Time without game reviews

[SSLA12]

Do you think there will be a time when most people won't depend on game reviews to get games.
Kinda like stop having the interest of watching a person about game recommendation on the net.
Basically One opinion vs All others.

[Back-From-Purgatory]

Extremely unlikely...

People love being told what they should and shouldn't like, adopting someone else's opinion as their own, or alternatively, listening to someone else's opinion just to complain about how stupid it is and how their opinion is better than theirs.

Human nature.

[orangebomb]

Simply put, no.

Most people use reviews as a guide to see if a game is worth their time or not, though it's generally not they only reason why they would want to play. Ideally, people shouldn't be exposed to awful games if they can help it, and while opinions and tastes are all different, proper reviews on games can make a difference between playing a game or simply ignoring it.

[verycoolguy]

Games are expensive and not many want to risk spending a lot for bullshit.

[SSLA12]

At 3/23/14 06:27 PM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: Extremely unlikely...

People love being told what they should and shouldn't like.

Hmm... its the gullible part of man :/

[DoctorStrongbad]

Reviews are okay, but they are not always correct.

[DrClay]

At 3/23/14 06:25 PM, SSLA12 wrote: Do you think there will be a time when most people won't depend on game reviews to get games.
Kinda like stop having the interest of watching a person about game recommendation on the net.
Basically One opinion vs All others.

Only if they somehow became illegal.

[oobooglunk]

Personally, I hate game reviews. The system has been gamed (no pun intended) beyond salvation. From the bribery behind IGN's curtains to the obvious bias of Gamespot, it's one of the worst reflection of gaming today. IMO, the only real indication of a game's quality is its sales.

[SmashLuigiFan1]

At 3/23/14 06:27 PM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: Extremely unlikely...

People love being told what they should and shouldn't like, adopting someone else's opinion as their own, or alternatively, listening to someone else's opinion just to complain about how stupid it is and how their opinion is better than theirs.

Human nature.

It's sad how true this is.

At 3/24/14 03:09 PM, oobooglunk wrote: Personally, I hate game reviews. The system has been gamed (no pun intended) beyond salvation. From the bribery behind IGN's curtains to the obvious bias of Gamespot, it's one of the worst reflection of gaming today. IMO, the only real indication of a game's quality is its sales.

While I agree with you that reviews are terrible (because YOU should be the one who EXPERIENCES a game, not be told why it's good/bad) I completely disagree with you on sales. Do you know how many hidden gems there are out there? You know why they're hidden gems? Because they sold poorly!

Nothing can determine a game's quality, you have to be the one to personally play it.

[Patcoola]

At 3/23/14 06:25 PM, SSLA12 wrote: Basically One opinion vs All others.

I think PC games are so affordable now, you can afford to waste 4.99 on Steam.
I also check how many negative user comments the game has.

[SneakyGameBoy]

No. In my opinion it's just wondering what other people think. It shouldn't be established by some guy who works at IGN. Same goes for movie reviews.

[oobooglunk]

At 3/24/14 05:35 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:
While I agree with you that reviews are terrible (because YOU should be the one who EXPERIENCES a game, not be told why it's good/bad) I completely disagree with you on sales. Do you know how many hidden gems there are out there? You know why they're hidden gems? Because they sold poorly!

Yeah, that makes sense, but marketing is part of game development as well. If you don't know how to sell your game, no matter how well it was programmed, then it's not a well-crafted product. There's a reason the marketing team is in the credits of every game that has them.

Nothing can determine a game's quality, you have to be the one to personally play it.

I believed that too, at one point. Then I bought games like Deadpool and Sonic: Lost World. And I can't even trade Deadpool back in because it was downloaded digitally!

[SmashLuigiFan1]

At 3/24/14 09:50 PM, oobooglunk wrote:

At 3/24/14 05:35 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:
While I agree with you that reviews are terrible (because YOU should be the one who EXPERIENCES a game, not be told why it's good/bad) I completely disagree with you on sales. Do you know how many hidden gems there are out there? You know why they're hidden gems? Because they sold poorly!

