I find print reviews pretty terrible these days, for the most part. It seems less and less the reviewer is given enough time to properly explore a game. Nintendo's new expanded demographic doesn't help things, expert game reviewers are no longer expert when it comes to a 50 year old wondering if there is anything else worth getting for their balance board. That and the generally poor quality of single format magazines, along with the bias of 'official' magazines, makes the whole enterprise pretty pointless. Every mag's reviews are badly skewed towards their readership. You could argue that's their job, but it makes them completely unreliable.
One of the mags doing a half decent job is gamesTM. You can rely on a review there being the relatively unbiased opinion of one person, but reading their reviews it is often clear they canvas the reaction of forums to colour their coverage. Hard to begrudge them that, who wants to shower DMC4 with praise, and then find genuine DMC experts bemoaning the lack of audio queues break the game in some way? At that point though, you may as well stick to three or four gaming forums and give up on print for good.
I think print mags realise their days are numbered, given how much more useful a forum community is when judging a new game, and have known that for most of this decade. One way around this is to become more Edge-like, in-depth features and articles you wouldn't normally find on a free website, but no one seems to be taking that route (too expensive). I'd be interested in a magazine that ditches reviews completely, and simply focussed on features instead.
The problem with dedicated review sites is poor revenue streams often means kids are employed cheaply who lack the breadth of knowledge needed to make their reviews reliable in the first place. The weaker single format magazines suffer from this problem too. There is also something about online reviews that permit shoddier copy to go out, because you can always amend it later, and the reaction of your readership can be instantly gauged. Online reviews work best as a gateway to discussing the assessment of that game, and even then there aren't many places that get this right. Otherwise its an exercise in ad revenue and self promotion, and completely pointless.
I also find nearly every review out there is unable to discuss the mechanics of actually playing the game, and almost never touch upon the technical aspects of it. If you ignore NGJ and concentrate on the idea that game reviews can provide evaluations of identifiable metrics, along the lines of a DVD review mag that assesses the technical quality of a disk for example, print reviews never deliver on this. I think this is where reviews fail the most, I'm more interested in how a game actually works and much less interested in a reviewer's opinion of it. If you don't like Space Giraffe then fine, but at least explain to me how the game works so I can get an idea whether I would want to try it out or not. I'm not interested in your humourous insights (they're not funny or insightful) or personal frustrations with being crap at it, just tell me how the damned game works.
Lets call this the 'LittleBigPlanet' problem. I've read people saying they had no idea what the game is about, and I'm in the same boat. No review has been able to convey why it's actually any good. The Edge review has a fair crack at it, but falls down on describing how it actually works, the writer is far more concerned with telling you how impressed they were by it - I don't care!
When it comes down to it the only way to find out if you like a game is to play it. Ignoring bias and opinion, give me a decent explanation of the game mechanics and technical quality so I can then make a more informed decision as to whether I'll bother giving the thing a go in the first place. This is what I want from a review nowadays, and no one provides it. Print mags are too worried about boring the reader and making their reviews faintly amusing to get this right, and the quality of writing is not good enough to make it work either way.
Reviews are obviously conflicted in trying to provide both a buying guide and a personal account of the reviewer's experiences. I'd rather do away with the latter completely, leaving that to editorial and features (and hellish self indulgent blogs if you must). Like this one.
I originally posted elsewhere in a fit of tedium while opensenses was down - not sure what was wrong, someone kicked a cable out I think.
Damn good to see the site back up. Was missing my fix of self indulgence
I tend to agree with your assessment. Reviews are going to be pointless as a buying guide too though aren't they, now that we can download demos of everything (or will be able to shortly). Maybe all we need is a whole bunch of new metrics. Do away with all that graphics, sound, longevity crap and break it down to something more meaningful, like system, heroness, ack I don't know something that can communicate to me whether I should even bother downloading the demo
Face it we're an anachronism these days. Games seem to be forever moving away from where we want them to be. We're the people marooned, desperately yearning for the next airdrop of proper gaming, from who the hell knows where.
The essence of a game is within the ruleset so an explanation of the system is all that's required, and of course why that either works or doesn't. I feel completely lost reading articles with phrases such as "self-assured graphical and sonic presentation" - what does that even mean and what effect does it have on how the game is played?
This has led me to seek input directly from other enthusiasts and expert players (typically via forums and similar venues) as they are more likely to give me an idea of what is worth playing than their all-encompassing counterparts at the various magazines and blogs. Unfortunately, we don't have the benefit of arcades weeding out the lesser games either these days.
The essence of a game is within the ruleset so an explanation of the system is all that's required
Amen to that. And yet bafflingly that seems to be missing from the bulk of reviews these days. What's even worse is reading a review where the reviewer can't get a grasp of the rules and 'misses' the game entirely.
