Support NeoGAF

[FrenchMovieTheme]

i'll admit i don't care about much besides sports games. lets get that off the bat. but in the last month or so, two major football releases have been reviewed by many, many gaming publications. EVERY publication gave these two games awesome scores. lets talk about each and why egm, ign, gamepro, psm, opm, oxm, operation sports, etc etc are full of shit and make me question whether these people actually PLAY the games, or have ea/sega/whoever write the reviews for them and send it with the "beta" version.


ncaa football 2005 - lets take a glance at some of the review scores.

gamepro: 5/5
psm: 10/10
GI: 9.25/10

i'm not debating opinion. if someone loves the game, i'm not going to argue with that. my problem stems from the fact that these "reviews" read like a fucking press release. who in the fuck mentioned the slowdown in the xbox version? or the game crippling drops? how about the ridiculousness of HFA? sure, gamespot mentioned the slowdown issue... a few days after everyone already had the game. how are these assholes missing these things? i realized this shit was wrong after playing it for just a couple hours, and these dudes have the game for weeks, at LEAST a few days, in advance of writing the review.

it's one thing when joke publications who i know for a fact aren't playing final versions write a review, it's another when operation sports (dedicated to sports gaming) has a dude with the beta and he "doesn't see slowdown" doesn't notice any of these other problems. are these guys getting pressured by EA to kiss ass or what??

espn football 2k5

this is a little different. publications have given it 4/5, 5/5, 9.0/10, whatever, and i don't disagree with that overall. it's an awesome game. but a magazine like game informer has the fucking BALLS to say franchise mode is leagues better and an awesome experience... well i've played franchise for a combined 45 minutes of my life in this game, and i already have a gajillion problems i've run into with the game. why didn't they mention the stupid trade logic? why didn't they mention the super QB running? why didn't they mention the glitches and bugs and so on? why didn't any magazine/website mention that? are these guys stupid, or do they just not care about sports enough to go into detail about possible problems?


anyways ive ranted enough. i know i shouldn't depend on a review (and i dont), but when a game is a few weeks away i just want some nice info on the game to give me an idea of how it will play out. but when review publications leave out HUGE bugs/glitches/problems from their reviews, it makes me think they are scared of having support pulled by the company or getting paid off or whatever. unacceptable!

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

I know what you mean. Recently, I have been annoyed with reviews for Mega man anniversary collection treating both versions as if they are the same *cough ign cough* Then Gamespot posts a review from a reviewer who actually tried both versions, and the IGN review is quietly changed.

I think reviewers are on a deadline, and don't get to spend as much time with each game, and so flaws and bugs are found by joe gamer who buys the game and plays it nonstop for a week.......it really is unfortunate how fanboyish and uninformative most reviews are though.

 

[Bog]

I think reviewers are on a deadline, and don't get to spend as much time with each game, and so flaws and bugs are found by joe gamer who buys the game and plays it nonstop for a week.

ding ding ding

 

[Matlock]

We get paid?

 

[StoOgE]

I think sports games are a wierd situation in particular.. because you have hard core gamers, and hardcore sports fans and not a whole lot of area where those two intersect.. the only people who really care about franchise mode and stat tracking are those that happen to be both. So, while it bothers me that Chris Berman informed me the Packers just picked up Ray Lewis for next to nothing (I did trade with the Ravens, but not for him), the average person would just be glad there is a sports center feature.

The best example I have of gamespot being worthless was their review of Azurik. Now, Im not defending the game as being worthwhile, or even mildy entertaining.. but I read their review and talked to the lead designer on the title (they had a forum at TXB for a while). He was claiming everything from gamespots review happened literally in the first 30 minutes of the game(including all screen shots). I rented the game just to check it out and sure enough everything gamespot had gotten ahold of happened within minutes of the games beginning. The game sucks ass (I've beaten it believe me I know, I had nothing better to do between Halo/PGR and JSRF) but for a game that is an action RPG that takes over 100 hours to beat, the first 30 minutes doesnt seem like its going to cut the mustard for a review, especially when you are bieng paid to play the damn game.