Yeah, that makes sense, but marketing is part of game development as well. If you don't know how to sell your game, no matter how well it was programmed, then it's not a well-crafted product. There's a reason the marketing team is in the credits of every game that has them.

My only response to it not being a "well-crafted product" is this; it's art. It doesn't have to make money, you know.

Nothing can determine a game's quality, you have to be the one to personally play it.

I believed that too, at one point. Then I bought games like Deadpool and Sonic: Lost World. And I can't even trade Deadpool back in because it was downloaded digitally!

Just because you agree with a popular opinion doesn't mean it's not your opinion. Let me put it this way; I used to think Sonic 06 was going to be awful, but when I started playing it a few months ago I enjoyed it more than Sonic Heroes and Shadow The Hedgehog. It's a genuinely good game that hasn't glitched out on me once. Well, excluding the Knuckles and Rouge sections because of the walls being a bit finicky to jump off of.

Because of that I'm now inclined to try the CD-i Zelda games. I've heard it's bad, but I haven't (along with 99% of the people who trash it) haven't even touched a CD-i. Read all three pages of this. You may learn something, as it's a real good read.

[oobooglunk]

At 3/25/14 04:54 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:
My only response to it not being a "well-crafted product" is this; it's art. It doesn't have to make money, you know.

An artist who can't sell their art is an inferior artist in the eyes of their customers.

Nothing can determine a game's quality, you have to be the one to personally play it.

I believed that too, at one point. Then I bought games like Deadpool and Sonic: Lost World. And I can't even trade Deadpool back in because it was downloaded digitally!

Just because you agree with a popular opinion doesn't mean it's not your opinion.

What do you mean? I DON'T agree with a popular opinion. Deadpool was awful!

Let me put it this way; I used to think Sonic 06 was going to be awful, but when I started playing it a few months ago I enjoyed it more than Sonic Heroes and Shadow The Hedgehog. It's a genuinely good game that hasn't glitched out on me once. Well, excluding the Knuckles and Rouge sections because of the walls being a bit finicky to jump off of.

Because of that I'm now inclined to try the CD-i Zelda games. I've heard it's bad, but I haven't (along with 99% of the people who trash it) haven't even touched a CD-i. Read all three pages of this. You may learn something, as it's a real good read.

The more I read, the less I understand. Are you one of those people who goes out of their way to dog for gold in every heap of turds you buy? Because if you are, your motivation is well-meant, but you are blind to true artistic quality. People like that are what made modern art what it is today, and people like that are what propagates the shitty games of this (and all) generation(s).

[sweet21]

At 3/23/14 06:27 PM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: Human nature.

Well thats an extremely cynical way of looking at it. I dont watch reviews to adopt an opinion, I watch them to learn about the game. What kind of game it is, how long it is, what flaws it has etc. God forbid I buy a generic shooter or a broken game. Reviews are used to compare and contrast. I dont blindly obey reviews, I examine the gameplay being shown and assess what im watching.
Reviews are opinions, and opinions are valuable if they are about something you are interested in.

[SmashLuigiFan1]

At 3/25/14 10:47 PM, oobooglunk wrote:

At 3/25/14 04:54 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:
My only response to it not being a "well-crafted product" is this; it's art. It doesn't have to make money, you know.

An artist who can't sell their art is an inferior artist in the eyes of their customers.

No? You honestly can't tell me you feel that way. Not going to lie, that's an extremely dumb way at looking at something.

Nothing can determine a game's quality, you have to be the one to personally play it.

I believed that too, at one point. Then I bought games like Deadpool and Sonic: Lost World. And I can't even trade Deadpool back in because it was downloaded digitally!

Just because you agree with a popular opinion doesn't mean it's not your opinion.

