After awhile it seems like no one really cares to talk about key aspects in games. For the most part it seems like people have gone post-professional reviews thanks to the internet's availability of that said information alongside of user reviews on forums. However, the quality in these "reviews" is still inadequate--a review should give me a good idea whether I want to play or avoid a game.

This is what passes as a game review now (due to lack of challenge being applied to being a game reviewer), here is a recent Sin & Punishment: Star Successor review:

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/25/sin-a … #continued

This last paragraph is the only paragraph that hints towards being a review. Every statement is banal and makes no effort to give even an impression of what I would consider a developed paragraph as opposed to random factoids thrown one right after another into a paragraph. I really wanted him to actually write something worth reading.

This is not a review. It has no critical aspect to it. The "reviewer" is simply saying "this is what's in the game, I have no real critique on that aspect of the game, and I want this, but I am sure as hell not going to explain why." He sure didn't need to play the game to barf out this crap. This is personal blog-inspired filth. I've seen better reviews of games in youtube comments.

What we can all take from this is that you should avoid writing things that make you look stupid. The atmosphere the community should have towards reviewers doesn't have to be one of "one mistake deaths" to improve quality, but--although that will produce some of the best--one where a quality review is to be admired, praised, and worth producing. The Penny Arcade forums have this shit op'd as a humorous review. If only the reviewer wanted to be laughed at. The real irony is that the word "decadence" is used positively to describe this game. Decadence is in the game though.

The hopes of the world set up to be destroyed? Let's hope not.

You're wasting your time.

Your message is very vague.

I don't know if this is what Zane meant, but part of the problem with reviewing games are the constraints of time. Look into game journalists' personal blogs and you might see complaints about having to race through 40-hour games intended to be played for atmosphere and at a more deliberate pace. Somebody who plays, say, Yoshi's Island just to finish it will almost certainly have a very different view of the game than someone who gets 100%, extra stages included. But reviewers don't often get that luxury. This could probably be alleviated if reviewers re-reviewed games six months later after some perspective, but who has that kind of time?
The second, larger problem is that games are perhaps the most subjective of all modern media, simply because the quality of the experience depends on the person playing it. For my part, I am a complete FPS rookie, though almost every review written is speaking directly to people who have been playing them for a decade or more. In my case, a 'perfect 10' review of the latest Call of Duty is completely weightless, because the entire genre is like a foreign language to me. Conversely, I kind of marvel when I read reviews that talk about the 'blistering difficulty' of Megaman 9, a game I cleared without much trouble, but that's because I play those games all the time. How much frustration does someone absorb before it manifests in the subtraction of review score? Who knows?

It makes much more sense to speak with friends, watch gameplay videos and try a demo or two firsthand to get a better impression of a game in the first place. I've had more fun with some games that have gotten 6s or worse in the press than award-festooned critical darlings. I realize this approach does nothing to fix the problems you see in the mainstream, but my point is rather that those problems cannot be fixed for those reasons. There are lazy reviewers out there, make no mistake (remember the guy who got pilloried for writing a seething review of Sonic Unleashed when when XBox Live profile revealed he'd barely played through half of the game?), but the best analysis of a game comes afterward and from all sides, and hoping for that same insight to come from the rushed perspective of a tired gamer, with potentially completely-different ideas of what makes an ideal game, is like asking for the moon.

This reminds me of the (now defunct) Playstation Magazine's review of Wild Arms 4. I'll freely admit the game wasn't great or good (I'd say fair to mediocre) but the whole review was basically why the RPG world didn't need the series anymore (as if all of Square-Enix's games are as bright and shiny as they use to be) but very little on the game itself. I'll admit I'm kind of glad Wild Arms appears to be done (haven't like one since the PS1 days) but I didn't consider that write-up informative in the least.

Edit: I don't even read game mags anymore, not since I quit getting Gamepro ten years ago back when it was more than fifty pages long. I'd honestly rather read player reviews.

I think the larger point I am trying to make is: why settle for less from people? There are reasons and then there are excuses.

So reviews suffer because of not having an adequate amount of time to form an opinion (and comparison) of the quality of the game. The question becomes what amount of time should be put into coming up with an adequate review, not who has that kind of time. Who has that kind of time--the reviewer should have the kind-of time to save us time finding "good" games to play because they've played a bunch of games to draw comparisons from.

