Jump to content
IGNORED

Latest gamesTM scores


Swainy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have no wish to "do a cacky" so I'll be keeping my opinions on sales to myself.

It doesn't change the basic idea of targeting your content at your readership though. I don't understand why you find this so hard to understand or appreciate. Surely you choose which media to read based on your ideas of what they represent? I'm just representing.

Go on Smith. Go full on robot erection Cacky bat shit crazy on us. Become the robot clubfooted moster from a distopian robot future on us and vent your words of mech binary power on us.

Eject from your job, like a wounded but courageous Optimus Prime pilot in the face of superior Decepti-mechas in a blaze of forum glory. Imortalise yourself once and for all an tell me how I shouldn't like Zoids, ED209 or that big red and white jet Transformer becasue they are not the product of some crazy ass Japanese girl robot pant nightmare. Do it. DO IT YOU WANKER. DO IT NOW.

I need to feel you crying and bashing your keyboard into your face in a vengful 1980s disco robot syle dance of hate. DO IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that if NTSC review the US version of Sudeki, it will likely give it a lesser score because it originated in Blighty?

It may be naive, but I've always gone with the a good game is a good game is a good game.

As do we. We review the game from the region of origin where possible, as we want to get the review out there for the early adopters and importers. This is only altered if A) The game is unplayable in its native language, and/or B ) The game is unlikely to/definitely won't get a release in another region.

Case in point, my Katamari Damashii review for the site. At time of writing, it was impossible to know if such an oblique title would get released outside of Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go on Smith. Go full on robot erection Cacky bat shit crazy on us. Become the robot clubfooted moster from a distopian robot future on us and vent your words of mech binary power on us.

Eject from your job, like a wounded but courageous Optimus Prime pilot in the face of superior Decepti-mechas in a blaze of forum glory. Imortalise yourself once and for all an tell me how I shouldn't like Zoids, ED209 or that big red and white jet Transformer becasue they are not the product of some crazy ass Japanese girl robot pant nightmare. Do it. DO IT YOU WANKER. DO IT NOW.

I need to feel you crying and bashing your keyboard into your face in a vengful 1980s disco robot syle dance of hate. DO IT.

lmao.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no wish to "do a cacky" so I'll be keeping my opinions on sales to myself.

It doesn't change the basic idea of targeting your content at your readership though. I don't understand why you find this so hard to understand or appreciate. Surely you choose which media to read based on your ideas of what they represent? I'm just representing.

I appreciate the concept of different writing styles for different audiences. deep, not so deep, more pictures, verbose, no problem at all.

BUT, however the review is written, the one constant is the game, in that it hasn't changed at all. the only reason there should be for major differences in the conclusion as to whether it's any good or not in the review is because different people wrote the reviews, but because what's been written is what the writer thinks the reader wants to hear.

erm, that last bit made more sense in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So should a film reviewer who enjoys this film, in a review it for The Sun, simply argue that it's a load of old foreign rubbish? Because what if there are Sun readers out there who might actually like it? I read The Sun occasionally. Should my tastes be excluded from their reviews because they might differ from the 'average' Sun reader (whatever that is)?

If you are reading the Sun as a guide as to what to see at the cinema, then you're reading the wrong paper for your tastes. It isn't really aimed at you.

I recall they loved 'Lord of the Rings' as well.

Edit: The sun wouldn't review 'Three Colours Blue' in the first place anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are reading the Sun as a guide as to what to see at the cinema, then you're reading the wrong paper for your tastes. It isn't really aimed at you.

I recall they loved 'Lord of the Rings' as well.

Edit: The sun wouldn't review 'Three Colours Blue' in the first place anyway.

Ouch!

That was so far below the belt you're practically biting his ankles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not get your readers to write your reviews?

Readers come with agendas and biases though. It would be like the tail wagging the dog.

Pychologically speaking you purchase a magazine because you believe that the staff are more informed than you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Readers come with agendas and biases though. It would be like the tail wagging the dog.

Pychologically speaking you purchase a magazine because you believe that the staff are more informed than you are.

On a serious note I'd like to add that some of the journalistic power, derived from access to information about games, has been diminished by this here intraweb. People now think they know as much as the people reviewing games but fail to acknowledge the access writers have to creatives and other industry types to inform their views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a serious note I'd like to add that some of the journalistic power, derived from access to information about games, has been diminished by this here intraweb. People now think they know as much as the people reviewing games but fail to acknowledge the access writers have to creatives and other industry types to inform their views.

On the other hand, there are a fair few journalists that are writers first and gamers second. Doesn't necessarily make their reviews any worse (consider 1. the aforementioned perspective that comes from not being immersed in a given genre and 2. a better writer might be able to give a better account of the game, their opinions about it aside), it's just a fact that the typical pay for a review probably isn't enough for to justify researching as deeply as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are reading the Sun as a guide as to what to see at the cinema, then you're reading the wrong paper for your tastes. It isn't really aimed at you.

The Sun is fiction, its a sensationalised comic. For me, its LOTR reviews were part of the money making process for the film.

People read the review, get excited and feel good about the 'product', buy the same paper all of the next week collecting tokens for the 'making of' DVD, then spend money seeing the damn thing. After 6 months the DVD comes out, Woolworths and co spend thousands in newspaper advertising their pre-order campaigns (get a lousy free keyring for committing your 20 quid to them). Everybody wins. The dole money of the masses has been extracted by another average film and the cycle begins again.