As far as IGN goes, I think they are paid off and I mean that completely. When Wreckless and Raw came out early in the Xbox's life IGN hyped them to no end (called Wreckless the most fun game on Xbox) and gave them scores above 9.0. It just happened to be a coincidence that these two horrible games with about 30 minutes of replay value had banner ads all over IGN for the better part of two months. As a HUGE wrestling fan my entire life there is no fucking way RAW should get about a 5. Ever. They have ZERO matches outside of a traditional one fall match and a tag team match (unless you want to count fatal fourways, triple threat or hardcore). No cage, no HITC, no ladder match, no nothing... this doesnt mention the terrible gameplay.. the only way a reasonable person could give that game a good review (especiall a score on par with Halo, Splinter Cell and KOTOR) is if they were told to.

Other things I think happen: the website asks themselves what they can get away with. Lets face it Madden could suck more than anything has ever sucked before this year and it would get a 9.0 or above. Halo 2 could crash 5 minutes into the game and its going to be one of the GOTY picks, etc. Certain games might as well not be reviewed.. you simply cut and paste the new features from the companies website and give it the score everyone knows its going to get.

Fan sites, and not for profit jobs are completely different. I dont complain about things that people do with their own free time to try and get me information about a game I really want to play (see operation sports). If they miss something I dont blame them or get mad.. I save that anger for people getting paid to screw around.

 

[drohne]

genre enthusiasts can't expect mainstream publications to understand or care about the nuances of genre games. that's really always been the case.

what do game reviewers get paid for? i dunno. to validate our preconceptions about big budget games?

 

[etiolate]

I think there are many cases, where due to series redundancy and hype games are pretty much decided as to what their review will be like before it's even released. EA sports game and super-hype-hype games are like this.

I love when a game gets a high score and a review that sounds like PR, then a year later we get some editorial from the media source talking about how the game is really average "now that I look back." Donkey Kong 64 and Final Fantasy 8 come to mind.

I believe Gamespot had a NBA Courtside review where they knocked it for not having a 3 second rule, but it was just simply an option you turn on in the pause menu.

 

[Wellington]

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7144

DM made a topic on the Gaming Age review for NCAA. Whoever wrote that review made some glaring omissions, and gave it a B+.

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

They might as well just copy-paste the review from last year's Madden.

 

[Fifty]

Amen! Despite these reviews being very busy, it's a travesty they they can hand out these high scores without mentioning the gameplay's major flaws...It only took me <5 games to realize most of them. I wish they didn't have a score system set up...

 

[Mrbob]

I think reviewers are on a deadline, and don't get to spend as much time with each game, and so flaws and bugs are found by joe gamer who buys the game and plays it nonstop for a week.......it really is unfortunate how fanboyish and uninformative most reviews are though.

Well, do you have a rough guestimate as to how long of a time they do spend on games?

Reason I ask is because it took all of two days to figure out the problems in NCAA and ESPN. So how long do they play these games? 2 hours?

One thing I have heard is that developers give reviewers a list of things that will be fixed in the final when they review a game since many times they review unfinished code. Well, it is possible these things are purposely listed as going to be fixed by the developer so the reviewer doesn't knock down the score, and then the developer doesn't fix said problems.

 

[Wellington]

As I mentioned in the other topic, this Brian Peterson that did the GA review didn't even mention any o the immediately noticeable flaws in the passing game, nor did he mention the biggestm most touted addition to the game in home field advantage. Personally, I am a bit disappointed in the GA review, seeing as it's so close to home and we have people on the forums that could easily write novels for the ESPN and NCAA reviews, and this is what we get. I honestly get the vibe that he just played last year's game and called it a day. Only thing that is keeping me from believing that is that he was spot on about the slowdown in the xbox version.

ESPN, while actually pretty good, does have some large flaws which had been overlooked by reviewers up to this point. Granted, guys like DM, FMT, Fifty, and myself are both huge football fans, and huge football game fans, but some of te shit that goes on in the game is nonsense.

 

[boutrosinit]

What the F do game reviewers get paid for?

 

[Alcibiades]

L-M-A-O

 

[Teddman]

Friggin' Babel Media, they're everywhere man.

 

[Keio]

To review a movie takes about 120 minutes + writing.
To review a cd takes about 120 minutes (if you listen to it twice) + writing.
To review a book takes about 240 minutes + writing.
To <properly> review a game takes, what, 10-70 hours + writing.

Do you think most reviewers are paid proportionate to the time it takes to study whatever they are reviewing?

