Jump to content
IGNORED

Reviewers don't play games long enough


Gwynster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Intresting point - If this were the case then they wouldn't really bother putting out extra content.

Lets face it, the older mankind comes, the more stories we know.

So trying to better existing stories with people who arn't dedicated authors in a medium thats not reached it stride yet is a pretty hard thing to do, moreso because a devco. has a timeframe and an author doesn't.

Anyway this is only one aspect of the game. I don't think we can doubt much else apart from that shit filter.

But then again, extra content isn't for the reviewers, it's to keep existing purchasers playing the game, to re-invigorate their interest and bring in an extra few quid for the developers. Everyone goes back to the game when there's some new stuff to download and play with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what the point of this topic is but it seems like a load of shit to me. You don't like GTA4 or you do not think its a ten out of ten then move on play something you like as theres a shitload of people having fun with it.

Well said.

It's now time to sink this ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what the point of this topic is but it seems like a load of shit to me. You don't like GTA4 or you do not think its a ten out of ten then move on play something you like as theres a shitload of people having fun with it.

Not sure what the point of your post is but it seems like a load of shit to me. You're obviously struggling with the fact that you don't actually like GTAIV, and this thread is a threat to your sheep sheepness. Go on and play something else. Like Bioshock. I bet you fucking 'loved' that.

Same with the rest of you mentals in this thread sitting with your fingers poised over the buttons thinking "OMG HOW DARE HE DISTURB THE HIVE MIND". (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)

And the purest games come from Japan? Have you seen Battle Raper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because it got given a 10 by some reviews didnt make me feel it was a 10. Its a good game, simple as. I bought it because I knew it would be good and provide entertainment. People seem to think its a massive deal that....shock, horror, it wasnt as good as all the hype, when it never would be anyway.

Please stay on topic. :ph34r:

I would never want to suggest an 'acceptable' percentage played, as that would more or less legitimise what it is I have a problem with. Reviewers can write what they like as long as it's justified by what they have experienced. In the case of really long and varied games that justification is hard to come by, and it eventually comes down to value for money.

Which is why I always either wait for other people to spend their money, or just pirate things and decide for myself in hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An opinion is worthless if uninformed. Which these opinions are, as the whole game hasn't been played.

I think it's a big deal that people lie in print, yes. Hopefully the new consumer protection regulations can put a stop to it, but someone would have to bring a case first.

God, this 'shit/uniformed reviews thingy' is older than the unoriginal responses I'm about to fire out here (that's to be expected I suppose), also, why are you so angry these days Gwnyster? It doesn't suit you.

Saying that, I do/don't (but mostly do) agree with your point. Yes, an opinion is worthless if uniformed. Unfortunately, unlike an album/film/book (which, can usually be done and dusted within hours) you simply can't expect some overworked and underpaid sod to completely explore/finish the average modern day videogame; certainly not within the timeframe of a magazine deadline. Straight up, you could mess around with something like GTA IV for months and still be finding new (albeit crap) stuff). It's hard for me to imagine when you could fairly class a review of most recent games as 'fully informed'. Myself, I thought the game (GTA IV) was quite good, but not great (one for the back of the Classics release box).

This isn't completely a problem about the fact that people may "lie in print" or not finish a game completely. It's about the whole horribly outdated (hold your breath) news, positive only previews, EXCLUSIVE review!!!!!!! structure of current videogame magazines - a structure that forces good writers to knock out shit, lazy and *ahem* uniformed content. If some smart young lady or man had had the sense to scrap such nonsense years ago and had headed for a more "The making of" style, then the UK print/digital videogame magazine/site scene would probably be a bit healthier today. Obviously it isn't, which brings me round to my final point, why do you give a sod about uniformed print reviews? After all, nobody is reading the bloody things anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, this 'shit/uniformed reviews thingy' is older than the unoriginal responses I'm about to fire out here (that's to be expected I suppose), also, why are you so angry these days Gwnyster? It doesn't suit you.

