://www.futurenet.com/edge/magazine/def...bsectionid=1344

I second this, although I doubt anyone here will track down a british magazine.

[Lightning Flik 0]

in response to Flik's post:

 

Oh, I understand.  I'm just saying that 100/10 point scales are overused and used poorly, and often a game will get "panned" in that range if a reviewer doesn't think it is "innovative" enough (or some BS like that).  Plus, I've seen games that were allegedly "reviewed" where if you read the review, and played the game, you're wondering what the hell the reviewer is talking about.

 

Of course, as a site I frequent mentioned, game reviewers aren't journalists, they're "moderately independent PR reps."  Everyone knows certain companies have certain sites/magazines in their pockets, and when *half* of a magazine is ads, it's obvious just what the priority of the magazines are.  Hell, GMR and Game Informer both are tied in with major video game speciality chains. 

 

I think the Driv3r debacle is well known by now.

In response, I'm bitching about this specifically. They don't review the game properly and have now set the comfort zone at 70% which is bullshit. As for the Driv3r debacle and other games that have ended up getting the same treatment, I am pissed about stupidity like that too.

 

Everyone and their mother is doing this though. Can they stop being nothing more than fucking ads? Worse yet, can people stop giving out good grades, for not really being good? Is it so freaking hard?!

 

There's a lot of games out their that are over-rated.

This is not about games being overrated. Me and Andrew are arguing over the fact that I believe that no one actually uses their reviewing systems properly and the standard for the average game is now 70%.

 

 

What pisses me off is that reviews these days seem like a little blurb of nothing. I mean, I get no idea why they rank it so high, nor do I understand how their rankings work because there is no standard precendent set.

 

Perfect example of what I mean is this:

 

GameSpot saying - "We Do Not Inflate Our Scores"

 

GameSpot's Tilt Category - "This score basically lets a reviewer sway the final score--either higher or lower--based on the reviewer's overall experience with a game. Here's an example: A game might have really good graphics and sound but only mediocre gameplay. As a result, it gets a low tilt score to keep the overall from being boosted too high, since the game ultimately isn't fun. Likewise, a game might have mediocre graphics and sound, but it might include a really good story and a lot of original ideas. As a result, it might get a high tilt to boost the overall score a bit, which suggests to you that you should look beyond the game's production values"

 

Um... Excuse me... BUT THAT'S INFLATING THE FUCKING REVIEW! Maybe if you took the time to explain to the readers that a game can score high in a category but still suck, perhaps we might get somewhere.

 

Now you may say, well they need to do that to represent the game's worth. GameSpot's Value category does fucking that.

 

Hey, I've got a great suggestion, why dont you just read Edge, and fuck everything else

 

http://www.futurenet.com/edge/magazine/def...bsectionid=1344

Is it any good? If so, I will read. And I better not be paying because I'm currently poor and cannot afford it.

Edited November 15, 2004 by Lightning Flik

[Vanhalen 0]

I've read Edge for about a decade now, and to be honest, its the only thing I would ever read, intelligent articles, very accurate scores, and they have a very good review policy, plus its great and in depth, its adult orientated(graphics, typeset and language), plus you get some really cool ads for developers looking for programmers and workers in the back

[Lightning Flik 0]

plus you get some really cool ads for developers looking for programmers and workers in the back

Ok, you have this programmers attention now. Please direct any or all pages concerning the afforementioned "work" to me via mail. ASAP please.

 

And if I wasn't poor, I'd order Edge. Sadly, I will not be able to.

[Renegade 0]

plus you get some really cool ads for developers looking for programmers and workers in the back

Ok, you have this programmers attention now. Please direct any or all pages concerning the afforementioned "work" to me via mail. ASAP please.

 

And if I wasn't poor, I'd order Edge. Sadly, I will not be able to.

I'm pretty sure the ads are local.

[Guest CronoT]

This is the kind of thing that has made most people, including myself, switch to publicly reviewed sites, such as Amazon.com and Epinions.com. Speaking of which...

 

Here's what HONEST reviewers on Epinions.com thought of the game:

http://www.epinions.com/pr-Driver_3_for_Xbox

 

I decided not to post a link to the Amazon.com ones, because most of the reviews were written by fanboys and AOL chat addicts, the twitchy kind.

[Skywarp! 0]

I'm still pissed off that the gaming community got me to buy "Viewtiful Joe" when it was a mediocre rental, at best. That was one of those instances where I looked to the community and said "what is WRONG with you people?"

 

Although I see it's more of the same with VJ2, I'm not getting burned this time.

[Guest CronoT]

I'm still pissed off that the gaming community got me to buy "Viewtiful Joe" when it was a mediocre rental, at best. That was one of those instances where I looked to the community and said "what is WRONG with you people?"