No wonder it's really hard to find people to review games who are professional, committed, critical, good writers and with long experience of gaming in general.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

i call bullshit on that. i have played ESPN a total of MAYBE 12 hours over 3 days, and i saw MANY of the bugs within 2 hours of playing. i saw the NCAA bugs (slowdown + drops) within my first hour of playing. this isn't a time issue, keep that in mind at all times

 

[Eggo]

When I was reviewing games for a living, I didn't have 3+ days to review a single title. It's more like a review a day. That is, 8 hours from first picking up the game to having the review done. That means you need finished copy with screenshots (which take a while to set up, get the saves, get the right angle, grab screens, etc.). Factor in the writing time and you have less than four hours to do a generic review. Bigger titles warrant more pages and a longer review, but I'm just talking average game here. So you tell me how much bug-finding you're going to do when playing a game for the first time, getting used to the controls, figuring out how to play, etc. Also, not all of us have time to log 70+ hours in season mode in a single game every year.

 

[lexy]

Did game reviewers ever have to finish the games they reviewed?

I've always wondered this, and if the answer is no, then how come almost none of them ever disclose this small (but vital IMO) detail of the review? They should always list somewhere in the review the amount of time they spent with the game they are reviewing.

 

[ferricide]

When I was reviewing games for a living, I didn't have 3+ days to review a single title. It's more like a review a day. That is, 8 hours from first picking up the game to having the review done. That means you need finished copy with screenshots (which take a while to set up, get the saves, get the right angle, grab screens, etc.). Factor in the writing time and you have less than four hours to do a generic review. Bigger titles warrant more pages and a longer review, but I'm just talking average game here.

that's not an accurate picture of the game reviewing process anywhere i've worked.

 

[COCKLES]

They might as well just copy-paste the review from last year's Madden.

Isn't that what EA do with the code each year?

 

[IgeL]

I've always wondered this, and if the answer is no, then how come almost none of them ever disclose this small (but vital IMO) detail of the review? They should always list somewhere in the review the amount of time they spent with the game they are reviewing.

I agree 100%. If a reviewer doesn't state how long it took him to complete the game, I always suspect they never finished it.

If the game takes less than 10-20 hours to complete, I think the reviewer should complete it. But when a game is long (RPGs for example), it becomes very hard to justify spending a lot of time on it when you get paid the same as the guy who reviews a child's game that's completed in 2 hours. It would be cool if you got paid according to the hours you spend but I don't see that happening anywhere. And the pay is shit anyway.

And Eggo's description sounds pretty damn awful. You reviewed 20 games a month? That's just nuts. When I reviewed games (not in the US, dunno if it could be different there) for a local magazine as a freelancer, I typically had 2-5 games per month, and usually got them a few weeks before the deadline. Yeah there are some occasions where you get a game in the morning and the review must be done the following day etc, but I think it's very rare.

 

[Shinobi]

When I was reviewing games for a living, I didn't have 3+ days to review a single title. It's more like a review a day. That is, 8 hours from first picking up the game to having the review done. That means you need finished copy with screenshots (which take a while to set up, get the saves, get the right angle, grab screens, etc.). Factor in the writing time and you have less than four hours to do a generic review. Bigger titles warrant more pages and a longer review, but I'm just talking average game here. So you tell me how much bug-finding you're going to do when playing a game for the first time, getting used to the controls, figuring out how to play, etc. Also, not all of us have time to log 70+ hours in season mode in a single game every year.

And this is why I sympathize with reviewers (not to say all reviewers follow this pattern), despite having no time for reviews. It's simply the dilemnia that reviewers face...there simply isn't enough time in the day to write a truly proper review. In my view I think you'd have to put anywhere from 15 to 20 hours into each game, and review every single element that exists, including every option, every menu and interface, the instructional manual, everything. I reckon you'd be looking at a ten page review as a reasonable length. And with what, twenty, thirty, forty games coming out a month, that's simply not going to happen, unless they hire about 50 reviewers and throw 700 pages into the monthly mags.

The real problem I've had with reviews for years is the score system, since most people almost always go with some silly figure or number of stars to tell them what a good game is. All it tells is how much the reviewer (allegedly) likes the game. But as long as people continue to prop up scores and use it in their fanboyish battles, and as long as games continue to use them as marketing fodder for their advertising and game packaging, it'll always be the main event of reviews.

