Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

etc., etc.

View
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

24. Re: More Big Picture Details Oct 13, 2012, 14:03 HorrorScope
 
Only you can fix this. Don't buy or go to sites with published reviews.

It has been game over here years ago. You cannot trust them, they need cash to stay afloat and who has it? Those that want paid advertising.

If you don't listen to this, you are fooling yourself.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: etc., etc. Oct 13, 2012, 10:31 xXBatmanXx
 
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOKING!  
Avatar 10714
 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: New dad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 21:05 2nd_floor
 
Prez wrote on Oct 12, 2012, 19:46:
An 89% Editor's Choice award for Crysis 2, and an 84% and "id still makes some of the finest corridors in PC gaming" for Rage.

Crysis 2 felt like a solid 80-something game, and Rage wasn't over rated too badly imo. It was a decent 70 in my book

I thought Crysis 2, in a vacuum by itself, could take an 80 something too. However, add in that for a *PC* game, the hardware in 2011/2012 asks for better. Look at what GTA:IV did for a city in a game. If Crysis 2 had been something like that (open design, using full 2011/2012 hardware), that would be an Editor's Choice 8.9(+)/10 rating (a game that gets people to buy and use the PC for gaming instead of consoles). Then add in what Crysis 1 did for PC gaming (which may not be entirely fair but I'll say it). A huge step forward. PC Gamer themselves said Crysis 1 might be the best FPS ever, and to look at how far the FPS has come since the early 90s. (I think they said both of those, for sure the second one). 89% for Crysis 2 means it is only 9% less of an experience than Crysis 1. As far as fun, and do-it-your-way game play, Crysis 2 was not nearly there. And with only checkpoint saves, some done annoyingly poorly, I almost didn't finish it. They went so far ahead with Crysis 1, and then you play Crysis 2 and realize what it is, and think "uugggghhhh".

Low-mid 80s by itself maybe, but 85% and higher, we need to see much more effort geared towards the PC and what the PC can do. We're getting mediocre console ports of games, and fully accepting them by giving scores of 89%. (But I guess the consoles are where the money is!) Crysis 2 did get very mixed reviews, so some like it, some don't.

For a FPS PC game in 2011/2012, open-world (or open level) DirectX 11 should be the standard! With full graphical options and availability.

I thought Rage was a mess. It doesn't know what it is, and I think they (id) made some big mistakes with it. The semi open-world aspect actually makes it worse I think. There is no point to the driving. Is it a vehicle game or a person-on-foot game? Two completely different parts to it. And the "levels" were not open at all! Far Cry 2 nailed the open-world vehicle genre. That felt like a game! (except maybe the re-spawning and repetitive missions, but for maybe the first of it's kind, fantastic!). Rage simply doesn't flow properly. I think 60s even for Rage, maybe 70s. Carmack spent time getting id Tech V running on the iPhone, and look at the bugs on the PC version! The effort to make a full scale PC game is not there. 5 years, and 25GB hard drive space for that? They took the A.I. routines and sayings right out of F.E.A.R., word for word, action for action!! id doesn't copy people!

Haha, I like reviewing, taking apart and analysing games

This comment was edited on Oct 12, 2012, 21:22.
 
Avatar 57402
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 19:46 Prez
 
An 89% Editor's Choice award for Crysis 2, and an 84% and "id still makes some of the finest corridors in PC gaming" for Rage.

Crysis 2 felt like a solid 80-something game, and Rage wasn't over rated too badly imo. It was a decent 70 in my book (which given id's pedigree is disappointing in itself but in a vacuum the game was decent), which goes back to my original point that PC Gamer has become a bit more discerning with their Editor's Choice awards it seems. It seems especially so since the Dragon Age 2 review; maybe they got called on it by so many people that they had a bit of a wake-up call.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 15:02 2nd_floor
 
An 89% Editor's Choice award for Crysis 2, and an 84% and "id still makes some of the finest corridors in PC gaming" for Rage. Yuck! NOTHING like the action and thrills of Doom or Quake. As PC games in 2012 (meaning given the technology that the PC has today), those scores are well above what those games should have received, IMO.

PC Gamer needs to step up and defend the PC from cheap console ports, by not giving such high and generous scores to games that are obviously not designed for the PC. I wonder if developers see these high scores, and think to themselves that PC gamers are just fine with getting average quality, DirectX 9 (5 years old), buggy games on the PC, and so continue to produce them.

Another complaint I have with PC Gamer is their writing. Their replies to reader letters, screen shots captions, and other comments are horribly not intelligent, sometimes insulting and rude to readers, and often have nothing to do with PC gaming!

PC Gamer does NOT accurately reflect the views of many PC gamers in their reviews/scores and overall satisfaction with PC gaming in this day! You just have to read forums like this to know that!

This comment was edited on Oct 12, 2012, 15:35.
 
Avatar 57402
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 10:20 Beamer
 
zombiefan wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 21:53:
Stopped reading PC Gamer in 2001. Haven't looked back. But give me the old PC Accelerator back any day.

