The problems with game critics




Posted by Speedfreak

So, recently due to all this Gamespot furore there's been talk around her about how games are reviewed, especially in the case of the 8.8 debate being dragged up. I read two articles recently that discussed the whole system and I thought it'd be worth posting them, so here you go.

The first is about the game review system in general and the second discusses how hardcore critics review casual games.

[URL]http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16456[/URL]

[quote]There's been a remarkable amount of net buzz about the firing of GameSpot senior editor Jeff Gerstmann, allegedly because he was [URL="http://gamepolitics.com/2007/11/30/free-jeff-gerstmann"]too unkind to Eidos marquee game Kane & Lynch[/URL].

Nerd rage on forums worldwide was immediate and swift, particularly on [URL="http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212394"]NeoGAF[/URL] where all manner of theories -- ranging from the reasonably plausible to the patently absurd -- have been thrown around. My old boss Sam Kennedy of 1UP pointed out that CNET's recent hiring of [URL="http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071025/20071025006333.html"]Stephen Colvin[/URL], ex-CEO of Dennis Publishing (publisher of Maxim and the late Stuff), as overseer of GameSpot might have something to do with it, which sounds reasonable enough to me.

Perhaps CNET was looking for someone less uber-nerd Gerstmann-y and more hip and Adam Sessler-like to be GameSpot's most public face, and the K&L controversy was the straw that broke the camel's back. (GameSpot itself has issued a [URL="http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/gamespot-issues-short-comment-on-gerstmann-firing/"]statement[/URL] attempting to defuse such talk.)

This is all speculation, however, and it misses the real underlying cause of all this. Game publishers, nearly all of whom these days are multi-million-dollar corporations with shareholders and Wall Street analysts breathing down their necks harder than their gamer audience, don't care what Jeff Gerstmann or any reviewer has to say about their games.

They care about the score, the Metacritic average, and it's been that way ever since the Internet became the primary vehicle for game media. In other words, game publishers keep a cozy relationship with game media so their scores can be maximized on an unrelated website whose owner [URL="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119024844874433247-EnpxM1F6fI9YZDofC7VnyPzVrGQ_20070920.html?mod=todays_free_feature"]"has largely stopped playing" video games[/URL].

It's the same way with a lot of gamers, too -- they endlessly argue about scores, about Jeff's 8.8 for Zelda and about Fran from IGN's 7.9 for Mario Kart: Double Dash. And now that the Internet's largely shattered the notion that a professional game-media writer is somehow more qualified to bring judgement upon a new release than V3GETA80051 down at GameFAQs, the obsession with scores has become game media's undoing. Text, videos, podcasts, whatever -- nobody cares about any of it except that decimal number at the end of the review. And game writers' realization of this has made them lazy.

Scoring games in reviews is hardly new, of course, nor was it always a menace to good game writing. Magazines were doing it as early as 1982, and many early media outlets (including Japan's Famicom Tsushin/Famitsu, the US's Electronic Gaming Monthly, and Britain's CRASH and Zzap!64) built their reputations first and foremost on their review systems.

But on the Internet, everybody's a critic. The time lag, especially in the PC market, between a game's release and the professionally-written reviews means that online users are often one's first resource in making game-buying decisions.

Official forums, megathreads on general game boards -- if a reader checks these places out and sees a lot of other people having fun, he'll be tempted to join in. If he sees lots of *****ing and moaning, he'll be dissuaded. (Portal is a classic example of a game driven almost entirely by online buzz. People were drawing pornographic Weighted Companion Cube fanart before the first "professional" reviews were posted.)

This glut of accessible opinion, in addition to magnifying the power of word-of-mouth in game advertising, means that the pro mags and sites don't have a monopoly over gamers' minds any longer. How have they dealt with this? They've taken measures, but none of them have really benefited gamers. Some sites started padding out their reviews in exasperating detail, largely rendering them unreadable.

Others invested heavily in video reviews which often say more about the reviewer than the game they're reviewing. (Many forumites have pointed out that Jeff's [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJ81sDR2o"]video review that started this whole controversy[/URL] features gameplay from only one scene in all of Kane & Lynch. This is hardly the only video review I've seen like this, and I'm sure most of you would agree.)

Moreover, the presence of review scores and Metacritic's handling of them have irrevocably altered the audience's expectations of game media. Fifteen years ago, a magazine like Dave Halverson's Diehard Game Fan was seen as unique, quirky, and fun because it covered lots of import games, enthusiastically wrote about them in a way that gamers identified with, and -- oh yes -- gave many of them very high scores.

Today, Play Magazine is seen by many as biased, retarded, and utterly hopeless simply because Halverson's high scores for most platform games skew the Metacritic curve oddly. I am not saying that Metacritic is evil -- at its best, it can emphasize some odd scoring anomalies worth discussing, such as PC Gamer US's exclusive review of Hellgate: London ranking [URL="http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/hellgatelondon"]19 points above the average[/URL].

But many outlets have failed to stir up any reader interest in the text behind the review, or the overall atmosphere of the mag or website they're exploring -- instead, readers increasingly care exclusively about the score, so they can praise and/or whine about it online. Entire game-media outlets have been, and are defined by, the numerals they publish...instead of, you know, how fun they are to read.

The Internet has largely made the job title "critic" redundant. The problem is that no one at most game mags and websites got the memo. Until they do -- until they realize that it's their content that defines them, and not their scores -- they'll have to be content with being abused by publishers and their readership for the rest of their existences.




