Spore!

[Kaftan Barlast]

When it comes to my tastes, I thought Sims2 was quite fun for a few days when it came out. But Spore is a completely different concept so theres no point in comparing the two. The former is a simgame while the latter is a customizeable RTS, in which the customisation is way more fun than actually playing the game.

 

And Im not alone in having this opinion either, we were about 8 people yesterday who tried it and everyone thopught aboput the same, regardless of their personal tastes in gaming(which varied from hardcore fps players, fighting game enthusiasts to a jrpg pansy)

[Moatilliatta]

So if everyone who writes in english is bought why is Spore getting scores like 8 and 9 instead of 10?

 

Edit: Wait a second, Swedes that like JRPGs? The horror is unimaginable.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Moatilliatta]

Guess I'll have to double post.

 

One problem that lots of people seem to mention is that it crashes a lot and doesn't have an autosave. That was the main problem with Simcity 4 and it makes me nervous.

[Morgoth]

Guess I'll have to double post.

 

One problem that lots of people seem to mention is that it crashes a lot and doesn't have an autosave. That was the main problem with Simcity 4 and it makes me nervous.

Lol I guess they needed more development time huh?

[newc0253]

So have you even read it or are you trying to live up to your signature?

Yes, I read it but - if my sig is accurate - it would hardly make a difference, no?

 

It being Alec Meer means that it is worth a read to see whether it is good or not. It is.

It is what? Worth a read? or good or not?

 

I think the logical error here is the assumption that, if an otherwise decent writer is paid by a site like IGN to review a major release, that otherwise decent writer will therefore tell the unvarnished truth about that release.

[Moatilliatta]

I think the logical error here is the assumption that, if an otherwise decent writer is paid by a site like IGN to review a major release, that otherwise decent writer will therefore tell the unvarnished truth about that release.

What I've been trying to say is that from what I can see from the article there is zero lies in it and there is no reason to suspect anything.

 

Clear enough?

 

If people here don't like Spore then I think it might have something to do with people jumping on the hate train without actually trying to understand what they're hating. Or perhaps I'm wrong and will have to admit that when I get the game. who knows.

[newc0253]

What I've been trying to say is that from what I can see from the article there is zero lies in it

lies? we're talking value judgments here, not facts and figures.

 

i'm not accusing the reviewer of lying. i'm suggesting that sites like IGN regularly give favourable reviews to major releases. that's not a lie, per se, simply hype.

 

and there is no reason to suspect anything.

no, other than the fact that it's an IGN review of a major release...

[Kaftan Barlast]

What you need to understand is that commercial gaming sites live in symbiosis with the publishers, who trade ad space and exclusives in return for favoreable articles and reviews. Any reviewer who doesnt fall in line is kept from writing or even fired from his position. Freelancers are no different in that they dont have any hope of being hired to do a review again, unless the company can be sure that they write what the management wants them to.

 

 

If you want truthful unbiased reviews, you have to turn to people who dont rely on the gaming industry to get their paycheck.

[newc0253]

the point isn't that spore isn't a good game. it might be, and it certainly has gotten good previews.

 

the point is how can we trust a site like IGN to give an unbiased review?

 

i mean, how likely it that every major release manages to score 8, 9 or even 10? we're clearly not grading on a curve here...

[Wrath of Dagon]

How reviews really work: http://sorethumbsblog.com/post/47555759/gamingjournalism3

[newc0253]

How reviews really work: http://sorethumbsblog.com/post/47555759/gamingjournalism3

yeah, except even that article softballs the process somewhat.

 

i mean, they were gonna give Assassin's Creed a 7?

 

why not be brutally honest - if we're grading Assassin's Creed on a scale of 1 to 10, why should a game with that many shortcomings score any higher than a 5?

 

or they talk about a reviewer wavering between a 7 or an 8 but the publisher wanting a 9?

 

compare that with movie reviews: many reviewers don't bother with scores or grades but even among those that do, you don't see every major release regularly scoring 70% or better....

 

seriously, for all the talk about games becoming an art-form in their own right? that's never gonna happen while mainstream gaming sites and mags continue to give out hand jobs for cash. so-called games "journalists" who write for those sites should be frakking embarrassed that they get paid to basically pimp games for a living.

 

at least they should have the guts to work for a marketing department and be honest about what they do...