 

Although I see it's more of the same with VJ2, I'm not getting burned this time.

I took one look at the Viewtiful Joe commercials, and looked at the company that made it. Capcom absolutely hated Nintendo for a long time, so I take it as no surprise that they would make a second-rate for them.

 

I knew it was going to blow just by watching the commercials. In all seriousness, Viewtiful Joe is just a modern up-to-date rehashing of the Ghosts and Goblins franchise. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Renegade 0]

Viewtiful Joe is just a modern up-to-date rehashing of the Ghosts and Goblins franchise. Nothing more, nothing less.

What the hell are you talking about? Please play both then post an opinion.

[AndrewTS 0]

I'm still pissed off that the gaming community got me to buy "Viewtiful Joe" when it was a mediocre rental, at best.  That was one of those instances where I looked to the community and said "what is WRONG with you people?"

 

Although I see it's more of the same with VJ2, I'm not getting burned this time.

I took one look at the Viewtiful Joe commercials, and looked at the company that made it. Capcom absolutely hated Nintendo for a long time, so I take it as no surprise that they would make a second-rate for them.

 

I knew it was going to blow just by watching the commercials. In all seriousness, Viewtiful Joe is just a modern up-to-date rehashing of the Ghosts and Goblins franchise. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, Capcom still hates Nintendo, which is why the Gamecube is the exclusive home of the *good* Resident Evil titles that are on tap, gave them Viewtiful Joe first, and had talks with Nintendo about buying Capcom stock.

 

The N64 wasn't conducive to the style of games Capcom was making, but they were hardly alone in that. They gave the N64, what, a couple Mickey Mouse games and year-old PS1 ports?

 

I happen to disagree completely about Viewtiful Joe, but if you read the hype you should have known the style of game it was. Geez, it even had a widely-available demo out. It ain't Ghosts n' Goblins (even if it was, that's not a *bad* thing) in any way, and I don't know where you'd get that from (Maximo is their crack at updating GnG), but it's an old-school style platformer mixed with the beat 'em up genre. If anything, it's a Next-Gen Comix Zone (which Sega made, but for comparison's sake...).

 

I fail to see how this relates to the topic, since I don't see the praise to be too highly off the mark. Maybe a bit much? Perhaps, but compared to the hype that game mags give the major titles, it was barely a whimper.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The X-Box has been the worst thing for the integerity for game reviews in general. It seems every publication is filled with X-Box fanboys who won't say a bad thing about any of the games.

[edotherocket 0]

I remember pissing myself over how much Edge ripped into Atari and Driver 3. They gave the game a score of 3/10 and ran a story about how the owner of Atari is driven soley by sales and couldn't care less about the quality of the games.

 

Good times.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

The X-Box has been the worst thing for the integerity for game reviews in general. It seems every publication is filled with X-Box fanboys who won't say a bad thing about any of the games.

Oh, right.

 

I'm sure those of us who actually LIKE the Xbox outnumber the drooling anti-Xbox-for-no-reason sheep by like ten to one, eh?

 

 

More often the case is..you can't find anyone who says anything good about it.

 

No, the worst thing that happened to game review integrity was publications and websites being paid off to rate a particular publisher's games well.

 

(EA, I'm looking at you..)

[The Man in Blak 0]

Rating scores are absolutely useless. They don't hold up over time, especially when they evaluate technology-bound factors like graphics. They further the implication that certain categories and their respective scores are more important than others (a reviewer's tilt is worth the same as the gameplay? And what's a game's value anyway?).

 

The problem with video games is that the medium's criteria for evaluation is still weak. Unlike arts (visual) and music (audio), video games incorporate many elements into the presentation. The scope is even larger than film, as video games add on the additional element of interaction, but reviewers continually focus on splitting everything into neat little categories. Do you go watch a movie for the sole reason of hearing Hans Zimmer in the background? Not likely.

 

Frankly, reviewers should take a hint from Ebert & Roeper and simply observe/critique the product as a whole, and then make a simple recommendation (thumbs up, thumbs down) on it. The old Daily Radar site, may it rest in peace, did that remarkably well with rankings of DUD, Miss, Hit, and Direct Hit!.

[The Man in Blak 0]

In all seriousness, Viewtiful Joe is just a modern up-to-date rehashing of the Ghosts and Goblins franchise. Nothing more, nothing less.

When you say Viewtiful Joe, you really mean Maximo, right?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The X-Box has been the worst thing for the integerity for game reviews in general.  It seems every publication is filled with X-Box fanboys who won't say a bad thing about any of the games.

Oh, right.

