Support NeoGAF

[SneakyStephan]

If you hate game reviewing, and 100% expect to disagree with them, and have low expectations...why are you in the review thread, reading every review that comes out and arguing about it?

It's a baffling use of time to me.

I came here to see if the controls were fixed, if there were locked framerate issues (no 75 hz support like bioshock before patch 1.1) , if the gameplay was any different from the other ones, if the savesystem still uses the vita chambers and if you can select the fov.

I found answers about the saves and controls and fov from people's impressions (not from reviews) and still no answer for the other two questions.
So yes, you are absolutely right, reviews are a collossal waste of time for me.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I've had the joy and novelty of shooting people in the face beaten out of me by a console generation rife with games about shooting people in the face, so please forgive my skepticism regarding the alleged fun factor of a game that largely consists of shooting people in the face.

Well just a little fyi, just between us guys: there are a lot of shooting people in the face in this game. If you're tired of that, this might not be a game you want to play, no matter how many skyrails and magic powers they throw in.

 

[Tummi Gummi]

Yes. It's fine that you like what you like for the reasons you named.

Hang in there and reach for the stars!

That's exactly why I loved TWD. DESPITE being a shitty excuse for an actual game, and having typical Biowarian "choices and consequences", it was still such an amazing experience that I didn't care.

 

[El_Chino]

So as far as I can tell from reading the reviews, their expectations were too high.

 

[I'm an expert]

Let me elaborate. Half Life 2 is one of my favorite games of all time, but it's not because of the shooting. By all accounts, the shooting in Half Life 2 sucks. But I don't care. The reason is because Half Life 2 had a fantastically imagined world, and a compelling narrative. I see games more as "experiences" rather than games. Does that make sense? This is also why I like games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Skyrim - I like being immersed.

I get it. I loved Journey. I loved the experience. But I'm also of the "Journey is a game" camp. I liked the platforming, I liked the co-op mechanics, I liked actually playing the game. If the game part sucked, the experience is pointless. In the end, I play games to test my skills.. whether it's my brain in solving puzzles or my hands in a fighting game or my reactions in a shooter. My concern is not how people play games, but how people describe games to others. Yes, I'd tell people Journey is an experience, but I'd also tell them why getting a white robe is downright great.

 

[eot]

If the alleged gameplay playing is like BioShock does the person actually claim it plays like BioShock or does it play like his memory of BioShock but had quite some iteration?

I can't make sense of this

 

[Derrick01]

Be thankful people care about your opinion.

Nobody ever asks me what my favorite games are.

Piss enough people off for a long enough time and you'll get dozens of PMs and questions in threads from people who "just want to know" what your favorite games are too.

 

[Revven]

Something something about why x reviews are hyperbolic something something "gaming journalists" need to pull themselves back something something something.

 

[patapuf]

The narcissism in this thread is on another level. Suddenly everyone's credibility is being questioned because they liked the game that much. I don't see the point in getting worked up when 99% of the people in here haven't played it yet, I don't see how anyone is really in a position to refuge anyone's opinion of the game.

Thank you

I don't have a high opinion of game reviews nor am i a fan of hyperbolic language but let's not attack reviewers for liking a game, shallow as it may or may not be.

At this point it's pretty obvious what kind of game Bioshock Infinite is and it seems to do a few things really well. That's all i need from reviews, regardless of how well or badly the game scores.

 

[hawk2025]

His actions are precisely why I always refuse to give a best games list or something similar when people ask me. They're only asking so they scan for something they can say gotcha and throw back in my face to expose me as a hypocrite, or whatever they think they're accomplishing.

So what? You like what you like.

If you enjoy WoW because of some intangible component that made it more fun and more interesting, then that's what you think. Even if it may or may not seem hypocritical, there must have been something about a game's design that made it a great time, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


So someone will come around and say "but you liked Game X!" ...and? Right now, all you are offering are criticisms of videogames with no solid base of comparison.

 

[benny_a]

I can't make sense of this

Same here.

That's exactly why I loved TWD. DESPITE being a shitty excuse for an actual game, and having typical Biowarian "choices and consequences", it was still such an amazing experience that I didn't care.

I wish there was a way to refer to games as something other than games. But "interactive experiences" sounds too douchey.

 

[ThaiGrocer]

Piss enough people off for a long enough time and you'll get dozens of PMs and questions in threads from people who "just want to know" what your favorite games are too.