Posted by Speedfreak

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/11/15/how-the-videogame-industry-shot-itself-in-the-joystick.aspx

[QUOTE] How the Videogame Industry Shot Itself In the Joystick--and Why the Wii Has Stopped the Bleeding

N'Gai Croal
[IMG]http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/levelup/images/original/The-Atari-2600-Video-Computer-System-controller.aspx[/IMG] The Atari 2600 Video Computer System controller

[URL="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/11/09/monday-morning-quarterback-highlight-reel-for-september-2007.aspx"]In last week's debut[/URL] of the Monday Morning Quarterback Highlight Reel, we cited some insightful comments made by Bill Harris over at the blog [URL="http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/"]Dubious Quality[/URL]. We first became aware of Harris' blog during the February DICE conference, where a longtime Nintendo employee suggested that we check it out, which we did. Soon thereafter, Dubious Quality became an essential addition to our RSS newsreader for the smart and often caustic assessments of the business of videogames and the personalities behind it as delivered by the 46-year-old Austin, Texas-based analyst. [Note: Harris--whose all-time favorite games include Guitar Hero II, Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly (Director’s Cut) and Ultima IV--does not cover the videogame industry professionally.]
After reading Harris' alternative explanation of why the critically maligned Carnival Games had become a hit--a "fundamental disconnect between how the people who review Wii games play them and how everyone else plays them"--we asked him to expand on his remarks [URL="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/tags/P2P/default.aspx"]for our guest post series P2P[/URL]. He agreed, and the resulting essay is a thoughtful look at how the evolution of videogame controllers has contributed to the shrinking of the industry's reach, and why the Wii remote and nunchuk--even as the games built around them continue to confound the critical establishment--are beacons of hope for a stagnant medium. Enjoy.
Thanks to Sock Master’s [URL="http://www.axess.com/twilight/console/"]Video Game Controller Family Tree[/URL] (where the pictures in this post come from), and my good friend John Harwood's encyclopedic knowledge of gaming minutiae, we can take a look at the history of video game controllers. And that history raises some interesting questions.
For example, how did we go from the controller pictured above to this?

[IMG]http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/levelup/images/original/The-Playstation-3-Sixaxis-controller.aspx[/IMG] The Playstation 3 Sixaxis controller

[FONT=Arial]At the top of this post, we have a joystick and a fire button from the Atari 2600 in 1977. Here, we have the controller from the PS3 in 2007, which features two analog joysticks (both clickable, so they function as buttons as well), four directional D-pad buttons, four regular buttons, a start button, a select button, a "home" button, and four shoulder buttons. Oh, and it has tilt technology, so let’s just call that one extra stick/button whatever, for a grand total of 20 input options.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]There may also be a port for rocket fuel.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]So how did we get here? Well, let’s take a look.[/FONT]
[INDENT] [FONT=Arial]*1977: the Atari 2600 controller. One joystick, one button. 2 inputs.
*1980: the Intellivision controller featured a 12-key keypad and two action buttons on each side, and included a “control disc” that essentially functioned as a joystick input. Function overlays were included for most of the games and fit over the keypad. All told, it was 17 inputs.
*1982: the Atari 5200 was the gold standard for the early complexity era. A joystick, a 12-key keypad, four action buttons, plus start, pause, and reset buttons. 20 inputs. Incredibly, this controller had as many inputs as the PS3 controller—twenty-five years sooner.
*1985: the Nintendo Entertainment System reduced the 20 inputs on the Atari 5200 controller to a d-pad, two action buttons, plus select and start buttons. 5 inputs. The NES did, um, pretty well, and the NES controller marked a permanent break from the complexity of only a few years earlier.
*1990: the Super Nintendo controller added a third and fourth button, as well as two shoulder buttons. Both would become standards. 9 inputs total.
*1995: the Sony Playstation controller added a third and fourth shoulder button. They also made each d-pad direction a separate button. 14 inputs total.
*1998: in response to the analog stick of the Nintendo 64 controller, Sony introduced the Dual Shock controller, which featured two analog sticks in addition to all the buttons of the original Playstation controller. The analog sticks were also clickable, thus potentially functioning as two additional buttons. We’re up to 18 inputs now, if you don’t count the "analog" button (which really couldn’t be used as in input in games).
*2006: the Sony PS3 controller, which we’ve already mentioned, had 20 inputs.[/FONT]
[/INDENT] [FONT=Arial]That’s not every controller, obviously--it’s just an attempt to show a general lineage from where we were to where we are today. In particular, what I want to focus on is the second era of controller evolution, from the NES controller to the PS3--what I would consider "the modern era."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]In the modern era, we’ve gone from 5 inputs to 20. Four times the complexity, and it can be argued that since some of the inputs are now analog, that’s additional complexity as well.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Why did controllers evolve this way?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I think the primary reason happened in 1991, and it was called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighter_II"]Street Fighter II[/URL].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Until Street Fighter II, most popular arcade games were still of the "pick up and play" variety. Controls were still fairly simple for most games, even if the strategies were complex. SF II, though, totally stood that convention on its head. It used six buttons and a joystick (identical to the later revisions of Street Fighter after the "squishies" were replaced), and certain punches required multiple joystick movements (in the correct sequence and within a narrow time limit) as well as button presses. This combo system was unique. It also meant that, for the first time I can remember, button presses and joystick movement didn’t immediately move your character. In Street Fighter II, a four- or five-move combo would result in only one movement onscreen.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]It was a game that featured both complex controls and complex mechanics. In other words, it was doomed to fail.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]In 1991, I still went to an arcade in Northcross Mall in Austin every few weeks, even though I was spending much more time playing games on an Amiga 500 by then. The arcade demographic back then, at least in my limited experience, was 99% males in the 16-34 age group and 1 percent female. Roughly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]In the early '80s in the arcades, the demographic had been 99 percent males in the 16-24 age group, but we’d gotten older. Still, that was only about 14 percent of the population as a whole.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]If you’re wondering if I can actually remember what it was like when Street Fighter II came out, here’s your answer: hell, yes. Nobody who went to arcades in that era could possibly forget, because it was a thermonuclear blast. There was no reason to have any other machine in the arcade, really. There was a seething mass of kids around the Street Fighter II machine from the minute the arcade opened until it closed eleven hours later. And they poured in quarter after quarter after quarter for eleven hours straight. Every single day. At one point, I believe the arcade at Northcross had three Street Fighter II machines, and they were still being played all day, every day.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]With the success of that one game, I believe game design philosophy went from accessibility to complexity. The definition of play changed entirely. There was just way too much money being made to ignore.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Street Fighter II, in the video gaming world, was a disruptive technology.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]There was a momentous shift in terms of how developers approached the gaming demographic. Street Fighter II went deep instead of wide--it drilled down into that 14 percent instead of trying to broaden it. It drilled way, way down. Street Fighter II didn’t convert a bunch of non-gamers--it just made the gamers who were already playing spend a hell of a lot more money.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]In the short term, that was a great way for Capcom to make money. For everyone else, though, not so much. Instead of playing multiple games at the arcade, people would just play Street Fighter II. It was the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft"]WoW[/URL] of arcade games, and it was a giant time sink if you wanted to be good.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]There were several Street Fighters, and Mortal Kombat ("FINISH HIM!"), and Virtua Fighter (a 3-D fighting game) and Finnish Fighter (powerful characters, but dour), and a bunch of other games that I’ve forgotten. (Okay, I made Finnish Fighter up, although the idea of seeing "FINNISH HIM!" on the screen is strangely appealing.) These games were huge and absolutely dominant in the 1992-1995 period. I don’t think it’s an accident that the PlayStation controller (1995), then the PlayStation 2 Dual Shock (1998), ramped up the input complexity so quickly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]What happened, though, is that a gamer's idea of play began to diverge even further from everyone else’s idea of play, and that’s continued through to the present day. Hand someone who’s never played video games a PS3 or 360 controller, and they’ll just stare at you. It might as well be the controls of a helicopter--good grief, it kind of looks like it should be the controls of a helicopter. In all kinds of games, doing even seemingly simple movements often requires a movement combo.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Surprisingly, the genre that most represents this philosophy is sports games. Many team sports games have adopted a kind of Street Fighter mentality to movement. The levels of complexity involved to do one-on-one moves, in particular, is pretty staggering, at least to me. Having 50-plus possible actions using combinations of 10 different inputs is overkill in the highest degree. It’s not really fun anymore--it’s just hard.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Not all console games are like that. Most publishers make at least a few games that play in a simpler manner. Still, it’s hard for them to let go. Take Viva Pi