A simple thing for reviews to do would be to note how many hours were put into a game. I doubt we'll ever see that though...for starters it'd be pretty telling if they put say, 20 hours into a certain game, gave it a perfect score, only to have a huge number of easy to see flaws become known days or weeks alter. Also if one guy says they put 17 hours into a game while another one put in 37, does it mean the latter was more reliable? And also, who could vouch for those hours anyway? So once again, there's no perfect system.

Of course when stuff like the Driver 3 episode becomes known (which is hardly the first or only one, and sure as fuck won't be the last), it's beyond me how people could put much faith into any review they read.

 

[Blackace]

Well when I write a review I try to state what I enjoyed in the game and I try to think about what the game is trying to do... Take sports for example... (I would have written a review for NCAA if my copy ever came..... ) I love franchise modes... and that is what I focus on when I play...so that is what I focus on when I write...

 

[sprsk]

Finishing a game isnt as important as understanding what youre playing. A reviewer should think with the mind of a bug tester. Try any possible situation to see if the gameplay is solid. once you got that then perhaps you should finish the game. RPGs should never be reviewed until finished though. Screw deadlines, review games when the reviews are ready and actually have some substance.

 

[Keio]

Why is there an imperative that reviewers complete games when most gamers don't?

Obviously, in the best of possible worlds, a reviewer would spend months getting into a game, recognize all it's redeeming qualities and flaws PLUS write them into a short, concise review that would both EDUCATE the reader and give them insight into approaching the game plus APPRAISE the value of the product both as a piece of entertainment and part of the artform.

But then again the first few hours of a game are what usually clinch it. If a game starts off really bad, very few gamers (reviewers of otherwise) will slog through the rest of a very long game. Which might mean there is a gem hidden somewhere there, but it will probably only be found by the dedicated hardcore. And most likely not by reviewers.

And things that break games like "magic spots" from where you can always score in sports games are usually discovered only after weeks of gameplay.

Who should reviews be aimed at? There are so many different types of gamers: the hardcore who frequent the internet boards and play dozens of games a year, the casuals who pick up a game for a weekends diversion once in a while and the obsessive, who buys an update to their favourite sports franchise every year and play them to death, discovering every facet of the gameplay...

Whew. I'm just happy I don't freelance so I only do reviews when I really want to and have time to play a game

 

[sprsk]

Once you know more about gameplay and being good at games it much easier to see the flaws in others. It doesnt take several months to see MK5 was awful.

 

[Mrbob]

Well, lets get back to the sports topic for a moment. The problems with NCAA and ESPN were found within a couple hours. Yet nothing was posted in the reviews. It took a day or two to flesh them out but the red flags were there at the beginning. So I'm not sure how it would take weeks to find them. These problems are fairly obvious and you didn't have to look hard to find them.

 

[Blackace]

Well, lets get back to the sports topic for a moment. The problems with NCAA and ESPN were found within a couple hours. Yet nothing was posted in the reviews. It took a day or two to flesh them out but the red flags were there at the beginning. So I'm not sure how it would take weeks to find them. These problems are fairly obvious and you didn't have to look hard to find them.

I have to admit not hearing anything about slow down issues on the Xbox is kind of sad.. maybe every review copy was PS2? hahah

Like I said if NCAA has a deeper franchise mode than last year I will be in love with it.. because to me that is the best point of the game... It is one of the reason I have been so down on the ESPN series...because of their franchise mode... not the hotness...


Gameplay of course is important... but to some reviewers franchise is not important and to others (me me me) it on the top of the list...so of course these thing are going to affect how I write my review

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I too sympathize with the time constraints and pressure put on reviewers to get a review out by release. However, as FMT notes many of these errors are noticeable within the first night of casual play. Say within the first 4-5 hours for someone less discernable than he is. My bet is that he saw errors in the game when I was still liking it (NCAA) say within 4 hours. 2 hours later I was seeing errors that pissed me off. A lot of these guys writing the reviews talk as though they are big sports fans and they do review for a living. After a few years you'd think they would know what to look for. Also, it's not as though none of these guys give sports games the attention they deserve. There's plenty of gamers like myself out there who buy in certain sports genres every year yet still purchase and enjoy every other genre.

And even after bugs come out, later reviews will be guilty of the same poor vision as the very first to market. MVP comes to mind, where later reviews were still singing it's praises failing to mention at least 2 major bugs. Game-breaking bugs that were common knowledge after a bit, but were still looked over by lesser sites just like the big names (who may have not had the time to discover them).

