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.

___________________
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

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.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

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").

___________________
last minute disco dot net

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.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

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).

___________________
last minute disco dot net

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.

___________________
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

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*

___________________
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.