Support NeoGAF

[Segata Sanshiro]

FACT: Uncharted 2 is overwhelmingly the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 among both the media and developer community and the recipient of most of the GOTY awards out there, the other two games I mentioned are not critically acclaimed games. It's sad that we can no longer make statements pertaining to a game's quality relative to other games without the bullshit response of "oh but that's just an opinion".

What would you tell someone who liked Dante's Inferno better than Uncharted 2?

 

[Baki]

What would you tell someone who liked Dante's Inferno better than Uncharted 2?

 

[Twig]

FACT: Uncharted 2 is overwhelmingly the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 among both the media and developer community and the recipient of most of the GOTY awards out there, the other two games I mentioned are not critically acclaimed games. It's sad that we can no longer make statements pertaining to a game's quality relative to other games without the bullshit response of "oh but that's just an opinion".

I also think it's a fact that steaks taste better than dirt, would you like to challenge me on that too?

It is a fact that a lot of people share the opinion that Uncharted 2 was amazing. It doesn't necessarily follow that Uncharted 2 is amazing.

It is also a fact that someone out there undoubtedly prefers those two non-critically-acclaimed games to Uncharted 2. It doesn't necessarily follow that Uncharted 2 isn't amazing.

Opinions are opinions. Not a difficult concept, dude.

 

[Neuromancer]

FACT: Uncharted 2 is overwhelmingly the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 among both the media and developer community and the recipient of most of the GOTY awards out there, the other two games I mentioned simply are not critically acclaimed games. It's sad that we can no longer make statements pertaining to a game's quality relative to other games without the bullshit response of "oh but that's just an opinion".

It's not an insult to those games, not every game is going to be critically acclaimed like Uncharted 2, my point is if one is so particular that even the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 can't make that individual happy, how can such an individual tolerate other games that have a myriad of problems?

Easily. GTA4 got incredible reviews and hype and hyperbole but there are many other games I'd rather play that didn't get nearly as good reviews or buzz. So I can totally see how someone out there might like Dantes Inferno better than UC2, as repugnant as that may seem to you or me.

 

[Kittonwy]

What would you tell someone who liked Dante's Inferno better than Uncharted 2?

Why would I tell him anything? I would ask him to share with me the reasons why he would prefer Dante's Inferno.

 

[D4Danger]

edit: beaten by Neuromancer with the GTA:IV comparison. carry on.

 

[Kittonwy]

.

I don't get the GTAIV hate at all.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Why would I tell him anything? I would ask him to share with me the reasons why he would prefer Dante's Inferno.

Would you tell him his opinion is factually wrong? Because that was your insinuation.

I'm just asking because I like Spider-Man: Web of Shadows better than pretty much any GTA and I think Breakdown is probably the best game I've ever played from a first person perspective, but by your metric, I'm factually wrong to do so.

 

[Kittonwy]

Would you tell him his opinion is factually wrong? Because that was your insinuation.

I'm just asking because I like Spider-Man: Web of Shadows better than pretty much any GTA and I think Breakdown is probably the best game I've ever played from a first person perspective, but by your metric, I'm factually wrong to do so.

Why does it matter if his opinion is factually wrong? Even if it's factually wrong he is still entitled to hold that opinion, because it's a free country. It's like telling someone who prefers eating dirt over steaks his opinion is factually wrong, if someone likes to eat dirt, let him eat dirt.

 

[AkuMifune]

I also think it's a fact that steaks taste better than dirt, would you like to challenge me on that too?

Depends how linear the steak is.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Why does it matter if his opinion is factually wrong? Even if it's factually wrong he is still entitled to hold that opinion, because it's a free country. It's like telling someone who prefers eating dirt over steaks his opinion is factually wrong, if someone likes to eat dirt, let him eat dirt.

Okay, that answers that.

 

[shintoki]

Damn, I feel stupid now.

I'm going to go eat some tear covered dirt.

 

[Kittonwy]

Depends how linear the steak is.

A good steak is a good steak, if you have a bunch of assorted meat on a plate you might have some beef in there but it might not be as tasty.

 

[Twig]

What if I don't like steak? D: D: D:

 

[AkuMifune]

A good steak is a good steak, if you have a bunch of assorted meat on a plate you might have some beef in there but it might not be as tasty.

What if the choice was between watching someone else eat steak or being able to eat a dirtburger yourself?

 

[jman2050]

...Or you don't have anything to actually substantiate your claim.

You made the claim, not me, burden of proof is on you dude.

I'm not saying everyone who does not like the game is wrong. But taking into account the type of game it is, I can not think of any substantial criticism of the game. Be it story, presentation or gameplay.

You are insinuating that there's no reasonable way to substantially improve the game. That simply is and will not ever be true.

Well, that creates a problem. There has to be a common set of tools, objective ones, to evaluate an artistic creation or an entertainement product. Otherwise, why bother having reviews and awards ?