Saying that, I do/don't (but mostly do) agree with your point. Yes, an opinion is worthless if uniformed. Unfortunately, unlike an album/film/book (which, can usually be done and dusted within hours) you simply can't expect some overworked and underpaid sod to completely explore/finish the average modern day videogame; certainly not within the timeframe of a magazine deadline. Straight up, you could mess around with something like GTA IV for months and still be finding new (albeit crap) stuff). It's hard for me to imagine when you could fairly class a review of most recent games as 'fully informed'. Myself, I thought the game (GTA IV) was quite good, but not great (one for the back of the Classics release box).

This isn't completely a problem about the fact that people may "lie in print" or not finish a game completely. It's about the whole horribly outdated (hold your breath) news, positive only previews, EXCLUSIVE review!!!!!!! structure of current videogame magazines - a structure that forces good writers to knock out shit, lazy and *ahem* uniformed content. If some smart young lady or man had had the sense to scrap such nonsense years ago and had headed for a more "The making of" style, then the UK print/digital videogame magazine/site scene would probably be a bit healthier today. Obviously it isn't, which brings me round to my final point, why do you give a sod about uniformed print reviews? After all, nobody is reading the bloody things anymore.

Well, I find games interesting enough to want to read about them, and it's a shame that the supply side of this is trapped in the gutter. I'm just looking out for number one here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I find games interesting enough to want to read about them, and it's a shame that the supply side of this is trapped in the gutter. I'm just looking out for number one here.

This is all very true. However, with a little digging I can usually find out everything I always wanted to know about a game (and wasn't afraid to ask) on the bad old net. It's not ideal, but what can you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very true. However, with a little digging I can usually find out everything I always wanted to know about a game (and wasn't afraid to ask) on the bad old net. It's not ideal, but what can you do?

It's really true of any media, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very true. However, with a little digging I can usually find out everything I always wanted to know about a game (and wasn't afraid to ask) on the bad old net. It's not ideal, but what can you do?

But what if they havent played it all the way through? Can you trust their opinion, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if they havent played it all the way through? Can you trust their opinion, eh?

No, the only opinion I trust is my own. Although I do enjoy reading a good review that tears apart one of my favourite games or *coughs* bigs up (is that right?) a game I detest.

Certain gaming publications slammed Shadow Of Memories, I loved it. I never lost any sleep over the whole matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course, did I say otherwise?

Sorry, didn't want to sound too snappy there. I think the big trick these days is knowing (regardless of subject matter) who and what to believe.

No, I'm agreeing with you. It's basically the way the world works. Sponsors, competition, deadlines. The public just swallow it all whole anyway, so why would they go to any more effort. As you mentioned, you can generally separate the wheat from the chaff with enough effort. The internet is an amazing resource that we tend to take for granted.

I wouldn't expect in-depth, meaningful and accurate stories on mainstream television news. If I did, I'd be disappointed to find stories about cats being rescued from trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the fuck is this thread about then? The fact that the reviewers - gasp - didn't play the game all the way through?

Wait a second.. you're telling me, that this game has been reviewed without people witnessing 100% of the title's content?

I'm sure that has never happened before!

What did Gwynster 'call' anyway? Thought most of the peeps keep up with the GTA thread knew the game was being reviewed onsite/etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don`t understand why everyone gets so het up over review scores anyway, a general summary with a few gameplay criticisms of the finished game is enough for me to make a decision if it floats my boat or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the fuck is this thread about then? The fact that the reviewers - gasp - didn't play the game all the way through?

I think there'a s more interesting point in that publishers feel they can get better scores by limiting access to the game.

Games like this, with the amount of hype involved, do seem to get better scores than they might really deserve (if only by a mark or two). The ultimate example is Black & White which got 9 and 10's all over the shop but nobody seemed to really like much.

