TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- Game journalism, reviews, and patch culture.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Game journalism, reviews, and patch culture.

i.e. Is there no pure journalism left?



Note: This is going to be a long one

Allow me to expand as this has been something I've been finding myself extremely bothered with lately. There seems to be a growing trend towards games clearly being rushed out the door without anywhere near enough play testing happening - yet some of these games still seem to initially garner almost universal praise. For example, the recently released Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 received an immense number of 9+ reviews prior to and after its release, yet within a week people were realizing the game was effectively broken. Some reviewers changed their scores in hindsight, others are in print media and will stand regardless of a changed position on the authors part.

This is also not an occurrence limited a single website, magazine, or blog - from the very worst like Gamespot, to in my mind, the very best like DToid and Kotaku, there occasionally seem to be reviews that have got to either be:

A. Based solely on the awe of the initial experience, and not on the game as a whole (such as many of the reviews that initially arrived with Assassin's Creed).

or

B. Bought. I can't think of any other reason some games that were so incredibly shit (or even just really, really mediocre) were rated so high (like Mass Effect - give it the 7 it deserves).

Now I am certainly not so naive as to think this hasn't been going on for ages, however there seems to be a new problem with this system that really does a massive disservice to gamers: patch culture. When games that are indeed basically broken, such as R6: V2 and Bully: SE (among others - the SSB disc read issue comes to mind, though that's a Wii issue, and not really software related), yet still manage to irk out pretty solid reviews, the only people left to suffer are the consumers.

I'm sure those of you who've experienced the displeasure of paying your hard earned money for something only to not be able to play it understand what I'm talking about here, but basically what it comes down to is that between developers being urged to get relatively untested software released as quickly as possible and the gross irresponsibility displayed by almost every outlet for gaming journalism I can think of, where are gamers to go for any reliable news?

I honestly find TA a better resource for information on some games than the whole of the rest of the internet's sources for info. At least I can get an idea of what someone thinks beyond reviews that clearly sound like they are talking about an entirely different game than I'm playing.

One thing that had occurred to me as well is that when I read any magazine, major website, or blog it really seems rare to see all that many scores in the 6-7 range really being talked about as games that are actually good - the majority seem to fall into the "disappointment" category and receive press with the same tone as games receiving 5's or less.

It really seems to be an all or nothing kind of affair with game journalism, and with the turn things have taken towards patch culture there just seems to be all sorts of shades of gray not being accounted for, and as consumers in an industry that is growing faster than any other entertainment industry it drives me crazy that the people whose salaries we play seem to be getting worse and worse at their jobs as opposed to better and better.

/rant

Thoughts?

I know what you mean. It's largely annoying when all high profile games seem to universally score 9s everywhere even when they're shit. As for R6:vegas 2, it was pretty obvious (to me at least) that this game would receive high praise no matter how little effort actually went into it's release.

Sadly, even the internet media how now become like old media (ie. TV news and newspapers). Basically, it's all about entertainment now with credibility gone out the window.

It also seems that reviewers just rush through games or don't even come close to finishing them, all in an effort to get the review out and then move on. You can't play a game for 2 days and then properly review it, unless it's something like Portal.

The internet is still a valuable resource, but I too prefer to get feedback from a few forums on games and a couple of trusted magazines and websites, rather the plethora of crap and clearly bought out review sites such as Gamespot.

That's another thing - I really don't believe that any of these so-called reviewers are actually finishing the games they say they play.

The most obvious instance of this is, again, AC - but it's not the only game that some folks gave glowing reviews to that seemed to completely leave out some of the most irritating facets of gameplay (some of which don't occur until near the end of games - let's face it, we've all dealt with a game before that totally fucking screws you towards the end and basically just cheaps out on either the ending, or on making the end absurdly difficult, as a means of making it feel like an "ending").

Well you also have to consider that these websites have relationships with developers that they would like to maintain. If one major gaming website gives a major release a bad review, and another gives it a good review, which one do you think is likely to get the exclusive sneak preview for the next title? Losing out on something like that can translate into a direct loss of traffic and therefore revenue for a website. Of course, there's also a risk incurred by giving a good review to a lousy game -- readers might seek reviews elsewhere, next time. But when nearly everyone is doing it, that risk is greatly reduced.