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

waaaay tl;dr. I think a scale such as 'Buy/Rent/Avoid' would work better than numbers, personally.




Posted by Speedfreak

Okay, no. You can't come into a thread that is purely about 2 pretty average-sized articles and post "tl:dr" and an opinion that doesn't have much to do with either of them.




Posted by S

Awesome find Speed. Best read I've had in awhile. It rings true if you ask me.




Posted by Prince Shondronai

Hmm. I was intrigued by the point-counterpoint of the first article, then the second one dazzled me with pretty pictures! Oooo!




Posted by Skitzo Control

I wonder what his feelings are on the Steel Battalion controller...




Posted by Bebop

Before I read the articles I'm just going to say I disagree with points systems as a whole, whether its a game review, a film review or whatever. I much prefer reviews that appear more as balanced discussion for an against. The best review for Willy Wonka was in sight and sound magazine, which doesnt use a point system.

EDIT: Very interesting articles, espesically the latter. Very interesting theory behind Wii games distrupting conventional review thinking. Wii Sports deserved much higher critical acclaim. Quite frankly Wii Sports is easily one of the best games ever made. It's fun, you get to be in it, everyone knows how to play it. Aside from the occasional motion flaws of Boxing it is without error.




Posted by Degeneration

I can imagine how frustrating something like SotC would be for someone new to games with more complex control schemes. "Sooo... I hold this button... and aim in this direction... and press that button... just to do one freakin' thing? LAME"

I'm in the same boat when it comes to most modern console shooters. Their typical control style just frustrates the crap out of me. I feel like moving my character from place to place while aiming where I want to shouldn't be so hard.

The Wii's motion sensing controller is really helping me out with this. I just wish it could handle a game on the level of, say, CoD4.


Quoting Skitzo Control: I wonder what his feelings are on the Steel Battalion controller...


THE DEATH OF THE GAMING INDUSTRY AS WE KNOW IT



Posted by switchxa

At the onset of reading the article I knew it was going to end badly. I was right. I found his reasoning of Street Fighter II to be the changing point of the game controller design to be childish and uninformed. He touts that after the era of fighters controllers became more complex when even before that controllers had the same amount or more! The Intellivision, Coleco, and not to mention the Atari Jaguar with its 23 buttons! Not to mention that controllers acquired more buttons for the simple fact of doing more things easily and not for combos of less buttons presses to pull a shiroken. That is evident when you play any fighter on a newer console. The combos still exist and are still hard to pull off.

The second article pertaining to the Wii as somewhat of a savior of video games is highly biased to his own devices. If he does find that the PS3 and 360 are to complex then he obviously isn't in the demographic microsoft and Sony are targeting for. It's so what odd is that he touts so much of the Wii returning to simplicity and originality when Nintendo and other company's developed similar devices since the beginning of video games. Its funny he brings up carnival games selling 200,000 compared to the 3 million halo 3 sold in couple days and millions Orange Box and Bioshock sold. The Wii has lost me as a person who loves games. The game selection and future hold little to no interest to me.

The notion of the first article as well that reviewer scores are nonsensical is ridiculous. It sounds like he generalized the entire industry of game reviews as dogs fed by their masters. Some people this is true but it is largely a false notion. Scores do have a place in this world. Scores are a way for devs to see how they did. It's a way for people to quickly browse through an article to see if a game is worth looking in to. It helps those less informed choose games for the gamer in their life. It's also way to rate a game on how good it is too. The score essentially summarizes the review. Many say they don't like the score system and should move to a "Buy, Rent, Don't bother" system or no score at all. In the end you will have the same result. People *****ing and whining about how the reviewer didn't understand the plot of level 4. If a reviewer chooses to not use a score and instead another system or none at all then thats fine. Its their review and they can choose to score or not score as they want. But in the end it will have the same result.

Their are many great and talented reviewers out there. You don't have to like them all. Thats the point. You find a reviewer who reflects your tastes and attitudes toward games and/or life. The firing of the Gamespot reviewer is really a mystery and a mystery that will never be solved. We don't know exactly what happened and neither Gamespot nor the reviewer will talk because of confidentiality interests. The two sides will never be known, but it still is interesting to ponder and discuss how such things should be handled.

One last thing I want to say. At one point in the first article he says, "[FONT=Arial]Hand someone who




Posted by Fate

The reviewer article was cool. I'm going to completely disagree with the second article, though. I don't think the "scariness" of the 360 or PS3's controller can be solved by making everything simple. The article sounds like it was written by an old man or old-school NES fanatic.

Also, everyone knows you can't really compare games and sales on the Wii. The console is cheap, the games are cheap, etc. We know it's selling millions-- that is cool. It's cheap, it's Nintendo, it's familiar... So people are going to buy it. He's going on about scores for Wii Sports when the general consensus was that it was fun as a display for what the Wii can do but not necessarily the best display (Boxing, for one thing).




Posted by Linko_16

I think there's a misconception here about the second article. You're all receiving it as Wii fanboyism, but I find that to be a misunderstanding. He doesn't say anywhere that the Wii is the superior console. He just gives his own opinion on why it's been selling so well, and I think he's got some good points.


Quoting switchxa: Well of course that person is going to react that way. If I hand someone who does not know a thing about meat a piece of meat and ask them to cut it in a certain style they will have no clue how to do it. Thats why games come with instruction booklets and consoles come with manuals. The Wii is no different. The Wii just happens to remind you every time you do something how to do it.


Sure, we as gamers know that the controls aren't rocket science. We as gamers know that even for the hardest and most complicated of games, it really only takes a few minutes to figure out what button does what. We know that anyone can get the hang of it without too much trouble, even if they've never picked up a video game before. But the article describes the position of a non-gamer... the little kids, the middle-aged mothers, and the senior citizens who takes one look at a guy playing with a PS3 controller and thinks, "there's no way I'll ever figure out how to work this thing." They don't even try. When they see one of those news reports about the Wii, on the other hand, and see that all it takes to bowl a ball down the lane is a swing of the arm, they think, "Oh yeah, I could do that." That's what gets the Wii off the shelves, even if they could be having just as much fun with the "hardcore" games if they cared to try. I think the same concept worked for DDR and Guitar Hero, to a lesser extent; plenty of people, including a bunch of my friends who don't play games at all, understood how they worked at a glance and were interested in trying it right away. The article doesn't say this, but I think the subject matter Nintendo's been using has played into it, too; gamers know that anyone could appreciate a good fantasy or action plot like in Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid, but when Mom walks into the room during a cut scene, she's not going to grasp what's going on or want to know more. However, anyone will understand if you just ask, "hey, want to play baseball?" Mini-games make it easy to pick up, especially ones based on simple, everyday things like sports and cooking. I had to laugh at the WarioWare minigame, "Make it Write!" where it asked me to scribble with a pen until the ink started coming out. Such a universal concept!

Again, he's not presenting this information as "this is why the Wii is the best." He's just saying, "here's why it's selling so well." Whether you think that's good or bad is up to you. I myself followed [url=http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/06/07/i-for-one-do-not-welcome-our-new-wii-overlords.aspx]one of the links from the article[/url] where another blog gives a gloomy view of the effect the Wii might have on the game industry, saying that the Wii will usher in a new age of half-assed minigame titles that halt the release of more in-depth games. I have to say, I can see that happening, and as much as I've been enjoying the Wii, I really hope we continue to have more serious games as well. I'm ready to blame Nintendo if we lose our complex experiences in video games in favor of quick laughs.




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Fate;792243][COLOR=skyblue]Also, everyone knows you can't really compare games and sales on the Wii. The console is cheap, the games are cheap, etc. We know it's selling millions-- that is cool. It's cheap, it's Nintendo, it's familiar... So people are going to buy it. He's going on about scores for Wii Sports when the general consensus was that it was fun as a display for what the Wii can do but not necessarily the best display (Boxing, for one thing).[/COLOR]

I think you're missing the point a little.

People think of it as a "display for what the Wii can do", i.e. a tech demo instead of a game because of their current ideas of what a game should be. He's arguing that a game doesn't have to be deep and time-consuming to be good, and that because critics have expected that from games for so long that any game that doesn't fit that mold is given a bad rating, regardless of what it accomplishes.

I was in that group for ages, but then I noticed how every time a Wii was being used for multiplayer Wii Sports was brought out because literally anyone in the room could play it (yeah sure and it's because it's one of the few decent multiplayer games, Vamp). Not only that but hey, it was actually fun for about an hour until the next time it was brought out.




Posted by Fate

Then the knocks on the points have to come from the replay value alone, then. I just don't buy it. It was a good mini game thing but I didn't really want to play it a whole ton-- the 70-something scores sound pretty accurate. The best example I could give of a game that was good but had virtually nothing to do is Shadow of the Colossus. I'd say it had less content than Wii Sports, even with the time trials. I think it's just how the game plays.

Anyhoo, I don't think games should be rated on the factor that it can be played by anyone.
:/




Posted by switchxa

I think a good game review is one that first says whatever it wants to say. The reviewer is not afraid of rating a game a certain way to go along with the crowd and that he is confident enough to explain that review to even the devs. Most of all I think a good review is one that looks at what the game is all about. Wii Sports really shouldn't be reviewed on time to complete or even how the single player was. That isn't what the game is about. I think it's all about looking at it in context. I Portal is another good example of how a lot of people complained about time to complete when they ignored other more important aspects of gameplay.




Posted by Linko_16

Assigning a point value to a game is difficult, when you think about it. For instance, Fate, you and I were recently at odds about Metroid games... You said they bore you because you don't really know who Samus is and you don't care if she lives or dies, so you have no motivation to play, and I responded that that was the most absurd thing I'd ever heard. Speed pointed out, however, that women often looked for different things in games, things that a male-driven market tends to ignore, an idea you concurred with, and I conceded to that.

So now that the video game industry is opening up to a larger consumer base, reviews might be a little harder to do. If that Metroid game gets a good review, let's say a 9.0, I would agree with it and I would recommend it to people who want to know how good the game is. But for Fate, that review us unhelpful. It doesn't reflect how she would receive the game. It gets even harder with all these gaming newbies. I have to say, I don't log a lot of hours on Wii Sports; it's fun when I do play, but I'd rather put it down after a few rounds. A new gamer who was drawn to the Wii for this kind of game, however, might end up playing Wii Sports for hours with family and friends, having oodles of fun. Who should the reviewer cater to, a seasoned gamer such as myself who won't spend a lot of time with it, or the new gamer who'd love it to death and play every day?

This makes the text portion of the review very important. If it's an impartial description of how the game is played, then any kind of gamer can read through it, figure out what it's all about, and decide for themselves if that sounds like fun. The problem is with the scores and the opinions; that 9.0 for the Metroid game and the positive opinion given by the reviewer reflects how I and other teenage males might receive it, but not everybody, especially now that the consumer base is expanding. Does that mean that the score is now useless and should be thrown out? Hell no. Like I said in a previous post, it's just useful. I can glance at a review and know how good a game is supposed to be, even if I don't really care enough about it to read the full review. But it might still be a problem. So what's the answer? Probably the same thing it's always been in the case of inaccurate reviews: check lots of them. There are lots of places online and on the magazine rack to get reviews, and many of them are known to cater to different interests. Even in just one magazine, they usually have scores and opinions from three different people. Now that the market is expanding, sources for reviews will expand. I don't expect it to become a problem... we all have our own methods and places to check if a game is worthwhile, and we'll all continue to figure it out even if things change on us a bit.




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Fate;792604][COLOR=skyblue]It was a good mini game thing but I didn't really want to play it a whole ton[/COLOR]

But that's the entire p-... just forget it.




Posted by bazariah

i've never once in my life bought a game souly by what a reviewer has written, i remember 5 years ago ring of red on the ps2 was given a bad score in a ps2 magazine yet i'd bought it anyways and it was a real fun game to play

metal gear on the nes was given a bad score, give the game to current reviewers and they'd probably rate it high due to the sucess of the metal gear series from the ps1 onwards

the thing with games reviewers is that they are doing a job based on their ideals.. sometimes when people do a job for so long they get sloppy and uninspired

also a game reviewer has their own thoughts on what makes a good game.. i mean somebody here could reccomend a game and i may think it's a pile of crap, it's all relevant to personal tastes




Posted by TimeSkipz

Way to bias on the Wii, sure the motion sensor is cool but the SIXAXIS has motion sensors as well. 360 and PS3 are the future of gaming, not the Wii.




Posted by s0ul


Quoting Fate:

Also, everyone knows you can't really compare games and sales on the Wii. The console is cheap, the games are cheap, etc. We know it's selling millions-- that is cool. It's cheap, it's Nintendo, it's familiar... So people are going to buy it.



Yep, that's a good point considering how well Gamecube and 64 did.

[quote]Way to bias on the Wii, sure the motion sensor is cool but the SIXAXIS has motion sensors as well. 360 and PS3 are the future of gaming, not the Wii.

*facepalm*



Posted by Prince Shondronai


Quoting TimeSkipz: Way to bias on the Wii, sure the motion sensor is cool but the SIXAXIS has motion sensors as well. 360 and PS3 are the future of gaming, not the Wii.


The system that makes money is the future of gaming. You think Nintendo's not sitting on the technology for their next console already? It won't be that expensive to manufacture a console with more horsepower than the ps3 coupled with the Wiimote's functionality in a few years. The sixaxis has a primitive form of motion sensing, but nothing compared to the Wiimote. If sony decides to include more motion sensing tech in the ps4, they'll only be regarded as a pretender, and they'll probably still be losing hundreds on every console they make. Unless their shareholders shut them down before the ps4 even gets off the ground, of course.



Posted by switchxa

Imo, I can't wait till a couple years down the road to see who's ahead and who's behind. Oh how the landscape will change. :D

I can't seem to wrap my head around why people seem to think reviews should be unbias and show both sides and never tred into the area of opinion. I find it weird anyone thinks anyone can even do that. If you just present the product at a fact by fact basis all you have in the end is a fact sheet I could get right off the back of the box. But the review with opinion is diverse, interesting, and can be talking point for other people to discuss the game. Like I said earlier you find someone you line up with and go with it.


Quoted post: It won't be that expensive to manufacture a console with more horsepower than the ps3 coupled with the Wiimote's functionality in a few years.

lol, except for the fact that they will only give one to each country per year. You know because of "production issues." ;P



Posted by TimeSkipz

[quote=Prince Shondronai;793202]It won't be that expensive to manufacture a console with more horsepower than the ps3 coupled with the Wiimote's functionality in a few years.

But that would "stray" even further away from essential video games, you know the kind that use an actual controller and not just a step up from those plug and play sports games? A video was supposed to be a world of adventure but with the wiimote it's almost like playing the actual sport, not to mention the fact some fatass could save a lot of money just buying a football instead of a wii and the game.




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=s0ul;793197]Yep, that's a good point considering how well Gamecube and 64 did.

Gamecube I get because it was the cheapest by far, but the N64? That was always more expensive than the PS1 wasn't it?




Posted by Fate

If you want to be smart about it, Soul, you can point that out like I forgot. The GC came out after a big battle between the PS1 and N64 that the PS1 supposedly won over. People wanted more of that war and the PS2 dominated, still selling great amounts to this day. Now, with the incredible price difference (like, really), it's much easier to go for the cheaper since it is ridiculous how much cheaper it is. That, and it's still a familiar name (my aunt still calls the PS2 a Nintendo). Word does get around that it's the "it" system these days, so more and more people want one. Good for Nintendo. This console war or whatever is set in a completely different field. :)




Posted by Ant


Quoting TimeSkipz: But that would "stray" even further away from essential video games, you know the kind that use an actual controller and not just a step up from those plug and play sports games? A video was supposed to be a world of adventure but with the wiimote it's almost like playing the actual sport, not to mention the fact some fatass could save a lot of money just buying a football instead of a wii and the game.


Isn't funny how the the Madden football series is one of the best selling games in the US. And guess which platforms it sells the most to; Xbox360 and PS2. :rolleyes: At least with the Wii in those games you're doing some sort of action other than pushing a button. Not that I would care though, considering I think those games are horse****.



Posted by maian

Here's something I think some people are missing.

THE WII CAN PLAY MORE THAN JUST MINIGAMES.

People attacking it imply that if it is how gaming molds, then gaming will slowly devolve into instant action minigame games. Now think.

Metroid?
Mario?
Zelda?

These are the only ones I've played, but both have complex controls and are vast games that lend themselves to the Wii very, very well.

That being said, all arguments in this thread are null and void because unfortunately, when MGS4 comes out, no game, ever will be able to match up. :(




Posted by Linko_16


Quoting Fate: That, and it's still a familiar name (my aunt still calls the PS2 a Nintendo).


"X-Box" sort of won over the "general videogame label" title. But yeah, you can't talk about the sales numbers for Nintendo as an indication that they're "beating" Sony and Microsoft... they dodge the competition by playing a different game.



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post:
People attacking it imply that if it is how gaming molds, then gaming will slowly devolve into instant action minigame games. Now think.

Metroid?
Mario?
Zelda?

These are the only ones I've played, but both have complex controls and are vast games that lend themselves to the Wii very, very well.


You're forgetting those are really the only good Wii games. The rest have terrible controls and/or are just minigames. That needs to change fast. Or maybe not, since the Wii is still selling a metric ****ton every month.


Quoted post: Gamecube I get because it was the cheapest by far, but the N64? That was always more expensive than the PS1 wasn't it?


I thought he was being sarcastic. GC was the cheapest and it sold for **** in the end. N64 was a Nintendo console and it also... well, didn't turn out so hot.


Quoted post: they dodge the competition by playing a different game.


They're still competing. They're still winning. They're beating everyone straight-up. Simple.



Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Fate;793626][COLOR=skyblue]If you want to be smart about it, Soul, you can point that out like I forgot. The GC came out after a big battle between the PS1 and N64 that the PS1 supposedly won over. People wanted more of that war and the PS2 dominated, still selling great amounts to this day. Now, with the incredible price difference (like, really), it's much easier to go for the cheaper since it is ridiculous how much cheaper it is. That, and it's still a familiar name (my aunt still calls the PS2 a Nintendo). Word does get around that it's the "it" system these days, so more and more people want one. Good for Nintendo. This console war or whatever is set in a completely different field.[/COLOR] :)

Okay I've been putting this off, but I can't ignore this anymore. Fate, sorry, but you don't know jack shit about how this business works.

If the PS2 won because of the brand strength of PS1 then why the fuck isn't the PS3 winning off the back of the best selling home console ever and why isn't Wii doing miserably after Gamecube's performance? Why the hell would a $50 difference between Wii and it's nearest competitor seal the deal when a difference of over a hundred dollars didn't help Gamecube against PS2 or being the same price didn't help XBox? Nevermind the fact that a ton of people are paying well over the odds on ebay for one.

Here's the actual, genuine reason Wii is winning: IT'S HITTING A HUGE MARKET WITH ABSOLUTELY NO COMPETITION. It's giving that market exactly what it wants, PS3 and XBox 360 have utterly failed to do so. That's it, it's not rocket science, it's not because of the only redeeming feature you see in it, it's about something that is beyond the understanding of hardcore gamers.


[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;793695]I thought he was being sarcastic. GC was the cheapest and it sold for **** in the end. N64 was a Nintendo console and it also... well, didn't turn out so hot.

I don't get that. The N64 sold better than Xbox and Gamecube combined and the games sold better than they did on PS1, why does everything think of it as some kind of catastrophic failure? For that matter, why is Gamecube seen as the failure of last gen when Xbox sold a million units more and lost 4 billion dollars?




Posted by Fate

Oh, dear Jesus, I totally forgot to mention the oh-so-obvious feature-- so obvious I thought it didn't need to be mentioned, akin to unnecessarily defining every word after saying/typing it-- that it looks like a hell of a lot of fun to casual gamers. You know soooooo much about the industry. :cheer:

Also, as for Microsoft being considered more successful: I don't think most gamers care that the console they buy is actually being sold for cheaper than production costs. The games were just more appealing stateside than what the GC had to offer, that's it.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: I don't get that. The N64 sold better than Xbox and Gamecube combined and the games sold better than they did on PS1, why does everything think of it as some kind of catastrophic failure? For that matter, why is Gamecube seen as the failure of last gen when Xbox sold a million units more and lost 4 billion dollars?


It's because the GC was dead almost two years before any of the other systems. It doesn't help that even Nintendo admits it was a commercial failure.



Posted by switchxa

Something I don't think anyone has hit yet is why the Wii, PS2, and other consoles did so well. Speed gave one of the reasons. The Wii does hit that market of casual gamers but why it hits it harder then Pogo, sudoku, and other casual games is another reason. Gimmics. Nintendo has been pushing and hyping touch controls of the DS and full motion control of the Wii. The amount of hype they put behind these systems has swung favor their way. The games as we all know matter as well. This is true for the PS2 and Wii. Wii right now has the main franchises in "new and innovating" ways so that brings more people into the fold. Maybe these are just obvious reasons but I wanted to air them.

EDIT: To Linko_16, Nintendo is a WAY bigger brand dating back to (atleast my) childhood who resonates with all 20 somethings. Nintendos franchises are way more popular then microsofts. People may know master chief but the whole world knows Mario way better!