It was that Doom 3 review that did it for me. 9 page early review. Glowing. 94%. I paid $60 for it day of launch. I spent maybe 2 hours into it before I hated it, maybe another 3 into it hoping it got better. It didn't.

God I hate that game. I haven't played an id related game since, and I haven't read anything PCG. Even Coconut Monkey couldn't get me back.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 10:18 Beamer
 
ASeven wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 21:03:
Prez wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 20:39:
Every gaming reviews outlet gets accused of this. You have to figure it goes on at some level, but who knows if it is only here and there or if it's a widespread practice? PC Gamer reviews have seemed less glowy to me lately, but that could just be in my head. I do know that I generally like and agree with one of their oft-used freelance reviewers, Tom Chick, so I read them a lot. I get their mag delivered to my Kindle Fire every month.

But yeah that Dragon Age 2 review made me scratch Rich McCormick off of my list of trusted reviewers.

Here's one for us old ones. Back in the 80s two of the powerhouse magazines covering game reviews were Crash! and Zzap!64. The reviews were often honest and always brutal where needed be. Fast forward to the present where one of the past editors of Zzap!64 confessed some reviews were given higher marks due to "money pressure".

You have to think, if back where game reviewing was an infant business this practice was already rather common place then such practices could only have gotten more complex and more than likely more ingrained within the game journalism group to the point where I think it's believable that paid reviews are a strong possibility nowadays.

Well, it's actually harder now, as there are more watchdogs, more people involved, more disgruntled employees leaving, etc.

But as a whole it's engrained. There's no way around it. I've spelled it out a few times, but I'll go through it again:
Game review companies are supported almost exclusively by the people making the games. They get the games for free, they get flown out for previews, they get invited to industry events, they often leave reviewing and join game companies as developers (and this is a goal of many entering the industry), and virtually every single ad in a magazine or site is for a game.

Compare that to movies. Movies don't really have their own magazines or major sites, instead they're part of a different publication. Movie reviewers don't get flown to movies, their newspaper pays for it. They don't rely on movie ads, newspapers and magazines have vastly diversified revenue sources. You never hear about a movie reviewer going into the film industry. There are never advanced reviews, only day-of reviews, so it doesn't matter if a magazine reporter doesn't see a film until it comes out and, given that movies are 2.5 hours, a newspaper reviewer can always review the day after a movie opens (and often has to, as many aren't screened for critics), meaning that it's impossible for a movie company to blackball someone and prevent them from being meaningful in reviewing.

The game review industry is just too closely tied to the game industry, and there's no real way to separate that.
Net result: take reviews with a major grain of salt and don't pay attention to scores. I've said here a few dozen times that I very, very infrequently buy a game I do not enjoy (and the ones I have purchased and not enjoyed are darlings around here - just me following advice on indies I knew I probably wouldn't like to begin with but figured were worth a $10 risk.) Picking and choosing bad games from good is fairly easy. People start talking the day of release, and you can pay attention to that. And you can pay attention to the substance of reviews and see what they complain about (gameplay-wise, as they rarely mention technical issues) to see if it's something you know you'd complain about.

If you just use game reviews as loose guidelines - tools that you combine with other tools - you can still get a valid read on whether or not to buy something.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 10:10 Deathbishop
 
This is one of those stories where everyone knows it's probably going on, there's just not hard proof of it. PCGamer started being shady with their reviews a long time ago, going back to the 90's. Even their article decisions have been biased for some time (Stevie Case as a 'Game God' lol). It's because of these things that PC Gamer stopped being relevant a long time ago.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 09:31 Wallshadows
 
They probably have a dedicated drop-off box at the front of their office which only accepts huge sacks of cash.  
Avatar 50040
 
It says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 08:54 Verno
 
PCXL was the bomb, I haven't read PC Gamer in years. Any self respecting publication that gives Dragon Age 2 a "RPG of the decade" award without even completing the game deserves to be mercilessly mocked.

They are undoubtedly money whoring cheerleaders, it's one of the most common complaints you hear from journalists who get out of the gaming market.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Destiny, Fire Emblem
Watching: Continuum, Star Trek TNG, Haunt
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 07:30 Mordecai Walfish
 
CVG & EGM were the only 2 gaming magazines i've ever had a subscription to.. oh wait there was also Sierra On-Line's Interaction (i think that was the name..) that I got for a couple years too.


I dont really trust major review sites or publications and never have.. it's just too tempting for greedy humans who will find a way to monetize any and every aspect of their "advertising network" including the integrity of their reviews/reviewers.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 03:30 Killer Kane
 
Bring back "PC Accelerator", they would just brutally savage a bad game...and there were lots of boobs.  
Avatar 14092
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 02:31 Cutter
 
RollinThundr wrote on Oct 12, 2012, 00:03:
Cutter wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 21:51:
Gee, big surprise. Of course their reviews are predicated on advertising dollars. All the big budget games have always got glowing reviews - regardless of what everyone else is saying - and all the smaller titles get ripped apart to appear to give them some sort of 'street cred' that they're legit. It's why since day one I always relied on - at the time - for smaller, more honest sites like the Adrenaline Vault for reviews, as well as sites like Blues, VE, etc. to find me more legitimate reviews. And of course, most importantly, my fellow gamers.

