Why even have reviews?

[Calax]

Ah reviews, the old way to figure out if you like something. And yet it's also a horrible horrible way to choose something. No offense but among games there are always going to be pieces of crap (Ubersoldier being a PERFECT example) and there are diamonds in the rough (STALKER) and there are damn good games (WoW, Halo, Bioshock.) but there are also cult games, and despite what you may think Dynasty Warriors is a cult game, and yet with each iteration the score goes lower because the reviewers look at it and say "same old thing again" when that'd be like looking at halo without glasses and saying same old thing.

 

I'm probably just a little bitter but if a reviewer doesn't like a particular genre he shouldn't review it. and while some games are disliked by many, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't get reviewed or given a hack job of a review. It seems like the entire reviewing system has gone down the drain because the big money games will get good reviews while indies or cult games will get hackjobs by someone who doesn't seem to like the entire genre much less the game itself.

 

Thats all I'm going to say for now because I'm running on borrowed time.

[mkreku]

That's always a problem when you're reviewing games. I used to ask to not have to review strategy games because I just don't play that genre. We at Spel2 have stated our main genre and secondary genres so the guy responsible for sending out the games has some clue as to who gets what. It doesn't always work though because games seems to come in packs. If we get ten strategy games in one week, everyone gets to review strategy games.

 

Besides, when you set a score for a game, you usually aim for the score that the "masses" would have most use for. A review score is mostly aimed at the people who are more casual gamers and don't have time/interest to read a billion reviews and previews before purchasing a game. Our statistics show that we always get peak page viewing numbers a month before Christmas. We figure it's parents looking for good games to buy to their kids as Christmas presents. Even if we're not always spot on (we've all made mistakes), I still believe we can be of help to some people.

 

People frequenting a geek gaming board is probably not in that demographics

[Tale]

I'm probably just a little bitter but if a reviewer doesn't like a particular genre he shouldn't review it.

 

I think this is pretty much understood, but sometimes things fall through the cracks because of:

a) Crackpot reviewers who just want to bash a game.

b) Genre overload like what mkreku is talking about.

 

Anytime you see a good review for a WWII shooter, you can probably guess the reviewers are abiding by that. Because 90% of the population has to be sick and tired of those games by now. They've got to be purposefully selecting a reviewer in that 10%.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Tale

[Hurlshort]

I can usually tell by reading a review, whether or not the reviewer and I are looking for a similiar gameplay experience. The scores also aren't the most important part of a review. Sure, a score lets me get a quick idea of a game. For example, I'm not a huge strategy fan, but if a game has a high score, I might read the review. If the gameplay elements appeal, then I might do more research or download a demo. For me, a review is just a good starting spot and also an easy way to stay up to date on the gaming industry, since I can't play everything.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

The games media and the people who work in the games media are parasites.

[Volourn]

I like reviews even when I ultimately disagree with me. Pretty much all reviews include facts about the game. And, reading someone else's opinions is cool whether it's 'prfoessional' or not.

 

LONG LIVE REVIEWS!

 

P.S. I have never been convinced to buy (or not buy) a particular game based solely on a review of any sort.

[Calax]

The games media and the people who work in the games media are parasites.

you realize you just called Mk a parasite right?

 

 

Hurlshot: I'd be happy if everyone did what you did but instead you get idiots who only pay attention to the #'s leading to a disdain amongst the player base for certain games.

[Sand]

There is nothing wrong with being a parasite. They have feelings to, you know.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

The games media and the people who work in the games media are parasites.

you realize you just called Mk a parasite right?

 

Yup, but he knows what I think of what he does... I actually kinda like Mk, but that don't change the fact that his job is parasitical.

 

At the end of the day, its critical, which is fine... I like critism, its good, the problem is reviewing is nothing more than a biased opinion. It is hardly ever objective.

 

Reviews are fun enough to read, but I don't hardly ever agree with reviewers at the end of the day. It has been known that companies will pay the media to give good reviews.

 

I also have a problem with the fact that a review can make or break a game, I'll always remember what Mk thought of Dark Messiah, the irony for me was when gears of war was released, GoW suffered from some of the exact same flaws, yet DM was generally disliked and GoW was loved... Which thus showed me that reviewers go into something with a bias.

 

At the end of the day I simply ask, what makes Mk's opinion more valid than Volo's? Nothing.

[Tale]

I Y Dark Messiah of Might and Magic

Edited September 4, 2007 by Tale

[Pidesco]

At the end of the day I simply ask, what makes Mk's opinion more valid than Volo's? Nothing.