So serious, haha. They're not death threats, they're inquiries. I need your curation badly. I might have missed out on what a real game is. I'm dead serious about that. GAF is great for getting suggestions since it's impossible to finish every game in existence.

 

[MiamiWesker]

The problem with art is that it's highly subjective. A game reviewer has an inherently different job from a film reviewer because they should cover the objective mechanics more in-depth. With film, you see plenty of reviews cover the mechanical issues, such as special effects, editing, sound design. All of those are mechanical, but are secondary to the movie overall in most cases. With game's the primary interaction with the world is through gameplay, so these mechanics are much more important, to the point where they match or supersede narrative. It's a fine juggling act to get down, balancing artistic assessment with gameplay assessment, and it's one most reviewers fail gloriously.

We have plenty of reviews completely glossing over mechanical strengths and weaknesses in favor of looking at world design, narrative, and theme. And instead of honest, level-headed assessments of these values we have uncomfortable hive-mind fellation like these BioShock Infinite reviews. I would take a review that went in-depth into these areas without out all of the flowery crap that's streaming out the current batch of reviews. But that's generally what I like post-mortems for -- they can cover more intangible aspects of the game after more time has passed for more narrative/artistic/thematic examinations to take hold without hype trains blinding the writer. Reviews published for release should cover the more immediate aspects (gameplay, interface, controls) of the title because they are one of the primary ways of gleaning the potential quality of a title before purchase and play. Let long term examination determine the artistic merit of a title.

Why is the video game industry and fanbase so starved for a game that proves the medium is art? Look at snippets of Sessler's review -- his prose is extremely purple and gets across so little other than to say "BioShock Infinite is a work of art." So what? Anything can be art, from toilets to movies to paintings to games. Save that for the post-mortem. Tell me more about what's good or bad with the design and gameplay first, please.

Very well said.

I am not anti story or anything like that but I like the gameplay to be the focus of any review as ultimately that is why I am playing. I much rather know if the combat is better or worse than Bioshock 1. I want to know if the pacing is improved or the level design as diverse. And yes I hope for a game that is a total package, story and gameplay acting as one. But above all a review needs to convey to me how is the gameplay.

That said I have zero fear about this game as I am sure it will be one of the best games this gen.

 

[Empty]

i'm really looking forward to this but i can't take reviews seriously for this kind of game. always feels to me like reviewers see stuff like this and gta iv - big, well marketed games that have intellectual credibility - as opportunities to validate their career choice so lay on the hyperbole even more than usual.

that said given that lots of people thought this was going to be a disaster for a while when they went dark and loads of key people left, i'm happy to see such a strong positive reaction.

 

[BobTheSpy]

I get it. I loved Journey. I loved the experience. But I'm also of the "Journey is a game" camp. I liked the platforming, I liked the co-op mechanics, I liked actually playing the game. If the game part sucked, the experience is pointless. In the end, I play games to test my skills.. whether it's my brain in solving puzzles or my hands in a fighting game or my reactions in a shooter. My concern is not how people play games, but how people describe games to others. Yes, I'd tell people Journey is an experience, but I'd also tell them why getting a white robe is downright great.

You know what, I actually think I completely agree with you. Cutting zombies in half with a saw thrown by your gravity gun in Half Life 2 was pretty fucking rad, and that's definitely a gameplay thing.

 

[Ithil]

Same here.


I wish there was a way to refer to games as something other than games. But "interactive experiences" sounds too douchey.

Games are games. That's like when novel length comic books are called "graphic novels", when they are literally really long comic books.

Tying down games to one kind of thing seems counterproductive to how big the medium is. That goes both ways.

 

[FartOfWar]

This is, and I'm not kidding, the most helpful review in this thread.

Also based on a few hours of play i'm guessing. Nothing wrong with it, but I'd love to hear if the assessment holds after systems and encounters start becoming complex.

 

[thomasmahler]

The narcissism in this thread is on another level. Suddenly everyone's credibility is being questioned because they liked the game that much. I don't see the point in getting worked up when 99% of the people in here haven't played it yet, I don't see how anyone is really in a position to refuge anyone's opinion of the game.

The problem is that gamers expect more of game journalists. Bioshock is a fine game, but not a 95% worth masterpiece.