What do you mean? I DON'T agree with a popular opinion. Deadpool was awful!

But everyone says the Deadpool game was horrible. At least, from what I've noticed. I've only seen the (hilarious) cutscenes myself, so I'm not someone who could really judge it.

Let me put it this way; I used to think Sonic 06 was going to be awful, but when I started playing it a few months ago I enjoyed it more than Sonic Heroes and Shadow The Hedgehog. It's a genuinely good game that hasn't glitched out on me once. Well, excluding the Knuckles and Rouge sections because of the walls being a bit finicky to jump off of.

Because of that I'm now inclined to try the CD-i Zelda games. I've heard it's bad, but I haven't (along with 99% of the people who trash it) haven't even touched a CD-i. Read all three pages of this. You may learn something, as it's a real good read.

The more I read, the less I understand. Are you one of those people who goes out of their way to dog for gold in every heap of turds you buy? Because if you are, your motivation is well-meant, but you are blind to true artistic quality. People like that are what made modern art what it is today, and people like that are what propagates the shitty games of this (and all) generation(s).

Nope. I just play games. Doesn't matter who made it, where it's distributed, how people feel about the game, or anything. I play all games with an open mind, which is why there isn't a single game I hate. Except The Mask Of Zorro for the Game Boy Color because that actually gave me a headache. I've actually played some pretty "bad" games, too. I've also played "overrated" games, "legendary" games, and yadda yadda yadda you get the point. I just play whatever I find, have, or see.

People are too negative, as most games get bashed unjustly. Gamers are so picky, really. E.T. for the Atari 2600 never looked that bad to me, just standard. In fact, for an Atari 2600 game, it's pretty cool to see it had a title screen and ending. Yeah, it (along with that epileptic port of Pac-Man) may have caused the VG Crash of 1983, but does that really make the game itself suck?

Answer me this; how many games in pre-1982 do you know of that had a legitimate ending or title screen?

[oobooglunk]

At 3/25/14 11:21 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:
No? You honestly can't tell me you feel that way. Not going to lie, that's an extremely dumb way at looking at something.

OK, then. If that's your attitude, you can go ahead and keep living in your parents' basement. Seriously, though, art is art, but you gotta bring home the bacon somehow.

But everyone says the Deadpool game was horrible. At least, from what I've noticed. I've only seen the (hilarious) cutscenes myself, so I'm not someone who could really judge it.

I guess, but my gaming preferences are actually radically different from most reviewers, as well as most people I know. A prime example would be the way people look at Sonic and how they assume the game is "all about speed" and--get this--trial and error. Not only do I know these people are wrong, but SEGA has summed up my idea in a wonderful quote:

"Speed is something that is not given; but rather earned through dedication. Speed is not found by simply pushing a boost button, but by building momentum. It is the reward for skill in the face of difficult challenges – this kind of speed is the most exhilarating, not only because it is fast, but because of the pure perfection such speed exemplifies."

THAT is Sonic. THAT is how you make a game. Even Mario had this, to a degree; Sonic just expanded upon it and owned it. My point is, a lot of people miss the point of the games I play. And no, I don't only play Sonic games; that was just an example. You get the idea.

The more I read, the less I understand. Are you one of those people who goes out of their way to dog for gold in every heap of turds you buy? Because if you are, your motivation is well-meant, but you are blind to true artistic quality. People like that are what made modern art what it is today, and people like that are what propagates the shitty games of this (and all) generation(s).

Nope. I just play games. Doesn't matter who made it, where it's distributed, how people feel about the game, or anything. I play all games with an open mind, which is why there isn't a single game I hate.

This very idea is the backbone of some of the largest blights in the gaming industry today.

It supports EA, who have violated their own "customers first" credo more times than I can recount.

It supports Capcom, who have included more on-disc DLC than virtually any other gaming company.

It supports Microsoft, who released a console with a million terrible traits, then removed all of them except the ones that net them a bigger profit, fooling people into thinking their console has now been polished to perfection.

