Are there video game reviews done by the HTF like the DVD reviews? (1 Viewer)

[Larry Talbot]

Thanks for jumping to my defense, Dean! But I should acknowledge, BrianB, that you raise a valid point. I tend to forget there are multi-platform owners among us and for them cross-platform comparisons are important. I guess I wish there would be some way to do both - i.e. cover a specific game on a specific platform, and maybe also include a section where you run down the differences among the three different platforms for those with the luxury of choosing between them (lucky bastards...think they're better than other people...well screw them!)

j/k

 

[Larry Talbot]

"That's alot of time & resources."

Yeah. Which makes me wonder sometimes if some sites don't skimp a little on the "cross-platform" reviews. I suspect they may review a game on a particular platform, then "stretch" the review to include all the other platforms (which is especially ridiculous if you include PC gaming, since even if the game is pretty much the same, gaming on the PC is usually a much different experience than gaming on a console.) This can be done the other way around as well, for supposedly platform-specific reviews...I've read reviews for "Xbox" games that never mention the Xbox by name, and appear identical to the Playstation or Gamecube versions of the same reviews. If you are trying to review a game across three or four platforms, I think there may be a temptation to come up with a sort of "uni-version," which covers the basics of the game but is stripped of the specifics of what it is like to play it on a particular system....I'd like to see reviews tailored specifically for a particular platform, then if the reviewer has the time or the resources he or she could talk about the experience of playing the game on the other systems in a section of the review. I feel some of the "uni-version" reviews end up being a little generic.

 

[Allen>B]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why limit? Best review gets the official nod no matter who makes it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If we have a couple of dedicated reviewers it becomes more of a known quantity. There would be an expectation to provide reviews on a timely basis as opposed to them randomly filtered in. And they could be written in a standardized format for more consistency.

That's really a shame. For this to be done right you need more than a few that will eventually end up getting special treatment which ALWAYS ruins the review IMO.

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

That's really a shame. For this to be done right you need more than a few that will eventually end up getting special treatment which ALWAYS ruins the review IMO.

Please clarify "special treatment" and "ruins".

 

[Allen>B]

I have always found that reviews get tainted by people with special treatment. Special treatment means direct relations with studio/developer employees, FREE copies, promotional materials, and perhaps side treatment to events.

I like reviews from people who had to wait for the game or movie to come out, who dragged their butts out to get a copy, and ESPECIALLY people that put their own real live money down on the purchase.

I think there is a serious difference in someone that got something handed to them and someone who put their own money down out of actual interest in buying it.


I think everyone who wants to should submit a review and the best review (judged by all or the HTF staff) gets crowned the official review for that title.

 

[John_Berger]

Allen, that might be true for some, but it is certainly not true for all.

I've done software, hardware, and book reviews for several years, and I have no qualms in slamming anyone who deserves to be slammed. Just because one gets the item for free does not mean that the view will be tainted.

In my case, I regularly get review books from Addison-Wesley. One book that I reviewed was quite good and covered exactly what it said it would cover in a clear and concise manner. I therefore said that it would be a good book to have at one's side should it be what someone is looking for. I have already received a request to have my quote published in the author's next book, which I granted. By your broad brush analogy, my next review should be just as rewarding.

The next book that I reviewed, however, was total garbage. It was so poorly organized that it defies description. Topics jumped all over the place. Subjects that should have definitely been covered, given the title, were not covered at all, and topics that should never have been covered were in the first chapter. I had no qualms whatsoever in slamming the hell out of this book for everything that it deserved, and concluded it with a "Shame on you" directed squarely at the author.

Whereas I don't doubt that many publishers do indeed cater to certain companies (like how just about every PC magazine kisses MIcrosoft's rear), your statment that

there is a serious difference in someone that got something handed to them and someone who put their own money down out of actual interest in buying it

is by no means indicative of everyone who does reviews.

 

[Larry Talbot]

This isn't a black and white issue. Both Allen and John make some good points. I do however think that there is no one standard that can be applied to ALL reviews no matter what is being reviewed. For instance, Consumer Reports insists on buying everything they review, and they accept no advertising, because they don't want even the suggestion of bias to taint their work. The auto industry is perhaps the exact opposite. Reviewers for auto magazines regularly accept invitations to lavish gatherings paid for by the car manufactures whose products they will later be reviewing. Does this make their reviews biased? I can't say for sure that it does, but it certainly doesn't look good image wise...
As far as the gaming industry goes, I think reviewers are all over the map. I think there is little to no scrutiny of how game reviews are conducted or what inducements game companies may or may not offer to reviewers. The same, of course, holds true for many film reviews (anyone remember when a studio - can't remember which one - actually invented a critic in order to give its own film good reviews?) I've reviewed films for a printed publication and the publication reimbursed me for the cost of my ticket. This in no way influenced my review but then it again it wasn't the studio paying for my ticket. A lot of hack reviewers do it because they like to be feted, they like the free tickets to studio premiers and the after-parties, etc...
Do game companies that send free copies of games for review hope that they'll get good reviews? Of course they do. Do game reviewers give good reviews because they want to keep the free games coming? Who knows? My guess would be some do. (But I suspect an even greater inducement would be those reviewers who work for magazines which accept advertising from the companies whose products they review. A game may be worth $50, but a full page ad is worth a lot more than that.)