I think most people are frustrated with game journalists simply joining the hypetrain and not doing their job. As a developer, I always try to play games with an open eye and usually can relatively easily spot the flaws of a game - Not that this makes it unenjoyable to play, but then reading that the product has no flaws and is just 5% short of perfect is kinda screwed up.

And this isn't the first time this has been happening:

http://www.edge-online.com/review/legend-zelda-skyward-sword-review/2/

Remember this? 10/10, perfect game, 'A triumph', they said. I'm pretty sure it's pretty obvious to everyone out there that Skyward Sword was a very good, but also deeply flawed game. You'd probably think of a 8/10 there. And guess what? If Skyward Sword would've 'only' gotten a 8/10, Nintendo would be FORCED to finally change the formula. But no, 6 months after launch, journalists start complaining about the games they gave perfect scores and Nintendo goes in and does the same thing again, cause 'it worked the last time around'.

And let's look at a crazier example:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/doom-3/critic-reviews

Doom 3. Great looking tech demo, not quite the game anyone was hoping for. Tons of issues and flaws in that one. Look at how many journalists gave the game perfect scores. 94% says PC Gamer.

Assassins Creed 1? Same thing.

Bioshock Infinite is a good game with some really blatant flaws, it's annoying and stupid that game journalists aren't willing to do their job, a job that would help the industry mature and ultimately lead us to make better games. This is also part of the reason why people actually do lose their jobs or studios not able to work on riskier visions. I don't know why it's so bad to have an open, honest, true conversation about a game and look at what it's getting right and what it's getting wrong.

This kind of 'let's hype everything, everything is amazing and we love drinking the kool-aid!' approach to being a critique limits where we could go and ultimately also limits journalists themselves.

 

[MormaPope]

That's exactly why I loved TWD. DESPITE being a shitty excuse for an actual game, and having typical Biowarian "choices and consequences", it was still such an amazing experience that I didn't care.

Er, what?

Most choices in TWD were personality or perception based, they didn't alter the path you went down gameplay wise that much. Bioware games usually are the opposite, where doing good or bad will influence gameplay more than how other characters perceive you or how the player wants to develop the main character's personality.

Besides those things, TWD doesn't have laughingly poor moral choices, you can be a saint and let everything live forever or kill everything and be a badass is what most choices amount to in Bioware games.

 

[captainnapalm]

Making the experience interactive may make it more expensive when it reaches the market (it's more about overbloated budgets and pisspoor management, really) but at the end of the day, there are very few modern video games that successfully argue the value of the medium's artistic elements. BioShock's artistic presentation failed because there was a massive disconnect in its narrative branches in comparison to its gameplay system. For a game that preached so much about choice and objectivism, the ultimate payoff was just like any other video game out there -- your choices don't really matter, here's a boss dude and a CG cutscene. For me, the ride wasn't worth the asking price of sixty dollars, not when the gameplay couldn't meet with the art aspects of BioShock. The aesthetic and atmosphere of BioShock made up a huge portion of its value, no doubt, but that value can only carry it so far if its gameplay mechanisms don't support it.

I never get why people always reduce Bioshock to this choice thing. It was clearly tacked on, Levine said he didn't even want it in there - the higher ups asked him to put it in. The journey itself was far more interesting than the decision you had to make whether or not to save the little sisters. Acting like the entire game lives or dies on the success or payoff from this choice is totally disingenuous.

 

[faceless007]

If all you want to know is how the game fares quantitavely on a checklist of pre-defined bullet points like "graphics" and "shooting mechanics" then what you want isn't a review at all, it's a message board post where someone gives numerical ratings to those things.

A good review of something is more than that; it's an essay that makes an argument and uses the power of rhetoric to do so. Roger Ebert's a great writer, even if you don't agree with him, and his reviews are damn interesting to read even if you have no interest in seeing the movie he's talking about. He doesn't give scores to "cinematography" and "sound mixing," he gives you a holistic take on the reaction the movie evoked in him, why it's valuable (or not) and how it succeeds at its goals, because that's what a good review does.

That's not to say that anyone in game reviewing even remotely approaches that level (indeed, some are trying far too hard to be and falling drastically short). But there are people explicitly saying that that kind of writing serves no purpose, which is wrong. If you don't have any interest in reading that form of critique, then fine, but to act like it's not needed at all is a detriment to the medium and reduces games to freaking Metacritic-level analysis criteria.