It's sort of like in politics: you don't ask the hard questions, because if you do, then you just won't get the next interview.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well you also have to consider that these websites have relationships with developers that they would like to maintain. If one major gaming website gives a major release a bad review, and another gives it a good review, which one do you think is likely to get the exclusive sneak preview for the next title? Losing out on something like that can translate into a direct loss of traffic and therefore revenue for a website. Of course, there's also a risk incurred by giving a good review to a lousy game -- readers might seek reviews elsewhere, next time. But when nearly everyone is doing it, that risk is greatly reduced. It's sort of like in politics: you don't ask the hard questions, because if you do, then you just won't get the next interview.

I do understand the necessity of such a system, I just don't like it. I realize the whole "slippery slope" mentality is a logical fallacy, however it seems like once you open the doors to "Well, if we're just a little easier on Ubisoft, they'll keep sending us free shit", the whole point of even writing a review is completely lost. It isn't like a "degrees of integrity" kind of thing, it really just seems like knowing that's how it is, there's little point in trusting anything you read in a review until the general public has been playing it a few weeks and worked out the actual bugs.

This, to me, is a ludicrous proposition. People are buying software and hardware on the good faith it will work more often than not, and with frighteningly increasing regularity, it isn't. We're certainly not at a point where every time you buy a game you can expect to get screwed, but the fact that it appears standards for quality have been relaxing at an even quicker rate than they had been for years before, and that worries me.

I like quality games, and for any platform you're on they're becoming more and more of a rarity.

I've always been a little curious of gaming journalism, just as much as I am of film journalism. How many critics out there are kissing ass just to gain respect from the developers? This is why I like to stick to gaming forums to get the jist on whatever new software hits the shelves. Yeah, I'll take a peak at IGN to see what they say, but I won't hold their opinion as absolute. More of a background check on the game, more of a way to read up on it and get the idea of what the game is about. Then I hit up the forums and see what the normal, not-at-all-related-to-journalism gamers have to say about it.

Needless to say, there are opinions all over the place, especially when compared to some of the bigger-budget games.

Critics praised Halo 3 like the second-coming. Most people I talked to were severely disappointed and thought it was more of a "Halo 2 HD" experience.

Call of Duty 4, while popular, has been getting a lot of criticism, too, due to its "lack of skill required." I've hardly delved into CoD4, but I can see their point, it seems obnoxiously easy to kill people.

Rainbow Six Vegas 2 I KNEW would be a dud even before it launched. Why? Because the first one launched only a mere 11 months ago. For a developer to do such a quick turnaround and develop a new game in such a short period of time, I would only EXPECT for the game to not only be broken, but to contain very little in terms of new content. And from what I hear, it suffers from both.

It really sucks because, due to the rising costs of development, companies try and pull these stunts of rehashing and milking the hell outta their brands in order to pull a fine dollar without needing to spend millions on putting together a brand new franchise

What worries me more than anything is that I've generally had a decent experience using either Game Rankings or Metacritic to gauge in a very general and non-specific sense which games were universally acclaimed and thus worth at least taking a look at. This, however, seems to be entirely undermined by the fact that there don't appear to be just one or two compromised sources for reviews - at one time or another, almost every major media outlet for gaming seems to have decided to take the plunge and say "Meh, free stuff + more free time means that I get to write half assed reviews and not finish the games I say I finish", and this mentality seems ripe for perpetuating itself in a consequence free environment (Gamespot is the only one whose ever been completely shit on in my memory).

quote:

Originally posted by RJT What worries me more than anything is that I've generally had a decent experience using either Game Rankings or Metacritic to gauge in a very general and non-specific sense which games were universally acclaimed and thus worth at least taking a look at. This, however, seems to be entirely undermined by the fact that there don't appear to be just one or two compromised sources for reviews - at one time or another, almost every major media outlet for gaming seems to have decided to take the plunge and say "Meh, free stuff + more free time means that I get to write half assed reviews and not finish the games I say I finish", and this mentality seems ripe for perpetuating itself in a consequence free environment (Gamespot is the only one whose ever been completely shit on in my memory).

Competition is great in most cases. However, in gaming media, it's almost as if it creates a sense of one-sidedness towards the game developers rather than the reader. Instead of kissing the programmer's ass for his incredible lighting techniques (though incredibly lackluster..uhh everything else), why not kiss the asses of the people who actually READ what is being written?

I don't understand when and how gaming journalism became such a fraudulent, corrupt, and downright untrustworthy situation in which whatever company provides the most advertising dollars gets the best review. That's just not right.

Is there really any way to fix this? Or are we, as curious gamers who like to read reviews of new titles, stuck with fake bullshit that is fed to us because we hardly have any other choice?

All I have to say is, I'm glad we have the internet. I can talk to PEOPLE here who play games, not editors who were paid to speak the words they are saying.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 Critics praised Halo 3 like the second-coming. Most people I talked to were severely disappointed and thought it was more of a "Halo 2 HD" experience.