Edit: i forgot to add my point. No review is a pure unblemished guide. They all have ulterior motives to some degree. Everyone wants to sell mags / papers etc. If Edge said absolutely everything was shit then they would go out of business. Hang on..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, there are a fair few journalists that are writers first and gamers second. Doesn't necessarily make their reviews any worse (consider 1. the aforementioned perspective that comes from not being immersed in a given genre and 2. a better writer might be able to give a better account of the game, their opinions about it aside), it's just a fact that the typical pay for a review probably isn't enough for to justify researching as deeply as possible.

Good point, in fact I imagine the overwhelming majority fall into that category. Being a 'fan' can cloud your judgment and colour your views. I admit I want to tell the world to play VF4: Evo and I have a pretty damn good knowledge of the game but that really fucks up my ability to relate it to our readers, most of whom have little or no knowledge, nor the same motivations to play.

So far as I can tell, greater research - more facts - would mean very little to the average punter. From what little information is available, what they want from the magazine is to be told what to think, what opinions to have. Big games are big news. They have big advertising spends and are big events in gamer's lives. To have a bit more information means you have a bit more power. We are in effect a blagger's guide and I'd say that goes for every specialist magazine out there.

That's a sweeping statement and only relevant to some of the people, some of the time but the kid that reads OXM or C+VG or Games TM or Edge is the kid who knows that bit more in the playground discussion, no matter how old that kid is. If he has a ready supply of information and opinion, he feels in control of the subject and it makes him feel good. That, I believe, is an important part of making a successful magazine.

As no opinion can ever be right, defensible and comfortable are all anyone can ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you are not altering your opinion for your readership, merely how you express it? Your opinion on a niche title you like may be easily expressed to the crowd who know the market but to the sun readers (or who ever doesn´t know the games or may have a certain bias towards it) you need to substantially change you language.

"Playing matchmaker" as such seems to be to be totally comprimising yourself. It´s not a review by you the games journalist then, rather just you saying in your head "I´m not to fond of this but the clowns reading this will be", and that´s insulting to your readership. This is the big difference between explaining your opinion in a way your readership can understand and changing your opinion or reasons for liking the game.

Journalists should make every effort to make an opinion on a game then express it in a way the readers understand rather than making an opinion in the roleplay of a reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This current tangent of the debate has been produced due to the differences between my two reviews. Bear in mind that both were edited, so I think you are reading considerably more into what's going on here (on this particular facet of the discussion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This current tangent of the debate has been produced due to the differences between my two reviews. Bear in mind that both were edited, so I think you are reading considerably more into what's going on here (on this particular facet of the discussion).

Don't worry about it.

There's something more fundamental being discussed than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Playing matchmaker" as such seems to be to be totally comprimising yourself. It´s not a review by you the games journalist then, rather just you saying in your head "I´m not to fond of this but the clowns reading this will be", and that´s insulting to your readership. This is the big difference between explaining your opinion in a way your readership can understand and changing your opinion or reasons for liking the game.

Yeah, that's the point I was making. By all means ignore games that you think you readership won't like, but don't mark it up simply because you think they'll like it. OPM started that shitty trend with constant 10/10's for progressively worse Tomb Raiders and then the Enter the Matrix 'debacle' where everyone thought it was pretty rubbish, but were too weak to say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can feel my legs going!!!

I'm getting a bit of willful misinterpretation and "magazeenz suxxor" here.

I'm not talking about the quality of the game, the stuff that can be measured in some empirical way, I'm talking about the nebulous, subjective stuff.

Most, if not all magazines are buyer's guides, so when you recommend a game, you have to be pretty sure that you are making the right recommendation for your readers. That means recommending things they won't have considered sometimes, but it also means understanding where games fit into their lives and what they want out of games. Changing language, tone etc to fit an audience is a given but when it comes to saying "should you spend your money on this thing?" you have to take into account what your audience's needs and desires are. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and irresponsible with their money.

It's not roleplaying either. A magazine aims itself at a particular market, who actually reads it is a different matter. You pitch your content at your target and let the punter's decide how to interpret it.

That's how I see it anyway. If a game's well designed and well made, I say so. If it's fun, I might not. Fun is subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cacky.

Get over yourself.

:(

I think you are attributing an aspect to my character that isn't there.

It's a moot discussion in the context of this thread, because the reviews I wrote weren't pitched at different readers. However, many reviewers don't do this and it does require discussion. Just do that in a separate thread is all I am asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark - we're not arguing over that point, so clearly our wires are crossed somewhere along the line, bceause of COURSE reviews are subjective! All reviews aren't equal or other such rubbish.

but to find out if we are or not - here's a simple question:

say, for example, someone had to review Enter the Matrix and they thought it was rubbish. Would they

a/ say so, or

b/ give it a good high score anyway because, hey, it's not all bad, and the audience will like it because they liked the films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark - we're not arguing over that point, so clearly our wires are crossed somewhere along the line, bceause of COURSE reviews are subjective! All reviews aren't equal or other such rubbish.

but to find out if we are or not - here's a simple question:

say, for example, someone had to review Enter the Matrix and they thought it was rubbish. Would they

a/ say so, or

b/ give it a good high score anyway because, hey, it's not all bad, and the audience will like it because they liked the films.

I'd say something like, it's quite flawed, but if you're a big fan give it a try.

Surely that's OK? I mean some people got enjoyment out of it due to the story.

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.