Required Reading, Nick Rox Approved

Whatever. If I watch a particularly shitty episode of a television show and then go read what Sepinwall or Poniewozik wrote about it 90% of the time they'll also say it was shitty. It's not like they watched it and saw a completely different episode with none of the flaws. They might enlighten me by pointing out a small brilliant detail I missed and will make me appreciate it a bit more. Or point out some tiny contrivance in an otherwise amazing episode and make me feel a little less impressed by it. They are doing their jobs as reviewers by dissecting and pointing out the good along with the bad.

Videogame reviews are just "This game is SO impressive. It is SO awesome. Seriously, go buy it." because a.) videogame "reviewers" are hacks and shills for the big publishers, and b.) there is no set definition of what makes a good game. Does amazing gameplay make up for horrible writing? Does horrible voice acting ruin a great script? They have no fucking clue. They're just happy they got to play the game a couple weeks earlier than the unwashed masses.

There are exceptions, sure. But they are few and far between. Out of reviews for movies, television, books and games - game reviewers are the only ones afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom

To me it feels like nobody does anything all they do is sit around and wait for the publishers to drop shit on their lap. Nobody investigates or use contacts everyone either runs the same story or just report on someone else's story...

---

There's a lot of that for sure. I wouldn't say no one, but I think to some extent the only people that are given time to do it are the freelancers that make their own schedule. The timing is too tight to really put the legwork in when you have to crank out four articles a day. The problem is the management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

Whatever. If I watch a particularly shitty episode of a television show and then go read what Sepinwall or Poniewozik wrote about it 90% of the time they'll also say it was shitty.

---

And if you bothered to pay attention to who was writing the reviews instead of staring at a number, you might have game journalists like this that with whoim you have a similar established trust.

But if I just pick a random fucking person and ask them if Paul Blart: Mall Cop was a good movie, there's a good chance they're going to tell me yes, and not because they were paid to do so.

Quote:

---

Videogame reviews are just "This game is SO impressive. It is SO awesome. Seriously, go buy it." because a.) videogame "reviewers" are hacks and shills for the big publishers, and b.) there is no set definition of what makes a good game. Does amazing gameplay make up for horrible writing? Does horrible voice acting ruin a great script? They have no fucking clue. They're just happy they got to play the game a couple weeks earlier than the unwashed masses.

---

No one was paid or pressured to give GTA4 a good review. That isn't one of those games in question here. The fact is people actually like that game. I like that game, and I played it a year after it came out and bought it with my own money.

A review should be more than a quality assessment. I should be able to explain why I love a game, while simultaneously explaining why you might not. That doesn't mean I can't give it 5 stars at the end, but it does mean you have to actually read the review and decide if the things I'm emphasizing are what's important to you in a gaming experience. Rating a game a 10 doesn't mean that it's a perfect game, it means the reviewer found it to be one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences he's had that generation. It doesn't mean you will or even you should. you still have to think and form a conclusion.

Quote:

---

Out of reviews for movies, television, books and games - game reviewers are the only ones afraid to bite the hand that feeds them.

---

Completely, utterly untrue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Completely, utterly untrue.

---

I have to disagree - and I've seen it first hand - particularly with magazines/sites that rely on advertising from the same people that are floating them review copies of games they are publishing. It happened to us @ GameGo!. It's completely true (ECM - Stretch Panic).

I like GTA IV, and if I were a game reviewer, I would have given it a good grade.

Sometimes an aspect of a video game can be so good that it makes up for another aspect that might be shitty, like Bayonetta's gameplay compared to its story.

You need to bring up the good and the bad and then say if, in the end, it's worth your time. Assigning a numerical value to that worth down to the decimal is pretty stupid, but people want that quick reference point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

I have to disagree - and I've seen it first hand - particularly with magazines/sites that rely on advertising from the same people that are floating them review copies of games they are publishing. It happened to us @ GameGo!. It's completely true (ECM - Stretch Panic).

---

But do film reviews for a couple years and get back to me. Tell me how screenings are handled. I'm not saying it never happens, I'm saying it happens less than with film criticism, BY FAR. Studios will fly friendly reviewers out to LA for a premiere, put them up in a five star hotel, wine them and dine them, then show them the movie before anyone else. That shit is just a fact of reality with almost any movie, and it's why the initial reviews for movies are ALWAYS bullshit. Most games don't even get early reviews.

Film criticism gets more credibility only because it's more established as a field, and it doesn't give off the impression of just being a bunch of kids. I think if game journalism did more to bolster their credibility as writers, analysts, and thinkers, we wouldn't be having the same discussion about their integrity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingoffighters

I like GTA IV, and if I were a game reviewer, I would have given it a good grade.

---

WHAT? Even though it sucks?

GTA IV is an ok game. I just used it as an example because it got lots and lots of hyperbole and perfect scores.

If film reviews were videogame reviews - nothing Fincher, Scorsese, Nolan, Tarantino, Speilberg or Cameron ever released would score less than a 95 on metacritic. Big games get big scores, it's a sad but true fact.

But that's not insincere. People like those games. Audiences like those games.

No matter how hard diff chan rails against ass creed, there are millions of people who love the series.