Lulz inbound!

[Tigranes]

Yep. Emil gushes about how you can queue several actions in VATS, then watch while in slow motion your character shoots something's kneecaps, tosses a grenade in a mutant's open mouth and whatnot. Sure, it's 'cool', but if the whole battle system lends itself to a 'cool explodey' every battle, it's going to get either very boring or a thirteen year old's pipe dream. We will see how it turns out in reality, but there is a great emphasis placed on that at the moment. Queueing actions, for one, makes it very different. They obviously don't want you to queue actions then have half of them fail or have you die in the meantime, so in terms of balance...

 

The one big thing we haven't seen yet, though, is dialogue. We've seen basically nothing. So if we see some good dialogue, it would be nice!

[mkreku]

..but if the whole battle system lends itself to a 'cool explodey' every battle, it's going to get either very boring or a thirteen year old's pipe dream..

And you mean The Original Fallouts did not suffer from this very same problem..? I think you guys need to replay the old games if you remember it as anything but repetitive, slow and boring + gore. And what else was the exploding guts in the previous parts other than "a thirteen year old's pipe dream"? Are you saying the gore added something more in 2D than it can in 3D? Or did it add more just because it was done by Black Isle?

 

I feel you're criticising Fallout 3 for the exact same things that were seen in Fallout & Fallout 2. But just because it's Bethesda doing it (in 3D instead of 2D) it is suddenly the worst thing ever.

 

Same with VATS. To me it sounds like this: You have action points. When you spend them you'll pause the combat, choose what to do and your chosen actions play out in slow motion (your turn). When your action points are spent, you'll either just sit back and wait for the AP's to return (which means "their turn" in the old games lingo) or continue fighting in FPS style. It basically sounds like it's going to be like in the previous games (if you wait for AP's), just with the added option of NOT having to wait for turns, instead being able to play it in real-time automatically. I would have LOVED to have that option the tenth time I met one rat on the other side of the screen in Fallout..

[skuld1]

People have expectations of sequels, as it should be.

 

Yes, they do. If I ask 5 different people what their expectation of a sequel is, I'll likely get 4 or 5 different answers. For some, continuity of setting/timeline/storyline/etc. is enough. For others, it's not a sequel unless it's turn-based and isometric. Which definition is correct?

 

And like Tigranes, even if I strip away my expectations and wants for a Fallout sequel, the game *still* doesn't look particularly to my liking.

 

It's no surprise that some people look at FO3 and decide it is not for them. I've looked at plenty of game previews over the years and decided those games weren't to my liking. What did I do? Strangely enough, I didn't post vile, obnoxious stuff across the net. Nor did I make plans to attempt to sabotage sales of those games. I also did not claim bizarre authority to control the direction of the games even though I did not own the IP. You know what I did? I looked for other games more to my liking.

 

I understand that some of these people have a multi-year emotional attachment to the series and whatnot, but they had to understand that (outside of taking steps like purchasing the rights to the next numbered Fallout or buying the IP) this could happen. Some folks (not anyone posting here) have lost the ability to think sensibly and objectively when it comes to Fallout.

 

Now, start combining those two things with a general distrust of Bethesda, and what they have done to their very own Elder Scrolls series and all the hype we saw before Oblivion.

 

Bethesda did what any good company does: build brand awareness and name recognition through advertising. I don't hold that against them.

 

But yep, the most *annoying* thing about Fallout 3 has IMO been the awful previews. Not just the general amount of slobbering (which I don't like, I'm sure even these people could find critiques as well if they would bother to look) but the amount of factual errors and the fact that different previews actually say different things about the same aspects of the game, based on the same showings of the game. One previewer says this, one previewer says that.

 

That does sound annoying (I'll take your word for it as I haven't read all the previews) but that sounds like the fault of the preview writers, not Bethesda. If I read a horribly written movie review, I think "Wow, what a bad review" not "Wow, what a bad movie."

 

Sure, the "rabidness" can get much sometimes, but not nearly enough to balance out the general slobbering over Bethesda.

 

I'm a bit confused by this statement. Can you point me to some examples of 'slobbering over Bethesda' that you feel completely outbalance the "rabidness" of the NMA / etc. crowd? From what I've personally seen, I can't agree with you at the moment.