That would be ok by me if the gaming press wasn't overwhelmingly a buying guide industry rather than often taking any sort of high critical or contextual stance in their reviews. If it's going to follow the consumer model of review, at least get that right.

I don't think it's malice or being bought out. I think it's the atmosphere that surrounds gaming. Hype often leads to comment, and strange favoritism runs rampant. I can't imagine a Madden or a non-spin off Zelda receiving less than a high 8 or 9 from most sites these days and it's not because everyone of those games deserve them. Most do, and that's enough. It's a young field, dominated by young writer's who have no atmosphere of a critical learning environment in their field and it doesn't resemble the higher forms of criticism in any other media. It's audience is still different too, so that probably won't change.

 

[Gazunta]

that's not an accurate picture of the game reviewing process anywhere i've worked.

What, you don't remember Hotgames.com?

I was busting out 10 a day...thankfully 9 of them were usually "free solitaire clone #7849" or some crap...but damn, there really was no time at all.

All the american places I worked for gave me a few days on each game...must be a territorial thing.

 

[Wellington]

Once you know more about gameplay and being good at games it much easier to see the flaws in others. It doesnt take several months to see MK5 was awful.

Ding

It didn't take any of us long to realize that the passing game in NCAA, or the QB scrambling in ESPN was broken because we were already afficionados of the genre to begin with. It's the same with FPS games, platformers, racing games, and to an extent, RPGs. Skills transfer and each gamer should be able to see immediate major flaws in games similar to ones they have enjoyed in the past.

Regardless of that, I still contend that Brian didn't play it at all, I mean how could you miss the home field advantage.

 

[AbeFroman]

but when review publications leave out HUGE bugs/glitches/problems from their reviews, it makes me think they are scared of having support pulled by the company or getting paid off or whatever. unacceptable!

Sounds like you'd buy all the football games anyway...but...

If you focus a review on a bug or a glitch ( or even mention one ), you risk the chance that it is corrected just prior to production.

Then fanboys rant and bitch about how mag XYZ's reviewers are stupid and don't play the fucking game.

Viscious circle.

 

[Great Wasabi Man]

They might as well just copy-paste the review from last year's Madden.

But then IGN would threaten to sue for ripping off thier mulit-console game review practices

 

[StrikerObi]

We get paid?

For serious, when did this happen?

We outta unionize or something.

 

[Ramirez]

I got the new EGM today,and their ESPN/Madden reviews consisted of like 5 people talking back and forth to each other about dumb shit.One would say Madden had the superior gameplay,then the others would agree with him,but none of them explained how or why.It was a terrible "review" =\

 

[Jonnyboy117]

We get paid?

IAWTP (told myself I'd never use these damn abbreviations)

 

[Ranger X]

This all leads to one conclusion: just check game ranking to make your choices and rent your games before you buy to be sure and fuck the rest of the universe.
It's the only way i've never been screwed.

 

[Keio]

just check game ranking to make your choices

No. I'd rather take one brilliant review by an individual than an average based on fansites, exclusives and technical breakdowns of games.

Averages mean nearly nothing. And the fact that even identikit fps games get over 80% tell something about the lack of critical attention rampant in gaming press.

A few well argued reviews are what I base my purchases on - and sometimes waiting for a few months to see what level the reaction levels to after the initial hype.

With sports games this is especially true. The flaws start to expose themselves slowly.

 

[Ranger X]

Well, i said game rankings but what i wanna say is more "check on many review and judge if the game sounds like one who maybe will deserve your money".

 

[CrimsonSkies]

Game Reviewers for the most part lack professionalism. There's no school to learn how to be a game reviewer. It's all subjective opinion. Now of course there are some who are better than others. Take for example the guys at GameSpot. There's about 3 or 4 guys on their staff that do a great job with reviews. I may not agree with their scores, but their opinion is usually fair and makes sense.

Of course it's not just games. Movies, Books, etc. all have reviewers who for the most part just really don't convey consistent standards in their opinions.

The worst review of this generation of games was by the guy who gave Ninja Gaiden a C- on this very site. It read like it was written by a 13 year old fanboy. That's another example of the lack of standards.

 

[Blackace]

ok enough reviewer bashing for now... see you guys next week...