Play Magazine (US) April Issue reviews etc
- Thread starter Community Forum
- Start date
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
DevelopmentArrested said:
Specifically referencing an item and its effect on a game mode when that item is not even available in that particular game mode, and doing so in two separate reviews, is a good deal more critical than a typo. That was a weak effort.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
Guy Legend said:
SEGA IS BORN ANEW
Pedobear said:
Pedobear said:
shitty scores indeed man, expecially yours
Llyranor said:
Well, I can, since I wrote the review.
Feels very different from a lot of other SRPGs out there, so it's fresh and fun even if you might not be hardcore into SRPGs. Kind of game where even casual fans can get into it, but has enough challenge that lovers of the genre will have a good time. Combat system is ridiculously enjoyable, and totally changes how you have to approach and think about combat.
Downsides? Missions can really vary in difficulty, from a cakewalk to hard enough that you'll have to play the same mission multiple times in order to get a feel for what exactly you need to do when. Saving guest characters is completely frustrating at times, with some requiring you go on a near suicide mission just to keep them alive. (If they die in the battle you meet them in, they're gone for good.)
Hitler Stole My Potato said:
Play Magazine: "You simply can't ask for more out of an action game. Mission accomplished. Sonic is born anew."
What's really funny and ironic about that quote is that by 2006 "mission accomplished" had take on a completely different connotation.
Kabuki Waq
Member
anything with the sega logo seems to get a high score in play. I find Maxim game reviews more trustworthy than play.
miyamotofreak
Banned
Wha?SHOTEH FOCK OP said:
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Kabuki Waq said:
It's sad, but I agree with this. Play is a good magazine but they rank up there with Maxim nad Playboy on the credibility of their reviews of games.
miyamotofreak
Banned
Their review system is worthless. How are you going to say with a straight face that Lair and Sonic are good games let alone 9 games?Byakuya769 said:
miyamotofreak
Banned
The only place I feel I can trust anymore are the 1UP network, IGN, and EDGE. And I find that latter two are usually off. That's why I rely on GAF and my own experience and instinct.
Jazzy Network
Member
So from the looks of things, joke magazine?
miyamotofreak said:
Let me be the first to congratulate you on actually making a comment.
You see, "wat," "wha?" and all variations thereof do not constitute actual commentary. It's nothing more than the regurgitation of a silly gaming age meme that means, well, absolutely nothing.
No offense, but people who respond to threads and postings in such a manner are, generally, to be ignored at all hazards. They add one to the post count and nothing to the actual conversation.
I give your last post a 9 and this new one a 13.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Rlan said:
just finished condemned 2.....a 9.5 it is not EVEN if you liked the crap multiplayer. 8.0 game IMO.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
MC Safety said:
yeah ok, but he asked for an explanation
dirtmonkey37
flinging feces ---->
Condemned 2: Bloodshot has received 8's and 9's across the board (with the exception of one source, here and there). Why is there such incredulity at how Play scored it a 9.5?
Play is a perfectly fine entry in the realm of print enthusiast magazines. As others have commented, their formatting is gorgeous, their paper quality is top-notch, and their previews leave little to be desired.
Their reviews -- which I only have a minor problem with -- are where matters get interesting. Now, I haven't played Lair, but judging by the 9/10 score they awarded the title, I'm curious to read the review. For a game that almost every single gaming publication claimed to be literally "broken," it's odd to see Play argue otherwise.
The same goes for their Sonic review, which I had the opportunity of reading. It is said that SEGA issued a disclaimer to them prior to their review, stating that the loading times would be drastically shortened in the final retail build as opposed to the appallingly long load times that plagued their own review-build. I guess Halverson accepted this as fact and assessed and scored the game with this in mind.
And again, I haven't played Sonic the Hedgehog, but there's a conspicuous disparity between how Play received the game in relation to how, say, Gameinformer, 1UP, and the trustworthy EDGE received it.