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: Something I don't think anyone has hit yet is why the Wii, PS2, and other consoles did so well. Speed gave one of the reasons. The Wii does hit that market of casual gamers but why it hits it harder then Pogo, sudoku, and other casual games is another reason. Gimmics. Nintendo has been pushing and hyping touch controls of the DS and full motion control of the Wii. The amount of hype they put behind these systems has swung favor their way. The games as we all know matter as well. This is true for the PS2 and Wii. Wii right now has the main franchises in "new and innovating" ways so that brings more people into the fold. Maybe these are just obvious reasons but I wanted to air them.


Word of mouth and media attention help too. The PS2, though it sold out at the beginning, had a fairly rough start. It got some good games, some good attention, people started buying it and look at it now. That's really all it takes. It definitely helps when your competition keeps ****ing itself over, what with price or with ****ty production standards (which the PS2 suffered from, but the GC just wasn't popular and no one knew what to do with the Xbox it seemed.)



Posted by TimeSkipz

[quote=Prince Shondronai;793202]The system that makes money is the future of gaming.

Not necessarily, the PS2 dominated and the PS3 is staggering, it's not considered the future of gaming.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Didn't Nintendo make more profit than anyone else last generation? BAM




Posted by Linko_16


Quoting switchxa: EDIT: To Linko_16, Nintendo is a WAY bigger brand dating back to (atleast my) childhood who resonates with all 20 somethings. Nintendos franchises are way more popular then microsofts. People may know master chief but the whole world knows Mario way better!



Yeah. But nowadays, when people who are completely uninformed about games refer to a game system in general, I hear "X-Box" more than I still hear "Nintendo."



Posted by TimeSkipz

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;793998]Didn't Nintendo make more profit than anyone else last generation? BAM

the Nintendo GameCube failed to match the sales of its predecessor N64. Remember the PS1 kicking so much N64 ***? BAM




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: Yeah. But nowadays, when people who are completely uninformed about games refer to a game system in general, I hear "X-Box" more than I still hear "Nintendo."


It used to be Nintendo. Then Playstation, now it's Xbox. Gameboy also used to refer to any handheld electronic device if I recall correctly. Now it's ipod. I remember quite clearly this very conversation on an plane with a stewardess:

"turn that ipod off"
"it's a ds"
"turn that nintendo ipod off"
"what?"



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: Yeah. But nowadays, when people who are completely uninformed about games refer to a game system in general, I hear "X-Box" more than I still hear "Nintendo."


Except I said Nintendo. Nintendo was the only company to continually make a profit last generation.

faggot.



Posted by TimeSkipz

You fail at quotes if that was directed at me, and double posting




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Yeah, I hit paste instead of copy. I'd assume you'd be smart enough to figure it out but maybe not.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

and oh jeez double post oh ***




Posted by TimeSkipz

I remember everyones disgust with the Gamecube, the only real market were itty bitty kiddy witties who didn't know what a true video game was until they played Xbox or a PS2.




Posted by TimeSkipz

And the Gamecube has a bunch of **** games with rainbows for blood :)




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Except, you know, it's Nintendo. So it can have a bunch **** games as long as there's Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Smash on it. Only problem was that's the only games it had. Even though I ended up with over a hundred GC games somehow.


Wait, you're an idiot. I should just ban you. Yeah...




Posted by TimeSkipz

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;794023]I ended up with over a hundred GC games somehow.

Definition of a bargain bin junkie :D




Posted by switchxa

Ouch, this is getting brutal. The N64 had some **** good games on it too. Games besides the main franchises like Jet Force Gemini, Starcraft 64 (it was just fun and had an awesome control map), Turok 1&2, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark. A lot of the Nintendo franchises at the time were the best they have been; or atleast some of the best games of all time. At the time I felt the N64 and PS1 held equal in terms of popularity and play. Maybe it's just me. As for Gamecube, that totally sunk really fast.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: At the time I felt the N64 and PS1 held equal in terms of popularity and play. Maybe it's just me.


I honestly preferred the N64 over the PS1. But looking back, idk, they both sucked pretty hardcore overall if you ask me. But I had a lot more fun with my N64. No Mercy, Smash and Zelda were all I needed.



Posted by Ant

Yeah, I had my PSX way before I got a N64. But I enjoyed the games a lot more on my N64. Same for GC and PS2.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

For me, looking back on the GC, the only game really worth it was Smash. I put literally a thousand plus hours into that game. And besides it, there wasn't too much else, whereas the PS2 had so many fantastic games. Just none as lasting as Smash.




Posted by Ant

Eh, most of my PS2 game collection were single player and one play through things, if that. My GC games seem to have a lot more replayablity than the PS2 games did. But that's just me.




Posted by TimeSkipz

[quote=switchxa;794066]Turok 1&2, A lot of the Nintendo franchises at the time were the best they have been; or atleast some of the best games of all time. At the time I felt the N64 and PS1 held equal in terms of popularity and play. Maybe it's just me. As for Gamecube, that totally sunk really fast.

I had an N64 but made the switched pretty fast, maybe 4 months after getting it. Turok 1 and 2 sucked hardcore *** whats wrong with you? Ocarina of Time is what was the talk around the block back then.




Posted by Shade

You guys totally forgot the best N64 game of all time. NBA Showtime. **** that game was sweet.

[quote]Perhaps CNET was looking for someone less uber-nerd Gerstmann-y and more hip and Adam Sessler-like to be GameSpot's most public face

Nobody should ever want to have anybody remotely like Adam Sessler as their public face. NOBODY.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: Eh, most of my PS2 game collection were single player and one play through things, if that. My GC games seem to have a lot more replayablity than the PS2 games did. But that's just me.


Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Though I played a lot of SOCOM and MGS3 online.



Posted by maian

Psh, I loved N64. Sooo many good memories on that thing. Of course, that may be because it was my first true system. I had been playing NES since age 3, and got N64 around age six, where I played a lot.