There are more examples, but I'm not going to list them in this post. If you're curious, I can throw in some links, but the message is clear. Pick your games wisely: your choice affects us all.

[SmashLuigiFan1]

At 3/25/14 11:35 PM, oobooglunk wrote:

At 3/25/14 11:21 PM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:
No? You honestly can't tell me you feel that way. Not going to lie, that's an extremely dumb way at looking at something.

OK, then. If that's your attitude, you can go ahead and keep living in your parents' basement. Seriously, though, art is art, but you gotta bring home the bacon somehow.

That still doesn't explain how they fail as an artist.

But everyone says the Deadpool game was horrible. At least, from what I've noticed. I've only seen the (hilarious) cutscenes myself, so I'm not someone who could really judge it.

I guess, but my gaming preferences are actually radically different from most reviewers, as well as most people I know. A prime example would be the way people look at Sonic and how they assume the game is "all about speed" and--get this--trial and error. Not only do I know these people are wrong, but SEGA has summed up my idea in a wonderful quote:

"Speed is something that is not given; but rather earned through dedication. Speed is not found by simply pushing a boost button, but by building momentum. It is the reward for skill in the face of difficult challenges – this kind of speed is the most exhilarating, not only because it is fast, but because of the pure perfection such speed exemplifies."

THAT is Sonic. THAT is how you make a game. Even Mario had this, to a degree; Sonic just expanded upon it and owned it. My point is, a lot of people miss the point of the games I play. And no, I don't only play Sonic games; that was just an example. You get the idea.

Mario doesn't even have that anymore. With the exception of Mario Sunshine's Turbo Nozzle, I can't think of any Mario game after Mario 64 that really has speed. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. But, yeah, I completely agree with you on that one.

The more I read, the less I understand. Are you one of those people who goes out of their way to dog for gold in every heap of turds you buy? Because if you are, your motivation is well-meant, but you are blind to true artistic quality. People like that are what made modern art what it is today, and people like that are what propagates the shitty games of this (and all) generation(s).

Nope. I just play games. Doesn't matter who made it, where it's distributed, how people feel about the game, or anything. I play all games with an open mind, which is why there isn't a single game I hate.

This very idea is the backbone of some of the largest blights in the gaming industry today.

It supports EA, who have violated their own "customers first" credo more times than I can recount.

Never bought a game from EA, but you NEEDto watch this! It's pretty sad, considering after they changed their logo (around 2000s) they basically lost anyone who cared about games as an art and were full of business men. I've never bought from them, but that's because I haven't had the chance to.

It supports Capcom, who have included more on-disc DLC than virtually any other gaming company.

I actually like Capcom's newer games, though. And by that, I mean Resident Evil 5 and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. Haven't played anything else from them on the seventh generation platforms. The DLC is dumb, so I don't buy it because it's on the disc. Simple as that. If people didn't buy the DLC, maybe they'd stop including it on the disc?

It supports Microsoft, who released a console with a million terrible traits, then removed all of them except the ones that net them a bigger profit, fooling people into thinking their console has now been polished to perfection.

But I don't support Microsoft. I've only bought computers from them, as their consoles never really interested me. I think it's the "younger me" still holding that grudge that they replaced SEGA in the console market, but they're an okay manufacturer. The XB1 definitely still has its problems, though.

There are more examples, but I'm not going to list them in this post. If you're curious, I can throw in some links, but the message is clear. Pick your games wisely: your choice affects us all.

What if I told you I can barely afford new games? Because I mainly play games that were released before the seventh generation. I'm still way too familiar with all of the 7th gen's complaints, so no need to inform me. What I'm trying to say here is this: if a game is good, nothing changes that. Don't let brands get in the way of your views.

Also, please don't assume I just buy everything I see. I said I don't hate any of the games I've played. I never said that there aren't games that disinterest me, I just don't "rage" over them like the internet.