Off topic I have to share the happy news that I've resurrected Super Sidekicks on the MVS using the miracle of a fiberglass pencil. Not the best game in the world by a long chalk, but it should be a hit when my footy loving mates come over. This weekend is MegaCD multibios weekend too. Busy busy busy.
What do you guys think of Retro Gamer?
Ironically enough, given its subject matter, it may be the magazine with the most assured future... if the traditional news/previews/reviews formula is actually dead.
Mainstream reviews appear to have become a literary event, to be archived into the British library for analysis by future generations.
I can't tell if film reviews have gone through a similar arc, but I usually watch a film based on my own prejudices or word of mouth, or in the case of some films global press adulation, aka There will be blood and No country for old men.
But if you took that approach with games you would end up with bioshock, fallout 3, grand theft auto and braid and not the likes of vjoe and god hand.
Hmm I've not purchased Retro Gamer for some time. I think the last issue I bought was pre makover/takover. It was certainly getting some things right. I think the features format has some legs on it for the reasons that Papercut has mentioned. I like factual articles (when the facts are correct). I like interviews with developers. I like information on hardware and modifications. Stuff on Rare items and related merchandise. All the really really geeky stuff I suppose.
The thing about Retro Gaming is you have to come at it from a number of different angles. There's the collector angle, the classic gameplay angle and the nostalgia angle. On the collection front I'm not really interested in rich idiots who drop thousands on an instant and complete collection of games for console x. I'm far more interested in trawling the charity shops for hidden treasure (purchased 3 US SNES carts from a charity shop in Crowthorne last month for example). Classic gameplay is vitally important to dissassemble especially these days. And nostalgia is worthless, but sort of ok once in a while provided you don't get lost in it.
What do you guys think of Retro Gamer?
I haven't read a recent issue, since it moved companies (is that right?). I've read issue 1 and 18 I think. I flicked through the OutRun issue with a mind to buying, and was appalled by the paper-thin depth to the coverage.
The features are almost readable, but the reviews are for the most part useless. The problem is context, they try to balance assessing the game to advise whether or not its worth playing now but somehow within the context of when the game was released. It can't be both. Also, given the subject matter, the reviewers are completely biased towards a platform/developer/game and half the time that is the reason for covering a game in the first place. It is there simply to fuel nostalgia, just a waste of time.
Edge's retrospective features are a lot better, and the best part of that magazine.
In the early days, at least, there were many factual errors too, which is unforgivable for something like this. It makes what might be a useful reference, or something with the funding to do some decent digging when reassessing older games, into pure fluff.
It's the budget thing really isn't it. They need to do stuff that actually costs money, which is something most forums and sites can't afford to do or refuse to do (ign I'm looking at you).
Really what we need are proper reference books.
I'd happily fork out for a book that is dedicated to a single system. Every other hobby and interest does this, why not videogames. Imagine a single volume that covers every facet of the Super Fami; or the Saturn. Maybe these exist already????
Japan gets that sort of thing, I have a book detailing every Dreamcast release for the first 5 years. Also a giant book detailing about 10 years of PS1 and PS2 releases, including PS1 and PS2 disks full of completed game saves for the most important games!
Well that's just typical really isn't it. I'm sure there must be a market for this sort of specialist book in the West. A big glossy coffee table book in the £40 to £50 bracket.
As I've said elsewhere before, one of the worst things about modern reviews is the obsession with the game's plot, even when there is none. I want a review to tell me what the game is like to PLAY, I don't need a whole paragraph or two explaining the plot.
They have to fill space somehow...
These people don't have the technical understanding of games to be able to pull out the raw game itself and explain how it all works. They waffle on about the plot then pad out the rest of it with resolution/framerate nonsence.
________________________________
Serious question, guys... Where the hell are you reading these reviews?
It strikes me that you're probably just looking to the wrong resources.
Serious question, guys... Where the hell are you reading these reviews?
It strikes me that you're probably just looking to the wrong resources.
That's a fair point. EDGE and GamesTM are actually OK (yes even EDGE). However I would guess that somewhere in the region of 98% of online reviews are utter bobbins and I'll include anything I've written in that 98% too
That's the thing I guess. The rise of the Internet has turned everyone into a critic, whether they actually have any insight into their medium of choice or not. Hell, you're lucky if you find one that can string a sentence together these days.
Incidentally, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with what the guy below has to say on review writing.
http://www.eegra.com/pages/show/title/21_10_2008_A_Needlessly_Long_Screed_About_Brevity/
After questioning where you guys have read so many terrible reviews, I stumbled upon the blog below, and started to realise what you're getting at. There really is some poor writing out there...
http://www.magicalwasteland.com/bad_writing_about_games/
How the hell did any of those pass through an editor? My English is pretty terrible, but those snippets are shockingly bad.