With our game Naked War we were in the interesting position of knowing how long the reviewers played the game down to the second. Of the four mainstream reviewers (big mags or websites), three of them played it for over 8 hours before writing the review and they played it for a few hours more afterwards. The fourth played it for about 35 minutes. All gave us high marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone listened to this weeks GFW podcast? They talk about GTA4 and the 'limited' review time given to the reviewers (some as little as 3 hours). They were quite openly saying that it was clever by rockstar as The game really makes it's best impression in those first few hours. You feel far better about the game after 3 hours than you do after 6 or 10 or 20. They were saying that the review scores would have been a lot lower had the reviewers had unlimited time with the game like any 'normal' review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone listened to this weeks GFW podcast? They talk about GTA4 and the 'limited' review time given to the reviewers (some as little as 3 hours). They were quite openly saying that it was clever by rockstar as The game really makes it's best impression in those first few hours. You feel far better about the game after 3 hours than you do after 6 or 10 or 20. They were saying that the review scores would have been a lot lower had the reviewers had unlimited time with the game like any 'normal' review.

I'm not convinced it makes such a good first impression, you know: after a short time I was very underwhelmed - the vehicle handling felt stodgy, the play area felt both too constricted (you can only play in Broker/Dukes when you want to be racing around Algonquin) and too big ("I'm never going to learn these streets!") and dating Roman, Michelle and Jacob is just a constant pain in the ass.

It was only after quite a while that I started getting into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were quite openly saying that it was clever by rockstar as The game really makes it's best impression in those first few hours. You feel far better about the game after 3 hours than you do after 6 or 10 or 20.

I don't agree with that at all. I found the first few hours of GTAIV disorientating because of the camera, Liberty City seemed too limiting, all the missions seemed to be annoying car-chases, I didn't particularly like Nico and the fake Euro accents really grated.

After 6 or 7 hours I was thinking how great it was. I think it's a pattern I've had with most GTA's, they appear rough at first but once you acclimatise they offer more than just about anything else. I don't rate it any higher than I did Vice City or San Andreas at the time though, just about the same level of goodness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this thread is pretty amazing actually.

I can not believe that people are actually justifying the fact they hadn't played all the game before reviewing it, i don't think they need to play 100% of it but they need to have put in more than 11 hours before they can make an opinion on it shirley ??

It would be like reviewing a book without reading the last 100 pages.

Making a report on a football match at the 60th min and not sticking round to see the rest of the game.

Reviewing a car without getting out of 2nd gear

Sentancing someone without hearing the defence :ph34r:

How can you justify it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With our game Naked War we were in the interesting position of knowing how long the reviewers played the game down to the second. Of the four mainstream reviewers (big mags or websites), three of them played it for over 8 hours before writing the review and they played it for a few hours more afterwards. The fourth played it for about 35 minutes. All gave us high marks.

Did the person who reviewed it for 35 minutes give the same criticisms as the ones who played it for longer, or is it easy to tell they hadn't spent much time on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GTA4 in "reviewers barely played it" 'shocker'

I just want to let you all know, I'm not disappointed with you. It's okay, you all just wanted something to believe in.

I'm with Gym. You'll note I consistently said that we should be wary of such closed-reviews.

I'm not sure how many times I repeated it. But the hype got carried away.

Imagine if all games had to be reviewed in such ways. Would journalists stand for it - say with a new DS game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno about that. I reckon you could do a perfectly fine review of GTAIV if you've spent 11 hours playing it with the purpose of review in mind. You play, like 9 hours of story, fuck about for two hours on optional side stuff and the sandbox and you've seen, like, 90% of what the game's got to show you (in terms of mechanics, action, etc.)

And for something like, say, Haze, 11 hours is enough to have finished the whole game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always pity those that review FF games, I mean how the hell can they go into any depth and hit a deadline? A quick playthrough will take you the best part of 70 hours!

I assume they've been playing the Japanese version in the (often numerous months) it usually takes to get an English language release....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.