[oobooglunk]

At 3/26/14 12:33 AM, SmashLuigiFan1 wrote:
That still doesn't explain how they fail as an artist.

Being an artist is a job. Sure, people don't do it for the money, but it's a job. If you don't gain a lot of money, you're doing a bad job (at least, in this field).

Mario doesn't even have that anymore. With the exception of Mario Sunshine's Turbo Nozzle, I can't think of any Mario game after Mario 64 that really has speed. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. But, yeah, I completely agree with you on that one.

I was thinking more about the original NES trilogy and Mario World.

Never bought a game from EA, but you NEED to watch this! It's pretty sad, considering after they changed their logo (around 2000s) they basically lost anyone who cared about games as an art and were full of business men. I've never bought from them, but that's because I haven't had the chance to.

LOL, EA are idiots. Again.

I actually like Capcom's newer games, though. And by that, I mean Resident Evil 5 and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. Haven't played anything else from them on the seventh generation platforms.

Exactly. They haven't MADE games like Maverick Hunter, or MegaMan Legends 3, or whatever else the fans have been clamoring for.

But I don't support Microsoft. I've only bought computers from them, as their consoles never really interested me. I think it's the "younger me" still holding that grudge that they replaced SEGA in the console market, but they're an okay manufacturer. The XB1 definitely still has its problems, though.

Actually, Bill Gates initially took pity on SEGA and wanted to buy it. It was SEGA of Japan that said no. If we're pointing fingers at all, Sony is to blame. Really, most of SEGA's downfall can be attributed to SEGA of Japan, as well as to Sony and Echelon (the pirating company that had an inside man who is now working for Capcom, btw).

What if I told you I can barely afford new games? Because I mainly play games that were released before the seventh generation. I'm still way too familiar with all of the 7th gen's complaints, so no need to inform me. What I'm trying to say here is this: if a game is good, nothing changes that. Don't let brands get in the way of your views.

Great. Most of the time, neither can I. My latest purchase was the GBA version of Contra 3, which cost me about $20 or less. One of my most frequently played games, The Binding of Isaac, literally cost a dollar. In this generation.

Also, please don't assume I just buy everything I see. I said I don't hate any of the games I've played. I never said that there aren't games that disinterest me, I just don't "rage" over them like the internet.

Good for you, but where's the fun in that? I love laughing at people's opinions--not because they're wrong, mind you, but because a lot of them are so futile.

[Back-From-Purgatory]

At 3/25/14 11:06 PM, sweet21 wrote:

At 3/23/14 06:27 PM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: Human nature.

Well thats an extremely cynical way of looking at it. I dont watch reviews to adopt an opinion, I watch them to learn about the game. What kind of game it is, how long it is, what flaws it has etc. God forbid I buy a generic shooter or a broken game. Reviews are used to compare and contrast. I dont blindly obey reviews, I examine the gameplay being shown and assess what im watching.
Reviews are opinions, and opinions are valuable if they are about something you are interested in.

You're a rare breed. Most people don't watch/read reviews to form their own educated opinion on whether they like it or not, they watch/read the review for a number, and from that number, follow the crowd that says, "It only got a 7/10, must be shit".

I applaud your view on reviews, but you'd be foolish to believe the majority of consumers in this particular industry share that mentality.

[sharpnova]

At 3/23/14 06:27 PM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: Extremely unlikely...

People love being told what they should and shouldn't like, adopting someone else's opinion as their own, or alternatively, listening to someone else's opinion just to complain about how stupid it is and how their opinion is better than theirs.

Human nature.

Err. How about taking advice from the opinion of people you respect. Or using their opinions to help shape yours. Since they've put the time in to research the topic and you want a quick answer.

This and many other legitimate reasons for reading reviews.

Not just the negative nancy ones you posted since you're a huge pessimist with nothing new or interesting to say.