[Starwars]

Yes, they do. If I ask 5 different people what their expectation of a sequel is, I'll likely get 4 or 5 different answers. For some, continuity of setting/timeline/storyline/etc. is enough. For others, it's not a sequel unless it's turn-based and isometric. Which definition is correct?

 

I'm not arguing which definitions are correct, I'm arguing that there should be expectations for a sequel as opposed to be judged as a stand alone entity. It should be compared to the games of old.

 

It's no surprise that some people look at FO3 and decide it is not for them. I've looked at plenty of game previews over the years and decided those games weren't to my liking. What did I do? Strangely enough, I didn't post vile, obnoxious stuff across the net. Nor did I make plans to attempt to sabotage sales of those games. I also did not claim bizarre authority to control the direction of the games even though I did not own the IP. You know what I did? I looked for other games more to my liking.

 

I understand that some of these people have a multi-year emotional attachment to the series and whatnot, but they had to understand that (outside of taking steps like purchasing the rights to the next numbered Fallout or buying the IP) this could happen. Some folks (not anyone posting here) have lost the ability to think sensibly and objectively when it comes to Fallout.

 

I've certainly seen no evidence that Fallout fans don't look for other games to their liking. In fact, I see that a lot of people do jump over these games like hungry wolves, because there are not many of them. That's also part of why people dislike what Bethesda is doing to Fallout, because Fallout to some people is a game that was a unique experience that catered straight to their tastes. There's not exactly a wealth of these games.

And a lot of people understood this would happen. This doesn't mean that it's fine and dandy.

I was actually one of the optimistic ones when I heard that Bethesda bought the license, I thought that Bethesda would actually break their own history of FP roleplaying games and provide something more akin to the Fallouts of old.

 

And please, singling out the Fallout community as being the only community doing this is rubbish. Did you see the Oblivion boards after it was released? That was way worse than I personally have ever seen the Fallout community.

 

I suppose the Fallout fanbase is targeted so much because they have persisted throughout the years and spoken their minds without "censoring", and now the spotlight is on them. You say that people are trying to destroy the sales of Bethesda and blablabla, but this is the internet. I don't necessarily agree with it, but don't take everything seriously. It's not like people are mailing bombs to the Bethesda office or anything. People are speaking their minds on whether they like what they've seen or whether they feel Fallout will be a true sequel. This can affect sales, sure. But nowhere have I seen evidence of some grand plan trying to sabotage sales for Bethesda. People do say stupid stuff on the internet. The manner of expressing oneself is often way over the top than when compared to real life. But yeah, there are idiots in the Fallout community. I think there are in most communities.

 

Bethesda did what any good company does: build brand awareness and name recognition through advertising. I don't hold that against them.

 

I do hold that against them if it means that I get increasingly unhappy about the products they provide. That is what's happening.

 

That does sound annoying (I'll take your word for it as I haven't read all the previews) but that sounds like the fault of the preview writers, not Bethesda. If I read a horribly written movie review, I think "Wow, what a bad review" not "Wow, what a bad movie."

 

I don't hold that against Bethesda, I do hold it against the previewers. What I may hold against Bethesda is them appearantly not caring about whether the information released is actually true or not, and not providing a more direct source of (correct) information straight to the fans and "non-filtered" through hype-filled previews. I do see the business sense in making those kinds of deals obviously, but many followers of Fallout (and Bethesda in general as well) would likely want a bit more communication without the language of hype attached. I don't think this would be a bad move at all.

But yeah, the source of annoyance for me is the previews and how they're written.

 

I'm a bit confused by this statement. Can you point me to some examples of 'slobbering over Bethesda' that you feel completely outbalance the "rabidness" of the NMA / etc. crowd? From what I've personally seen, I can't agree with you at the moment.

 

The examples of slobbering is all over the previews if you read them. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that people are excited about Fallout 3, not at all. But I do mind that these previews offer next to none critical views at all. I don't believe that for a second. I could dig up plenty of "bad stuff" even for the games I hold most dear to my heart. A lot of the previews seriously read as a hype-filled article written by the game company itself, rather than providing the reader with actual information (good and bad).

Edited April 12, 2008 by Starwars

[Pop]

What I may hold against Bethesda is them appearantly not caring about whether the information released is actually true or not, and not providing a more direct source of (correct) information straight to the fans and "non-filtered" through hype-filled previews.