That's a good question, why bother with review scores? If it were up to me professional reviews and awards for works of entertainment would disappear entirely because their value is nebulous at best and outright misleading at worst. There's a reason I haven't read a single professional game or movie review in the past several years.

FACT: Uncharted 2 is overwhelmingly the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 among both the media and developer community and the recipient of most of the GOTY awards out there, the other two games I mentioned simply are not critically acclaimed games. It's sad that we can no longer make statements pertaining to a game's quality relative to other games without the bullshit response of "oh but that's just an opinion".

So let me ask a question. If the game was exactly the same as it turned out but it received overwhelmingly average to above-average scores (7 or 8 range) from the gaming media what would you say to qualify the quality of the game? Reviews are not objective and it makes absolutely no difference to me whether a game has received tens across the board or sevens across the board when it comes to my personal enjoyment of it. Don't use reviews and awards as a crutch to justify your passion, actually attempt to argue on the game's own merits like many have successfully done with UC2 and other games.

It's not an insult to those games, not every game is going to be critically acclaimed like Uncharted 2, my point is if one is so particular that even the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 can't make that individual happy, how can such an individual tolerate other games that have a myriad of problems?

Seeing as I disagree with the core premise that a game's quality correlates with its review scores, it's impossible for me to answer this.

I also think it's a fact that steaks taste better than dirt, would you like to challenge me on that too?

I dunno, I'm sure a lot of people here loath steak

 

[Kittonwy]

What if I don't like steak? D: D: D:

 

[Foxtastical]

I heard they put a lot of money and high production values into the newest Transformers and Indiana Jones movies.

 

[Twig]

D':

 

[Drek]

Many gamers got real upset with my Uncharted 2 review. I was called an idiot (on local forums) and on an american forum when my review got translated (hello neogaf? ) I was called even worse things. The reactions were very strong despite giving it an 8, which is "great" on our scale. It didn't matter, apparently it was two steps too low.

A couple of weeks ago, it was time for the release of Call of Duty MW2. It was called a masterpiece in advance and the super high scores soon was released. I was one of those who didn't agree. The lynch atmosphere had returned. If I took every insult personally over my reviews, I would soon go under. Instead, I have last two months played those games again and thought a lot on the that genre's development. Even though I was one of those a couple of years ago that wished for more movie like games from Hollywood, I know today that I want something else.

To make movie like games isn't bad when you look at the sales numbers. Easy played action-adventures with directed cut-scenes and episodic high tempo variation sells like hot cakes. But is it really good for the game industry's development? Is it the right path for the action genre to go? I dont believe so. Even though CoDMW has sold like crazy, and that both EA and Ubisoft plan to modernize Medal of Honor and Ghost Recon according to Infite Ward's market attractive concept; many of us who love the genre might grow tired of the linear structure and the self playing difficulty.

CoD2:MW and Uncharted 2 were both memorable journeys through chaotic environment, it was like watching Hollywood -matinée with your thumb on the button. I understand that a wide audience like playing an interactive movie. But I want to play something else, I want to get challenged by more ways then by unlimited enemy soldiers that pops up everywhere in every direction. For me storylike matinée's and easy game mechanics isn't enough. I want to fight my wars and tear my hair apart by puzzles in Himalaya. An interactive movie isn't enough.

I highlighted every time he uses 'I' to refer to his own tastes in games.

In other words, his entire argument.

Peter Hegewall, quit your job. You aren't good at it. The job of a professional critic is to understand popular opinion and tastes in order to give subjective reviews devoid of personal opinion as to whether most consumers would like it, and if so what group those consumers happen to fall in.

CoD:MW2 is a failure because it has actually turned off CoD fans from the franchise. It did not build on the success of the original CoD:MW because it didn't add anything particularly noteworthy and is an outright regurgitation. It has nothing to do with it's single player campaign playing out like an adventure movie that has a very low bar of gaming skill required to get through.

Difficulty is not a prerequisite of a truly great game. Difficulty in most games is a subjective view regardless, some people are better at some aspects of a game than others.

This is unfortunately the primary issue with video game "journalism". Everyone thinks their opinion is somehow worth a shit. Its not. No one gives a shit what Johnny Game Reviewer thinks about a game personally. They just want to know if they the consumer will like it. To do that you need to give them comparatives based on what they actually like. Instead they're given opinions and as a result most people put no stock in reviews anymore, and publishers are beginning to see the detachment of sales from review scores as a result.

This is also why no one takes the profession (of game journalist) seriously. That and the blatant whoring to publishers.

 

[Salazar]

Drek, you don't win the thread, or anything, by being more cynical than everybody else.

EDIT - I'm assuming that there was at least a hint of irony to what you wrote.