 

I'm sure those of us who actually LIKE the Xbox outnumber the drooling anti-Xbox-for-no-reason sheep by like ten to one, eh?

 

 

More often the case is..you can't find anyone who says anything good about it.

 

No, the worst thing that happened to game review integrity was publications and websites being paid off to rate a particular publisher's games well.

 

(EA, I'm looking at you..)

No, I'm not saying that. But it seems that several magazines just slap a 7 or 8 on a game just for being for X-Box. I own an X-Box and it's frankly a pain in the ass because the X-Box fanboys make it hard to get objective views on games.

 

It was a problem before but it's been horrible with X-Box.

[Red Baron 0]

Gamespot I find is really bad at reviews, except if its on a PS2. If the game is on a PS2 it'll get boosted up a few points.

[Special K 0]

I liked Viewtiful Joe...

[Skywarp! 0]

Rating scores are absolutely useless. They don't hold up over time, especially when they evaluate technology-bound factors like graphics. They further the implication that certain categories and their respective scores are more important than others (a reviewer's tilt is worth the same as the gameplay? And what's a game's value anyway?).

 

The problem with video games is that the medium's criteria for evaluation is still weak. Unlike arts (visual) and music (audio), video games incorporate many elements into the presentation. The scope is even larger than film, as video games add on the additional element of interaction, but reviewers continually focus on splitting everything into neat little categories. Do you go watch a movie for the sole reason of hearing Hans Zimmer in the background? Not likely.

 

Frankly, reviewers should take a hint from Ebert & Roeper and simply observe/critique the product as a whole, and then make a simple recommendation (thumbs up, thumbs down) on it. The old Daily Radar site, may it rest in peace, did that remarkably well with rankings of DUD, Miss, Hit, and Direct Hit!.

The reason I don't agree with short and sweet reviews for video games is that just giving a thumbs up or down recommendation is ok for a movie, but a video game is a much bigger investment. If something costs 50 bucks, you should spend a few pages critiquing it.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Rating scores are absolutely useless.  They don't hold up over time, especially when they evaluate technology-bound factors like graphics.  They further the implication that certain categories and their respective scores are more important than others (a reviewer's tilt is worth the same as the gameplay?  And what's a game's value anyway?).

 

The problem with video games is that the medium's criteria for evaluation is still weak.  Unlike arts (visual) and music (audio), video games incorporate many elements into the presentation.  The scope is even larger than film, as video games add on the additional element of interaction, but reviewers continually focus on splitting everything into neat little categories.  Do you go watch a movie for the sole reason of hearing Hans Zimmer in the background?  Not likely.

 

Frankly, reviewers should take a hint from Ebert & Roeper and simply observe/critique the product as a whole, and then make a simple recommendation (thumbs up, thumbs down) on it.  The old Daily Radar site, may it rest in peace, did that remarkably well with rankings of DUD, Miss, Hit, and Direct Hit!.

The reason I don't agree with short and sweet reviews for video games is that just giving a thumbs up or down recommendation is ok for a movie, but a video game is a much bigger investment. If something costs 50 bucks, you should spend a few pages critiquing it.

I wasn't suggesting that the reviews be short and sweet - I was saying that they should critique the entire product as a whole and then give a simple recommendation. They should certainly evaluate the game at length.

[Guest CronoT]

Rating scores are absolutely useless.  They don't hold up over time, especially when they evaluate technology-bound factors like graphics.  They further the implication that certain categories and their respective scores are more important than others (a reviewer's tilt is worth the same as the gameplay?  And what's a game's value anyway?).

 

The problem with video games is that the medium's criteria for evaluation is still weak.  Unlike arts (visual) and music (audio), video games incorporate many elements into the presentation.  The scope is even larger than film, as video games add on the additional element of interaction, but reviewers continually focus on splitting everything into neat little categories.  Do you go watch a movie for the sole reason of hearing Hans Zimmer in the background?  Not likely.

 

Frankly, reviewers should take a hint from Ebert & Roeper and simply observe/critique the product as a whole, and then make a simple recommendation (thumbs up, thumbs down) on it.  The old Daily Radar site, may it rest in peace, did that remarkably well with rankings of DUD, Miss, Hit, and Direct Hit!.

The reason I don't agree with short and sweet reviews for video games is that just giving a thumbs up or down recommendation is ok for a movie, but a video game is a much bigger investment. If something costs 50 bucks, you should spend a few pages critiquing it.

I wasn't suggesting that the reviews be short and sweet - I was saying that they should critique the entire product as a whole and then give a simple recommendation. They should certainly evaluate the game at length.

You mean like my reviews?

 

http://www.epinions.com/content_85041909380

http://www.epinions.com/content_83167448708

http://www.epinions.com/content_77630836356