Spot on Cutter, same way, Game Informer being a perfect example, owned by Gamestop/EBGames, every high profile title like a Madden or a BL2 gets 9's or 10's every time. Hell even some of the lesser known titles get high scores that they don't deserve.

I put far more faith into word of mouth here, or at Rock Paper Shotgun than any big review house any day.

Yeah man, it's sad. RPS is one of the few these days I put in any stock in. I mainly just rely on you guys.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: etc., etc. Oct 12, 2012, 00:03 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 21:51:
Gee, big surprise. Of course their reviews are predicated on advertising dollars. All the big budget games have always got glowing reviews - regardless of what everyone else is saying - and all the smaller titles get ripped apart to appear to give them some sort of 'street cred' that they're legit. It's why since day one I always relied on - at the time - for smaller, more honest sites like the Adrenaline Vault for reviews, as well as sites like Blues, VE, etc. to find me more legitimate reviews. And of course, most importantly, my fellow gamers.

Spot on Cutter, same way, Game Informer being a perfect example, owned by Gamestop/EBGames, every high profile title like a Madden or a BL2 gets 9's or 10's every time. Hell even some of the lesser known titles get high scores that they don't deserve.

I put far more faith into word of mouth here, or at Rock Paper Shotgun than any big review house any day.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: etc., etc. Oct 11, 2012, 23:52 jdreyer
 
MattyC wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 22:38:
zombiefan wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 21:53:
Stopped reading PC Gamer in 2001. Haven't looked back. But give me the old PC Accelerator back any day.

Maybe I am an oddity, but I miss classic CGW more than PC Gamer or anything else. *shrug*

Yeah, CGW. I wish they were still around. Brood
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: etc., etc. Oct 11, 2012, 22:38 MattyC
 
zombiefan wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 21:53:
Stopped reading PC Gamer in 2001. Haven't looked back. But give me the old PC Accelerator back any day.

Maybe I am an oddity, but I miss classic CGW more than PC Gamer or anything else. *shrug*
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: etc., etc. Oct 11, 2012, 22:27 PropheT
 
Cutter wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 21:51:
Gee, big surprise. Of course their reviews are predicated on advertising dollars. All the big budget games have always got glowing reviews - regardless of what everyone else is saying - and all the smaller titles get ripped apart to appear to give them some sort of 'street cred' that they're legit. It's why since day one I always relied on - at the time - for smaller, more honest sites like the Adrenaline Vault for reviews, as well as sites like Blues, VE, etc. to find me more legitimate reviews. And of course, most importantly, my fellow gamers.

This is pretty much it, and the best way to go.

Everyone has wondered about reviews in years past, but I don't think it's ever been as bad as it is right now. Some cases are outright blatant; L.A. Noire got 100's on some sites, like Giant Bomb, 1UP and Gamepro. GTA IV got 100's on the same sites. Red Dead Redemption (which was admittedly great) also got 100's on 1UP and Gamepro (GB didn't have it listed).

I guess you could argue that all three of those games are the pinnacle of game creation, but that seems sort of weird to me having played all three. That's just looking at Rockstar, since that's who was pointed out in the article here. IGN had a first released exclusive review for GTA IV it's worth noting, too, which not surprisingly also gave it a 100. Most fans I've seen don't even think it's the best game in the series.

Anyway, just kind of rambling. I'm sick of reviews and review scores. If it's hyped up somewhere prior to release, it'll get a high score even if it shouldn't. If anyone questions it, they'll get the "review scores are just opinions" thing which I'd be totally cool with, if it wasn't for their shitty opinions driving publishers these days.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: etc., etc. Oct 11, 2012, 21:53 zombiefan
 
Stopped reading PC Gamer in 2001. Haven't looked back. But give me the old PC Accelerator back any day.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: etc., etc. Oct 11, 2012, 21:51 Cutter
 
Gee, big surprise. Of course their reviews are predicated on advertising dollars. All the big budget games have always got glowing reviews - regardless of what everyone else is saying - and all the smaller titles get ripped apart to appear to give them some sort of 'street cred' that they're legit. It's why since day one I always relied on - at the time - for smaller, more honest sites like the Adrenaline Vault for reviews, as well as sites like Blues, VE, etc. to find me more legitimate reviews. And of course, most importantly, my fellow gamers.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: etc., etc. Oct 11, 2012, 21:51 Prez
 
Doom 3 was even worse than DA2, because about a month after they gave it a 94, everyone on PC Gamer's staff was bitching about how bad of a game it was.

If I remember right that was Dan Morris, who was a bit of an eccentric loose canon and being the EiC he could decide that he was doing the review even though at the time Chuck Osborne was the resident FPS reviewer.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo