|
On November 14 2012 00:30 TheRealArtemis wrote:
lol I can tell the butthurt is great in this one.
They didnt innovate anything. They just followed suit and took what the most popular and implemented that into their games. The cod:mw2 and upwards espacially didnt innovate anything. To say that they deserve 8/10 or above is ridiculous. Its the same game new title.
It's an opinion...
On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:
And obviously, having bad graphics or a crappy story doesn't exactly turn them off of a game, so it's better just to put it out there with no score whatsoever, and let the reader gauge on whether they'd enjoy the game or not when you've pointed out all the different pros and cons to a game.
You know its possible to not read the score when it's written. If you disagree with how they 'score' a game, just ignore the score. It's not like the text magically disappears when they put on the score.
|
I bought 2 bags of Doritos after reading the OP. Probably not the appropriate response, but I have no regrets after lunch.
|
Gaming Journalism
hahahahaha activism blocked the first video oh man, that's so pathetic
|
On November 14 2012 00:40 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:
And obviously, having bad graphics or a crappy story doesn't exactly turn them off of a game, so it's better just to put it out there with no score whatsoever, and let the reader gauge on whether they'd enjoy the game or not when you've pointed out all the different pros and cons to a game. You know its possible to not read the score when it's written. If you disagree with how they 'score' a game, just ignore the score. It's not like the text magically disappears when they put on the score.
That's great, but ignoring how the vast majority of people read reviews (IE: A number) is neither here nor there. I'm agreeing with the guy; a review would always be much more informative if it wasn't trying to apply a metric to everything it says. There'd be lot less inconsistency, that's for sure.
|
On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:23 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
That's not even a serious issue, it's just a matter of what relative rating system you prefer. Do you think school grading should work the same way? Both what you propose and the current system have their merits. The important thing isn't that one system is used over another, but that the raters are all consistently using the same system if their ratings are being pooled into an average, and also that the reader is made aware of the system as well. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much. Besides sales? So... going from CoD to CoD2, 3, then MWF 1 2 3, they didn't innovate at all in the multiplayer FPS scene? They didn't have engaging storylines and increasingly high quality graphics? What the fuck do you want? It's a FPS. Maybe you don't like the genre, but that's no reason to shit all over it, and I'm not even a CoD fanboy. Name a game that's accomplished something in your eyes then. I wanna see what mr. "high standards" over here thinks is worthy of the term "accomplishment" No, an engaging story isn't forgettable. Every CoD games story is pretty forgettable. I've beaten 1, 2, 4, and MW2 as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I love FPS. I've dumped probably tens of thousands of hours into playing FPS. And CoD is fun. With friends, very fun. But it doesn't accomplish anything. That is to say, the graphics have never been amazing (but not bad), the gameplay has always been pretty good (but not amazing OR bad), and the stories have always been on par with hollywood action films (read: pretty crappy). Most entries to the series are 5 or 6 out of ten at best. A game that has accomplished something in my eyes would be something like Half Life. A fully voice acted campaign back then wasn't run of the mill. The graphics were damn good for the time, the gameplay extremely solid, the storytelling was extremely well done considering storytelling was less than an afterthought in the genre beforehand, and the game would go on to produce one of the most engaging mods of all time, and a sequel that Another game I'd list is Final Fantasy 4. It took the series to another level with ATB, and an actual storyline with characters. While it's not exactly a big deal in retrospect, considering the storylines we get nowadays, it was a pretty big deal back when we were making parties of four nameless heroes to go and save the world. Those are games that accomplished something. That advanced their genres. As I admitted, CoD4 DID introduce unlock systems and whatnot. That is something that changed the genre of FPS drastically, considering you can't throw a rock and NOT hit an FPS that uses those systems nowadays. Thusly, CoD4 deserves a good rating. But the rest? Nothing new
Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES)
I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play.
I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by.
With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before".
This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really.
So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
|
I think the biggest issue is the industry just isn't big enough and it's better to get these shallow reviews (every Call of duty since black ops, I thought MW2 did a lot of neat things) so people mass buy then to have people smashing these games and parents looking for christmas presents going "well I'll get the Ipod instead" or something similar.
Biggest examples so far are MW3 and from what I've seen Black Ops 2 along with Reach, ME3, Assassin's Creed Revelations and even Skyrim for being a beautiful full game of generic stereotypes with a weak storyline (the only thing saving Skyrim from being on my shitlist after buying is the expansion packs are really really good).
Anyway, you'll never get good journalism from dependent journalists. You have to just ask friends/colleagues and they'll be the most brutally honest add that you can tell their bias rather easily and you can form rather educated opinions.
It would be interested if TL put together a team to review games etc. Could be cool and might catch a lot of eyes.
|
On November 14 2012 00:57 Microsloth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:23 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:
[quote]
What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much. Besides sales? So... going from CoD to CoD2, 3, then MWF 1 2 3, they didn't innovate at all in the multiplayer FPS scene? They didn't have engaging storylines and increasingly high quality graphics? What the fuck do you want? It's a FPS. Maybe you don't like the genre, but that's no reason to shit all over it, and I'm not even a CoD fanboy. Name a game that's accomplished something in your eyes then. I wanna see what mr. "high standards" over here thinks is worthy of the term "accomplishment" No, an engaging story isn't forgettable. Every CoD games story is pretty forgettable. I've beaten 1, 2, 4, and MW2 as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I love FPS. I've dumped probably tens of thousands of hours into playing FPS. And CoD is fun. With friends, very fun. But it doesn't accomplish anything. That is to say, the graphics have never been amazing (but not bad), the gameplay has always been pretty good (but not amazing OR bad), and the stories have always been on par with hollywood action films (read: pretty crappy). Most entries to the series are 5 or 6 out of ten at best. A game that has accomplished something in my eyes would be something like Half Life. A fully voice acted campaign back then wasn't run of the mill. The graphics were damn good for the time, the gameplay extremely solid, the storytelling was extremely well done considering storytelling was less than an afterthought in the genre beforehand, and the game would go on to produce one of the most engaging mods of all time, and a sequel that Another game I'd list is Final Fantasy 4. It took the series to another level with ATB, and an actual storyline with characters. While it's not exactly a big deal in retrospect, considering the storylines we get nowadays, it was a pretty big deal back when we were making parties of four nameless heroes to go and save the world. Those are games that accomplished something. That advanced their genres. As I admitted, CoD4 DID introduce unlock systems and whatnot. That is something that changed the genre of FPS drastically, considering you can't throw a rock and NOT hit an FPS that uses those systems nowadays. Thusly, CoD4 deserves a good rating. But the rest? Nothing new Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES) I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play. I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by. With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before". This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really. So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score.
But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews.
|
Wait.... people take gaming journalism seriously?
this IS shocking.
|
Its been said a bunch of times but my main issue with video game "journalism" is that for major AAA releases there is no such thing as a negative review. No matter how bad the game is a CoD, Halo, GTA, etc game will never get less than an 8 maybe 7.5 if its absolute trash. The most glaring example I can think of is Dragon Age 2. The game was pretty pathetic even by the lowest standards...if an indy developer put that out it would've gotten 5's across the board. Even Bioware says they have to do better for the next one. Yet you're hard pressed to find a score lower than an 8 for the game on most major game sites. If even trash like that can't score less than 7 how do you expect to ever find an unbiased review for a major release? At least in the movie industry unless you release an absolute masterpiece like the Godfather or something you will have conflicting and negative reviews out there. This doesn't exist in the videogame world outside of forums/player opinions.
|
We all know that gaming journalism is BS and has been for literally DECADES, we've gone from when ET for the Atari 2600 was covered by Newsweek and the New York Times, and Daikatana being the center of major marketing campaigns and being covered on Time magazine to now when it's just a huge circle jerk between the gaming industry and major news sites won't touch it with a ten foot pole unless it's bad news for sensationalism. It's not been that long since Jeff Gerstmann got fired for giving Kane and Lynch a 6/10.
|
On November 14 2012 01:02 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:57 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:23 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much. Besides sales? So... going from CoD to CoD2, 3, then MWF 1 2 3, they didn't innovate at all in the multiplayer FPS scene? They didn't have engaging storylines and increasingly high quality graphics? What the fuck do you want? It's a FPS. Maybe you don't like the genre, but that's no reason to shit all over it, and I'm not even a CoD fanboy. Name a game that's accomplished something in your eyes then. I wanna see what mr. "high standards" over here thinks is worthy of the term "accomplishment" No, an engaging story isn't forgettable. Every CoD games story is pretty forgettable. I've beaten 1, 2, 4, and MW2 as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I love FPS. I've dumped probably tens of thousands of hours into playing FPS. And CoD is fun. With friends, very fun. But it doesn't accomplish anything. That is to say, the graphics have never been amazing (but not bad), the gameplay has always been pretty good (but not amazing OR bad), and the stories have always been on par with hollywood action films (read: pretty crappy). Most entries to the series are 5 or 6 out of ten at best. A game that has accomplished something in my eyes would be something like Half Life. A fully voice acted campaign back then wasn't run of the mill. The graphics were damn good for the time, the gameplay extremely solid, the storytelling was extremely well done considering storytelling was less than an afterthought in the genre beforehand, and the game would go on to produce one of the most engaging mods of all time, and a sequel that Another game I'd list is Final Fantasy 4. It took the series to another level with ATB, and an actual storyline with characters. While it's not exactly a big deal in retrospect, considering the storylines we get nowadays, it was a pretty big deal back when we were making parties of four nameless heroes to go and save the world. Those are games that accomplished something. That advanced their genres. As I admitted, CoD4 DID introduce unlock systems and whatnot. That is something that changed the genre of FPS drastically, considering you can't throw a rock and NOT hit an FPS that uses those systems nowadays. Thusly, CoD4 deserves a good rating. But the rest? Nothing new Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES) I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play. I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by. With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before". This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really. So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing. I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score. But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews.
I agree, sometimes you need to suck it up and go watch expendables 2 or play CoD:BO2 just to see some shit blow up.
|
On November 14 2012 01:10 Microsloth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 01:02 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:57 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:23 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:
[quote]
Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much. Besides sales? So... going from CoD to CoD2, 3, then MWF 1 2 3, they didn't innovate at all in the multiplayer FPS scene? They didn't have engaging storylines and increasingly high quality graphics? What the fuck do you want? It's a FPS. Maybe you don't like the genre, but that's no reason to shit all over it, and I'm not even a CoD fanboy. Name a game that's accomplished something in your eyes then. I wanna see what mr. "high standards" over here thinks is worthy of the term "accomplishment" No, an engaging story isn't forgettable. Every CoD games story is pretty forgettable. I've beaten 1, 2, 4, and MW2 as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I love FPS. I've dumped probably tens of thousands of hours into playing FPS. And CoD is fun. With friends, very fun. But it doesn't accomplish anything. That is to say, the graphics have never been amazing (but not bad), the gameplay has always been pretty good (but not amazing OR bad), and the stories have always been on par with hollywood action films (read: pretty crappy). Most entries to the series are 5 or 6 out of ten at best. A game that has accomplished something in my eyes would be something like Half Life. A fully voice acted campaign back then wasn't run of the mill. The graphics were damn good for the time, the gameplay extremely solid, the storytelling was extremely well done considering storytelling was less than an afterthought in the genre beforehand, and the game would go on to produce one of the most engaging mods of all time, and a sequel that Another game I'd list is Final Fantasy 4. It took the series to another level with ATB, and an actual storyline with characters. While it's not exactly a big deal in retrospect, considering the storylines we get nowadays, it was a pretty big deal back when we were making parties of four nameless heroes to go and save the world. Those are games that accomplished something. That advanced their genres. As I admitted, CoD4 DID introduce unlock systems and whatnot. That is something that changed the genre of FPS drastically, considering you can't throw a rock and NOT hit an FPS that uses those systems nowadays. Thusly, CoD4 deserves a good rating. But the rest? Nothing new Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES) I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play. I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by. With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before". This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really. So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing. I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score. But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews. I agree, sometimes you need to suck it up and go watch expendables 2 or play CoD:BO2 just to see some shit blow up.
suck it up my ass, this is like saying if in any other field the person doing honest work getting fired is okay while applauding the circle jerk. It isn't just the reviews that piss people off, you can watch movies / play games with out them, it's that there are people who are genuinely interested in the medium as an art form or to develop their own stories and experiences and they will never see the light of day because they don't have fifty million dollars to afford the super special advertising campaign with a free happy ending.