What the **** does that even mean? I'd assume you mean "cutting out the middle man" and let the fans see the development of a title. But that's a really silly notion, and an outright stupid decision for a developer to make. It's one thing for a superfan to gripe loudly about something he knows very little about, but giving that superfan a platform in which he has the legitimacy of having seen the work gives him far more power than he would ever deserve. Anybody who thinks the Fallout fanbase would do a better job of analyzing Fallout 3 than the gaming press ought to go ahead and donate their and their descendants' soft tissues to medical science. You give one schmuck with an axe to grind a daylong tour of your studio, even, and he's got real ammunition to sabotage the image of your game. Right now NMA / DAC are pretty much in the dark about Fallout 3 (despite "unnamed source" bull****) and given their predilections Bethesda has no choice but to keep them there.

 

And obviously Bethesda can't care about the accuracy of what's written about their game. Imagine the pissing and moaning that would be heard of Bethsoft asserted editorial control over previews of its games.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Pop

[Starwars]

No, I'm talking about communicating directly with the fanbase. I'm talking about when there was a huge confusion as to what the hell VATS actually is, and how it will play out (since the previews did such a crappy job of describing it) then perhaps a dev (or the community rep) could step in and explain it in non-hype language so that we could get an idea on how it works. Granted, they've done a Q&A before, and Emil was kind enough to answer a few questions not recently. They need not show the press previews to the fans. I would personally like that, but I understand how that might also cause confusion as to what parts of the game are finished or not.

 

That said, I would've certainly liked it if the devs had invited fans to more discussion on the game when they were starting out. It wouldn't be the first time in history such a marvellous feat would happen. NMA and D&C was more than happy on initiating a dialogue, and the few times a Bethesda dev did post there way back, I certainly cannot remember any animosity or anything.

 

But yeah, starting with clarifying wtf is going on with the game when certain previews are reporting different things seems to me not much to ask for. Is it not strange to you that people who do not even agree with the "NMA opinion" (huge generalization there) still wish for Bethesda to invite NMA to previews? It's because their preview tried to seperate the facts from the opinions (first mainly describing the preview, and then giving their opinions at the end). For "casual gamers", your general magazine preview might be a perfect format. But for anyone who's really interested in the game, they're more likely to want info straight from the developer themselves. I certainly don't see anything wrong with that. You could still keep the magazine exclusivity deals and whatnot, just straighten out any misinformation if it presents itself would be a nice start.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Starwars

[Tigranes]

I also did not claim bizarre authority to control the direction of the games even though I did not own the IP. You know what I did? I looked for other games more to my liking.

 

I don't really understand. This might be valid if raised against, say, a specific minority within NMA, but if you say that to me or starwars, that's really the same as saying, "you can't criticise any game ever, if you don't like it find another game". In none of my arguments do I 'claim authority' over Fallout, or argue that we are 'entitled' to a specific Fallout. I am commenting on what I see in a game and how it is being developed or revealed to the press. It's not like FO3 is a steaming pile of poo-poo, anyway: I see potential in it and it could be a good game, that's why I still follow it and hope for the best. Indeed, it might still turn out to be the shiznits, right? Besides, I am an 'interested spectator/consumer' in the CRPG industry and this is a big title that will, like Mass Effect, influence other titles to come. It's a capitalist economy.

 

In terms of scrutinising Bethesda itself, there's enough grounds for that I think. They haven't exactly been the Pol Pot of gaming, sure, but there are some questionable practices. It's endemic of the industry itself, though, with notable exceptions, so I wouldn't say they're worse than the average. (You know some people are going to just read one of those previews and buy the game thinking it'll have 500 unique endings, though. )

 

Oh, and back to the original topic: why am I so displeased with the state of most previews/reviews these days? Look at Oblivion! They raved and raved before it came out, when it came out, for months after it came out, then, as soon as FO3 is in development, they switch tact and say, "Oblivion was great but it had this and this and this flaws, they were pretty bad huh? Well don't despair, FO3 will fix it all!" You know, the Radiant AI was a horrible horrible piece of crap the day it came out, the dialogue was standard fantasy fare with nothing to write home about the day it came out, and the level scaling got into ridiculous superpower rats the day it came out. You can say that it's not the journos' fault that the previews built the hype up, because they hadn't played the game themselves either, sure, but that's why they need to be a bit more careful when they write those things. If they believe everything they are told and just repeat it, with the added touch of gush and rave, all they end up doing is writing elaborate advertisements for the gamer, and participating in, for example, the great myth of the 500 Unique Endings that will disappoint some users when they get the game. Hard-nosed gamers who are used to this stuff will exercise their own cynicism and discretion, but casual gamers who don't check everything will look at this 'journalism' and go for it. Would it have been so hard to ask some questions about concrete examples of dialogue, or hold them up for broken promises in Oblivion? If they were fooled once with "Radiantly Crap AI", shouldn't they be a little suspicious when Bethesda claim super AI without really showing it?