 

[Foxtastical]

Peter Hegewall, quit your job. You aren't good at it. The job of a professional critic is to understand popular opinion and tastes in order to give subjective reviews devoid of personal opinion as to whether most consumers would like it, and if so what group those consumers happen to fall in.

Haha, holy shit. I think this is about as stupid as I can handle. Later thread.

 

[shintoki]

D':

You can always eat some dirt with me. I'll give you a cup.

 

[Sullen]

Games can be done in any way the creators see fit. Why restrict it, if it's fun and exciting to play Uncharted 2 for me why take that away? The gaming industry isn't so small that you need to tell the developers that they need to focus on being a certain way. If you want a particular type of game buy it, or something close to what you want and support it. Then maybe that type of game will be less risky to companies.

It isn't about restriction, in fact it is about the opposite of that. Games like Uncharted and MW2 ARE the restriction in and of themselves. You are totally welcome to play and enjoy something like that, but just realize that it is purposefully stepping into a sandbox that is very limited. An experience that doesn't push the medium to bigger heights. The only boundaries that are pushed in games like that are the production boundaries, the visuals, the sound, the motion capture, whatever, but it certainly isn't the gameplay or innovation that is pushing the boundaries in games like that. In other words, the style boundary is being pushed, but not the substance, not by a long shot.

I know I'm majorly in the minority on this board and that a lot of people like 'streamlined' games that keep getting shorter and shorter with less and less content in them every generation, but with greatly increased production values. On a personal level I'm not okay with it, and it makes me worried for the medium.

Hope none of this came across as snarky or attitude filled, just my opinion and I'm not saying anyone else is not a gamer or something ridiculous like that just cause they enjoy a different experience. Just expressing my personal concerns for gaming in general.

 

[jman2050]

Peter Hegewall, quit your job. You aren't good at it. The job of a professional critic is to understand popular opinion and tastes in order to give subjective reviews devoid of personal opinion as to whether most consumers would like it, and if so what group those consumers happen to fall in.

You somehow managed to write the dumbest statement in this entire thread.

 

[Twig]

You can always eat some dirt with me. I'll give you a cup.

Aww, that's so thoughtful! :'D

 

[sonicmj1]

I highlighted every time he uses 'I' to refer to his own tastes in games.

In other words, his entire argument.

Peter Hegewall, quit your job. You aren't good at it. The job of a professional critic is to understand popular opinion and tastes in order to give subjective reviews devoid of personal opinion as to whether most consumers would like it, and if so what group those consumers happen to fall in.

CoD:MW2 is a failure because it has actually turned off CoD fans from the franchise. It did not build on the success of the original CoD:MW because it didn't add anything particularly noteworthy and is an outright regurgitation. It has nothing to do with it's single player campaign playing out like an adventure movie that has a very low bar of gaming skill required to get through.

Difficulty is not a prerequisite of a truly great game. Difficulty in most games is a subjective view regardless, some people are better at some aspects of a game than others.

This is unfortunately the primary issue with video game "journalism". Everyone thinks their opinion is somehow worth a shit. Its not. No one gives a shit what Johnny Game Reviewer thinks about a game personally. They just want to know if they the consumer will like it. To do that you need to give them comparatives based on what they actually like. Instead they're given opinions and as a result most people put no stock in reviews anymore, and publishers are beginning to see the detachment of sales from review scores as a result.

This is also why no one takes the profession (of game journalist) seriously. That and the blatant whoring to publishers.

You don't actually want this. That's why you bring up how the most popular game on Xbox Live is an objective failure for fans of the franchise.

I should never underestimate what elaborate justifications people create in order to prove to themselves that their beliefs are objective truth.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I highlighted every time he uses 'I' to refer to his own tastes in games.

In other words, his entire argument.

Peter Hegewall, quit your job. You aren't good at it. The job of a professional critic is to understand popular opinion and tastes in order to give subjective reviews devoid of personal opinion as to whether most consumers would like it, and if so what group those consumers happen to fall in.

CoD:MW2 is a failure because it has actually turned off CoD fans from the franchise. It did not build on the success of the original CoD:MW because it didn't add anything particularly noteworthy and is an outright regurgitation. It has nothing to do with it's single player campaign playing out like an adventure movie that has a very low bar of gaming skill required to get through.

Difficulty is not a prerequisite of a truly great game. Difficulty in most games is a subjective view regardless, some people are better at some aspects of a game than others.

This is unfortunately the primary issue with video game "journalism". Everyone thinks their opinion is somehow worth a shit. Its not. No one gives a shit what Johnny Game Reviewer thinks about a game personally. They just want to know if they the consumer will like it. To do that you need to give them comparatives based on what they actually like. Instead they're given opinions and as a result most people put no stock in reviews anymore, and publishers are beginning to see the detachment of sales from review scores as a result.

This is also why no one takes the profession (of game journalist) seriously. That and the blatant whoring to publishers.

I think you completely misunderstand the point of a review.