|
On November 14 2012 01:10 Microsloth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 01:02 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:57 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:23 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:
[quote]
Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much. Besides sales? So... going from CoD to CoD2, 3, then MWF 1 2 3, they didn't innovate at all in the multiplayer FPS scene? They didn't have engaging storylines and increasingly high quality graphics? What the fuck do you want? It's a FPS. Maybe you don't like the genre, but that's no reason to shit all over it, and I'm not even a CoD fanboy. Name a game that's accomplished something in your eyes then. I wanna see what mr. "high standards" over here thinks is worthy of the term "accomplishment" No, an engaging story isn't forgettable. Every CoD games story is pretty forgettable. I've beaten 1, 2, 4, and MW2 as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I love FPS. I've dumped probably tens of thousands of hours into playing FPS. And CoD is fun. With friends, very fun. But it doesn't accomplish anything. That is to say, the graphics have never been amazing (but not bad), the gameplay has always been pretty good (but not amazing OR bad), and the stories have always been on par with hollywood action films (read: pretty crappy). Most entries to the series are 5 or 6 out of ten at best. A game that has accomplished something in my eyes would be something like Half Life. A fully voice acted campaign back then wasn't run of the mill. The graphics were damn good for the time, the gameplay extremely solid, the storytelling was extremely well done considering storytelling was less than an afterthought in the genre beforehand, and the game would go on to produce one of the most engaging mods of all time, and a sequel that Another game I'd list is Final Fantasy 4. It took the series to another level with ATB, and an actual storyline with characters. While it's not exactly a big deal in retrospect, considering the storylines we get nowadays, it was a pretty big deal back when we were making parties of four nameless heroes to go and save the world. Those are games that accomplished something. That advanced their genres. As I admitted, CoD4 DID introduce unlock systems and whatnot. That is something that changed the genre of FPS drastically, considering you can't throw a rock and NOT hit an FPS that uses those systems nowadays. Thusly, CoD4 deserves a good rating. But the rest? Nothing new Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES) I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play. I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by. With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before". This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really. So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing. I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score. But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews. I agree, sometimes you need to suck it up and go watch expendables 2 or play CoD:BO2 just to see some shit blow up.
I don't think anyone is saying people aren't allowed to enjoy these types of games. The difference is this http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_dark_of_the_moon/ . Its clear to most people AS WELL as reviewers that transformers is crap as an actual movie but will provide you with a few hours of mindless entertainment if you're into that type of thing. Now try and find a negative review for CoD or any other major release in the past few years
|
On November 14 2012 00:56 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:40 Tarot wrote:On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote:
And obviously, having bad graphics or a crappy story doesn't exactly turn them off of a game, so it's better just to put it out there with no score whatsoever, and let the reader gauge on whether they'd enjoy the game or not when you've pointed out all the different pros and cons to a game. You know its possible to not read the score when it's written. If you disagree with how they 'score' a game, just ignore the score. It's not like the text magically disappears when they put on the score. That's great, but ignoring how the vast majority of people read reviews (IE: A number) is neither here nor there. I'm agreeing with the guy; a review would always be much more informative if it wasn't trying to apply a metric to everything it says. There'd be lot less inconsistency, that's for sure.
If the review was poorly written, that's a problem with the writer and editor. I still have no idea why you care about the score, especially since you know you would disagree with it. I have never liked the AAA FPS games. They're just boring to me. I would rate them 2 or 3 out of 5. But I don't harp on the fact that they get 9s and 10s in reviews. The score is nothing more than some guy's opinion.
|
It is kind of ironic, that most people already consider gaming journalism to be "bottom of the barrel" stuff as one poster put it, so this doesn't really have the same level of effect it should have.
But that's just in terms of the quality of reviews. I am skeptical about people's claims that game reviewers are flat out an extension of the marketing arm for a game publisher. Yes maybe they give them access to games earlier, and maybe in the future they could delay access to their games if they know that reviewer doesn't like their games...does this mean that they own them as if they were their own personal marketing group? I don't think so.