 

*shrug* Some of you might say, games journalism has always been this way. Deal with it. I don't see how the longevity or widespread nature of something wrong means we should all learn to just suck up and deal with it. Certainly, I'm not surprised to see these kind of press actions; I'm not going to lose my faith in humanity and jump off a cliff (weeee); but I know that it shouldn't be this way.

[Gorth]

Same with VATS. To me it sounds like this: You have action points. When you spend them you'll pause the combat, choose what to do and your chosen actions play out in slow motion (your turn). When your action points are spent, you'll either just sit back and wait for the AP's to return (which means "their turn" in the old games lingo) or continue fighting in FPS style. It basically sounds like it's going to be like in the previous games (if you wait for AP's), just with the added option of NOT having to wait for turns, instead being able to play it in real-time automatically. I would have LOVED to have that option the tenth time I met one rat on the other side of the screen in Fallout..

Sounds to me like this: They have turned the mana bar into AP's. Once you have regenerated enough, you can cast your next spell do your next out of the ordinary thing and be rewarded with some splatter effects and possibly some faster kills.

 

You can say that it's not the journos' fault that the previews built the hype up, because they hadn't played the game themselves either, sure, but that's why they need to be a bit more careful when they write those things. If they believe everything they are told and just repeat it, with the added touch of gush and rave, all they end up doing is writing elaborate advertisements for the gamer, and participating in, for example, the great myth of the 500 Unique Endings that will disappoint some users when they get the game.

I blame the journalists for me buying NWN1

 

What about just, not liking what they "seem" to be doing with it, combined with their past track record in game design? I was one of those "Nooooo!" guys when Bethesda announced that they had aquired the rights to the entire franchise (minus FOOL), because I think they fit like a hand in a sock for that kind of game. I resigned myself to disappointment and silent despair. The less than charming traits of the "journalists" does ruffle my hair the wrong way though.

 

Fallout 3 might surprise me positively, but it would need to be a lot of things that Oblivion was not to do that

[SteveThaiBinh]

The majority of gaming journalists haven't backtracked on how awesome Oblivion supposedly is/was. It's a shame, because Bethesda has little incentive to make Fallout 3 better. It will be interesting to see if the reviewers do indeed trash Fallout 3 for having all the same flaws they ignored in Oblivion. Would that be evidence of growing honesty, or of hypocrisy? And would it put Bethesda off making single-player RPGs in the future? That would be a shame, because even Oblivion, for all its faults, was a moderately enjoyable gaming experience.

[Slowtrain]

Now if they hired Tim Cain and some others whoi worked on the previous Fallouts, than there would be hope. But I see none sadly.

 

I would tend to agree with you, DR, but sometimes, sometimes, against all odds, long shots do come in. And usually when you least expect it. So there is always hope that FO3 might be good. Or at least not bad. Or not ghastly.

 

However, I'm going to let Mikey try it first.

Edited April 13, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Hell Kitty]

It's a shame, because Bethesda has little incentive to make Fallout 3 better.

 

By better you mean more to your liking. Why would the majority of writers who gave Oblivion positive reviews backtrack now? Because you find Oblivion a "moderately enjoyable gaming experience" they can't possibly be telling the truth when they claim they loved it and if they weren't lying then they were victims of the Bethesda hype machine? Is it really so hard for people to see that maybe those reviews were being honest all along because that's really how they felt about the game?