Shidoshi, I know you've been tasked to explain Play's "questionable" reviews time and time again, and I plead that you do it once more. Not only would I like to quell some of my own ambiguities, I want to eliminate further disparaging comments regarding Play's integrity.
Play is a perfectly fine entry in the realm of print enthusiast magazines. As others have commented, their formatting is gorgeous, their paper quality is top-notch, and their previews leave little to be desired.
Their reviews -- which I only have a minor problem with -- are where matters get interesting. Now, I haven't played Lair, but judging by the 9/10 score they awarded the title, I'm curious to read the review. For a game that almost every single gaming publication claimed to be literally "broken," it's odd to see Play argue otherwise.
The same goes for their Sonic review, which I had the opportunity of reading. It is said that SEGA issued a disclaimer to them prior to their review, stating that the loading times would be drastically shortened in the final retail build as opposed to the appallingly long load times that plagued their own review-build. I guess Halverson accepted this as fact and assessed and scored the game with this in mind.
And again, I haven't played Sonic the Hedgehog, but there's a conspicuous disparity between how Play received the game in relation to how, say, Gameinformer, 1UP, and the trustworthy EDGE received it.
Shidoshi, I know you've been tasked to explain Play's "questionable" reviews time and time again, and I plead that you do it once more. Not only would I like to quell some of my own ambiguities, I want to eliminate further disparaging comments regarding Play's integrity.
Byakuya769
Member
miyamotofreak said:
There's a lot of games I see as shitty that get 10's/9's from other media... So their review system is as valuable as any other in the fanboy laden world of videogame journalism.
The problem with reviews is for ages magazines have been attempting to give "objective" ones instead of embracing subjectivity. If all reviewers simply told the absolute truth then there would be no backlash against scores that seem absurdly high. Unfortunately we live in a world where game Informer openly admits to rating games based on if their readers will like it and others clearly follow suit, whether or not they are so open about the matter.
If Play always reviews games based on the subjective review of that one person, then who gives a shit if one guy liked a game you think sucks or didn't like a game you loved? If he is speaking for himself and not as a mouthpiece for objective truth, what's the problem?
Doubting Play is absolutely subjective in their review process is another thing. I don't read the magazine enough to have an opinion. Based on every other site and magazine I'd guess they don't embrace subjectivity until they desperately need to in order to explain a seemingly stupid review.
If Play always reviews games based on the subjective review of that one person, then who gives a shit if one guy liked a game you think sucks or didn't like a game you loved? If he is speaking for himself and not as a mouthpiece for objective truth, what's the problem?
Doubting Play is absolutely subjective in their review process is another thing. I don't read the magazine enough to have an opinion. Based on every other site and magazine I'd guess they don't embrace subjectivity until they desperately need to in order to explain a seemingly stupid review.
Byakuya769
Member
legend166 said:
What does facetious mean? Does that mean what I think it means... gotdamnit.
Why would I try and make an actual political criticism and relate it to his word use?...
miyamotofreak
Banned
GameRankings has it at 82 average and highest so far is 90. Once play gets added it'll go up some more.Rlan said:
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
dirtmonkey37 said:
EDGE gave Condemned 2 a 5/10
miyamotofreak
Banned
A 10? What the fuck?knicks said:
MWS Natural
Member
Who reads PLAY for their review scores?? Definitely a great looking mag with nice content, you just have to remember to subtract -2 from their scores.
Well they are on opposite spectrum's, the real score is usually somewhere in between.
DevelopmentArrested said:
Well they are on opposite spectrum's, the real score is usually somewhere in between.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
knicks said:
Motorstorm also got a 10/10 from Play.
edit: beaten above.
dirtmonkey37 said:
I wish I had been "tasked" to do this, because then I might be getting paid to come into the Play threads that show up on this place. Trust me, I don't so much enjoy being in them. *heh*
I can only truly speak for myself, and I come at Play much in the way I came at GameFan: I'm not kidding myself, I'm not a "journalist" nor a Ebert-level reviewer, I'm a guy who loves video games, loved talking about them, and hopefully can convince people to try a good game or two that they never would have otherwise.