True, but that doesn't mean we should not have an opinion on it. It also doesn't mean that we should in any way try to cover the game "objectively" as if our opinion does not matter--the expert's opinion who we hold so dear to review anything matters a lot.

Clearly that person was not an expert like you are at playing Megaman games. Your review of 9 would be more valuable. Seeing as you have played these games a lot, you can offer a great comparison to others who follow the series on what to expect (pros and cons).

The reason this happens is because the press does not have any quality of an expert reviewer. Even if they did, they often, as you said, are forced to compromise the quality of their review by churning out what one could consider "impressions" of the game.

If the guy was an expert at Sonic or whatever genre Unleashed is, he would not have to play through the entire game to know it was shit. There is only so much garbage one can shove down ones' throat before throwing up. Now if he started making up facts about the game as if he had played the whole game (like EGM did saying you only used a certain visor once in Metroid Prime 2:Echoes), that's a problem.

Well, it comes from experts; who could be on both sides, sure.

A tired gamer now? If only these reviewers would focus on playing one game and tiring themselves out to that and not six or seven titles in a month like game magazines do. I don't think joystiq has their reviewers trying to pump out that much quantity of reviews per person on their staff. So, unless I am wrong on that one (possinbly), they're running out of excuses.

An ideal game is simply a game that satisfies the person playing it. That's why we value people like you who play all the Megaman games and can give us valuable opinions about the whole series, and then the newest game that comes out. The big debate is on what makes a better game in the genres though.

I'm not asking for anything really. I am telling certain people that their reviews suck and that I expect more from "professionals". Like I said, that "reviewer" couldn't even label his title right (he wrote a wikipedia entry, not a review), so he suffers tremendously in clarity from that start.

Magazines did this shit all the time. Another example was EGM talking about how Resident Evil 4 couldn't save the Gamecube in an RE4 review? Really? Does that have anything to do with the quality of Resident Evil 4?

I think we all get out of magazines because we start to realize they aren't writing for us anymore. We start off thinking they have a good grasp on games, but we end up getting revealing information on their reviewing process (i.e. Dan Shoe from EGM reviewing Ikaruga for "casual gamers", and not himself or people who have interest in STG--people who are usually good and don't get caught whining about difficulty--that may want to play it and value expert opinion from STG pros). Why bother reading something somebody wrote when all they do is whore themselves out for money by selling out to the "Playstation Era"/"3D Era" crowd?

It comes down to:
(1) Why would someone who is good at playing certain games care to read a review (to figure out what other games similar to the games they like) that contains the following:

(A) A shitty reviewer (who hides behind fluff and fancy wording) that doesn't have the insight of a professional reviewer in the genre of those certain games/series.

(B) A target audience for others who are not good at those certain games and do not value them as much (i.e. NOT YOU)

Well, prepare to be disappointed by the entire world population.

You're wanting to hold people responsible for their integrity over something as trivial as GAMES?  How about expecting quality and integrity in areas that are vastly more important like government, education, health care, etc.

Those things affect people's LIVES, gaming reviews and gaming magazines don't mean SHIT to anyone.

Yea. I know what an ideal is...and delusion. I just want people to know the difference between people who chatter about a subject (i.e. journalists & most people working for the game industry) and reviewers.

I'm not sure if pointing out a need for higher quality in game reviews should malign me with ignoring world crisis'. Should it?

What you are talking about is exactly what I am doing here: holding people to certain standards that are beneficial to the community.

So you're on a life mission to label people using shiny badges that say either "I'm a Journalist!" or "I'm a Reviewer!".  Because making sure people know the classification between the two will make life so much better.

It would make lives better for those who value game reviews: to be able to see through people hiding behind an image of a reviewer to people who are actually good at reviewing; i.e. the real reviewers. It also would make aware to the people reviewing said games the value we give their words based on their expertise.

I don't think this is trivial shit. I am posting in a forum specifically about games. It's not like I am taking this issue to G20 or something.

Even gamers don't care about game reviews, this IS trivial shit.

Gamers don't care about game reviews? I guess all those reviews in gaming magazines were never read. I guess IGN and such doesn't get hits on their webpages of shitty reviews about GodHand. I guess that the press doesn't have any impact on the market...

gamers are BORED, that's what gets a website hits.

