Comments on: GAMES REVIEWS - A THING OF THE PAST?

By: Scott Piraino

Scott Piraino — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:38:46 +0000

I agree with the gist of the post, but I would like to clarify how “slant” biases the review process. This does not refer to platform fanboys, but the hype that some reviewers can generate for a game.

Take Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for example. Of course the preceding two GTA titles were blockbusters, and rightfully so. But while these titles garnered all the praise, the DRIVER series was criticized as being a copy, and an also ran.

The fact is DRIV3R had better graphics, and better physics. Other games that are hyped and/or have a high advertising budget seem to get better reviews than they deserve. BLACK comes to mind as a highly hyped game that received good reviews and was really substandard.

…

By: Lincoln

Lincoln — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:36:09 +0000

I have to admit I do have a cardre of online friends who are more influential as to what games I buy. Yet, even I begin to question the efficacy of such a system because other factors enter into the equation when “friends” are your guide. I play many games online, and i notice that some games I would not have bought I am buying merely to play with people online…I hate the games…but I buy and play them to be part of the group. That sort of herd mentality eventually will break down for me because while these people are fun to play with, nice people, great friends they don’t know beans about choosing the next game to buy. Yet, not playing with them would be unthinkable because most other people online are jerks. Do I want to play with nice people playing the wrong game, or a bunch of people I don’t know playing a better game. That is likely a question we are all asking ourselves too.

If you want and example of this look at XBL where the community moves form one game to the next like prey animals on the savanna. My herd, your herd, their herd all come together on XBL to become this mega herd of gamers. Somehow when we look at this new form of providing information where blogs, social networks, and forums matter more we have have to admit we are adding a clutter to our decision making process. It is easy to say we will just listen to the smart people in our network of buddies, but that not how social groups work. Social groups reach consensus they don’t reach valid conclusions. Social groups don’t arrive ad decision based on just facts they reach decisions by who is the most persuasive and who the fastest talker more often then not.

By: Omaesan

Omaesan — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:02:58 +0000

That’s a point. Now the vast majority of gamers never reads game related press. 15 or 20 years ago, maybe. Not anymore.

By: ximpa

ximpa — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:18:27 +0000

Scores matter if you use them right - something that isn’t happening recently.

By: maikii

maikii — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:02:05 +0000

Matt - I wouldn’t call an average of 85/100 a bad score for MotorStorm. (What’s more interesting is that it’s only slightly higher than the reviews for the Japanese version, which didn’t even have multiplayer (???).

Bottom line is - scores don’t matter much. Look at the top selling games - some of them get lousey reviews.

By: ximpa

ximpa — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:17:10 +0000

Sorry but I don’t agree. There is a way to make reviews objective, it’s just that people won’t use that. A good review is important, especially to slam lazy publisher: I remember I got a review copy of .hack//Infection a few years ago. The game was abysmal and poorly translated (as in facts, not personal opinions), so I gave it 3/10. ANd the site had a very good traffic so the review had some impact.
How it works? I use the scientific method and a scientific approach to review a game. I can get overly excited, angry, etc. but those impressions don’t make an impact on the judgement because I have to deal with facts and not with my own personal opinion. For example, a weird bug or a plot hole in the story may not have harmed the play session, but they’re still a flaw that has to be recognized. It’s also important to check which details are important and which are not. It’s not easy to write a piece like this. Some reviews may sound harsh like that, but this way you’re far more sure that what is written is something that is closer to reality more than opinion.

By: Narcogen

Narcogen — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:54:51 +0000

“Thereâ€™s another reason why game reviews may have lost some of the regard and influence they once held - slant. Many people comment on how they feel certain journalists/publishers have a particular lean towards one platform over another. I often see concern and speculation on forums as to which game site is on the payroll of which company. Is there any truth in it? Who knows, but it has to be said that game sites rarely do themselves any favours when they cease being impartial - or worse, consistently denigrate a particular platform to the extent that it becomes obvious.”

What does this have to do with GAMES reviews?

Lots of titles now are crossplatform. Are you saying gamers don’t trust journalists because they’re suggesting one version of a title over another?

For games that are not crossplatform, are you saying journalists consistently rate games on one or more platforms lowly, and those on others highly?

I’m not sure that makes much sense either. A large number of magazines and websites are platform-specific. Only a specific few cover more than one platform, such as EGM. Are you saying EGM is somehow slanted towards one particular platform, either Windows, Xbox, Sony or Nintendo? Because if so, I honestly haven’t noticed.

By: Ghostedge

Ghostedge — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:14:20 +0000

I do agree and that has been by train of thought ever since I started using my own money to buy games. I seriously don’t see how people can base their decision on a stranger’s OPINIONS. They have their own tastes and I have mine.

The only time I read reviews is when I have already played the game, then I check all the things that I agree with him/her on; there’s rarely a time when I agree with them on more than half of the issues, so I really don’t see any point on letting them decide on what I do with my money.

By: Omaesan

Omaesan — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:10:45 +0000

This is not about some review Azz didn’t like… in fact, is about all the reviews we didn’t like. I think everybody agrees in playing a game is infinitely better than any review you can find. I think too that everybody agrees that having a friend first played a game you want to know about is better than see some reviews in magazines and websites.

Really, these days with all the downloadable demos and trailers, the easy it is to rent any game, the amount of friends online or offline that play games and you know their tastes, there’s hardly any place to reviews anymore.

Ah, yes. Forgot about the fanboy stuff and system bragging of every time. That’s where reviews are VERY neccessary. If you don’t care about bitching and visit only adult forums with adult people, reviews are very secondary.

And the scores, the 8.6, 9.5, and the such. It’s so old. Why is it I almost never agree? A bit of thinking for you: the real score a game deserve you can only put it a year after playing it. That’s the only way to say with a cool mind if you liked it or not.

By: Sean1504

Sean1504 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:41:46 +0000

Good piece Azz, especially what you say about forming your own review team as it were by using those people you have got to know and trust.

I find most reviews quite pointless as they’re very rarely done from an objective view point and unless my likes are exactly the same as the reviewers we’ll ultimately share a different opinion of the game.