 

[I'm an expert]

You know what, I actually think I completely agree with you. Cutting zombies in half with a saw thrown by your gravity gun in Half Life 2 was pretty fucking rad, and that's definitely a gameplay thing.

So yeah, my point is I wish these reviews focused more on that stuff than HOW ALIVE THE NPCS FEEL. Yes, yes.. yawn.

 

[nckillthegrimace]

Well just a little fyi, just between us guys: there are a lot of shooting people in the face in this game. If you're tired of that, this might not be a game you want to play, no matter how many skyrails and magic powers they throw in.

Oh, I know, and it's a shame. I was so excited based on the initial trailer and that recent beach video, but, going by impressions and reviews, those really are not representative of the vast majority of the game. I understand that Irrational can't just make a game where you wander around Columbia and explore, but I still would have at least liked a better balance between shooting people and everything else. Unfortunately, that's not the game Irrational made, so I'd rather briefly lament what could have been instead of wasting money on something I probably will not enjoy. Maybe I'll get it someday when the price goes down.

 

[benny_a]

This kind of 'let's hype everything, everything is amazing and we love drinking the kool-aid!' approach to being a critique limits where we could go and ultimately also limits journalists themselves.

Go in an anticipated game's review thread for a platform exclusive and check the lowest or one of the lower reviews out. It will be more heavily analyzed than PhD dissertations accused of plagiarism.

The audience wants everybody to echo what they already feel until after launch when they had time to play it themselves.

 

[Papercuts]

I never get why people always reduce Bioshock to this choice thing. It was clearly tacked on, Levine said he didn't even want it in there - the higher ups asked him to put it in. The journey itself was far more interesting than the decision you had to make whether or not to save the little sisters. Acting like the entire game lives or dies on the success or payoff from this choice is totally disingenuous.

Bioshock's failings go beyond the little sister harvesting. The pinnacle story point of the game being a cutscene was...such an odd missed opportunity. It practically went completely against what it was saying.

 

[Ithil]

Bioshock's failings go beyond the little sister harvesting. The pinnacle story point of the game being a cutscene was...such an odd missed opportunity. It practically went completely against what it was saying.

Did it? I thought that was exactly what it was saying.

 

[thomasmahler]

The audience wants everybody to echo what they already feel until after launch when they had time to play it themselves.

I call bullshit. I caved and bought Skyward Sword after I heard that EDGE gave it a 10/10 and remember posting in a thread here on GAF about all of its shortcomings that all were blatantly obvious within the first 3-4 hours of playing it.

I would not have bought the game if I would've read an honest review, properly dissecting the experience you'd have playing Skyward Sword. Instead, I read a bunch of heavily biased, insanely distorted 'THIS GAME IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND IS THE PINNACLE OF THE ZELDA SERIES' reviews that made me think that journalists must be on drugs half the time or really, really don't understand a lot about their craft.

Read the Bioshock Spoiler thread - The game is good, but has tons of issues. Nobody points that out and the game gets a 95/100. Good for Irrational and it's good that those guys will most probably get to make their next thing, but journalists are an integral part of shaping the industry and if their whole work is based on hype and lies then where are we going?

 

[StevePharma]

Also based on a few hours of play i'm guessing. Nothing wrong with it, but I'd love to hear if the assessment holds after systems and encounters start becoming complex.

Shawn, just curious, how does it feel to be on the development side now with the release of a big title which you were involved in?

 

[Tummi Gummi]

Er, what?

Most choices in TWD were personality or perception based, they didn't alter the path you went down gameplay wise that much. Bioware games usually are the opposite, where doing good or bad will influence gameplay more than how other characters perceive you or how the player wants to develop the main character's personality.

Besides those things, TWD doesn't have laughingly poor moral choices, you can be a saint and let everything live forever or kill everything and be a badass is what most choices amount to in Bioware games.

It's difficult to bring things up without massive spoilers, but there are multiple situation where you take paths that end up being functionally identical to each other - totally different characters taking on exactly the same role, opposing actions with indistinguishable outcomes, being granted the illusion of choice at certain points and then given no choice at all at others etc etc. I say Biowarian because it's the most famous example of "fake c&c", not because I consider the quality of writing itself to be in parity.

