11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 11. |
Re: Out of the Blue |
Oct 4, 2012, 09:37 |
Rigs |
|
|
I see where you're coming from, Creston, don't get me wrong. It's just that I've read reviews on the major sites that sometimes smack of hype and marketing and some that really do look like they played it and have an honest opinion of the game. I wonder what your take is on these things, though...like how long after a game has been released should a reviewer put out his review (should they finish the whole game, most of it, or just get a feel for it and most of it's components - obviously playing the whole thing is ideal but in some games, that's not possible or feasible), how in-depth and long the review itself should be (I've seen one page reviews that seem to get all the relevant things covered, like the 'Out of Eight' reviews and I've seen 10 page, very in-depth reviews covering every aspect of the game) and, as was mentioned, should other games in a series be brought up and compared or should it be evaluated on it's own merits alone?
I'm just curious is all. I'm having sort of a 'writers block' episode lately so I'm not able to easily put into words the point I'm trying to convey...My apologies...
=-Rigs-= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 'Now, we gave you a promise and we are bound by that promise and damn you for asking for it! And damn me for agreeing to it! And damn all of us to hell, because that is exactly where we're going!' |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Out of the Blue |
Oct 4, 2012, 06:22 |
InBlack |
|
|
Creston wrote on Oct 3, 2012, 18:51:
Rigs wrote on Oct 3, 2012, 15:07:
I respectfully disagree, Creston. Not that reviewers are marketing hacks in sheeps clothing (this is gonna be shorter than intended as lightning is hitting pretty freakin' close right now), but that reviewers have to point out the things that other reviewers miss to be an actual unbiased reviewer.
=-Rigs-=
That's not really what I said. I said it's fine IF he mentions other reviews and says something to the extent of "A lot of people blast the game for this apparently broken feature, but I had no problems with it whatsoever."
Or "A lot of people say that playing with the AI companions is fantastic, but for me all they'd do is bump into the wall and refuse to attack."
Being unbiased doesn't mean you have to do your review in a vacuum and pretend nobody else has ever reviewed the game. Being unbiased means that you review the game and take it on its own merits, based on your experience with it. So I said it's fine if they mention other reviews, as long as those reviews don't color their interpretations. Sadly, as we've seen plenty of times over the past (how long has it been since we've had good reviews? Ten years?), those kind of reviewers are long extinct.
The toolbags that "review" games now should just call themselves shills. It'd be more fucking honest.
Creston
QFT and Agreed. 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I have a nifty blue line! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Game Reviews |
Oct 3, 2012, 18:55 |
jdreyer |
|
|
For reviews, whether it be movies, games, or whatever, I tend to find one or two reviewers who like the kinds of games I like, then I just read their reviews. If they criticize things I can live with, then my opinion of the game improves, and likewise, if they are big on things I don't really care about (for example, multiplayer) then I just focus on whether the parts I do are any good.
I was getting into Out of 8, he seemed very analytical and called things like he saw them. A shame that he's dumping written reviews. But given the amount of work it takes to produce them, I can see why, since what made him unbiased (no pay) made him so good.
Also, I listen to game podcasts, like GWJ and even PCGamer. In these shows games are discussed, and there's lots of back and forth and descriptions of play experiences that are more honest than a written reveiw b/c they're off the cuff and unrehearsed. All the GWJ guys are huge on FTL right now, and it sounds like my kind of game, so I'll definitely be picking it up. And while the PC gamer guys have really been into DayZ, it doesn't sound like my bag, even though it's not a problem with the game per se, I'll skip it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Out of the Blue |
Oct 3, 2012, 18:51 |
Creston |
|
|
Rigs wrote on Oct 3, 2012, 15:07:
I respectfully disagree, Creston. Not that reviewers are marketing hacks in sheeps clothing (this is gonna be shorter than intended as lightning is hitting pretty freakin' close right now), but that reviewers have to point out the things that other reviewers miss to be an actual unbiased reviewer.
=-Rigs-=
That's not really what I said. I said it's fine IF he mentions other reviews and says something to the extent of "A lot of people blast the game for this apparently broken feature, but I had no problems with it whatsoever."
Or "A lot of people say that playing with the AI companions is fantastic, but for me all they'd do is bump into the wall and refuse to attack."