A professional critic, is not able to base his review on "popular opinion". A Review IS PERSONAL OPINION. That's all it is.
What popular opinion? Popular opinion among internet gamers? On Neogaf? Or among the casual crowds were the latest Madden, is the best game in town?

Most of my non gaming friends who have tried Bayonetta, thinks its a crap game. In fact I would say it's a popular opinion for non gamers, who don't understand it. But for thousands of hardcore gamer, it is a popular opinion that Bayonetta is great.
So the whole idea with popular opinion is flawed, as popular opinion is also subjective.



A critic can not give a game a magic score that will be fair for everybody. How am I supposed to use a 9/10 score for Uncharted 2 if I don't like Action games? How am I supposed to it if I am a major fan of action game?

Depending on my own taste in the genre, and franchise, my feelings on the score will vary.

ALL GAMERS are different. A scale of 1-10 is like a stupid horoscope. You can't compress peoples opinion like all the worlds gamers think the same.

There will never be a critic who can appeal to everybody. That's NOT WHAT reviews are for. That's not the point. It's not about finding people you agree with.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

So, just to make sure we're clear on this business about facts and stuff:

Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time is factually the best adventure game of all-time, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 is factually the best skateboarding/extreme sports game of all-time, Soul Calibur 1 is factually the best fighting game of all-time, GTA4 is factually the best sandbox game of all-time, Baldur's Gate 2 is factually the best RPG of all-time, and Halo 1 is factually the best FPS of all-time.

I'm quite certain kittonwy *must* agree with this, lest he be shown to be logically inconsistent, but who else is on board?

 

[Callibretto]

I think you completely misunderstand the point of a review.


A professional critic, is not able to base his review on "popular opinion". A Review IS PERSONAL OPINION. That's all it is.
What popular opinion? Popular opinion among internet gamers? On Neogaf? Or among the casual crowds were the latest Madden, is the best game in town?

Most of my non gaming friends who have tried Bayonetta, thinks its a crap game. In fact I would say it's a popular opinion for non gamers, who don't understand it. But for thousands of hardcore gamer, it is a popular opinion that Bayonetta is great.
So the whole idea with popular opinion is flawed, as popular opinion is also subjective.



A critic can not give a game a magic score that will be fair for everybody. How am I supposed to use a 9/10 score for Uncharted 2 if I don't like Action games? How am I supposed to it if I am a major fan of action game?

Depending on my own taste in the genre, and franchise, my feelings on the score will vary.

ALL GAMERS are different. A scale of 1-10 is like a stupid horoscope. You can't compress peoples opinion like all the worlds gamers think the same.

There will never be a critic who can appeal to everybody. That's NOT WHAT reviews are for. That's not the point. It's not about finding people you agree with.

my problem with overly opinionated reviews are that reviewer sometimes think they're a better game designer than the developer. saying how it should be done, also not liking a game because it's not what they want to play. Drek have some point about why do we care about some unknown reviewers opinion. if we don't know the guy, it's no different than just some random blog reviews. there must be something that separates professional critics and random blog poster.

I think professional reviewer should be able to identify who the target audience for a game is before they start making their reviews. let's face it, no developer make a game without thinking who their target demographics are. Naughty Dog isn't making Uncharted hoping to appeal to jrpg crowd, naughty dog are aiming to deliver this movie like experience to specific audience that want that kind of experience, and in that regard, Uncharted 2 is flawlessly executed.

docking Uncharted 2's review score for being too movie like is just wrong. if he want to make a blog post about how he wish Uncharted is more like something he likes that's fine, just don't put a review score on it because that may actually hurt sales when ND's only fault is that they don't make game targeted for this particular reviewer.

review the game for what it is, not for what it's not.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

my problem with overly opinionated reviews are that reviewer sometimes think they're a better game designer than the developer. saying how it should be done, also not liking a game because it's not what they want to play. Drek have some point about why do we care about some unknown reviewers opinion. if we don't know the guy, it's no different than just some random blog reviews. there must be something that separates professional critics and random blog poster.

I think professional reviewer should be able to identify who the target audience for a game is before they start making their reviews. let's face it, no developer make a game without thinking who their target demographics are. Naughty Dog isn't making Uncharted hoping to appeal to jrpg crowd, naughty dog are aiming to deliver this movie like experience to specific audience that want that kind of experience, and in that regard, Uncharted 2 is flawlessly executed.

docking Uncharted 2's review score for being too movie like is just wrong. if he want to make a blog post about how he wish Uncharted is more like something he likes that's fine, just don't put a review score on it because that may actually hurt sales when ND's only fault is that they don't make game targeted for this particular reviewer.

review the game for what it is, not for what it's not.

Why are the sales of the game any concern of the reviewer? I can't believe you guys want a world where people review things by trying to guess what the mainstream would think of it rather than by giving their own honest opinion.