LOLOLOL

Okay. They don't want to see, care about, or read reviews. They just go ahead and click "GodHand Review by Idiot #1" because that is a subject that disinterests them so much that they proceed to spend an exorbitant amount of time bitching about the score and reviewer from that review to their friends on forums. All in the name of "indifference".

All in the name of bordom.
They want Entertainment, they're not seeking a world of pure truths where liars or idiots can't get in.

I dunno, dude. It just seems like someone complaining about how they don't like some/most/all video game reviews is a waste of time. Every asshole with a computer is writing reviews about something or is polluting cyberspace with pointless posts or thoughts (myself very much included) and you're not going to agree with all of them. You're not going to agree with most of the styles of the reviews, or the main/moot points, or the results, or the vagueness about certain things or whatever. They're just reviews written by ordinary people just like us who all like different shit. Granted, if you're going to be purchasing a car you might want to get some in-depth reviews about the vehicle (Are the brakes going to shit out when I'm going 70 down a highway? No? OK, good.), but when it comes to games the best way to see if you're going to like the game is to play it.

Or, more eloquently:

Yeah, that. File my post under "just an asshole with a computer" and SonicPanda's under "pretty damn relevant".

One minor addition: Kickbacks from game companies make just about everything the majority of reviews (especially overly positive ones) say meaningless anyway. Even if it's not exactly "here's 10,000 smackers...no less than a 9.5/10 and don't mention the lousy framerate", it might hurt the reviewer's site or magazine for future coverage of games from the company or publisher. Imagine a site giving FFXIII a negative review and then getting shut out of future SE games. Very possible. With the cost of games as large as they are, I tend to trust word of mouth reviews or forum posts much more than most publications (online or print) before I drop $$$ on the game.

One of the worst and most blatant examples was around the time that Final Fantasy Anthology came out to near-perfect reviews (particularly thinking of EGM). I swear: Absolutely no mention of the horrible emulation, mangled music and the loading times that rendered even FFVI almost totally unplayable. Just a bunch of "OMFG, you gotta play these games!" without mentioning the crippled state they were in.

Reviews are just opinions. Expert or not doesn't really matter. The only opinion that matters to me is my own and I can form it with or without the assistance of reviews. As others have mentioned, friends and word of mouth are much more meaningful sources to me than professional reviews. And even then I have no problem writing off the advice of those around me. After all, the only one who can tell me what I will or will not like is me.

I would agree that there are a lot of poorly written reviews out there. That's not the reason I ignore them though and making them better wouldn't change anything. In fact, listening to an "expert" tell me why I should like a game would just offend me and drive me further away.

I don't think we need higher quality reviews. Theres a plethora of sites I go to like RPGFan or N-Sider or RPGamer that write pretty decent reviews. Its up to the consumer whether or not they actually believe the person who is reviewing the game. As soon as someone plays a game that got a high score on a reviewing site and thinks it sucks, the reviewers credibility to that person is kind of ruined. Why would they listen to someone who was wrong about their opinion. Thats what a review is regardless if its bankrolled from the publisher or not. Sure someone paid them to alter an opinion but again bring out your salt shaker. Guess what I love NieR. I don't know how many places told me not to get it but I got it anyways and enjoyed it because I know myself better than the writer. I did the same thing with Golden Axe Beast Rider. Magazines really thrive on the editorials. Thats the most interesting part of it. Then out of curiosity you can read the reviews, You don't have to draw your conclusion from them but if you find a reviewer you like you might be able to. Ultimately I enjoy others opinions which is why this site is so wonderful. I liked comparing my tastes to Angela's in the SS4 soundtrack thread. I love to read about the latest opinion on recent movies or the latest criticisms of CastleVania from Ashley and Daniel K.

Stop taking reviews to heart and carry a salt shaker. There is nothing wrong with reviews. Only the perception. Just like the soundtrack review thread please show me what a review is supposed to be for games. You could write it yourself or you could link me. I'm curious to see what your ideal review is.

Me too. I love reading what people think on these boards; I still dislike Deadly Premonition, and so did a large portion of the sites that reviewed it but reading Amazingu and Miker's thoughts on the game let me know there was more to it than I thought, so I know it's not a "bad" game.

