Printable View
My turn to complain about a compleatly different review. :)
EGM's review of Burnout 2 talks about how great it is, and then at the end deducts points for not being a "Gran Turrismo Killer". It's not supposed to be a Gran Turrismo killer! I don't even want it to be a Gran Turrismo killer.
I'm wondering if that's true or not. On the one hand, you could break down gaming genres like sports - for instance, you wouldn't get a football commentator to break down a basketball game.Quote:
Originally posted by Ammadeau
I think the whole problem stems from the professional reviewers being assigned games whose genres might not interest them in the least. Only in more fan-based places like here do you really see consistently decent reviews because the people writing them actually wanted to play the game in question. A place like IGN or Gamespot is more pot luck for good reviews than anything else, and usually not much luck at all.
Anyone can learn to write well. What you do with those words is a lot more important.
But on the other hand, we all play enough different games that we know several different genres well, and shouldn't feel out at sea playing something new. Especially if you're a professional reviewer. I'm not saying a reviewer necessarily has to love that genre, or that eveyone needs to be a cheerleader. But knocking down a game for reasons you can apply to everything - ie., it's not something else, and it's not necessarily going to appeal to people who might not enjoy what it's trying to be - that's just fishing for negatives because there's supposed to be some.
But that's just lazy writing - if there needs to be negatives, tell me what the game does wrong with what it's trying to accomplish, not that it isn't Ogre Battle, or that it's too hard to figure out for "people like you". I mean, sure, it's fairly complex for a video game, but it's not brain surgery, either.
How reviews look to me:
Graphics suck/Graphics are the best thing ever
Game is too hard, I don't suck or anything it's just that the game is too hard/game is too easy, I couldn't stop using the unlimited continues or setting it on the easiest level so the game is too easy
Simpsons joke/homosexuality joke/fart joke/editorial in joke
game sucks and any who buy it must be castrated or killed so as not to spread their plagued seed upon the world/you MUST buy this game or we'll dispatch the army to your house to kill you.
Editors/magazine/guest interviewee are the coolest people in the world and you aren't.
picture of some bimbo that has nothing to do with anything.
Hahahah...what would I do without reviewers...
oh yes, make up my own mind about things.
sorry for the venom, but game/movie/music/book/whatever reviews have failed to impress me enough for me to actually pay for them.
We hardly wanted to play a lot of games sent to us, trust me on that. Nick for example loathes sports games, but that's mainly because he doesn't understand the nuances about them (i.e. football). So would we be doing the readers any service by serving him a copy of NFL 2K3 to cover? Absolutely not.Quote:
Originally posted by Ammadeau
I think the whole problem stems from the professional reviewers being assigned games whose genres might not interest them in the least. Only in more fan-based places like here do you really see consistently decent reviews because the people writing them actually wanted to play the game in question. A place like IGN or Gamespot is more pot luck for good reviews than anything else, and usually not much luck at all.
Anyone can learn to write well. What you do with those words is a lot more important.
However, other genres --- namely action/adventure or FPS tend to appeal to a broader palette for gamers, and it is usually those games where someone may have a bit more of a passing interest. A online or print review...or perhaps a few screenshots were just enough to pique their interest. At best, this was enough to give them a first impression "hey, this might be fun" but later realize it was actually crap or not as fulfilling as they expected it to be. It's true that a lot of reviews simply sound like they're designed to appeal to everyone. How many reviews honestly broke down the pros and cons of MGS2? I am sure everyone said it was perhaps the best thing they ever played...and maybe 10% actually were more candid and expressed how disappointed and cheated they felt that the story, or the fact Snake wasn't a playable character throughout the entire game. Generally gamers expect writers to provide these details, to relate to them, to be truthful. But you can not expect EVERYONE to do it...lest you are writing your own reviews. Some will be objective, others choose to write otherwise (subjective)...but in the case with Mr. Smith...be realistic, he can not be expected to have a shining prose 24 / 7 --- this just isn't realistic. Flattering, but not realistic. The man has his right to be off now and then, and if his review phased you that much...hey, it happens. There's no need to damn his writing integrity just because he didn't write a "glowing" review.
<a href="http://www.the-nextlevel.com/reviews/ps2/terminator" target="top">Haoh's review of Terminator: Dawn of Fate is a perfect example</a>.
curious....what do you want the ideal review to have, could you produce it? ...and what is this "pot luck" you speak of.
Zerodash: Journalism and video game (writing) should not even be used in the same sentence. In any case...some of these comments are entirely one-sided. Either Smith sucks, or Smith is the best thing since sliced bread. Solution: write your own opinions or break down those of others for what they are.
what the hell is "true" journalism anyways? :rolleyes:
Soviet: Sounds more like jaded vibes to me.
Sounds like the Capitalist Commando to me.Quote:
oh yes, make up my own mind about things.
But! if you're unable to read a review without coming to your own conclusions about a game, either:
A) Not such a great review
B) You're an idiot
Too many people are reading reviews simply to see if it coincides with their own established views. And, if not, scrambling toward the nearest message board to bust off a rant or two. Reviews aren't about validating your own opinion, and I think that's a point lost on a lot of the people reading them.
If you ask me, the better majority of professional reviewers handle the task well enough. It's the readers that don't know quite what to do with them.
Mode7: well said.
Capitalist Commando?
Ok.
Weee...long live free enterprise.
I think it's a GT killer. But then again, I've always wanted a good high-speed car chase game with the crashes way more then I've ever wanted a simulation driving game. After all, I can't do the crashing thing without a good chance of dying. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
EGM's review of Burnout 2 talks about how great it is, and then at the end deducts points for not being a "Gran Turrismo Killer". It's not supposed to be a Gran Turrismo killer! I don't even want it to be a Gran Turrismo killer.
Maybe if it had 200 cars they'd change their tune or something. For some reason the number of cars sways them.
Also, I don't remember clearly but I think I saw someone in a thread say Burnout 2 was going to be on GC and X-Box, any truth to that? If not I'll snatch that baby up with maybe NFS2:HP but I bought 2 racing games already so it's a tossup.
These days, Acclaim practially ALWAYS releases their games now on multiple platforms. It happened with the first Burnout so I don't see why you'd have any doubts otherwise. Acclaim has made no mention that this game was a PS2 exclusive. Thus, start saving your money...or just get the damn game already, ya wanker. ;)