 

[Callibretto]

Why are the sales of the game any concern of the reviewer? I can't believe you guys want a world where people review things by trying to guess what the mainstream would think of it rather than by giving their own honest opinion.

maybe I should just edit that sales comment because bringing sales to reviews are just messy.

anyway, my problem with some 'honest opinion' is that they sometimes try to manipulate the industry to suit their need. saying that game should be more than just interactive movie, and then docking review scores to games that are trying to give interactive movie like experiences.

what's wrong with trying to make movie like experiences. is that not a legitimate form of entertainment video games can offer. yet, it was 'punished' for being what it is. just because the reviewer want more 'gamey' experiences. video games are very flexible form of entertainment. it can offer value in so many different form that no one should try to force developer what they want to make. if the reviewer want a specific game so much, why don't he try to be developer and make it himself, rather than trying to manipulate reviews so developer will make his games.

edit: and you totally missed my point about reviewer guessing what the mainstream would think. I say identify what the developer want to make the game for, not guessing popular opinion by the masses. some people said that Bayonetta will have terrible reviews if we use popular opinion. well, the developer is not making their games for those kind of people anyway. they make the game to appeal specific audience. to those who likes over the top action, and some that may like the over sexualized main character etc. \reviewer should be able to identify this audience and write review to let these audience know if the developer succeed or not.

 

[selig]

It isn't about restriction, in fact it is about the opposite of that. Games like Uncharted and MW2 ARE the restriction in and of themselves. You are totally welcome to play and enjoy something like that, but just realize that it is purposefully stepping into a sandbox that is very limited. An experience that doesn't push the medium to bigger heights. The only boundaries that are pushed in games like that are the production boundaries, the visuals, the sound, the motion capture, whatever, but it certainly isn't the gameplay or innovation that is pushing the boundaries in games like that. In other words, the style boundary is being pushed, but not the substance, not by a long shot.

I know I'm majorly in the minority on this board and that a lot of people like 'streamlined' games that keep getting shorter and shorter with less and less content in them every generation, but with greatly increased production values. On a personal level I'm not okay with it, and it makes me worried for the medium.

Hope none of this came across as snarky or attitude filled, just my opinion and I'm not saying anyone else is not a gamer or something ridiculous like that just cause they enjoy a different experience. Just expressing my personal concerns for gaming in general.

Just wanted to express my support for you. Exactly why Im thinking about nowaday´s games. -

 

[Tain]

anyway, my problem with some 'honest opinion' is that they sometimes try to manipulate the industry to suit their need.

Every single review that I like does this to some degree.

 

[Twig]

It is the reviewer's job to state his opinion about the game. Not to objectively observe how the mainstream will react.

It is the reader's job to recognize that it is, in fact, an opinion, and to take that into account.

If you don't agree with the reviewer's tastes in a particular genre, and you want an opinion more relevant to yours, find a reviewer that suits you. It is not the reviewer's fault that you disagree with his/her opinion. Neither is it yours. It is simply that: a difference of opinion.

If you are truly so mentally incompetent that you become veritably offended by a reviewer's opinion, then perhaps you should get the fuck off the internet before your brain commits suicide.

The best reviewers are the ones that don't give two fucks what their readers think. And I am not talking about the ones who will troll a game for hits. I am talking about the ones who really, truly, don't give a fuck.

 

[Callibretto]

Just wanted to express my support for you. Exactly why Im thinking about nowaday´s games. -

aren't we still getting those gamey games anyway. I haven't played Mass Effect 2, but I heard it's filled with contents. same with Assassin Creed 2, Bioshock 2, soon we'll get Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire. sounds like a very meaty games.

the point is, we're still getting those games. no need to feel insecure and feel the need downplay movie like experiences type of games. there's room for every kind of games. that's the beauty of the medium. it's just that versatile.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

maybe I should just edit that sales comment because bringing sales to reviews are just messy.

anyway, my problem with some 'honest opinion' is that they sometimes try to manipulate the industry to suit their need. saying that game should be more than just interactive movie, and then docking review scores to games that are trying to give interactive movie like experiences.

what's wrong with trying to make movie like experiences. is that not a legitimate form of entertainment video games can offer. yet, it was 'punished' for being what it is. just because the reviewer want more 'gamey' experiences. video games are very flexible form of entertainment. it can offer value in so many different form that no one should try to force developer what they want to make. if the reviewer want a specific game so much, why don't he try to be developer and make it himself, rather than trying to manipulate reviews so developer will make his games.

edit: and you totally missed my point about reviewer guessing what the mainstream would think. I say identify what the developer want to make the game for, not guessing popular opinion by the masses. some people said that Bayonetta will have terrible reviews if we use popular opinion. well, the developer is not making their games for those kind of people anyway. they make the game to appeal specific audience. to those who likes over the top action, and some that may like the over sexualized main character etc. \reviewer should be able to identify this audience and write review to let these audience know if the developer succeed or not.