For example, Rule of Rose. EGM gave it a 4.5 out of 10, GamePro a 3.25 out of 5, PSM a 5 out of 10, Hardcore Gamer a 2 out of 5, GameSpot a 6 out of 10, and IGN (UK) a 4.5 out of 10. I gave it a 7.5, putting me quite a bit above the average score given to the game.
The reason I gave it that score was simple: that's what I wanted to give it. I was perfectly aware that the gameplay was a bit shit, the combat could be frustrating, and that there were some other things about the game that just weren't as good as they could or should have been. That said, as somebody who loves survival horror, as well as games that create a compelling and engrossing world and atmosphere, I thought Rule was an unbelievable game. Despite its flaws, there was a lot that was right with the game as well, and to me it was both worth the score I gave it, and worth playing.
Looking at my score, then looking at the other publications, it's easy to say "shidoshi is nuts and he gave the game a score it didn't deserve." I see it differently: I see it as me appreciating the game, while the other reviewers may have written it off without giving an honest look at its good side, and they're the ones who gave a wrong score, not me.
So who is right? I'll be honest: I'm not sure I can say I came at that review (or any review) with an objective reviewer's mentality. I didn't compare Rule to other games in the survival horror genre, I didn't make a list of all of the plusses and minuses of the game to get a final score, or anything like that. I played the game, asked myself what I honestly thought of it, and wrote that as a review. Because of that, I probably didn't be as harsh about the game's faults as I should have been. (Though I certainty did mention them in my review.) And yet, I'm willing to bet that I was able to appreciate the good things about the game more than a lot of the other people who reviewed it.
Plus, simply put: I personally really dug the game.
Another example where I seem to have been completely outside of the "norm" score wise was Valhalla Knights. On this very forum, I posted multiple posts (with multiple paragraphs) talking about the game, and pointing out all of the things that I liked about it. My score was an 8.5 - high, yes, but it was a game that I thought was very well put together, and did what it did with style.
Yet, here are some of the other scores: GamePro at 3.25 / 5, IGN at 5.3 / 10, Gamespot at 5.6 / 10, EMG 4.3 / 10, 1UP at 3.5 / 10, and RPGamer at... ouch... 1.5 / 5.
Play had ads for Valhalla Knights, as well as running a contest where we gave away copies of the game. Is that an explanation for my high score? Truth be told, I had no idea about either until my review was long written. I gave Valhalla Knights the score I did because, every minute I played the game, I enjoyed the experience. I loved the combat system, I loved the A.I. control of your teammates, it made dungeon crawling fun, it had a nice quest system, and a lot of other examples. Like I said, I was on here writing loads of posts about why I thought the game was worth picking up and playing.
So, again, what is the explanation for the huge variation between my score and everybody else's? Was I completely off base? Or did I find something in the game that nobody else did?
I think that's a very interesting question, especially since it's MY score that's in question, so I understand fully where I was coming from. Does that mean Play needs to fire me and find a better writer, or that I gave the game a real chance when others didn't? Or was it completely a fluke?
dirtmonkey37
flinging feces ---->
All I'm saying is that if the critic's (often positive in Play's situation) opinion is justified by individual contentions, there's no problem in Play's intrinsic inclination to receive games more positively than other publications.
dirtmonkey37
flinging feces ---->
shidoshi said:
Thank you. Your post is -- at least by me -- much appreciated.
miyamotofreak
Banned
What the fuck?knicks said:
dirtmonkey37 said:
Well, that's kind of what I was answering in that long post: that at least in my case, I think I can almost always completely justify the score I gave a game, even when it seriously differs from the average score the game received elsewhere.