 

[hawk2025]

Bioshock's failings go beyond the little sister harvesting. The pinnacle story point of the game being a cutscene was...such an odd missed opportunity. It practically went completely against what it was saying.

What?

I can't think of another way to do it differently without breaking the game. I don't think it went completely against what it was saying at all. You had illusion of control -- at that point, you realize you have none. It works.


Edited the "fighting words" a bit to make it clear that I can't think of a better way to do it!

 

[Tummi Gummi]

What?

There was literally no way to do it differently without breaking the game.

dem's fighting words!

But I agree, I can't think of a better example of a plot point that's supposed to be communicated via cutscene.

 

[Muffdraul]

The problem is that gamers expect more of game journalists. Bioshock is a fine game, but not a 95% worth masterpiece.

I think most people are frustrated with game journalists simply joining the hypetrain and not doing their job. As a developer, I always try to play games with an open eye and usually can relatively easily spot the flaws of a game - Not that this makes it unenjoyable to play, but then reading that the product has no flaws and is just 5% short of perfect is kinda screwed up.

And this isn't the first time this has been happening:

http://www.edge-online.com/review/legend-zelda-skyward-sword-review/2/

Remember this? 10/10, perfect game, 'A triumph', they said. I'm pretty sure it's pretty obvious to everyone out there that Skyward Sword was a very good, but also deeply flawed game. You'd probably think of a 8/10 there.

And let's look at a crazier example:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/doom-3/critic-reviews

Doom 3. Great looking tech demo, not quite the game anyone was hoping for. Tons of issues and flaws in that one. Look at how many journalists gave the game perfect scores. 94% says PC Gamer.

Assassins Creed 1? Same thing.

Bioshock Infinite is a good game with some really blatant flaws, it's annoying and stupid that game journalists aren't willing to do their job, a job that would help the industry mature and ultimately lead us to make better games. This is also part of the reason why people actually do lose their jobs or studios not able to work on riskier visions. I don't know why it's so bad to have an open, honest, true conversation about a game and look at what it's getting right and what it's getting wrong.

This kind of 'let's hype everything, everything is amazing and we love drinking the kool-aid!' approach to being a critique limits where we could go and ultimately also limits journalists themselves.

This serves as a great example of what I was talking about earlier, i.e. not basing my gaming purchases on the opinions of others.

I didn't wait for reviews to buy Doom 3 or Assassin's Creed or GTA IV. Doom 3 was the first new game in years in one of my favorite franchises. Ditto for GTA IV. Assassin's Creed, actually I was never interested in that game until about a month before it came out and I learned that it wasn't actually set in the 12th century, it actually took place in the near future and involved virtual reality simulations of the 12th century based on genetic memories. When I heard that, I became very interested and decided to buy it.

In all three cases, I decided to buy these games for my own reasons, not because of reviews or what anyone else said about them. In all three cases, when the games came out, I myself loved them and felt as if I was suddenly surrounded by a huge angry mob of gamers who were up in arms about such-and-such supposed egregious flaws, which all somehow happened to be things that didn't bother me at all. If I was a professional reviewer, my reviews probably would have been right in line with all the others who thought they were great games, but were "wrong".

I can't think of an easier way to set yourself up for disappointment than reading a bunch of glowing reviews and setting up a bunch of impossible expectations.

 

[billy beane]

BioShock's biggest problem was the lame ending. God it was bad.

 

[benny_a]

I call bullshit. I caved and bought Skyward Sword after I heard that EDGE gave it a 10/10 and remember posting in a thread here on GAF about all of its shortcomings that all were blatantly obvious within the first 3-4 hours of playing it.

I would not have bought the game if I would've read an honest review, properly dissecting the experience you'd have playing Skyward Sword. Instead, I read a bunch of heavily biased, insanely distorted 'THIS GAME IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND IS THE PINNACLE OF THE ZELDA SERIES' reviews that made me think that journalists must be on drugs half the time or really, really don't understand a lot about their craft.

I'm not saying that the way they are doing it is serving their audience.

But do go into the Luigi's Mansion and God of War Ascension review thread and check what people are saying about the reviews that score the game low.
(I'm not going to go into the BioShock Infinite spoiler thread until I've played the game for myself. I've waited since 2007, I might as well wait 5 more days.)

I was equally failed by the Skyward Sword reviews (And Saints Row The Third, and other games). But based on my readings of the most recent review threads of games I don't anticipate for day1, it does feel that many want everything they think pre-release to be echoed by the reviews.