I think that's borderline conspiracy theories. You can't think about it, like reviewers having ulterior or personal motives. Or yeah, you probably can do. But it's no different than how everybody - All people are biased in some way.
Sure, you are going to have reviewers who don't like racing games, making a review on racing games. You can't like everything equally. Neither can reviewers.

A reviewer can't put himself in the position in every single reader. That's the same mantra is blaming all your problems or all your success on a horoscope. Peoples choices and opinions and beliefs don't belong in a little ten scale.



The thing that you are saying about reviewers taking the target audience into consideration. Sure - But how do you reflect that in the score?
And what about everybody else. The score won't work for them. It's flawed.

A score can't take everybody into consideration. It can't even take a target group into consideration.
Example; Does all the scores of MW2 and Uncharted 2 work for me, when I am tired of standard linear First Person Shooters and Third Person Shooters? How can it be a 9/10 if I am burned out? Even if I am in the target audience. It's defintely my target audience, but I have no interest.
The only thing a score can do, is to put a number on the reviewers personal opinion. If the reviewer was supposed to try and guess about the developer hitting it home with the intended target audience, it wouldn't be a review. It would just be a placebo satisfactionary guess competition.


It's my census that people in general, who get annoyed or upset over a 4/10 or 5/10 for FFXIII as an example, are people who are not confident in their own opinion about something.


A good review would talk about appeal in different target audiences. It would be full of information, and it would be an article that would give the reader an idea of he or she would be interested in the game or not.
If the reader disagrees with the review and the reviewer - That's a FANTASTIC thing. Just like in real life, it is so much more interesting to surround yourself with people who think different than yourself. It's much more stimulating than hanging around with clones of your own opinion. What good discussions, life lessons, and so on can come from that?

A review is not a pre-shopping criteria for buying a game. This is the ultimate misunderstand. 4/10 does not mean that a game is bad or that you shouldn't buy it. Even if it's the best reviewer in the world(or whatever). It means that, the person who wrote the review thought it was a 4/10, but that person is not you. You are different from him. The text in the review should give you an idea about if you would like it or not.



Many of my favorite reviews, are reviews I completely disagree with, but I still love them, because it's not about agreeing or disagreeing or damage control, or taking it upon yourself to uncover the conspiracy theories about scores being faulty or fabricated, or become stressed over the impact of your favorite games getting bad reviews and the impact it will have on the sales of those games, due to those bad reviews.


You bring some good points and thoughts, but it brings to mind that incident with some of the Famitsu reviewers were they talked about not being able to express their personal views for very popular titles and franchises, due to expectations from the audiences. Reviewing a title in the Zelda or Final Fantasy series always had prepuctions because there was a certain set of expectations. Even if a reviewer might have felt that a particularly title was a 28/40 or something like that, it would never happen, due to the expectations.

Why are we looking down on the unpolitical correct ideas? If you think Uncharted 2 is horrible, that does not make your opinion less valid, than if you think GTA4 is overhyped.
I dislike plenty of popular movies, books and games. Avatar is the best thing ever according to popular pop culture belief. Twilight is an amazing book in the eyes of it's target audience.

So many games, films and books would be 10/10 if we only took the target audience into consideration.
James Cameron apparently didn't care about the story in Avatar. That was not his focus. His fantasy world and the visuals were the focus. Does that excuse, the steretypical story? If Uncharted 2's focus was not originallity, but the improvements over the first game, does that excuse Uncharted 2's originallity since it was not the focus?m


Sorry for this long rant. It's 5 in the morning, and I feel weird in the head:-D

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Also, I would just like to comment on Gamereactor in general.
Gamereactor has been around for, I think... At least over 10 years under that name. It's website, based in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I have only read the Danish version.

Gamereactor, I have read, and been on their forums, for about ten years.
From my point of view, it is impressive that they have been able to push out a Magazine, and content compareable to Magazines you would buy, for free, 11 times a year, for over ten years, only running on add revenue(it's a free mag, made and written by amatures in every sense of the word. Not a bad thing. They are just not professional Journalists).

The Magazine is always sort of shallow. It's not that informative, or have good writing. It has some decent enough articles from time to time, but I would not say that the Grammar, Style of Writing, and information is particularly higher than a hardcore gamers blogpost.

Gamereactor has had a funny history of strange reviews. The editor-in-chief on the Danish site who recently retired have always been vocal about many games that he dislike, or hated. Rares game came to mind. But to the contrast he was insane about Jak and Daxter and Socom. He hated Xbox 360 getting launched so early. He was vocal and honest about his opinions.


Looking at their long history, here is their review database.. it could give you an idea of some of their scores, and how different some of those are; http://www.gamereactor.dk/anmeldelser/?orderby=score&desc=1

Example of some games they gave 9/10;
Daitakana, Hunter: The Reckoning, Ico, The Bouncer, Vampire The Masquerade Redemption, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Gunvalkyrie...