 

Call of Duty 4 has received loads of positive reviews, and it'll be a shame if game journalists don't backtrack on how awesome it supposedly is and finally reveal the truth. The truth, obviously, is that the decision to include health regeneration is a major flaw in this otherwise once great series and reviewers who don't trash such features in future game reviews are being dishonest. If game journalists continue with this hypocrisy then they will be playing an active role in stopping Infinity Ward from growing as a developer, enabling them to create better games. CoD4 was an average game that could have been great had it removed features I don't like I mean features that are inherently faulty.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Tigranes]

they can't possibly be telling the truth when they claim they loved it and if they weren't lying

 

Some journos ARE backtracking now (or are able to come public with their grievances). Notably about how generic and repetitive the dungeons and the world was; how Radiant AI was nothing but bull-crock; how despite the beautiful world, the faces were a thing of horror (I didn't mind much, but there you go); how the level scaling made for a nonsensical experience.

 

And certainly, you could say, "you may not have enjoyed/loved Oblivion but maybe they have". And that's perfectly fine. But when Bethesda announces to the world, Radiant AI will do this and that and this and that can happen and it will change your experience, and all the journos buy into it and start spreading the word about the awesomeness, and it turns out to be so extremely toned down some of their cited examples became falsehoods, and problems we had not known about before surface (as they do with the best of games, when they are released), then what reason is there for them NOT to backtrack?

 

There would be nothing wrong with saying "we were previewed X things, and we thought that looked great, so we said it was awesome. Then it came out, and some of those things that were said or understood didn't turn out to be true, and problems we never knew about came up. However, because of Y and Z, I as a reviewer still feel that this game is fantastic!" There wasn't much of that happening the first few months, was there?

 

Definitely, it is an interesting question. FO3 promised substantially improved dialogues and voice acting; promised fuller, real NPCs; promised more real consequences to your actions as opposed to being able to do anything and everything at the same time; better AI than Radiant-Not; so on and so forth. If, for example, the dialogue turns out to be exactly the same as Oblivion, many NPCs are still generic, you can still do everything except for Megaton, and the AI still talks about mudcrabs in the middle of random conversations - so, yeah, if we take the worst case scenario - will the journalists actually call Bethesda up on this?

[kirottu]

Same with VATS. To me it sounds like this: You have action points. When you spend them you'll pause the combat, choose what to do and your chosen actions play out in slow motion (your turn). When your action points are spent, you'll either just sit back and wait for the AP's to return (which means "their turn" in the old games lingo) or continue fighting in FPS style. It basically sounds like it's going to be like in the previous games (if you wait for AP's), just with the added option of NOT having to wait for turns, instead being able to play it in real-time automatically. I would have LOVED to have that option the tenth time I met one rat on the other side of the screen in Fallout..

Sounds to me like this: They have turned the mana bar into AP's. Once you have regenerated enough, you can cast your next spell do your next out of the ordinary thing and be rewarded with some splatter effects and possibly some faster kills.

 

Sounds to me like SPECIAL in realtime.

[Hell Kitty]

Some journos ARE backtracking now (or are able to come public with their grievances).

 

I can easily see people changing their minds but coming "public with their grievances? That sounds terribly dramatic. Please link me to the folks who are now coming clean about the web of lies and deceit that was the reviewing of Oblivion.

 

There would be nothing wrong with saying "we were previewed X things, and we thought that looked great, so we said it was awesome. Then it came out, and some of those things that were said or understood didn't turn out to be true, and problems we never knew about came up. However, because of Y and Z, I as a reviewer still feel that this game is fantastic!" There wasn't much of that happening the first few months, was there?

 

I guess it depends on what you think a review should be. A review is an evaluation of the final product, but is it necessary to reference any and all previews and interviews? If Y and Z work and make for a fantastic game, why is it necessary for the reviewer to mention X if it isn't in the final game, or not exactly like they claimed in a preview? Should they evaluate X based on what it is, or what it could have been? Should Deus Ex have been criticized because it didn't feature the mission in the White House or the ability to select a female JC? Should every review of Thief mention it was originally Dark Camelot?

 

Kieron Gillen pointed out in a thread on qt3 that while his review of Deus Ex is overwhelming positive and Tom Chicks review of is overwhelming negative, both the reviews are correct. You'd obviously disagree with this, as it seems clear you believe their is only one true way to review a game, given the belief that it's necessary for writers to backtrack.

 

If the intended audience of a review was the developer then I'd agree that writers should criticize them for failing to live up to claims they made earlier. When the review is aimed at the consumer, then it's unnecessary to "call out" the developer.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Tigranes]

I can easily see people changing their minds but coming "public with their grievances? That sounds terribly dramatic. Please link me to the folks who are now coming clean about the web of lies and deceit that was the reviewing of Oblivion.

