Damien

I thought EGM's editorial was pretty ironic

"I want your money. I'm not taking for subscriptions, either. I want you to support great, unliscensed, undermarketed games."

Yeah then why do you give games like Deathrow, Buffy CB, and Serious Sam 4.5's? Skip games like rugby 2004 because not enough people will like it, or bash games like the new UFC because only people familar with the sport will like it...nevermind say F-zero is a perfect futuristic racer game that has a challenge that only people who love these kinds of games would get. Or review ESPN on it's on merits instead of comparing it to Madden?

Yes there is a other side to this, I may have not been interested in Billy Hatcher, downhill domination, and bombastic if I never read the EGM reviews...but in general I find it hard to trust EGM when they evaluate less mainstream games anymore like I used to, and that's why I don't feel they have any buisness writing an article like this.

BrianB

Because they didn't like them?


Considering every thread about football games seems to feature a "which one should I buy?" question, I think it's fair to compare the three major football franchises.

Damien

Point taken. But just looking at the text of the deathrow review, it's obvious the guy didn't give the game the same chance he would give a bigger game, he wanted to get that game over asap.



That's true, but it seems like every football game except Madden gets compared to the "Madden way" and if it doesn't follow that palatte the reviewer won't like it because it's not the same as Madden. At least that's the impression I got from the ESPN reviews they written.

Morgan Jolley

I think that comparing a game against EXTREMELY similar games in the same genre that are out at the same time is a good idea, and most magazines and review sites try to rate games against what else is out at the time.
Maybe Madden's formula is the best? Maybe the other games would do better if the mimicked Madden and then took it a step further somehow?

Keith Frederick

I think the point being made, is that the reviewer's opinions are slanted. Much like conservatives will only see George Bush as a honest and successful Republican while liberals will see him as right-wing cowboy bent on global domination. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the elite media should be held to a higher standard when voicing their opinions. I think Damien is saying that the EGM reviewers are slippin in this regard.

JamesH

I'm not a big follower of the other games, but I've got to say something about Deathrow. EGM was way off base on that one, most respected sources gave it 8's and 9's. It's really one of the most entertaining and innovative games out, and it really BEGS for a sequel but probably won't get one due to poor sales. I thought it was a GREAT first effort considering that they didn't have the previous year's game to copy like other sports games. It would have been cool to see a sequel with more teams, XBL play, a story mode with RPGish elements, and player specific super moves.

But anyways, a 4.5 is a pretty irrational and vindictive score for Deathrow, I'd love to see them try to justify it with a graphics/gameplay/sound/replay/etc. score breakdown.

Andy Sheets

Are there any more examples of "great, unlicensed, undermarketed" games that EGM has slagged in the past? I haven't looked at that magazine in years but it would be funny if they were talking about supporting games like that despite never supporting them in the magazine itself

Mel_C

Last year,

Gamespot did a 15 minute video direct comparison of the major football games on all three platforms. NFL 2K3 emerged as the winner, though not by a landslide.

For me, Gamespot gets the idea that I have limited funds as a consumer and need honest, comparative opinions. They have even taken the idea a step further this year by adding the "Best" tag to multi-platform games.

Hopefully they will do another video comparison of the football games this year.

EGM, on the other hand, have been way off on a number of reviews latley like Mario Sunshine, Deathrow,& Soul Calibur II. It's like they're still reviewing games with a 1989 slant as a ploy to be controversial and sell more mags.

Brandon_H

I'm not exactly sure a video-game rag qualifies as "elite media." As a journalist, I've never been sure what anybody means by that phrase, anyway. Elite as in what? Rich? Don't think so. Privileged? Eh, not really. Brilliant? Not all of us.

What "higher standard" should reviewers follow in performing their work? Yes, they have personal preferences and tastes that influence their opinions -- just as we all do. But I've generally found that generally, most articulate why they didn't care for a particular title, or explained what they believed to be its weaknesses. That gives readers a chance to see where the reviewer is coming from, so they can compare the reviewer's tastes to their own.

Beyond that obligation, a reviewer HAS to call it like he sees it.

My Game Collection

Keith Frederick

A videogame "rag" as you put it, certainly does qualify as "elite media" in the context of my statement.

What I meant by "elite me