Too many to list. For better or worse, does it really matter?

I think GAF's audience would see it as a nice gesture, to recognize a game like Ico with 9/10. It's popular among hardcore gamers, like Gaffers for various reasons. But Daitakana? Seriously? Did they just loose all credibility with that? Whoever of the many many reviewers over the last decade on that site, made everything else, everyone ever did on that site irelevent?

 

[DCharlie]

Why are the sales of the game any concern of the reviewer? I can't believe you guys want a world where people review things by trying to guess what the mainstream would think of it rather than by giving their own honest opinion.

yeah, i really don't get it. Sales being the concern of a reviewer had us boycotting Gamespot pretty recently, yet now it seems people are suggesting that reviewers SHOULD do exactly what people were protesting?

Crazy town.

 

[DCharlie]

It's not an insult to those games,

but suggesting that if you don't like U2 then you must be puking your guts up whilst playing lesser games is!

Again, Chromehounds is my favourite game this gen by an absolute mile, yet it's a metacritic "meh" at 71. Different horses, different courses. It's Metacritic score and the fact that other games demolish it in terms of that ranking doesn't make a blind bit of difference to my enjoyment of the game.

And i didn't puke once. Amazing. And yes, it's a better game than U2 for me.

 

[To Far Away Times]

FACT: Uncharted 2 is overwhelmingly the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 among both the media and developer community and the recipient of most of the GOTY awards out there, the other two games I mentioned simply are not critically acclaimed games. It's sad that we can no longer make statements pertaining to a game's quality relative to other games without the bullshit response of "oh but that's just an opinion".

It's not an insult to those games, not every game is going to be critically acclaimed like Uncharted 2, my point is if one is so particular that even the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 can't make that individual happy, how can such an individual tolerate other games that have a myriad of problems?

I also think it's a fact that steaks taste better than dirt, would you like to challenge me on that too?

Your assuming that everyone can have the same amount of "fun" with one game.
Personally, I don't care for easy Hollywood style action games that are meant to be beaten once and then shelved forever. I play shmups, fighters, and puzzle games. Uncharted doesn't appeal to me. Does that make me wrong? What if I like something niche like Puyo Pop, something that I'm sure has a lower metacritic score than Uncharted 2? Am I wrong for thinking that Puyo has more interesting game mechanics that Uncharted?

 

[Callibretto]

I agree that a good review need to be informative, not only about the game itself, but also the appeal to multiple target audience. problem is, not many reviews do that. that should at least be the standard imo. was it so hard to give just a couple paragraphs to let the audience read what the games offer and if a particular game is for them or not. the point of a review is to inform the reader if they'll like it or not. either by giving information of what the game offer, or by making some generalization what kind of people will enjoy the game.

I don't mind reviewer saying 'Uncharted 2 lack of puzzles may not be Tomb Raider's fan cup of tea'. I do mind if reviewer say something like 'the lack of puzzles hurt the game as a whole from what could potentially be a perfect game'

on the topic about reviewer's opinion. well I don't necessarily hate them. in fact, it's nice to see other people's opinion about a game they like/not like. that's why I go to GoW3 thread even though I haven't played the game and it's filled with 'impression' which is 100% opinion by Gaf poster. these reviewer's opinion make the written review more enjoyable to read, make it feel personal and not just soulless item description. but imo it's still secondary to the actual content of the review. if they hadn't put actual information in it, than it's just impression, rant or hype blog post. not a review.

 

[GillianSeed79]

About 20 years ago when I first started reading gaming magazines I wouldn't have dreamed to question the opinions of a reviewer. I was young and they were old and experienced, so surely they must know what they're talking about.
These days I'm older than most reviewers and I've got the same or more gaming experience under my belt.

That fact encourages skepticism about opinions that aren't my own. Being grown up makes bitching about these differences of opinions all the more embarrassing though.

True, but as I've gotten older I get more mad at high scores. There was certainly a point where all these 10's stopped correlating with my personal experiences. Back in the old days, though, 20 years ago I never got mad at review scores. Sure I may have felt a tinge of sadness that Phantasy Star 4 in reviewers eyes was not as good as FFIII(VI). That would last a whole two minutes after i decided for myself whether I liked the game.

 

[GillianSeed79]

I wonder if this type of whinging happened back before the internets. I'd be interested to hear from veteran game journalists whether they used to receive thousands of letters after a review that people didn't agree with. Because I've been reading reviews since the 80s and don't remember it being an issue until I joined a few gaming forums.

I'm starting to believe the only reason this level of bitching exists is because there's so much information at hand before the game is released that people make up their mind before they've played it. And it's easy to find a group of people who feel the same way and in doing so instantly form a mob mentality.

It's all rather sad and embarrassing.