 

Wasn't intended to be dramatic, sorry - I don't mean this in the sense that Journo X is worried about Oblivion having this and this problem, but this paragon of free speech was censored by the evil editor and the corporate suits that have paid him, oh no! I mean it more in the sense that maybe, everyone in the press was so busy being happy happy about Oblivion, there wasn't, as a whole, enough looking back and taking a minute and saying "hold on, is this really in every way better than Jesus' second coming?" Certainly, I just had a look back at some of the reviews/previews from 2005/6 and that is what it feels like.

 

I guess it depends on what you think a review should be.

 

Fair enough, but respectfully speaking, I think the rest of the paragraph ran away from you a little bit. If I'm wrong here, feel free to lambast me.

 

I believe a reviewer should take it upon him/herself to, based on his/her personal opinions and experiences (it doesn't need to be an encyclopaedia or a scientific dissertation), explain what kind of experience is actually provided in that game package and what can be expected by the consumer. After all, nobody has any problem when a reviewer says, "this feature is great but is plagued by bugs", "this game is great but the company has a horrible self-help forum", etc.

 

To the core of things - Why should a review reference its own preview? Because a preview was a provisional assessment of the game that gave the consumers particular expectations about a game! I find this very natural. By releasing a preview, you have given customers certain expectations about what this product will be like. Now, in the form of the full game, you have more accurate information about that product. If things you said in the preview are no longer salient, why wouldn't you address these discrepancies to set right the customer's expectations?

 

You can see how this is a bit different from what you were saying I said. I didn't follow Deus Ex, but if the devs said you CAN choose a female JC, and te previewers helped inform the world of this fact, if you failed to actually talk about this in your review it would be very silly! Reviewers shouldn't backtrack about every little thing, but when, unwittingly, their previews have helped create an impression of the game that they realise now is no longer accurate, of course they should try and correct it.

 

That was very long-winded I know, but it seems I didn't make myself clear enough the first time, so maybe now it's overtly clear. You can see how I'm not advocating one strict way of reviewing a game. All I am asking is that reviewers be aware of what effect their journalism has, and take a reasonable amount of responsibility for that effect. This can be done no matter how positive you are about Oblivion, or how negative about it. This can be done by both a Codex review and a Gamespy review. 'Calling out' the dev is very important to the consumer, I would say, because they need to know if what they read in the previews is going to be what they are getting, or if that mental image they developed of that game is not quite the same.

 

Final note, just to be safe: of course I'm not saying previewers deliberately distort information or spread positive propaganda about that game, or something. Of course previews are going to say some things that no longer hold up in a review, because they are not able to play the game themselves (or not all of it) and games change in development! In no way am I ever implying this. Just hoping that you can see my argument not as some sort of 'devs r evil liarz and so r the journos" tin-foil diatribe.

 

Edit: I must say, though, when I was looking back at some of the actual articles, it wasn't quite as explicit or 'bad' as I had maybe made it out to be; oh, memory, memory. I still stand by my understanding of the situation as a whole, but it'll probably do to imaginatively 'tone down' my previous comments a little, in light of that. Funnily enough, some of the most outrageous complaints about Oblivion (and not complaints by my own standards, but of the community as a whole, or of the journos themselves in FO3 previews) weren't, well... they weren't present in the reviews OR previews. One review actually posted an in-game screenie that showed the horrible 'blurry' textures that really knocked off the immersion factor in terms of graphics, while raving about how the world is real and so forth; one review actually claimed the radiant AI would go so far to close up shops when shopkeeper is dead (he may be referring to the scripted event about Thoronir, otherwise he's completely wrong); the word 'dialogue' doesn't even come up on one review, and so forth. I guess that both helps and doesn't help my case, doesn't it? It's interesting.

[Hell Kitty]

a preview was a provisional assessment of the game that gave the consumers particular expectations about a game! ...why wouldn't you address these discrepancies to set right the customer's expectations?

 

Don't you think it's a little arrogant for a writer to assume they know what the readers expectations are, and a whole lot arrogant to assume those expectations need to be set right?

 

What about the readers who have no expectations, the ones who never heard of the game before or purposely avoided the hype?