Lame, slow-paced and noobified. Adds nothing new, just halo 2 with better graphics. Of course all the halo fanboys are all over it.

quote:

Call of Duty 4, while popular, has been getting a lot of criticism, too, due to its "lack of skill required." I've hardly delved into CoD4, but I can see their point, it seems obnoxiously easy to kill people.

Again same issues as Halo 3. COD4 was fun at first, but got boring after a week. Again it's being hailed as one of the best shooters of all time when it really shouldn't even be in the top 20.

quote:

Rainbow Six Vegas 2 I KNEW would be a dud even before it launched. Why? Because the first one launched only a mere 11 months ago. For a developer to do such a quick turnaround and develop a new game in such a short period of time, I would only EXPECT for the game to not only be broken, but to contain very little in terms of new content. And from what I hear, it suffers from both.

R6 vegas 1 was fun, but very short and low on content. R6 vegas 2 is paying again for content you should've had the first time you bought the game.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K Lame, slow-paced and noobified. Adds nothing new, just halo 2 with better graphics. Of course all the halo fanboys are all over it.

Took the words outta my mouth. Ya see, I hailed Bungie for designing the original Halo multiplayer the way they did. With the health bar AND the shield both in use, it made it both easy to learn the game, and yet difficult to actually master it.

Now, all FPS's are adopting this new bullshit health system where you literally have NO health bar, and after taking cover from being shot at, your character automatically heals in mere SECONDS, and BAM, back to normal. Where in the hell is the challenge there? Doesn't anybody miss the adrenaline-pumping experiences of having only 3% health, a few bullets left, and the entire rest of your team dead?

Halo 2 started this trend, and Halo 3 has now glorified it to the point that the term "health bar" has practically gone extinct. I do not approve of this change, at all. I'm not generally a Halo-hater; I can have fun with it. But I'll tell ya, there are other FPS's I'd rather be playing. Like Halo 1 for instance.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K Again same issues as Halo 3. COD4 was fun at first, but got boring after a week. Again it's being hailed as one of the best shooters of all time when it really shouldn't even be in the top 20.

I think it has something to do with the overall "prettiness" of the CoD games. One thing I'll admit, right up front, is that the CoD games have always run great. Every single one is always pumping along at 60 FPS. Smooth as silk. Now with CoD4, we have that silky smooth framerate right alongside beautiful HD graphics. Forget about the simplicity of the game or how it takes 1 second to die and 1 second to kill someone, it looks great!

Maybe I'm being harsh. Perhaps its a realism thing where people don't want long firefights in their games, where it's all about hiding and strategy and striking the opposition at the exact right time. It WAS fun when I played it, but no, this is not one of the best FPS's of all time. Not if you ask me.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K R6 vegas 1 was fun, but very short and low on content. R6 vegas 2 is paying again for content you should've had the first time you bought the game.

From what I've read and can tell, R6V2 is content that could have been in the form of DLC for R6V1 but instead repackaged into a new "game" and sold for $59.99. The guys at Ubisoft are smiling all the way to the bank.

Ill rent it if I ever desire to check it out.

I'm glad to see I'm not alone hating that new lack of healthbar system. I hope devellopers get over that fad. That and painfully slow moving FPS games with autoaim. *cough*halo3*cough*

I dont like the idea of self regenerating health either, but its cool not to have a health bar. Ideally, it should borrow something from both system I think. There should be no health bar on the Screen, the only way that you know if you are damaged is by the effect of being shot (ei. Like in COD4), but that shouldnt go away until you find a player who is a medic like in BF2. So no health bar but visibility damage instead, but it still needs to be healed with the help of another player... not just by some time passing.

quote:

Originally posted by _EuG_ I dont like the idea of self regenerating health either, but its cool not to have a health bar. Ideally, it should borrow something from both system I think. There should be no health bar on the Screen, the only way that you know if you are damaged is by the effect of being shot (ei. Like in COD4), but that shouldnt go away until you find a player who is a medic like in BF2. So no health bar but visibility damage instead, but it still needs to be healed with the help of another player... not just by some time passing.

They do this in the The Getaway games for PS2. No health bar is present, however you DO have health and it does NOT regenerate (if I remember correctly).

The Getaway is just like GTA, only extremely serious rather than humorous. It does some things even better than any of the GTA games. The graphics are better, for one.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 They do this in the The Getaway games for PS2. No health bar is present, however you DO have health and it does NOT regenerate (if I remember correctly). The Getaway is just like GTA, only extremely serious rather than humorous. It does some things even better than any of the GTA games. The graphics are better, for one.