Edited September 4, 2008 by newc0253

[Hurlshort]

why not be brutally honest - if we're grading Assassin's Creed on a scale of 1 to 10, why should a game with that many shortcomings score any higher than a 5?

 

Um, what? Assassin's Creed is a very playable game, many people enjoyed it. It deserves a score somewhere between a 7 and an 8.

 

Just because your opinion is different than a reviewers doesn't mean they were paid off. If that was the way the media worked then Daikatana would have gotten 9's and 10's.

[mrmud]

That coupled with the fact that ubisoft are still boycotting ziff should make it obvious that it was an honest review.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The 10 point grading system for games isn't really linear. Most critics give a 7 to an average game, not a 5. The 5 point scale seems to be more linear, with 2.5-3 being average. I think that's just how scores developed over time. So many games getting above a 9 is pretty ridiculous, and it's hard not to suspect that something nefarious is going on. I blame the Halo 2 review, that's the first time I noticed something seems to be out of whack.

[Hurlshort]

The 10 point grading system for games isn't really linear. Most critics give a 7 to an average game, not a 5. The 5 point scale seems to be more linear, with 2.5-3 being average. I think that's just how scores developed over time. So many games getting above a 9 is pretty ridiculous, and it's hard not to suspect that something nefarious is going on. I blame the Halo 2 review, that's the first time I noticed something seems to be out of whack.

 

Good point. It's the same scale used in most schools.

 

It's also the content of the review that I see as important. The written words are worth a lot more than a number. Also, I don't pay much attention to a review of a genre I'm not interested in much, because I'm not the target audience.

[newc0253]

Um, what? Assassin's Creed is a very playable game, many people enjoyed it. It deserves a score somewhere between a 7 and an 8.

there's your problem right there. many people enjoyed 'Meet the Spartans' - does that mean it deserves between a 7 and an 8?

 

and if a movie like 'Meet the Spartans' manages a 7 or 8, what do we give 'The Godfather Part 2'?

 

after all, if we're gonna be assigning numbers between 1 and 10 to represent quality (which is a pretty debatable exercise in the first place), why should a merely 'playable' game score a 7?

 

gamers should demand more from reviewers. instead they're content to swallow whatever pap they get fed, then regurgitate it on the boards, e.g. "OMG Crysis got a 10/10!!'

 

that might be fine, if you're actually 7 years old. but if the average age of gamers is close to 30, it's more than a little sad.

Edited September 4, 2008 by newc0253

[newc0253]

Just because your opinion is different than a reviewers doesn't mean they were paid off.

i didn't say that they're all taking the money. it's just a sad combination of payola, industry pressure and the tyranny of low expectations among the editorial staff.

 

after all, in terms of journalistic credibility, writing for a gaming site ranks somewhere between writing for your high school paper and your supermarket's weekly bulletin.

 

gamers can't complain about games not being taken seriously when so many sites and mags are just pimps and shills for developers and publishers.

Edited September 4, 2008 by newc0253

[Bokishi]

Assassin's Creed was good though, 8/10 I'll give it

[Hurlshort]

Many people enjoyed Meet the Spartans? If that were true (which I doubt) then I don't see why it wouldn't get a 7 or an 8.

 

I understand what you are trying to do here. You are comparing the gaming press to that of movies and books. The problem with that line of thinking is that there is no Godfather 2 in gaming, and gaming publications really don't have any choice but to accept the relationship with game publishers. Sure, it'd be wonderful if game journalists could get jobs at the NY Times and write reviews without worrying about ticking off publishers, but it's not realistic.

 

Maybe down the line game reviews will become more credible, and game journalists will be professional journalists. But I don't blame the publications, I blame the games. Again, there is no Godfather 2, no Gone With the Wind, no Citizen Kane in the gaming industry. There are a few games that make attempts at being artistic, but until games find a way to appeal to EVERYONE, they are going to suffer from the fact that they alienate a good portion of the population.

[Monte Carlo]

^

 

Let's face it, all trade press suffers from this, it's part of the deal. I'm sure that "Soldering Irons Monthly" has to get in bed with the soldering iron industry now and then.

 

Having said that, there is something uniquely infuriating about the gaming press - lots of otherwise unemployable twenty-something men in ironic tee-shirts writing about games they're not wildly interested in. Personally, if I were going to be a trade journalist I'd rather be a motoring correspondent and suck up to Porsche, BMW etc and drive really fast. Not play some console dreck and pretend to be excited about it.