Edited April 13, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Tigranes]

Huh... a preview and review's entire raison d'etre is to inform the public about games. If, at any stage, they informed the public incorrectly, then that is their job to correct it, irrespective of whether that error came from themselves, the devs, was inevitable, or whatnot. I would have thought that to be a very common-sense kind of argument. I suppose the language I used didn't help in that case, but come now.

 

If I told my friend about this great new game that is coming out that will allow me to throw bananas at monkeys while riding a hoverbike, then the game came out and I played it, and it turned out that, well, you were severely limited in your stock of bananas and the monkeys are just 2d pixels that didn't really respond to the banana-throwing, the next time I meet my friend, wouldn't I tell him, "yeah, it's still there, but..."? Isn't it a very normal thing to do?

[Slowtrain]

Funnily enough, some of the most outrageous complaints about Oblivion (and not complaints by my own standards, but of the community as a whole, or of the journos themselves in FO3 previews) weren't, well... they weren't present in the reviews OR previews. One review actually posted an in-game screenie that showed the horrible 'blurry' textures that really knocked off the immersion factor in terms of graphics, while raving about how the world is real and so forth; one review actually claimed the radiant AI would go so far to close up shops when shopkeeper is dead (he may be referring to the scripted event about Thoronir, otherwise he's completely wrong); the word 'dialogue' doesn't even come up on one review, and so forth.

 

MYSTARY!

 

lol.

[Spider]

Huh... a preview and review's entire raison d'etre is to inform the public about games.

 

Actually, no. There reason for being is to sell ads. As is the case with basically all texts in all magazines and newspapers (with the exception of user generated content).

 

What the consumer expects to get from them, is probably what you say though. But that's another beast entirely.

 

Anyway, that's the point I was making earlier. Writing (or at least publishing) a preview or review in a way that causes ad revenue to decrease is simply bad business, because ad revenue is what makes magazines exist in the first place. The cover price tag barely covers the cost of printing, if that. What needs to happen is that the gaming press needs to man up and realize that the gaming industry needs them just as much as vice versa. The problem is that a majority of them needs to do it at the same time. If just one or two does it, they go out of business and someone else takes their place.

 

More actual journalists in the ranks of the gaming press wouldn't hurt either, but is still a very secondary issue.

[Slowtrain]

I've always wondered if gaming publications get emails from publisher's Pr departments saying things like:

 

Hi, <insert publication title here>, with our new major game release only a few months away please note that it is now OK to say bad things about our last major game release, AS LONG AS such bad things are IMMEDIATELY noted to be fixed in our upcoming new release.

 

Also, please mark yourr calenders for next months upcoming exclusive demo of the first level of our hot upcoming release. Please remember to bring a change of underwear, your toothbrush, and your soul. Please note that souls wil be signed for and collected upon receving clearance to view our hot new upcoming release (first level only).

 

SIncerely,

 

 

x

 

snarkle.

[Tigranes]

Don't be silly, we're gamers. We all sold our souls to the devil the moment we went "Dungeons and what?".

[Hell Kitty]

If, at any stage, they informed the public incorrectly, then that is their job to correct it

 

The only things that should be corrected are facts, like if it was originally reported the game would feature multiplayer and if that feature gets cut, the review should point that out. If the reviewer thinks the AI is crap then they should state why. "The AI is poor because of x, y, and z." is fine, but "The AI is poor because of x, y, and z, but in the original preview I did I claimed the AI was awesome based on what I saw and what the developers told me and this just isn't true." is just wasting word count. It can also add unnecessary negativity; "While I love the Aliens RPG, I feel I must point out that developers originally claimed the game is tyte but I feel I must point out this obvious falsehood, as the game is not quite as tyte as they claimed." "Calling out" a developer like this is just petty. You can't correct opinions like "the game is immersive" or "the game is repetitive".

 

Although a writers opinion might change it doesn't mean they were wrong when they first wrote their review. Gillen is happy to admit that the negative things from Chicks review are all true, but that doesn't make his own review wrong. There is no need to backtrack on reviews because all you are doing is preaching to the choir. People who agree with the new negative assessment will pat themselves on the back because the journalist has seen the "truth", and fans won't care because the flaws never bothered them.

[Tigranes]

Why is that just adding word count? Are you implying that only facts matter? That impressions, opinions, weighted words, and all that, does not influence anyone, and if it does, we are all rational beings that can conceive of all facts objectively without any of that directing us one way or the other? I don't understand this big black line separating 'fact' from 'opinion', and saying as long as facts are right, opinions dont need to be corrected.