I vaguely remember playing the original getaway for ps2, it remember it had very cool driving mechanics (realistic from what i recall) and the shooting was cool as well, but i played this game so long ago so I can be dead wrong.

Now about game reviewing.

I believe that the only way to have an impartial review website would be to have a website that is based on donations... and the games would be purchased and played using these donations. There would have to be no advertising from the video game developers because that of course can lead to corruptions. And the reviewers would be selected by their contributions to site content (forums etc.) The games would then be sent to that persons house and a he would play it and review it in the process. This type of website would work I think.

You're just advocating communism. Nice in theory, does not work in practice.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT You're just advocating communism. Nice in theory, does not work in practice.

The web is different then real life... there is a real communal feel on the internet because people gather together with simular interests.

The web has no governing body, its an anarchy realy... and that seems to work ok. Im sure a site by the people for the people would also be able to operate, until the owners get enough traffic and sell out of course.

quote:

Originally posted by _EuG_ I vaguely remember playing the original getaway for ps2, it remember it had very cool driving mechanics (realistic from what i recall) and the shooting was cool as well, but i played this game so long ago so I can be dead wrong.

Honestly, you were dead on if you ask me. Some people couldn't stand this game, but I had an absolute blast.

re: health bars in games- the ironic thing is that the removal of the bar is actually less realistic because there's no way to gauge how damaged you are. obviously IRL, you can look down and check out where your torso used to be and think "rightyo, i might take this corner more carefully.."

its fucking stupid. its a game.


re: original topic, for the most part i havent felt cheated by any review ive read recently. i look at the top of my PC and i see the recent purchases - crysis, FA, tie fighter collector's CD, fifa 07, empire at war, bioshock, toca 3, condemned, supcom - and feel their reviews were more or less accurate, with a few errors probably thrown in for good measure. i guess it depends on who youre reading, but when im keen on a game i read virtually any site that has info on it for months or years before its released.

at the end of the day, its your job to do your own research with videos and forums and demos etc

you've also got to appreciate that not every reviewer is actually going to know more than you about your favourite game. which is to be expected really. many of the truly awesome games only give up their most satisfying secrets after months, or years of play. writing a good (read: accurate) review is a skill and not everyone has it, and certainly not many have it for every audience that might read them.




as for patches, yeah its a close call. they will (should) always exist because games are just too big and components too diverse... you know the drill.

ive experienced bugs here and there but nothing truly critical that ruined my enjoyment of a game - at least not moreso now than before. indeed, it was the bugs of unpatched games from the early nineties that have given me the most grief.

more support would be appreciated however, companies (imo) have a duty of care to their customers. but at the end of the day something is always going to cause problems for someone.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN recent purchases [...] tie fighter collector's CD

Shame on you, shame on you.

quote:

Originally posted by _EuG_ The web is different then real life... there is a real communal feel on the internet because people gather together with simular interests. The web has no governing body, its an anarchy realy... and that seems to work ok. Im sure a site by the people for the people would also be able to operate, until the owners get enough traffic and sell out of course.

But the fact that the web doesn't have a governing body has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that economies do, and as game developers and journalists function within economic systems (and not within the so-called "anarchy" of the internet) you're never going to see this happen.

Your last sentence really says it all. When your 13, sure - everyone has free time, why don't we all just review games for the common good?

When you're an adult, you realize it isn't as simple as "selling out" when people's livelihoods are at stake.

Essentially you're just grossly oversimplifying a situation to frame it in idyllic terms, but in doing so you're denying the realities of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT But the fact that the web doesn't have a governing body has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that economies do, and as game developers and journalists function within economic systems (and not within the so-called "anarchy" of the internet) you're never going to see this happen. Your last sentence really says it all. When your 13, sure - everyone has free time, why don't we all just review games for the common good? When you're an adult, you realize it isn't as simple as "selling out" when people's livelihoods are at stake. Essentially you're just grossly oversimplifying a situation to frame it in idyllic terms, but in doing so you're denying the realities of the world.

I am oversimplifying the situation, all i wanted to do was to suggest a mechanic that would allow for impartial reviews. I know that that type of website would not work because of the great investment of time that would be involved and the lack of monetery return.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K Shame on you, shame on you.

what are you talking about? TF is the greatest space shooter ever made

yes, but you purchased it recently

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K yes, but you purchased it recently

haha, i forgot about the "recently" comment, i just reeled off what games were sitting on my box. TF was purchased (again) about 18 months ago...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.