By asking people with sensibilities similar to mine, I get a much more valuable opinion, which is why I never mind it when someone makes a thread on STC like "Hey, how is this game?". I asked around with the original Yakuza when it first hit, which is when I started to ignore reviews.

Bullshit. BULLSHIT. Only the perception? How I perceive the quality of the review? As if the review is entirely subjective and cannot itself be critiqued. Did you not the first post of this thread?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sour … =&gs_rfai=

Would you say such an absurdity to a teacher telling them that the paper you turned in on that review of Sony products wasn't the complete shit they thought it was and that there was nothing wrong with it. It all is only a mere perception. Do you know how childish that sounds?

So I now live in a world where there is no such thing as a better review. Every review we read is the same. They're all equal. You might as well not even read more than one because god help you if you start drawing comparisons on how well the author knows the subject.

Ideal reviews are on the website I promised not to push on here again (see: insomnia). I can't really think of any other website that demands a high quality review standard like that one. As for my own review, you'll have to wait on the ideal RE4 review. Despite what seems like the majority's refusal to acknowledge people who put more time and effort into making better reviews than the dogshit out there, I will still post my review of RE4 on this site.

Edit: Note that I talk about review of VIDEO GAMES, not VIDEO GAME SOUNDTRACKS. Why? Because talking solely about music is entirely different than talking about a video game. Even music reviews are helpful when people who follow say ambient music for 20+ years offer advice on what ambient albums newcomers should try out. What you all don't get is that you are devaluing human judgment by equating expert opinion to any random jackass out there.

This shit needs to end. If it doesn't end, then anyone can say whatever bogus comment they want and not have to verify or back it up. We'll be flooded in a never-ending torrent of "youtube depth" reviews all of which are infallible. Any game or game review or music review that exists isn't bad (worse) or good (better); they are all the same. Let us not offer any critique on them at all. If you do not like the game do not explore reasons why and explain them; do not bother to waste our time writing in detail expressing flaws or successes in the product. Any gibberish written down and called a review is a review of the same quality as any other reviews out there, which are all worthless and trivial. We must only accept the idiotic stage where people say "that's what I believe" back-and-forth.

I can't even say you guys are nihilists or anything because it's clear that you already value certain peoples' reviews over others. Could that not in fact be a value judgment on the expertise or similarities shared with a group on what makes up an enjoyable products? I think so.

No discussion of criminally misleading reviews is complete without mentioning how reviews of Knights of the Old Republic 2 neglected to mention that the game was released in a half-finished state.  Instead of reviewing the game as it was, reviewers imagined the game that might have been had it not been rushed and wrote their reviews based on this fiction.

This is not to mention the whole Kane & Lynch fiasco involving Gamespot firing an employee because of his less than stellar review of said game.

I was gonna list this one but you beat me to it. It was a real telling event.

No. Here is where you are wrong. After reading a couple of reviews from one person I believe you can safely assume whether or not this person is worth reading the opinion from. The person who wrote the review has their own purpose as to why they wrote the review whether it be for fun, for money or even out of boredom. Pay attention. Most reviews are trash although even the bad ones have utilitarian purposes. Maybe its the voice in the paper or the way their feelings are conveyed but even bad reviews can strike a chord with people.

At this point this is kind of mindless bitching. I apparently have to check out this insomnia place now because apparently it has the mecca of reviews in its stockpile. Game reviews in their entirety are flawed to begin with. A scoring system is useless. You assign a point value to something that inherently is supposed to mean how good or bad that portion of the game is. Gimme a break. Instead to form a real opinion from a review it would be more beneficial to hook into the words that are being said as opposed to a bullshit numerical value.

Yeah it is the perception. I did read your argument and a need to make things better is admirable but obviously there are reviews that are worth a damn. I cite insomnia for you. If this is the case they have your readership/web traffic. You clearly enjoy this place. When I read Game Informer I like to read Andy McNamara, I read a lot of Shoe on EGM, I stay away from Bozon on IGN but I loved Matt Casamassina. He was such a cynical bastard for everything on the Wii but when he did praise something it was definitely of note.

Filter out the bad much like you would a Mature game to a 6 year old kid. There is more than enough quality reviews, you just need to find them. Maybe you can convince those insomnia guys to cover everything you like so you wouldn't have to worry about other reviews.