I know I'm rambling here, so let me get to the point.

Allen, you wrote: "there is a serious difference in someone that got something handed to them and someone who put their own money down out of actual interest in buying it."

I agree with you - but not for the reason you mean. I think the difference in this case, when you are talking about an private individual writing for a website, and not someone on the payroll of a magazine, is that the private individual who shells out $50 of his or her own money may be MORE biased in favor of the game because they don't want to admit they just blew $50 if the game is worthless...So it could work both ways. I guess my main point is that I don't think accepting free review copies automatically biases a reviewer in favor of a game.

 

[John_Berger]

I think the difference in this case, when you are talking about an private individual writing for a website, and not someone on the payroll of a magazine, is that the private individual who shells out $50 of his or her own money may be MORE biased in favor of the game because they don't want to admit they just blew $50 if the game is worthless.

If that's the case, then that person shouldn't be doing reviews. If a writer is not objective enough to say honestly, "Don't make the same mistake that I made by buying this game", then he has no place in reviewing software IMHO.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think that the best way for HTF reviews to be fair would be to get a few detailed reviews (one for each console, at least) and then get a list of positive/negative aspects for each game (and possibly number ratings for things like gameplay, graphics, audio, etc.) from other HTFers. We could have it set up so that the first post in the review thread is entirely devoted to showing the averages of what everyone says (like an average score for the different categories and a complete list of pros/cons) and then the first few posts are in-depth reviews. We could compile the scores either through e-mail, PMs, or posts in the thread.

Just an idea to throw out there.

 

[Allen>B]

Allen, that might be true for some, but it is certainly not true for all.

Wow, "might"?

I actually believe the majority of reviews are biased by the level of involvement with the company/studio.

I say this from my own eyes seeing it over my lifetime.

But I guess the studios and publishers know that giving reviewers freebies and special treatment is a big waste of money. Which is why they stopped doing such things so many years ago

I'm worried that the main objective to a reviewer here would be to get this on their resume, to start getting an "in" with studios/developers, or both.

Letting anyone submit reviews and letting the forum decide who gets the official review "crown" per title is really the only way I'd ever trust a review here.

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

Letting anyone submit reviews and letting the forum decide who gets the official review "crown" per title is really the only way I'd ever trust a review here.

I semi-agree with you. I don't believe it's a matter of trust and that people are out to get free stuff. But from a practical perspective it may simply make more sense to open it up to anyone. There are so many different opinions as to how the reviews should be done with regards to multi-platform releases and such in this thread alone.

That said the upside is that if there are designated reviewers we should see more regular posts as an expectation has been created, and a consistency in format is achieved. Otherwise the reviews drift in at random (both in quality and quantity). I've only had one member contact me directly in this regard and they have already contributed their review (Counter-Strike). It's tough for one person to crank out experience-based reviews (as opposed to a simple glance at a title) so we really need more people involved.

Is there anyone else who would like to write?

 

[Allen>B]

Is there anyone else who would like to write?

I'm shocked that this gaming section of the forum looks like it's going to go on life support soon:frowning:


This is where i'd normally jump in and contribute, but being a hardcore gamer, I like to "sip" my games.

I purposely interleave what I play so that I never get sick of a particular game, and they all end up lasting for many months instead of days or weeks.

So by the time I'd review something, no one would care

Perhaps we need a middle ground. Not actual reviews, but when someone really feels they have a grip on it, and have put about 20 hours minimum of hands on, can do a "Still Playing Impressions" type of thing.

I can't beleive this section of the site is so dead right before Xmas time

 

[John_Berger]

Wait until AFTER Christmas when a lot of people will get some new games and can't wait to talk about them.

 

[Alanna]

Well I would like to write reviews. I have a little experience in doing video game reviews for fan based sites, and a TON of experience doing cd reviews (which I haven't done in the past 6 months I will add). I own all three consoles and HATE the fanboy mentality. Yes I am also one of those that wants to know what the BEST version of a game is - trust me, they aren't always all created equal. Just look at Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 (slow as hell on Gamecube), Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (surprisingly the PS2 version has the best graphics) or Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly (MAJOR framerate issues on PS2, GC one is much smoother).