 

You can't correct opinions like "the game is immersive" or "the game is repetitive".

 

Uh, of course you can. Journo X was told in game Y, A and B woudl happen. Based on this, Journo X thought game Y would be immersive, and said so in the preview. In the full game, A and B were cut. Journo X thus says, A and B would have made Y immersive, but without it, it is not quite as immersive as I told people in the preview.

 

Although a writers opinion might change it doesn't mean they were wrong when they first wrote their review.

 

I think you are getting away from what I was saying. I wasn't talking about their opinion 'just' changing; that is indeed their individual flight of fancy and there is no point getting into that. I am saying, if a journalist formed his opinion on the basis of certain promises by devs or certain things seen or implied in their demos, and these promises, implications or hopes on which the journalist based his opinion and preview are no longer the case, then of course his opinion may change; and of course he would do well to inform everyone else, who might well have gone through the same process as him. Am I showing you better, now, how it's not just about 'facts', or the journo randomly changing his mind?

 

Besides, if done right, it's not about 'accusing' devs or 'taking them to the task'. Everyone understands that not all features may make it in, or features can change. It's not about saying "Bethesda why did you take this out".

 

I mean, let's say: Samsung was making a TV, and said their TV would come with a Super Remote Control with 60 buttons. Based on this, a TV previewer (heh) said this TV, in his opinion, is the greatest TV evar. Samsung, due to unforeseen technical problems, had to cut it down to 30 buttons. The TV previewer, having used this new downsized remote, is now of the opinion that this TV isn't actually that great. Then of course it is their job to correct their original statement about the greatness of the TV. This is not a question of whose fault it is, who to blame, whatever, at all, though you seem to think I am saying that. Let me clear that up once and for all - it's not about that. It's about informing customers, and that extends to more than just 'bare facts'. It extends to hopes, implications, promises and suggestions. Why wouldn't it?

[Hell Kitty]

Why is that just adding word count?

 

I didn't say adding, I said wasting. Words telling the reader how you aren't as excited now or how the developer didn't quite live up to their claims means less words spent on your opinion of and the facts about the actual content of the final product. A review needs to be able to stand on it's own, not act as a companion piece to developer comments and previews. If I've never heard of the game before, why do I need to know how excited the journalist was a year ago? If I don't even know who the developer is, why would I care if you think they made exaggerated claims? What is this extra information supposed to tell me about the final product?

 

You can't correct opinions like "the game is immersive" or "the game is repetitive".

Uh, of course you can.

 

If a journalist found Oblivion incredibly immersive when originally reviewing it back in 2006, but when playing it now in 2008 doesn't find it particularly immersive at all, it doesn't mean his original opinion was incorrect. There is no need to backtrack because his changed opinion doesn't invalidate his original review.

 

who might well have gone through the same process as him.

 

And they might not have. They might cynically assume the game could never live up to the hype. They might have no expectations at all. They might be incredibly hyped for completely different reasons. If they haven't gone through the same process, how can the reviewer "set right the customer's expectations" when those expectations are varied and unknown?

 

I mean, let's say: Samsung was making a TV, and said their TV would come with a Super Remote Control with 60 buttons. Based on this, a TV previewer (heh) said this TV, in his opinion, is the greatest TV evar.

 

A preview shouldn't make definitive claims like "this is the best tv ever", such claims are to be made in reviews. A preview might say "Samsung are working on a 60 button remote control that could make this one of the best TVs ever made", whereas the review says "Samsung included a standard 30 button remote no better than the competition." There is no need for it to say "Samsung included a standard 30 button remote no better than the competition, which is a shame because I thought it would be awesome if they included the 60 button remote control they told me about when I first previewed it back in 2006." People who have been following development will know from your review that it now features a 30 button instead of a 60 button, and people who didn't won't care.

 

To use a real life example, the latest Hyper (Aussie mag) features a preview of Fallout 3, and at the end it says "from what we've seen so far, Fallout 3 is shaping up to be one of the games of 2008", not "Fallout 3 is the game of 2008". A preview is for what a game appears to be, a review is for what it actually is.

[Pop]

It should be pointed out (again) that bloggers (to whom a growing number of gamers exclusively turn for info) are not journalists, in the strict sense of the word. The line between reporting and editorializing is ever thin.