 

Cheers

MC

[newc0253]

Many people enjoyed Meet the Spartans? If that were true (which I doubt) then I don't see why it wouldn't get a 7 or an 8.

lowest common denominator reviews, huh?

 

classy.

 

I understand what you are trying to do here. You are comparing the gaming press to that of movies and books. The problem with that line of thinking is that there is no Godfather 2 in gaming

hmm, correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure they had professional film critics before Godfather 2 came out.

 

it seems bizarre, though, that you're prepared to wait until the gaming industry produces a Godfather 2 before we have a decent bunch of professional critics. especially seeing as it took cinema 70+ years to produce a Godfather 2.

 

after all, if people are gonna make a living out of criticism, why shouldn't the paying customer expect more from their critics?

 

[NB: i'm not claiming btw that the only worthwhile criticism is or should be done by professional reviewers. but it's a sad reflection on the industry that professional criticism of games is so venal and craven, that most of the best reviews are done by non-professionals]

 

[NB: i also don't think that games need to produce a Godfather 2 in order to warrant serious criticism, at least insofar as it involves the false assumption that games need to be more like novels or films to gain credibility.]

 

and gaming publications really don't have any choice but to accept the relationship with game publishers. Sure, it'd be wonderful if game journalists could get jobs at the NY Times and write reviews without worrying about ticking off publishers, but it's not realistic.

 

ha! first of all you claim that a game deserves praise (a 7.8 or 8.3) simply if enough people enjoy it.

 

secondly, you claim that games aren't good enough to warrant serious criticism.

 

and now you're claiming that serious criticism of games isn't important because .. what? it isn't commercially viable?

 

so what? we should give up on the enterprise of decent professional criticism because the market can't afford it? how frakking pathetic is that? and how pathetic are gamers for being willing to swallow such a crappy state of affairs?

 

seems to me if the market can afford to pay individuals to write reviews, it can afford to maintain a semblance of journalistic integrity. it's the foolishness of the game-buying public (and more specifically the game-publication-buying-public) that keeps the level of reviews as cripplingly low as it is.

 

Maybe down the line game reviews will become more credible, and game journalists will be professional journalists. But I don't blame the publications, I blame the games. Again, there is no Godfather 2, no Gone With the Wind, no Citizen Kane in the gaming industry.

 

no Gone with the Wind? really?

 

dude, have you ever seen Gone with the Wind?

 

it's not a great movie. it's a just a famous movie, the box office sensation of its time. maybe games haven't acheived the same artistic threshold as Citizen Kane but they've certainly acheived the mass market appeal and commercial success of Gone with the Wind....

 

There are a few games that make attempts at being artistic, but until games find a way to appeal to EVERYONE, they are going to suffer from the fact that they alienate a good portion of the population.

 

huh? why are you confusing mass appeal with quality??

 

your average arthouse movie makes less money than your average AAA game, and is probably seen by less people too.

 

you think that stops cinema from being subject to serious criticism???

 

it's truly amazing the excuses that some folk will make for accepting the lame state of professional game reviews.

Edited September 4, 2008 by newc0253

[Monte Carlo]

Re-reading my post I think I was a bit harsh on the gaming press. I actually quite like some of the games journalism in the dead tree magazines etc, it's the 'professional' gaming websites that drive me nuts.

[Hurlshort]

Re-reading my post I think I was a bit harsh on the gaming press. I actually quite like some of the games journalism in the dead tree magazines etc, it's the 'professional' gaming websites that drive me nuts.

 

Yes, but we don't pay for those websites, so I'm not much on criticizing them. I go to them to find out what features a game offers and that's about it.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I tend to just look at gamespot's "good" and "bad" comments. In the sense of "what was good/bad about the game". They're pretty accurate.

[Hurlshort]

it's truly amazing the excuses that some folk will make for accepting the lame state of professional game reviews.

 

I'm not sure why you take the gaming industry and the gaming press so seriously. It's a bit of a silly industry. Who is making serious games? Why do you expect serious reviews?

 

Is Will Wright going to address the Holocaust now that Spore is out? These are games, every title that comes out is designed to be fun (even if they fail.) It just doesn't lend itself to serious review. Even an adult title like GTA4 doesn't take itself too seriously, and it spends most of its time ripping off movies.