We've been going this way for a while. Do what I, and many others do. Completely ignore reviews/previews. It's obvious they're useless to the jaded gamer.

Yeah. I'm pretty detached by reviews except to have a general consensus what the industry thinks to have a common point of discussion.
(What the enthusiast press thinks often mirrors what GAF votes for every year.)

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I call bullshit. I caved and bought Skyward Sword after I heard that EDGE gave it a 10/10 and remember posting in a thread here on GAF about all of its shortcomings that all were blatantly obvious within the first 3-4 hours of playing it.

I would not have bought the game if I would've read an honest review, properly dissecting the experience you'd have playing Skyward Sword. Instead, I read a bunch of heavily biased, insanely distorted 'THIS GAME IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND IS THE PINNACLE OF THE ZELDA SERIES' reviews that made me think that journalists must be on drugs half the time or really, really don't understand a lot about their craft.

Read the Bioshock Spoiler thread - The game is good, but has tons of issues. Nobody points that out and the game gets a 95/100. Good for Irrational and it's good that those guys will most probably get to make their next thing, but journalists are an integral part of shaping the industry and if their whole work is based on hype and lies then where are we going?

We've been going this way for a while. Do what I, and many others do. Completely ignore reviews/previews. It's obvious they're useless to the jaded gamer.

 

[thomasmahler]

If I was a professional reviewer, my reviews probably would have been right in line with all the others who thought they were great games, but were "wrong".

Then you're not a journalist. A journalists job should be to analyze and dissect the experience and give gamers an understanding of what they're about to get for their hard earned cash. It's as simple as that. And would you say that they're doing their job?

 

[captainnapalm]

What?

I can't think of another way to do it differently without breaking the game. I don't think it went completely against what it was saying at all. You had illusion of control -- at that point, you realize you have none. It works.


Edited the "fighting words" a bit to make it clear that I can't think of a better way to do it!

I wasn't sure what he meant, but you've both explained it and cleared it up.

 

[Tummi Gummi]

BioShock's biggest problem was the lame ending. God it was bad.

There was some pretty heavy bullshitting going on concerning the sophistication of enemy AI and level design during the Bioshock lead-up (probably no more than any other game, but the difference was that a lot of people actually believed it). Regardless of whether you were a SS2 fan or not (I wasn't at the time), that was a pretty big pill to swallow when it actually came out.

 

[LightofRohan]

Wow. A lot of you really have to just take a break from gaming... go walk outside, breath some fresh air and relax. Yikes.

It's always sickening when people have to argue against games getting a good review, thinking it is some conspiracy.

 

[Gestahl]

The biggest problem with Bioshock besides the dull gameplay is that after the big twist you're still going down the same linear corridors and completing the same linear objectives given to you by someone else. There's virtually no change between pre-twist Bioshock and post-twist Bioshock so the game ends up shitting on its own point.

 

[The Crimson Kid]

With all the concerns that have been raised about this game's troubled development, at least it's clear now that the game isn't a miserable and burning pile of failure, which is good enough for me. I don't expect to glean much more from the average opinions of reviewers these days except for if a game is generally regarded as "really good," "alright," or "awful." I just differ so much from most reviewers with what I value in games over what they do that I find it useless to discern granular parts of what I will like or not from a few reviews.

I'm looking forward to seeing the world Irrational has created and I just hope that the gameplay is strong as well and that it hasn't been streamlined too much. There were certainly things that could have been done away with from Bioshock 1 (hacking puzzles...), but I hope that there is still a good deal of expansiveness/open-endedness in the level design and that the upgrade/progression mechanics aren't rendered pointless by their over-simplicity.

The thing I don't get is that most of the reviews I've read/watched said that the gameplay is pretty awesome.

So what is the issue. They say it's story/world and stuff is great and the game is fun as well.

I get beign cynical and all but some of you must be a joy to be around. Constantly looking for the negative just so you can say you aren't biased or a sheep. Expecting perfection with everything must get tiring.

I know I know "but if you don't expect perfection...they will give you slock".

Not every reviewer is paid off here.

Maybe the game is actually good?

and if it bothers you so damn much...find something else to do. I get tired of hearing "games are so boring/bad" from the same parties in every thread....

maybe it's time for you to find another hobby?

inb4 "not everythread has to be a circlejerk" or "this is a forum bro".