In those two cases, they seem like perfect cases of "Play scores too high!" But knowing what I know about those two games, I can't help but wonder why there's such a valley between scores when I think that I was either completely fair, or maybe a tad generous but not to any sort of crazy degree.
Byakuya769
Member
Shidosi, good post.. at the end of the day it just means that you enjoyed the game and reviewed how you wanted to.
I just think it laughable when one magazine is panned for its high reviews, and yet every day on this forum lame ass reviews are hoisted as proof that a game is good or bad. Basically boils down to reviews being good when "we" agree with them and stupid,biased, wrong when we don't. However, I find that no reviews in the industry really serve as critical analysis of products or the art in games.... so whether or not mag A gives it a 10 or site B gives it a 3 is pretty much meaningless to me.
When a large segment of reviewers can show through their writing that they could consistently get above a C in a college writing course, admit that they get glassy eyed at the thought of certain characters in games, or accountably review games as products or as art (one or the other)... I might start giving a damn about review scores.
I just think it laughable when one magazine is panned for its high reviews, and yet every day on this forum lame ass reviews are hoisted as proof that a game is good or bad. Basically boils down to reviews being good when "we" agree with them and stupid,biased, wrong when we don't. However, I find that no reviews in the industry really serve as critical analysis of products or the art in games.... so whether or not mag A gives it a 10 or site B gives it a 3 is pretty much meaningless to me.
When a large segment of reviewers can show through their writing that they could consistently get above a C in a college writing course, admit that they get glassy eyed at the thought of certain characters in games, or accountably review games as products or as art (one or the other)... I might start giving a damn about review scores.
_Alkaline_
Member
dirtmonkey37 said:
Because Sonic's only problem was its loading times...
dirtmonkey37
flinging feces ---->
_Alkaline_ said:
And that was one of my own questions...
Beer Monkey
Member
Halverson said:
Well, you can't blame him.
I AM JOHN!
Banned
Shidoshi, just bail out, dude. You're fighting an uphill, futile battle here. 
I AM JOHN! said:Shidoshi, just bail out, dude. You're fighting an uphill, futile battle here.
Shidoshi is a good guy. And he need not defend any of us at Play.
He does so because he's passionate and genuinely cares about what he does. We need more people like him.
Dare I say it? Shidoshi is a true American hero.
Mutagenic said:
WAY late to the party on this one sir.
Plus, uhm... Play isn't exactly my magazine. I mean, it's "mine" in so far as I work for it, but other than that, not at all mine.
Byakuya769 said:
I clipped your post not because it wasn't good, but I didn't want to quote the entire thing when my response might not be as long.
I think people get far too crazy over reviews, be it us giving a game a 10 (too high!), or Gamespot giving Zelda a 8.8 (too low!). My opinion has always been this: take reviews with a grain of salt, and the biggest factor to if I listen to a review or not isn't the score, or the source, but if the person sounds like they actually gave a damn about playing the game or not. If somebody reviewing a game obviously isn't a fan of the genre, I have little reason to care about the review. If somebody is honestly passionate about what they're writing about, then I don't care if their review is a bit odd or they gave it a wacko score.
Then, though, you look around for more scores, you come on here and ask others their opinions on the game, and it becomes part of an overall search for information on a game.
Truth be told, I'm not sure I'd want somebody buying a game STRICTLY on the fact that they read my review for it. That's a lot of pressure, and I don't know you personally, so your tastes may completely differ from mine. My hope is that, at the end of the day, maybe I've encouraged you to look into a great game that you might not otherwise have checked out. I've had a few people come to me and say that because of my Persona 3 review, they ended up trying (and loving) a game that they would have missed otherwise. That, right there, is what I think is important.
Byakuya769
Member
Mutagenic said:
didnt deserve the score by who's standards?
Byakuya769
Member
Mutagenic said:
So we need all scores to be about the same... dissenting views are obviously wrong. Gotcha...
Similar threads
- Locked