The thing was back then reviewers actually used the 10 point scale. A 7 was damn good review score back then, 8 was usually a must buy by today's standard, a 9 was one of the games of a generation and a 10? Holy hell those were rare. That was like 'my god, I'm going to experience something life changing'.

Also, don't forget their were still gatekeepers back then. You didn't see stupid because before the net stupid didn't have a free outlet.

 

[Mar]

What would you tell someone who liked Dante's Inferno better than Uncharted 2?

Raises hand.

 

[Dan Yo]

FACT: Uncharted 2 is overwhelmingly the most critically acclaimed game of 2009 among both the media and developer community and the recipient of most of the GOTY awards out there, the other two games I mentioned simply are not critically acclaimed games. It's sad that we can no longer make statements pertaining to a game's quality relative to other games without the bullshit response of "oh but that's just an opinion".

Uncharted 2 was great and all, but you have to admit that it benefited greatly from being released in a pretty barren year with little to no competition. I don't think it would enjoy the awards and accolades it garnered had it come out a few months later and fell into 2010 like the rest of the games that were supposed to show up for the party last year. This year is absolutely cutthroat.

 

[BeeDog]

So, just to make sure we're clear on this business about facts and stuff:

Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time is factually the best adventure game of all-time, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 is factually the best skateboarding/extreme sports game of all-time, Soul Calibur 1 is factually the best fighting game of all-time, GTA4 is factually the best sandbox game of all-time, Baldur's Gate 2 is factually the best RPG of all-time, and Halo 1 is factually the best FPS of all-time.

I'm quite certain kittonwy *must* agree with this, lest he be shown to be logically inconsistent, but who else is on board?

Just to correct you, Baldur's Gate 2 is factually THE best game of all-time. There.

/BG2-whore

 

[Ploid 3.0]

It isn't about restriction, in fact it is about the opposite of that. Games like Uncharted and MW2 ARE the restriction in and of themselves. You are totally welcome to play and enjoy something like that, but just realize that it is purposefully stepping into a sandbox that is very limited. An experience that doesn't push the medium to bigger heights. The only boundaries that are pushed in games like that are the production boundaries, the visuals, the sound, the motion capture, whatever, but it certainly isn't the gameplay or innovation that is pushing the boundaries in games like that. In other words, the style boundary is being pushed, but not the substance, not by a long shot.

I know I'm majorly in the minority on this board and that a lot of people like 'streamlined' games that keep getting shorter and shorter with less and less content in them every generation, but with greatly increased production values. On a personal level I'm not okay with it, and it makes me worried for the medium.

Hope none of this came across as snarky or attitude filled, just my opinion and I'm not saying anyone else is not a gamer or something ridiculous like that just cause they enjoy a different experience. Just expressing my personal concerns for gaming in general.

Not at all (snarky or attitude filled). I pretty much agree that all games shouldn't be filled with safe concepts. I was kinda responding to what you said about games, and how they shouldn't try to be like movies. I think UC2 nailed the blockbuster feel in a game. It had me on the edge of my seat, it had me in disbelief as I'm now suddenly on this swaying train fighting a helicopter from a tank which is being shipped on said train. I also liked Heavy Rain which was going after a movie feel.

I like different games. ICO and SOTC was pretty far from having a movie presentation. I miss the wacky Japanese games from the PS1 era. Seeing how Sony support Team Ico, Heavy Rain, and other odd stuff I wish they would have the Japan teams doing wacky stuff again.

I agree that all games shouldn't be like movies. If a game wants to give the feeling of a movie it shouldn't be cast out of the videogame category though. They just more popular. Sure Uncharted 2 got so many rewards and ND will most likely go even further in this exciting, blood pumping, action/adventure blockbuster like theme for the next game they make (fingers crossed for me), but it's not stopping every other company from making a great game that has nothing in relation to movies. Also games don't have to be innovative, it can be interesting when one does something completely different from any game in the past, but that is so rare even when people think it is new it's probably not (RE4's repositioning the camera didn't change the control scheme).

Edit: None of my posts has anything to do with Uncharted scores, or saying people should love it. I like it's online but it takes too long to level up, and unlock something new so I lose interest after trying to chip away at getting level 30. Also they won't add new co op levels :\

 

[sonicmj1]

Just to correct you, Baldur's Gate 2 is factually THE best game of all-time. There.

/BG2-whore

Factually, Ocarina of Time has received more critical acclaim than any other game in history, and is therefore the most superior game ever created. Baldur's Gate 2 is inferior, because fewer people liked it.

You should leave game criticism to Gamerankings. It's backed up by facts.

 

[theignoramus]

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 549
User Name Posts
DCharlie 24
Foxtastical 12
AltogetherAndrews 12
Pistolero 11
Safe Bet 11
Kittonwy 11
Baki 10
Segata Sanshiro 9
Nafai1123 9


Go, go, go, go.