I get it but sweet jesus man. Lighten up a bit.

All that pessimism is depressing as hell.

Ruins good vibes and stuff

Pre-release review threads are based almost entirely on people's preexisting biases and dispositions because there is no tangible object to be discussed firsthand and everything that is discussed is composed of either preconceived notions about the game derived from previews/marketing or review content, which by definition is second-hand information.

It is silly to see people get so worked up about these things.

And yes, the rampant negativity is puzzling as well. It's one thing to be suspicious of too many glowing reviews, but there are plenty of people on this board who are way too invested in everything related to gaming and think that everything is just getting worse and worse. It's easy to spot these kinds of people, especially in prerelease review threads. You can tell pretty quickly that they don't have a balanced perspective or a balanced life when they get so passionate and so pessimistic about most everything.

Those people do need to balance their lives out more with another hobby or some volunteer work. I know because I was there before and see a lot of the bad traits that I used to possess in them, and broadening my life did wonders in fixing that.

It's also worth noting that message boards attract a larger proportion of depressed individuals than there are in the entire population. Maybe some people on here need to spend their money on quality medical care rather than quality games?

Be thankful people care about your opinion.

Nobody ever asks me what my favorite games are.

Loud and controversial people that act like trolls because they are desperate for attention always attract exaggerated proportions of attention. This is a universal constant across all mediums of communication these days and it's a shame.

Wow. A lot of you really have to just take a break from gaming... go walk outside, breath some fresh air and relax. Yikes.

It's always sickening when people have to argue against games getting a good review, thinking it is some conspiracy.

It might take a bit more than that to get some of these people level-headed again! Having another hobby helps tremendously because there's no way people would be so invested in these kinds of odd and almost entirely hypothetical discussions if they had more in their lives that they cared about besides videogames.

I definitely agree with your sentiment though. When people take games more seriously than anything else in their lives, you know something's gone wrong.

 

[Muffdraul]

Then you're not a journalist. A journalists job should be to analyze and dissect the experience and give gamers an understanding of what they're about to get for their hard earned cash. It's as simple as that. And would you say that they're doing their job?

A professional critic's job is to say whether they liked or disliked something and explain why. The only review I've seen so far is Sessler's, and yes I think he did that.

 

[benny_a]

Maybe some people on here need to spend their money on quality medical care rather than quality games?

Thanks Obama.

 

[icespide]

The problem with art is that it's highly subjective. A game reviewer has an inherently different job from a film reviewer because they should cover the objective mechanics more in-depth. With film, you see plenty of reviews cover the mechanical issues, such as special effects, editing, sound design. All of those are mechanical, but are secondary to the movie overall in most cases. With game's the primary interaction with the world is through gameplay, so these mechanics are much more important, to the point where they match or supersede narrative. It's a fine juggling act to get down, balancing artistic assessment with gameplay assessment, and it's one most reviewers fail gloriously.

We have plenty of reviews completely glossing over mechanical strengths and weaknesses in favor of looking at world design, narrative, and theme. And instead of honest, level-headed assessments of these values we have uncomfortable hive-mind fellation like these BioShock Infinite reviews. I would take a review that went in-depth into these areas without out all of the flowery crap that's streaming out the current batch of reviews. But that's generally what I like post-mortems for -- they can cover more intangible aspects of the game after more time has passed for more narrative/artistic/thematic examinations to take hold without hype trains blinding the writer. Reviews published for release should cover the more immediate aspects (gameplay, interface, controls) of the title because they are one of the primary ways of gleaning the potential quality of a title before purchase and play. Let long term examination determine the artistic merit of a title.

Why is the video game industry and fanbase so starved for a game that proves the medium is art? Look at snippets of Sessler's review -- his prose is extremely purple and gets across so little other than to say "BioShock Infinite is a work of art." So what? Anything can be art, from toilets to movies to paintings to games. Save that for the post-mortem. Tell me more about what's good or bad with the design and gameplay first, please.

very well said.

 

[Knux-Future]

The issue is that people take what basically ammounts to opinion pieces as law and thus get mad when it doesn't live up to their expectations.


Skyward Sword got rave reviews and people got overly hyped and thus was let down.

