"Reviewers aren't hardcore game fanatics", are you crazy? Of course they are. You wouldn't take a job playing a games for 30 plus or more hours and spend days preparing your professionally thought out opinions in review form if you didn't like games in the first place.
I was having this conversation with a buddy a couple of years ago; he asked me why I wait for the reviews to buy a game. My answer was somewhere along the lines of: I have a full time job and a full time social life and I love video games. Games are released like the world will end if they don't churn them out left and right. Not only can I not play all of them, but I can barely play a few of them. So therefore I only buy the highest rated titles, or ones with the most value such as replay value.
They compared games to moves in this article. Fortunately for movies, each one will take at most 2 hours of my times so even if it's given an average rating of 60, I'm still going to watch it. Games however take 50 hours of your time, the good ones anyways, so again, I'm only going to play the best ones.
There's a big difference between the game reviewer whose *job* it is to play these games and the rest of us who just enjoy these games. Most reviewers are so jaded that you basically need to ignore most of what they rant about. Games are generally better than how they are rated.
That's an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. I'm in the reviewing business... my friends are as well. You won't find a more game-crazy group. These people love games and know that they are lucky to be in positions where they can review them for a living.
Everyone reviews games differently. What I think is great, someone else might think sucks. That's what great about opinions. No one is stopping you from posting a review anywhere on the Internet. If you think your opinion is awesome, post it. Don't take down other people that have been lucky to get a good gig.
Yes, because fan boy flame wars dont skew reviews. User criticisms are a tool that consumers can use but they can be often more extreme compared to reviews by sites/publications.
Games should be rated and reviewed by us, the people who actually buy it and play it. Reviewers aren't hardcore game fanatics and thus lack the proper levels of game addiction to rate these games.
That doesn't matter, if you intend to write a review on a video game you need to be able to write a review on the entire game. I've seen blog owners play through video games they absolutely hate so they can comment on every aspect of the game. If a Blog is doing something like that then someone who's actually getting paid to specifically write the review better have the ethics to play the entire game all the way through.
You are right about reviewers having a particular talent that allows them to produce well thought out professional opinions and don't necessarily have to be passionate about the subject matter. However, as a gamer myself, it's easy for me to pick out the individual editors who also genuinely love games and will provide fair and balanced opinions (am I the only one who looks at the name of the reviewer?) I can tell you right now, it's obvious to me that MOST of the editors I've read game reviews from genuinely love games. So the notion that reviewers are just crunching words together just to get through their day and will say anything in a review just to get it over with because it's their job is asinine. If you combine their love for games with their professionalism in bringing you a review, I'll take that any day over some user (or, 'real' gamer) giving a game a 1.0 on IGN because it's too similar to its predecessor or some guy giving a game a 10/10 because the intro blew his mind.
Also, never have I played a game that received a 9.0 or higher average professional rating that I didn't completely adore.
And, it takes some serious time and effort rising through the ranks and becoming a senior editor for a magazine or website. I promise you that those who get that far, freakin' love games!! Very different from a talent-less or completely unmotivated individual who flips burgers into their 30's for 60 hours a week.
I partially agree with you, simply because some games start slow and get better (Heavy Rain) but I'd sooner hear someone say "I gave up after an hour". After all, that's their honest review of the game. If you have to battle through 5 hours of crap to get to 10 hour of good, maybe you will do that if you're getting paid but you probably wouldn't if you weren't.
Only on the outside are they repetitive really. Each mission requires a particular skill set and it requires you to think outside the box. Unless you're the type to abandon character and just charge at the target.
Developers should APPRECIATE the individual reviews being put out there. Don't take it as a personal attack. Use it as constructive criticisms. Take a proactive role and fix the associated problems. If it's not fixable, take that info on the next game. Otherwise put out open betas.
While feedback is the most helpful part of a review, reviews can often dictate how successful a game is and that can often be the difference between a company staying afloat and people getting to keep their jobs.
If you've worked 4 years on a project and put your passion and effort into it like most in the industry do, only to find that some snotty nosed kid working for a major company like IGN has ripped it to shreds and now you and your friends are out of work... that's not something people can appreciate.
Users are polar though. They often love it or hate it and that's normally the difference between 1 star and 5 star. They don't often understand the concept of 2, 3 and 4 star.
cjcurlettJan 17, 2012Buried
"Reviewers aren't hardcore game fanatics", are you crazy? Of course they are. You wouldn't take a job playing a games for 30 plus or more hours and spend days preparing your professionally thought out opinions in review form if you didn't like games in the first place.
I was having this conversation with a buddy a couple of years ago; he asked me why I wait for the reviews to buy a game. My answer was somewhere along the lines of: I have a full time job and a full time social life and I love video games. Games are released like the world will end if they don't churn them out left and right. Not only can I not play all of them, but I can barely play a few of them. So therefore I only buy the highest rated titles, or ones with the most value such as replay value.