Nonetheless, N64 owned. So, so much. Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Banjo Kazooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart 64, Smash Bros, the list just goes on, for me. Majora's Mask is my favorite game of all time.

I can somewhat say the same for the Gamecube. It's a shame gaming has "moved on", I think that's a big reason to blame for Gamecube's "failure" in my opinion. Just ask people like TimeSkipz, games suck without blood and violence and maturity! Gamecube had tons of hits, there's so many Gamecube games I still have fun revisiting. Metroid Primes, Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker, F-Zero, etc etc etc.

PS2 was good...for single player, in my opinion. I want a PS2, but pretty much every game I want it for is just a deep single player experience that I'll rarely revisit, most of which are RPGs. I do need Metal Gear Solid though. :(

Nonetheless, I hold PS2 and Gamecube on fairly equal terms. It just saddens me how little credit the cube got. But, I agree with some about the N64. Why was it such a faiure? It wasn't until I frequented message boards before I learned it was actually considered as one. I loved the N64 to death, and thought it did relatively well. PS2's great, but it's easy for me to say that the N64 dominated PS1 on nearly every level. >_>




Posted by Linko_16


Quoting TimeSkipz: I remember everyones disgust with the Gamecube, the only real market were itty bitty kiddy witties who didn't know what a true video game was until they played Xbox or a PS2.


Troll arguments aren't going to pass outside the Wacko board, smart guy.



Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;794023]Except, you know, it's Nintendo. So it can have a bunch **** games as long as there's Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Smash on it. Only problem was that's the only games it had. Even though I ended up with over a hundred GC games somehow.


Wait, you're an idiot. I should just ban you. Yeah...

...you're a Super Mod?




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: ...you're a Super Mod?


You do know mods have been able to ban members for a very long time now, right?



Posted by Linko_16

He will be a supermod... once Jesse gets around to doing it.




Posted by switchxa

[quote=maian;794134]

PS2 was good...for single player, in my opinion. I want a PS2, but pretty much every game I want it for is just a deep single player experience that I'll rarely revisit, most of which are RPGs. I do need Metal Gear Solid though. :(



I thought a lot of PS2 single player games had some good replayability. FFX, FFX-2, ZoE 1&2, MGS 2&3, all had secrets and challenges that were easily missed first time through. They played well on my need to complete everything. :D I think more PS2 games had extras you could access second time through compared to the GC games just being enjoyable. I like to have more incentive to play through again.




Posted by S

Do you EVER visit the mod board Speed?




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;794219]You do know mods have been able to ban members for a very long time now, right?

No. I steer clear of the mod board because it's basically a bunch of kids jacking eachother off rep system-style.

[quote=Linko_16;794351][COLOR=indigo]He will be a supermod... once Jesse gets around to doing it.[/COLOR]

...we need more Super Mods?

[quote=Fate;793769][COLOR=skyblue]Oh, dear Jesus, I totally forgot to mention the oh-so-obvious feature-- so obvious I thought it didn't need to be mentioned, akin to unnecessarily defining every word after saying/typing it-- that it looks like a hell of a lot of fun to casual gamers. You know soooooo much about the industry.[/COLOR] :cheer:

[COLOR=skyblue]Also, as for Microsoft being considered more successful: I don't think most gamers care that the console they buy is actually being sold for cheaper than production costs. The games were just more appealing stateside than what the GC had to offer, that's it.[/COLOR]

If you knew why it's the market leader then why did you say the reason it's selling is because it's cheap? Why didn't you mention the actual reason when everyone else called you out on your bogus theory? Why'd you wait for me to say it before you chimed in with "I know that!"

Ooh, ooh, I know! Because you're backpedaling.




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

[quote=Speedfreak;794676]...we need more Super Mods?
Dude, we got two new ones today.




Posted by Shade

Who?




Posted by BLUNTMASTER X

Check forum leaders. Bottom of the main page.




Posted by maian

Boy, it sure would be easier if we had a list at the top of the page that said who they were. :cookie:

But at least this way, we're not getting hacked!




Posted by Fate


Quoting Speedfreak: If you knew why it's the market leader then why did you say the reason it's selling is because it's cheap? Why didn't you mention the actual reason when everyone else called you out on your bogus theory? Why'd you wait for me to say it before you chimed in with "I know that!"

Ooh, ooh, I know! Because you're backpedaling.


I'm sorry, I should've been more sensitive to the fact that you have fits of dumbassery.

End note: The Wii as an entire package sells most. It's the combination of every factor going for it that makes it sell. I mean, Jesus, did I really have to say that it was appealing to casual gamers? Did I even have to say that the package as a whole is what makes it sell? Is it even really my "bogus theory" about why which console sells more than the other?

Side note: btw, the GC sold for $100 less than the PS2-- well after Sony set foot into the next gen-- but still didn't sell more units. I figure it's because the PS2 was already an established console and the GC games didn't really appeal to the different tastes of an older audience that just seemed to grow after the release of the first Halo. As much as it pains me to say, gutsgamers are vastly outnumbered by casual gamers that make the Wii sell-- the very same gamers that made the still-considerably-cheap-in-actual-dollar-comparison PS2 grow in popularity (brand new DVD player, CD player, and game console!!!). Now, with the incredible price difference between the three major consoles, which would you pick for the Holiday season? That "Wii" everyone seems to keep talking about, that Xbox that never seems to work, or that ridiculously expensive not-computer computer with a silly new format that you can't afford to keep up with? It makes sense.
:/



Posted by switchxa

I think the multiple SKU's don't help Microsoft and Sony either. When a customer walks in and asks for a Wii everyone knows what they are talking about. Pouncing on the customer the idea of multiple SKU's can confuse a lot of people. So again the Wii wins because of customer simplicity.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

if only you could find wiis...




Posted by switchxa

Yeah, that is what is really bugging me about Nintendo. They make the Wii the hottest item for the past year but put out so few. I thought it was to drive up demand for a while but jesus. Do they really need to **** that many store sales people with having so many people come in each day to ask if they have any?