I also think some people think they have more power than they really do. In the interent age, you can know a lot about a game before you play it. Honestly, if a game lets you down, it's your own damn fault.

Putside of impulse, i need a game or shit Gamefuly sent this out..I have not been let down by any day one purchase this gen sans maybe Marvel...which I only don't like because I am awful at it lol.

Reviews are only one part of the puzzle...this isn't the pre-internet days.

I don't normally even like FPS but I am sure I will like this one because of the same stuff people are getting mad about; story, atmosphere, and such.

You gotta do your homework nowadays. Games are expensive.


Which is why I am always amazed by the importance and power people place on reviews.

 

[I'm an expert]

Wow. A lot of you really have to just take a break from gaming... go walk outside, breath some fresh air and relax. Yikes.

It's always sickening when people have to argue against games getting a good review, thinking it is some conspiracy.

I think you should go outside and take a breather from caring so much about what people online do. Yikes.

 

[RyL]

Bullshit, reviews arent purely creative writing exercises. They (should) serve a purpose - to inform the reader about a product or experience. If theyre well written but fail to achieve this objective then theyre poor reviews, calling them out on that isnt anti-intellectualism.

I agree. Sessler's Bioshock:Infinite video review is so awfully corny; very forceful artsy-fartsy and pseudo-intellectual nonsense. I'm not necessarily saying they have to tone it down to "dudebro" level or anything like that but some reviewers could have been at least a little bit more subtle about their writing style. (just a little)

Also, why are the journalists only reviewing this game in that kind of way and not every other (somewhat similar) game? Just because the other ones aren't as "deep & meaningful"? Come on, that says it all and I think that's why so many people here are baffled and some reviews appear questionable.

 

[thomasmahler]

A professional critic's job is to say whether they liked or disliked something and explain why. The only review I've seen so far is Sessler's, and yes I think he did that.

No, I think it goes beyond that. Say you're a Resident Evil maniac and for some reason you just love everything Resident Evil, absolutely everything. Would you then tell me that Resident Evil 6 is an amazing game?

That stuff happens (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/resident-evil-6 - 95% from one outlet!), I know tons of people who are completely in love with a franchise like Star Wars and defend even the shittiest crap being done with it as the second coming.

If that's the case, your job is NOT to tell people that YOU loved the game. I don't care about YOU. I don't know YOU. I want YOU to tell me how I (ME!!!) will like the game based on analyzing the mechanics, understanding the world and giving people insight into it and simply finding out WHETHER OR NOT I'M BUYING A GOOD OR A BAD PRODUCT.

If you make valid arguments, I'll buy the game based on the facts at hand and hopefully got the experience you've been reviewing and not some fanboy slurp that no one gains anything from.

 

[MormaPope]

So yeah, my point is I wish these reviews focused more on that stuff than HOW ALIVE THE NPCS FEEL. Yes, yes.. yawn.

After you posted this in a different thread:

Yo..it's a game review. There's nothing quality about it. I can't stand to think how much time people wasted on their Infinite reviews. Two hours..max to get your point across about a game. People don't even read the things, they just look at your score anyway. Why try to make it "good"?

Anything you've said about reviews in this thread seems moot.

 

[hawk2025]

No, I think it goes beyond that. Say you're a Resident Evil maniac and for some reason you just love everything Resident Evil, absolutely everything. Would you then tell me that Resident Evil 6 is an amazing game?

That stuff happens (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/resident-evil-6 - 95% from one outlet!), I know tons of people who are completely in love with a franchise like Star Wars and defend even the shittiest crap being done with it as the second coming.

If that's the case, your job is NOT to tell people that YOU loved the game. I don't care about YOU. I don't know YOU. I want YOU to tell me how I (ME!!!) will like the game based on analyzing the mechanics, understanding the world and giving people insight into it and simply finding out WHETHER OR NOT I'M BUYING A GOOD OR A BAD PRODUCT.

If you make valid arguments, I'll buy the game based on the facts at hand and hopefully got the experience you've been reviewing and not some fanboy slurp that no one gains anything from.

I just wanted to say that I disagree completely with this approach to reviews.
I don't want a cold and detached checklist of what someone thought about the game. I want an opinion.
These are not fully objective products. Attempting to portray them as such is a hopeless endeavor.

Incorporating some of the objective issues into the review, sure -- that may be needed to portray why or why not they amounted to a good final experience.