Being unbiased doesn't mean you have to do your review in a vacuum and pretend nobody else has ever reviewed the game. Being unbiased means that you review the game and take it on its own merits, based on your experience with it. So I said it's fine if they mention other reviews, as long as those reviews don't color their interpretations. Sadly, as we've seen plenty of times over the past (how long has it been since we've had good reviews? Ten years?), those kind of reviewers are long extinct.
The toolbags that "review" games now should just call themselves shills. It'd be more fucking honest.
Creston
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Game Reviews |
Oct 3, 2012, 17:08 |
Fantaz |
|
|
avianflu wrote on Oct 3, 2012, 11:58:
The article writer thinks there's a "pack mentality" to reviews on both the professional and gamer sides.
Sure I suppose that is a minor part of it all, but it doesn't sufficiently explain why so many major-website game reviews these days are nothing more than glossy PR blurbs.
I agree with MCV. I mentioned the RE6 issue here, with GameSpot leading the pack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| proudly fragging noobs in deathmatch since 1999 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Torchlight II on games.on.net |
Oct 3, 2012, 15:59 |
The Half Elf |
|
|
| Question: If they are suppose to be unbiased, then how do keep other types of games in the same genre separate? For example take the Command and Conquer series. When you review the 2nd or 3rd game do you mark it on it's own merits with no regard to the previous games in the series, or do you use the previous game as a basis for the current games review? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Out of the Blue |
Oct 3, 2012, 15:07 |
Rigs |
|
|
I respectfully disagree, Creston. Not that reviewers are marketing hacks in sheeps clothing (this is gonna be shorter than intended as lightning is hitting pretty freakin' close right now), but that reviewers have to point out the things that other reviewers miss to be an actual unbiased reviewer. What if he agrees with what's been said elsewhere? It just seems like the only time anyone is credited for actually playing the game is if they go against the status quo. If they agree with everyone else or point out the same things, automatically they're just jumping on the bandwagon, whether it be good or bad...Really, that's a 'Devil's Advocate' impression of things and I'd like to expand further on it but I can't right at this second...lol...time to shut things down and go read a book...Man, I fuckin' hate Florida!
=-Rigs-= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 'Now, we gave you a promise and we are bound by that promise and damn you for asking for it! And damn me for agreeing to it! And damn all of us to hell, because that is exactly where we're going!' |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Torchlight II on games.on.net |
Oct 3, 2012, 13:10 |
Creston |
|
|
PropheT wrote on Oct 3, 2012, 11:31:
Professional game reviews aren't any different or better than the average forum post on any given site.
Which is exactly what the fucking problem is. A reviewer is SUPPOSED to be unbiased. If said reviewer liked the game, and everyone else thought it was a turd, he's SUPPOSED to say "I liked it, for this and this reason."
It's fine if he rebuts other people's arguments in his review and say that he thinks it's not as broken as they think, because of so and so (or vice versa, that he thinks something is broken when others say it works great). That's called being an actual reviewer.
Games reviewers are nothing more than freelance marketing peons. "Need your game hyped? Let me review it! What score would you like?!"
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Game Reviews |
Oct 3, 2012, 11:58 |
avianflu |
|
|
The article writer thinks there's a "pack mentality" to reviews on both the professional and gamer sides.
Sure I suppose that is a minor part of it all, but it doesn't sufficiently explain why so many major-website game reviews these days are nothing more than glossy PR blurbs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Torchlight II on games.on.net |
Oct 3, 2012, 11:31 |
PropheT |
|
|
BobBob wrote on Oct 3, 2012, 11:10:
I get the impression the reviewer barely played the game. He played a little bit, read other reviews, and paraphrased.
One other reviewer on a major games site was tweeting that he agreed with the other reviews he read before he'd posted his own review.
I disagree with this guy's assertion that the Phantom Menace is regarded as bad just because of the internet, but his overall point is sound. Professional game reviews aren't any different or better than the average forum post on any given site. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: Torchlight II on games.on.net |
Oct 3, 2012, 11:10 |
BobBob |
|
|
| I get the impression the reviewer barely played the game. He played a little bit, read other reviews, and paraphrased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