[Back-From-Purgatory]

At 3/27/14 08:57 PM, sharpnova wrote: Not just the negative nancy ones you posted since you're a huge pessimist with nothing new or interesting to say.

Was that really necessary? If you don't agree with my opinion, fine, but don't go out and start attacking me over it.

[NeonSpider]

You do know it's entirely possible to read up on or listen to other people's views to get different perspectives, without necessarily agreeing with their views, right?

If it's a video, and gameplay is shown, that may tell you more about if you may like the game or not. If the alternative is buying a game blind, that's not a very good alternative.

I miss the days when renting video games was a thing. Too bad most of the places that did that (movie rental places) went out of business. Too bad commercial gaming seems to be going in more of a restricted direction. Once you can no longer resell games that'll probably put the GameStops and such out of business or at least severely hurt their sales, and with more aggressive DRM that's a very real possibility.

[GrizzlyOne]

Not just the negative nancy ones you posted since you're a huge pessimist with nothing new or interesting to say.

nice job regurgitating a point which sweet and back already covered

[TheQuackingQuagSpy]

At 3/24/14 03:09 PM, oobooglunk wrote: Personally, I hate game reviews. The system has been gamed (no pun intended) beyond salvation. From the bribery behind IGN's curtains to the obvious bias of Gamespot, it's one of the worst reflection of gaming today. IMO, the only real indication of a game's quality is its sales.

I sense the pattern that the negativity is only for big game reviewing networks. Smaller ones are usually not corrupt.

[TheMaster]

Haven't read a review in years, because the games media industry is either hopelessly corrupt or hopelessly incompetent, I'm not entirely sure which.

Developer track record, in-game footage and general public reception are a much better indicator of quality than any "professional" reviews.

[orangebomb]

Wow, it seems like we're being cynical for all the wrong reasons when it comes to game reviews.

First off, you do not take reviews (professional or otherwise) at face value. Reviews are meant to be a suggestion guide, not a reason to play the game, and that's if you're a fan of the genre in the first place, if not, then don't bother. You would be an idiot if you actually took them on their word when it comes to reviews, so it's recommended to read multiple reviews before making a decision on a game.

Second, judge a game on its merits, not by who publish/developed the game. I'm getting sick and tired of people being ignorant of games they should play because EA or Activision made the game, because last time I checked, they rarely, if ever, publish or develop bad games, and that should be the most important thing to gamers. Yes, aggressive DRM is bad and all, but there are plenty of ways around it, and it's not like anyone is forcing you to get what they're making.

Finally, don't play politics with games or the industry. If you don't like a genre/company/style of games, then leave it alone and let the fans enjoy it. There are plenty of quality games to go around in both the west and in Japan if you're willing to do actual research, and get sucked up by certain people who sound like they have an axe to grind for no reason. There are way too many OP/ED pieces on games they hate and perceive that the industry is dying because their favorite games aren't being talked about enough. Stop the fear-mongering and unnecessary cynicism folks, you're doing more damage to the game industry than any company is doing.

[argile]

Don't really care to much about reviews but I do like getting a formulated idea of what the game is like ,starting off with some of the worst given to it first.Sure not everyone of them is going to be perfect if the good qualities over lay that of the flaws there's really no harm in buying it.

[sharpnova]

At 3/28/14 02:11 AM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote:

At 3/27/14 08:57 PM, sharpnova wrote: Not just the negative nancy ones you posted since you're a huge pessimist with nothing new or interesting to say.

Was that really necessary? If you don't agree with my opinion, fine, but don't go out and start attacking me over it.

Was posting a bunch of negative reasons people read reviews. When there are a lot of people like me, much smarter than you, that use reviews for legit reasons.

[The-Great-One]

No, I just think the quality of reviews will become better over time. The video game world doesn't have someone with a standard yet to review video games, we don't have a Siskel and Ebert like the movie goer world has. The best video game reviews I have seen have been GameTrailers.