 

Volo likes daytime soap operas. Therefore Kreku's views are more valid than Volo's.

[Tale]

At the end of the day I simply ask, what makes Mk's opinion more valid than Volo's? Nothing.

The way it is presented, the explanation for that, and the detail given.

 

Reviews are a necessity because there needs to be a place that people can go to get a general idea of what a product is like before purchase and scouring random forum posts in vague parts of the web trying to weed out the ones that constitute "I hate " or "it sucks because of belts and zippers" is ridiculously silly.

 

Reviews:

1) Give a general opinion of the game.

2) Qualify that opinion.

3) Describe the game.

 

All 3 of which can be used to aid an intelligent choice of whether or not to purchase beyond "****sux." And reviews usually have far more information than just the stated opinion. Maybe I'll revisit this later and give you an analysis of a randomly selected review from gamespy to help illustrate my point.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Tale

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

At the end of the day I simply ask, what makes Mk's opinion more valid than Volo's? Nothing.

The way it is presented, the explanation for that, and the detail given.

 

Reviews are a necessity because there needs to be a place that people can go to get a general idea of what a product is like before purchase and scouring random forum posts in vague parts of the web trying to weed out the ones that constitute "I hate <platform>" or "it sucks because of belts and zippers" is ridiculously silly.

 

Reviews:

1) Give a general opinion of the game.

2) Qualify that opinion.

3) Describe the game.

 

All 3 of which can be used to aid an intelligent choice of whether or not to purchase beyond "****sux." And reviews usually have far more information than just the stated opinion. Maybe I'll revisit this later and give you an analysis of a randomly selected review from gamespy to help illustrate my point.

 

An opinion is an opinion. Need you really spend more time on this?

 

I understand the point of reviews, I just don't see them as a particually good thing all of the time. Oh Media are still parasites :|.

[Tale]

An opinion is an opinion.

But a review is more than an opinion.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

An opinion is an opinion.

But a review is more than an opinion.

 

We'd like to hope, my problem is that, they hardly ever are...

Edited September 4, 2007 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[Hurlshort]

I've never read a professional review that didn't spend time going into the detail on the way a game functions. That's not opinion, it's information, and it can be very helpful.

 

Sure, there are some sources that spend too much time voicing their opnion, but I don't consider media, as a whole, worthless. You just have to pick and choose what you buy into.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I've never read a professional review that didn't spend time going into the detail on the way a game functions. That's not opinion, it's information, and it can be very helpful.

 

Sure, there are some sources that spend too much time voicing their opnion, but I don't consider media, as a whole, worthless. You just have to pick and choose what you buy into.

 

Oh I wouldn't deny that there is some content in regards to information... It just always seems supplied with an opinion. Depends where you read I guess, as I don't actually use reviews to inform my decisions, I just buy the damn game.

[Tale]

I just buy the damn game.

Which one? All of them?

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I just buy the damn game.

Which one? All of them?

 

Yes, if I was ever interested in the first place.

[Hurlshort]

But who sparks that interest? Advertising? Company websites? Word of mouth?

[Pop]

So are we "reviewing" reviews, then? I mean, we're analyzing them and rendering a judgement based on that analysis.

 

But, since it's an opinion, we haven't really gotten anywhere.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

But who sparks that interest? Advertising? Company websites? Word of mouth?

 

I tend to browse Amazon, then go to the company website.

[Hurlshort]

But who sparks that interest? Advertising? Company websites? Word of mouth?

 

I tend to browse Amazon, then go to the company website.

 

So where, out of those two, are you getting unbiased information? Hey, reviewers aren't perfect, but they put less spin on a product than a company website. Also, reviews aren't the only thing the gaming press does, they also put up previews and consolidate gaming news so you don't have to visit a dozen individual company websites.

 

Amazon allows user reviews, which is great, but I don't see how those are more trustworthy than a gaming site. Heck, it could just be the game's developers posting about how wonderful their product is.

[Tale]

I find Amazon's reviews to be very biased. Almost every game I look at on Amazon.com has an average rating of 4-4 1/2 with the rare dip to 3 1/2.

[Slowtrain]

I tend to agree with NatS. Reviews generally are not very helpful, although gaming mags can make OK toilet reading if there's nothing else. Although I suppose if I didn't browse gaming message boards, I might find them more useful.

 

 

There's an obvious conflict of interest when major gaming publishers buy ads in the gaming mags or web sites. Take your reviews with several handfuls of salt, imo.