They compared games to moves in this article. Fortunately for movies, each one will take at most 2 hours of my times so even if it's given an average rating of 60, I'm still going to watch it. Games however take 50 hours of your time, the good ones anyways, so again, I'm only going to play the best ones.
spr0ketJan 17, 2012Buried
There's a big difference between the game reviewer whose *job* it is to play these games and the rest of us who just enjoy these games. Most reviewers are so jaded that you basically need to ignore most of what they rant about. Games are generally better than how they are rated.
zulmericronxJan 17, 2012Buried
That's an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. I'm in the reviewing business... my friends are as well. You won't find a more game-crazy group. These people love games and know that they are lucky to be in positions where they can review them for a living.
Everyone reviews games differently. What I think is great, someone else might think sucks. That's what great about opinions. No one is stopping you from posting a review anywhere on the Internet. If you think your opinion is awesome, post it. Don't take down other people that have been lucky to get a good gig.
dandoniaJan 17, 2012Buried
It's a specialised job to get though. There's millions of wannabe game journo's.
jerroldsJan 17, 2012Buried
Yes, because fan boy flame wars dont skew reviews. User criticisms are a tool that consumers can use but they can be often more extreme compared to reviews by sites/publications.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 17, 2012Buried
Games should be rated and reviewed by us, the people who actually buy it and play it. Reviewers aren't hardcore game fanatics and thus lack the proper levels of game addiction to rate these games.
dandoniaJan 17, 2012Buried
If they didn't finish the game, perhaps it's because they weren't enjoying it enough to complete it.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 18, 2012Buried
That doesn't matter, if you intend to write a review on a video game you need to be able to write a review on the entire game. I've seen blog owners play through video games they absolutely hate so they can comment on every aspect of the game. If a Blog is doing something like that then someone who's actually getting paid to specifically write the review better have the ethics to play the entire game all the way through.
cjcurlettJan 18, 2012Buried
You are right about reviewers having a particular talent that allows them to produce well thought out professional opinions and don't necessarily have to be passionate about the subject matter. However, as a gamer myself, it's easy for me to pick out the individual editors who also genuinely love games and will provide fair and balanced opinions (am I the only one who looks at the name of the reviewer?) I can tell you right now, it's obvious to me that MOST of the editors I've read game reviews from genuinely love games. So the notion that reviewers are just crunching words together just to get through their day and will say anything in a review just to get it over with because it's their job is asinine. If you combine their love for games with their professionalism in bringing you a review, I'll take that any day over some user (or, 'real' gamer) giving a game a 1.0 on IGN because it's too similar to its predecessor or some guy giving a game a 10/10 because the intro blew his mind.
Also, never have I played a game that received a 9.0 or higher average professional rating that I didn't completely adore.
And, it takes some serious time and effort rising through the ranks and becoming a senior editor for a magazine or website. I promise you that those who get that far, freakin' love games!! Very different from a talent-less or completely unmotivated individual who flips burgers into their 30's for 60 hours a week.
dandoniaJan 18, 2012Buried
I partially agree with you, simply because some games start slow and get better (Heavy Rain) but I'd sooner hear someone say "I gave up after an hour". After all, that's their honest review of the game. If you have to battle through 5 hours of crap to get to 10 hour of good, maybe you will do that if you're getting paid but you probably wouldn't if you weren't.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 18, 2012Buried
A valid point.
meribianJan 19, 2012Buried
Assassin's Creed is repetitive as f**k.
meribianJan 19, 2012Buried
Some games don't require you to complete them to review them. I bet none of the reviewers completed Superman 64.
CrescentSkies_2Jan 19, 2012Buried
Only on the outside are they repetitive really. Each mission requires a particular skill set and it requires you to think outside the box. Unless you're the type to abandon character and just charge at the target.
LongBJan 17, 2012Buried
Developers should APPRECIATE the individual reviews being put out there. Don't take it as a personal attack. Use it as constructive criticisms. Take a proactive role and fix the associated problems. If it's not fixable, take that info on the next game. Otherwise put out open betas.
dandoniaJan 17, 2012Buried
While feedback is the most helpful part of a review, reviews can often dictate how successful a game is and that can often be the difference between a company staying afloat and people getting to keep their jobs.
If you've worked 4 years on a project and put your passion and effort into it like most in the industry do, only to find that some snotty nosed kid working for a major company like IGN has ripped it to shreds and now you and your friends are out of work... that's not something people can appreciate.
dandoniaJan 18, 2012Buried
The flip side to that is obviously that some people make millions from those reviews... so swings and roundabouts really.
gamingforeverJan 17, 2012Buried
Users are more important than site reviews... Just because a site said it's good doesn't mean it's purely good...
dandoniaJan 17, 2012Buried
Users are polar though. They often love it or hate it and that's normally the difference between 1 star and 5 star. They don't often understand the concept of 2, 3 and 4 star.
ninhJan 17, 2012Buried
No they usually only hear what they've been trying to tell their marketing monkeys during development and were overruled on.