As for the school teacher thing.......really? In an academic environment things like standards are set and in order to get a grade you conform to those standards. Its all about giving the teacher what they want. This logic applies to gaming mags too but its not a scholastic environment. Obviously the standards are different and acceptable for whomever they are being paid by. Don't ask for better reviews, just go find them. They are around, maybe on someones wordpress or something.

Lol, oh yeah...I had forgotten about that one because that fiasco effectively wiped Gamespot from my collective memory. Talk about blatant.

Edit: Can I prop Vert1 for NOT linking to any Insomnia articles in the life of this terrible thread, tempting as it might be. I'm sure they probably have dozens that are relevant to the topic at hand.

And that about sums it up. Ironically enough, you're complaining about reviews that don't live up to your standards of a site that has reviews that most people like to complain about because most people think that site kind of sucks. Mirrors facing mirrors. From an asshole with a computer and an internet connection, I'd like to say that pretty much proves everything you're seeking to prove right there. If you don't like a review about something, go write one of your own. Or don't. That said, my review of this thread is a 4/10, and those four points go to Idolores for reasons that I am going to omit from my review. [sentence deleted]. And also, [phrase deleted]. I took one point off of my total score for STC's f---ing swear filter, but the music that came from my iTunes while I was reading the thread was awesome so I'm going to give the soundtrack a 10/10 even though it kind of sounds just like the Chrono Cross soundtrack.

It's times like these that I hope I don't think back on right before my death and realize that I could have spent the last few minutes cuddling with my cat or telling my girlfriend that I love her or making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to give to homeless people that can't afford food, never mind a computer and an internet bill so they can go online and read stupid reviews.

That paragraph you took an excerpt from was a text wall of sarcasm.

The thread has managed to accomplish something. It was worth making.

This is partially right. Words can determine how a reviewer feels about the subject and very important. However, the score at the end of the review is the conclusion the reviewer reaches, which is also very important. It provides you information on what games the reviewer values more than others without having to read every review; it saves you time.

My whole thread is about reviews that are worth a damn. My sarcasm was an example I used to show you the absurdity of certain peoples' arguments.

I hope that's not the guy who thought Paper Mario:TTYD was too kiddy and that somehow made it into a poorly made game in it's genre.

I threw out all my EGM magazines, so I can't really recall much of the silliness Shoe wrote. I have already discussed the way he reviews games as a poor choice and disservice to him and his readers.

It should be expected that insomnia guys can't cover everything. I want to see more places become like insomnia in the review department. That is value judgment that I will be most willing to defend.

The point of that was to show you that telling the teacher "their perception" being different than yours is not a valid excuse on a poorly written review getting a good grade (not a bad grade).

From what I remember typing, I never asked for anything. I just destroyed a review in my first post and told other people that higher standards are desirable for reviews. You are right about there being different standards; the standards are the reason that people are being turned off from video game reviews.

I have read countless opinions on that site. Most people who complain about that site do not write detailed reviews of it. They simply post "this site sucks" "this guy is an asshole" etc. You can always expect comments like that for anything; as you said, every idiot has a mouthpiece on the internet.

An example of a poor review.

Another poor review. How does it sound like Chrono Cross soundtrack? The melodies, timbres, bpms, what? Again, this isn't a thread about game music.

I wish you could have done that too. I don't want people who think what they are writing is waste of time posting in this thread.

No one in their right mind would waste keystrokes writing a detailed review of the Insomnia site, when they can simply take chunks of text and let the world bathe in the idiocy contained within. Observe (flashback a few months):

I guess I shall demonstrate why such a thing is idiotic. Instead of going back to that thread where I opted out due to the wall of ignorance thrown at me, I will simply show you some list I made up.

My list of the best 10 games from 2000-2010:

(1) Resident Evil 4
(2) Super Smash Brothers Melee
(3) F-Zero GX
(4) Ninja Gaiden 2
(5) God Hand
(6) Astro Boy: Omega Factor
(7) Super Mario Strikers
(8) Resident Evil (GC)
(9) Killer 7
(10) Mushihimesama Futari 1.5

This list's number 1 game of that decade is Resident Evil 4. In order for this list to be of any value, I would have to demonstrate why Resident Evil 4 is the best game out of those top 10; I would have to be able to tell other people that play action games why it is better than Splinter Cell, Gears, Max Payne, Metal Arms, etc.; and let's not forget those thousands of other video games in the decade.