There are TONS of sites out there that deal with the gameplay. A paragraph or two detailing what that's all about is really all that's necessary. What I want to know is all the things the print magazines neglect to tell us - all the techie shit. Those that have the $$$$$$$ for a decent home theater setup I would sincerely hope would also be free of the system fanboy mentality that's been going on since the "Atari vs. Intellivision vs. Colecovision" days. Or the bitter console wars between the Sega Genesis and the NEC Turbografx-16 (and later SNES). It was childish then and even stupider and more rampant now.

I would welcome multi reviews on different setups to get a feel of what a game is going to look/sound/play like on each platform and home theater system. I was so happy I stuck by my guns and settled for the so-so Spawn character on Soul Caliber 2 with the XBox version after seeing it in stunning 720p on a 60" Grand Wega.

As for how long a reviewer should play a game before giving the final verdict... I think about 10 hours is good for most games. That's plenty of time to get used to most racing/sports/shooter/puzzle etc titles. But the amount of time logged should be noted, and some games really need to be completed to get the full feel of. Taking Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance again for example, while you can easily get a solid impression on 10 hrs of play, you will not be able to mention the fantastic "The Gauntlet" area that opens up after you beat the game. Some have commented that this little timed slash em' up extra is better than the game itself...

Anyway that's my two cents... and please don't hate on other consoles. Just because you chose one, doesn't mean it is "THE ONE" and that the version of the game you got is "THE BEST" because its probably often NOT the case.

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

I can't beleive this section of the site is so dead right before Xmas time.

I don't know what you do at Christmas but I'm up to my ears with wrapping things up at work, hosting and attending parties, finishing off shopping and wrapping, blah blah blah.

 

[AlexanderS]

I can't really understand how you could produce a thorough review in a short amount of time. The review would have to be out relatively soon after the game's release and given that, wouldn't lend a lot of time to gameplay. 2 or 3 hours in a game probably wouldn't get you the full experience, especially if it was a RPG or mission/level based game. Something like PGR 2 would lend itself well to this situation but something like KNOTR might not.

 

[Jay Mitchosky]

Something like PGR 2 would lend itself well to [a review based on a short time frame]

Yes and no. PGR2, for example, will give you a pretty solid idea of what it's about after a short period. But you also notice new things as you progress through the game, both good and bad. So I think a game deserves a substantial amount of play time to deliver a thorough review. But the reality is that it simply takes too long to achieve this. People want to read reviews on titles either just released or, better yet, prior.

 

[Larry Talbot]

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that reviewers must spend what - weeks? - playing a game before they get a good feel for its positive and negative qualities.
If we were talking about reviewing FILMS, which are mostly plot driven, then yeah, the reviewer has to watch the entire film straight through to the ending, and can't fast forward or just watch the first half.
But games are different. Despite the addition of plots, most games are still based primarily on game mechanics, that is to say, gameplay. How does the game handle? How are the controls? How is the AI? How is the level design? The difficulty? The sound? The graphics? With the vast majority of the games I've played, I could tell within a couple of hours whether I liked the game or not and WHY - particularly if a game is subpar.
Are there exceptions? Sure. There are games I played and was not impressed by, but with a little more time invested I suddenly understood their potential...But those are the exceptions. For most games I think my theory holds true.
So maybe we could have some "quick" takes, for those who don't want to wait too long to read reviews and just want to know about the basic core mechanics, AND later reviews for those who want to read something written by a someone who has played a game all the way through and knows its every detail inside and out.
I WOULD be concerned with the former that some reviewers tend to climb aboard the hype train for certain games, raving about this or that when a year later most people the game was overrated...That is a danger. Personally I prefer reviewers who remain level-headed no matter how good a game is, rather than those who tend to reach too frequently for superlatives or are too quick to forgive a game its faults...

 

[AlexanderS]

Exactly Jay, thats what I meant. I don't think that most people are going to want to wait around, especially when you can check GameRankings and get a comprehensive list of reviews right when the game is released.

 

[Allen>B]

I WOULD be concerned with the former that some reviewers tend to climb aboard the hype train for certain games, raving about this or that when a year later most people the game was overrated...That is a danger. Personally I prefer reviewers who remain level-headed no matter how good a game is, rather than those who tend to reach too frequently for superlatives or are too quick to forgive a game its faults...

To me that's all about people reviewing who NEVER bought the game.

I want to hear from people that bought the game. Put at LEAST 20 hours into it, and are stuck with it.

No reviews from people that got promotion copies.

No reviews from people trying to blast thru a game because they're renting it and have to get it back to the rental place to save themselves $5 late fees.

No reviews from people trying to play the game as long as they can before the deadline of returning it for something else expires.

No rushers, no freebies = real review.

Real review means, "I paid $50 for this and waited months, this is what I think".