Well, at the risk of sounding jingoistic, most of those examples are American.
Look I love American's as much as the next guy, but what they're doing to the English language is just plain wrong. They're intent on inventing new words that don't actually need inventing because we already have a perfectly good word that conveys the same meaning and nuance. Some personal favourites of mine (apologies for spelling, but since these aren't real words I'm having to guess).
"winningest"
"normalsey"
I blame Bush. He's made this kind of thing acceptable.
My number one pet hate is the way they incorrectly spell "lose" (as in not win) as Loose". The worst thing is it seems to be rubbing off on the rest of the English speakers of the world. "OMG U SUCK U R SUCH A LOOSER!" - I despair...
Bad English aside the reason I hate reviews these days is because 9/10 times no matter how much they waffle on; they don't give any sort of breakdown of play mechanics. Even when reviewing action games which are totally hinged on a single mechanic they actually fail to cover it.
Like how many reviews of Viewtiful Joe were there which actually broke down how the VFX-Combo system worked? Don't worry I'll wait...
________________________________
Totally OT, but I've been playing Ninja Gaiden II recently and I'd be intereted to hear some comments from anyone on here who's played it as to what they think. I'm sort of plugging my way through it and it's got a number of problems (dodgy camera and too many dark colours to adequately see what the hell is going on). Plus there's a really odd combat system that basically means you charge up and then unleash at super speed on some enemies in a way that feels pretty uncontrolled. On the surface though it appears to 'have mechanics' they've just been executed poorly due to the reasons above. Maybe I'm too much of a button masher to appreciate it properly?
I nearly dropped my cigarette holder in pompus amusement when one's eye casually difted across this particular link:
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/games-that-would-be-awesome-in-first-person/a-20081121153458484053
aghast
I nearly swallowed my cigarette holder!
That closes the case on these people...
How the FUCK can you think a first person Street Fighter is a good idea? This is the kind of "wouldn't it be COOL if..." shit that's like a cancer eating away at the focus group led gaming we have now, they have no idea whatsoever about what makes a game function as a GAME.
These are the same type of twat who suggest "a first-person Bomberman would be teh AWESOEM!11
________________________________
These are the same type of twat who suggest "a first-person Bomberman would be teh AWESOEM!11
The HORROR!
That said we'd probably have ripped someone a new one if they'd suggeted a first person platform game, but Mirror's Edge has shown that it's a workable concept (and to some extent Metroid Prime).
Then again the Mirror's Edge flash game is pretty good and that's plain old 2D platforming. Make's me wonder whether it would work better as a game without the FPS viewpoint...
http://www.x360magazine.com/games/armored_core_for_answer/armored_core_for_answer.html
It's written as an *interview with the game*. Just saying that makes me feel queasy.
Wouldn't it be great if Tetris was in first person?
http://www.vg247.com/2009/02/12/most-future-mags-saw-circulation-drops-last-year/
Dug this up in time for the new Bionic Commando of which the critique emphasizes on length (it's "short", can be completed in five hours) and structure (it's linear) and apparently it's quite difficult as well. Are new releases expected to be open-ended, 20+ hours in length and include mechanics made popular by GTA and similar games - a variety that does a hundred things but masters none?
I think I'll go out on a limp and say that scores from popular print and online publications are more indicative of how effective the marketing has been.
Out on a limp?
Out on a limp?
XD
I thought they really nailed the swinging mechanics in Bionic Commando, there's an actual sense of urgency and constant fear of death there too which you just don't get in modern games much.
I've given up reading these people's knobbishness, 10 minutes with a demo will tell you more than a few pages of their waffle ever will.
Traditional media is just a self feeding orifice, completely unaware of its own anachronism and new media is a self feeding orifice trying to replicate traditional media... its like an bum eating bum whilst being eaten and defecated by a larger bum which is also being eaten, possibly by another bum, but the telescope doesn't have the resolution yet.
Its all one step away from the apocalypse, once society removes money from the world, we'll have better critical distance. It's just the same for Film or Books or Washing Machines... and entertainment medium, everyone has an angle or is being angled.
Tell, me, this... what is the point of previews? Other than adding a layer of hype, it doesn't really achieve anything... I say have a critical mechanism where you buy the game from the vendor (shelf or download) play it, thumbs up and down.
I've given up reading these people's knobbishness, 10 minutes with a demo will tell you more than a few pages of their waffle ever will.
In keeping with the geezers reference to BC, I've read (oh the ironing) that the demo for BC is for the multiplayer element and allegedly it's pants. Which in the end doesn't reflect what you'll be primarily stumping up for.