The process would start off like this: I would have to play all those other games in the genre to create a review for them all to draw comparisons with. I would also have to tell my audience why the third-person shooter genre makes a better game than a fighting game genre. In other words, I would have to come up with some criteria for why I prefer Resident Evil 4 over Super Smash Brothers Melee. I have indeed tried to do this. It ends in horrible failure. Now imagine I like games based on how many hours the game lasts without the game looping. Or that I like games that are notoriously hard in their genres. Do you not see how that complicates my list generating process? Also note the lack of games from various genres. Why are these absent games (ultimately genres) not top 10 material?; so, I would then have to explain why rhythm games, puzzle games, jrpg games, RTS games, etc. are worse than the above games.

The reason I don't value any retard listing off "best ever" lists is because they don't understand the huge statement they are making with those lists. It takes a lot of chutzpah to tell someone that Super Smash Brothers Melee is a better fighting game than every Guilty Gear, Street Fighter, Tekken, Dead or Alive, King Of Fighters, PowerStone, Mortal Kombat, etc. if you haven't played all those games. It also would require that I prove I have developed enough skill in each one to get the best (enjoyability in advanced play) out of their fighting game systems. I consider myself an expert in the Smash Brothers series, but the whole f---ing fighting game genre? Just thinking about being an expert in all the games is overwhelming.

A list of this kind is a GIANT REVIEW of EVERY GAME MADE IN 10 YEARS. That is why you won't read a "best ever" list from me. Even a list of my top 10 favorite games of 2000-2010 would be extremely challenging for me to articulate. That list would free me from saying "all these games are better", but it still would be a hell of a challenge. If it is not a challenge to you, then you must really have great insight into what makes a better game (more favorable game) to you and be a good reviewer.

What is sad about Insomnia is that they do make some good points, but it is how they are written that makes them worthless even when the reader AGREES with them! The writer of said article just sounds like a jaded gamer who lived in an abusive household and whose favorite games are usually left off the popular lists (and his least favorite are ALWAYS included) instead of someone trying to make a legitimately critical statement about top ten lists. It's literally a trailer-park trash haven for opinions on gaming.

I think classic Gamefan probably came closest to getting hype/negativity and well-written and useful decision-making information right.

There is nothing trailer-trash about that website. I don't even understand how you could type such words. For the record: I have never seen anyone correct him on anything he has written (logic stuff, not silly typos); in fact, I have only seen him correct himself once in the entire forum. People think that they can "get back" at him directly; that is a big delusion.

I also am confused on how you can write that he does not offer legitimate criticism of "top 10" lists when I just demonstrated to you how the article he wrote makes sense. He debunked 99% of "top 10" lists in the video game industry with one article. The internet is filled with so much shit lists that I suspect he has given up on trying to find them--he is gathering up lists of best games in certain genres in a forum on his website by asking for expert opinion.

This is a pretty bold statement. Saying something is worthless from insomnia requires more than a mere sentence though.

The site provides us with great reviews. A tough boss with well-trained soldiers.

This, at least, is something we can agree on.

I intensely dislike making Top 10 lists for the same reasons.
I can easily name 10 games that I really really like, and that provided me with some of my most cherished gaming-related memories, but I refuse to make a "proper" top 10, because it would be meaningless.

And this is why I will never take anything else you'll ever say seriously.

I brought a very valid and legitimate opinion into the discussion, but just because YOU did not agree and are evidently completely unable to accept other people's views, you "opted out" because of what you call ignorance.

I can honestly and truely say, that, for what it's worth (which isn't much), I have rarely felt as insulted by any comment on any Internet forum as by that particular comment of yours.

You have made it clear that you like your games hard, which is perfectly fine, but to insinuate that THAT is where games draw their sole raison d'etre from and that therefore people who do NOT play games for the challenge (*gasp!*) are somehow retarded/ignorant and not worth discussing with is something I find extremely offensive.

I don't remember what you said. I remember most of the comments being one sentence replies laughing at the article linked. I found that offensive. If you didn't say anything ignorant, than I wasn't referring to you.

Please don't bring up stuff from another thread that is off-topic. I am writing an article that talks about difficulty that you will like and we can discuss it with all the harshness you want when I post it.