Printable View
I dunno, nine times out of ten it seemed to me they were only really interested in a game if it had better graphics than the last one. They really did seem to value visuals and technology tricks in general over solid game design. And they usually had no time for anything that was a solid genre entry - fighters, shooters, what have you.
But they were cool because they could get an interview with anyone, and asked them grownup questions.
i dunno, "the way games ought to be..." articles (the later bunch anyway, when
they changed writers) never did sit well with me. The Interviews were nice...
i remember reading that crazy one where Kelly Flock made fun of the
madden crew and the then popular "liquid AI". the Trip Hawkins
interview was fun too.
Uhh... well, it seems to me that you are wrong.Quote:
I dunno, nine times out of ten it seemed to me they were only really interested in a game if it had better graphics than the last one.
They really didnt have any time for those games, and it wasnt a secret, they said it countless times in their letters section. Like I said they were looking for innovative, bold games, and they probably hated uninspired-but-competent games more than anything else (even more than just bad games).Quote:
And they usually had no time for anything that was a solid genre entry - fighters, shooters, what have you.
This doesnt mean that it was all rosy, though. They didnt really care for a game like Guardian Heroes because they were fairly enamored with 3D (but they did give games like Rayman, Worms, Castlevania:SOTN, and The Last Express great scores), but IMO the end justified the means, they just wanted to see gaming advance.
That Kelly Flock interview really was the absolute best thing I have ever--EVER--read in video game journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by amitavc
Can't argue that, their reviews were to the point and all, but my opinion of what's great and theirs differed often enough that I couldn't use their opinion to help me make a gaming purchase. I'm not going to argue whether a game deserved 4 or 5 stars, but when they gave games I really liked three or less (and Turok 2 5 stars?)then it's pretty obvious that my views on good gaming and theirs don't match up in a way that makes their reviews any help to me.Quote:
The reviews said everything a person needed to know about the game: whether it was worth your time and money or not.
It's the original online editors doing the new NextGen site? I've got to admit, my opinion of them just went up a few notches.
James
i hate 1-5 ratings/reviews. it reminds me of techTV reviews which used to piss me off.The difference between 4/5 and 90/100 is not the same! i much rather 1-10 reviews(ofcourse 10 being the highest number)
James, not to put too fine a point on it, but you like a lot of stupid garbage. Im really not surprised Next Gen's opinions didnt gel with yours. But even if I dont agree with a reviewer's opinion, I still respect them as long as they stick to their guns and have a clear vision of what they think is worthwhile and not. IGN, EGM, etc., they dont have that clear vision, NG did though.
NG's approach to game reviews was correct. Pretty much every other game review reads like a Car&Driver review...what's under the hood, how it handles, whether it's worth my money. That's great. If games are just going to be a hobby.
If gaming is to become an art, reviews should resemble this.
art-The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty
Anyway, ASIDE from that (because that's been done to death), who really cares about games as art? It is a hobby. An artful hobby.
What part of Halo, Counter-Strike, Doom, Tony Hawk, Street Fighter or Sonic meets this criteria?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
An artful hobby? Pardon, but what the heck is that? Art has something useful to say about the human condition. Until videogames start doing that, they are nothing more than diversions.