Same for if they give them free subscriptions to Xbox live, or PS3's as gifts. Maybe we should be a little more critical of them accepting these gifts...but at the same time, should we assume that these make all the difference between a 75% score and a 95% score? That again, they are just extensions of the marketing team? Its just extremism.
All that it means is that they can have an influence...how large it is is up for debate. Being pictured with doritos and mountain dew is definitely pushing it though, assuming that those companies are tied to the developers of a specific game.
I think the reality is, if you do have a game and you throw millions of dollars to develop it, its probably going to be good. I don't think they deserve 95%+ scores every time, but I could understand how someone who is easily impressed by flashy graphics and "EPIC BATTLES" (cough, anything Bethesda related) could give these scores. To me it makes a lot more sense to just assume that the game reviewers are incompetent, and somewhat like children who are easily appeased, rather than that they are secretly in the pockets of game publishers, and that there is a conspiracy that is being kept secret among hundreds of executives and thousands of reviewers, in spite of gaming journalism's very public nature. It would be too hard to keep these things a secret if it were as bad as everyone was making it out to be.
I definitely think there is some influence going on...but as to how bad it is, as to whether PC Gamer or IGN would actually be willing to give some of these AAA titles bad scores, I'm not sure.
I checked PC Gamer's review for Call of Duty: Black Ops (for PC) and they gave it 64%, saying it was dazzling and flashy, but that it was let down by bad scripting, glitchy multiplayer, and increasingly dull firefights. I guess that's a good sign, right? 
Edit: Ooh I found another good sign. PC Gamer UK give Crysis 2 a 70%  .
But then, maybe my taste in games is just bad, I guess its hard to know.
|
On November 14 2012 00:50 zer0das wrote:
I bought 2 bags of Doritos after reading the OP. Probably not the appropriate response, but I have no regrets after lunch.
Glad I'm not the only one that got a serious craving for Doritos after reading this post :D
|
I think games that have 9.5 or 10, should be games I remember in more than decade and come back to beat the game again, for the sake of pure enjoyment and should only be given to games that can be considered the best game of the year in its respective genre.
1/10 should be saved for unplayable. 5/10 should be it did well in one regard (graphics, story, sound, gameplay, replayability), but shitty in the other regards. 7/10 should be saved for games that did well in almost every regard and fell short in one regard. 8/10 should be a game that did well in all categories, better than average. Everything above 8 should be saved for soley gameplay/complete fun factor and innovation.
But meh, I usually only pick games based on what my friends say about them.
|
On November 13 2012 20:07 Probe1 wrote:
It's been 2 months of criticism against "Gaming Journalism". But it's a dumb argument. Why?
Because there's no such thing as independent gaming journalism. Every single 'journalist' takes money or compensation. It happens on TL and it happens on Eurogamer and it happens on yoursitexyz.
If you expect honesty then expect to read through a half dozen user generated reviews and tbh, just pirate the damn game and see if its fun before buying. Reviewers are for the most part extensions of marketing departments. There is no such thing is scruples in video game 'journalism'.
(I'm not referring to eSports, only "review/hype/release" articles)
What?
HB and R1CH are the only full-time guys and the rest are volunteers. It's been said many times before bud.
Not all journalism we see has monetary gain. In fact, a lot of these writers are kids who are just learning their craft and many of them don't receive jack shit.
e-sports journalism is in it's infancy and journalism in every facet whether it be magazines, newspapers, television.. they all have their own agendas and are right-wing or left-wing.
Yes there are some reviewers critics who get paid to say certain stuff as well. Guess what? That happens in the film industry as well. -_-
|
I guess this is news? Maybe im just more aware of this then most people, but companies have been sending free things and "bribing" journalists since the beginning of time.
A friend of mine does a couple hours about technology on a radio show. She gets sent every new video game before it comes out, and all type of different tech. One time she was even given a bmw to drive for two weeks, since it had some new bluetooth tech in it a few years back.
If you want honest opinions then you need to actually do a little research and find a reviewer that you agree with, I find youtube is a decent place if you know who to watch.
|
Nerds getting riled up about nothing? Sounds about right. I thought everyone knew gaming journalism was shit many, many years ago. I only ever bought Nintendo Power and GamePro to look at the pictures.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
