Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Editorial Entertainment Games

More NavelGazing About Game Journalism 24

Posted by Zonk from the hellooo-belly-button dept.
An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has just posted an article going into 5 problems with videogame journalism. The author says that since it wouldn't be polite to point the finger at other journalists, he wrote this racing-game shootout and this DOA4 review to provide the evidence. Great article made even better because the writer is using his own work as evidence for why things have gone terribly wrong."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More NavelGazing About Game Journalism More

More NavelGazing About Game Journalism

Comments Filter:
  • Video game reviews aren't the only ones suffering from these problems. It's movies, music, and pretty much everything else that gets reviewed.
    • Well, a music reviewer specializing in the heavy stuff can listen to a dozen speedcore bands in a row without getting annoyed. How many fighting games can you handle before annoyance sets in? How about racing games? If you find one racing game you really like, what do you say about the other clones out there?

      Deadlines and the rest, sure; but when video games are being made with a minimum of 20 hours content (with cheats on, and in full walk-through mode), and reviewers are expected to analyze them at a pac
  • I could definitely follow everything this guy had to say about reviewers and video games. I almost can't stand to read the review anymore because they are all cliche and focus far too much on useless things like graphics and sound and not enough on gameplay. I personally think the bigeest perpetrator is Gamespot. Nearly every review I read by them is complete and utter garbage. It is riddled with bias and focuses on everything but how much fun the game is to play. I really don't give a shit if the sprite an

  • Anybody know of balanced reviews? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by luvirini ( 753157 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @10:45AM (#14578321)
    Seems to me that the average score for games revieved is 80%+, and given that most new games are pure trash, I was wondering if anyone knew of a games revies site that had the actual reviews and scores at about 50% or less?
    • I don't know about balanced, but IGN rates some games at 5 or less and they've got a spot for reader reviews as well. Granted, they don't rate a lot that low (at least not the reviewers) but the ones they do are probably sucktastic.
      • Gamespot and IGN.com both have reader reviews and ratings along with each review. The reader reviews on both sites are almost always higher than the site's review.

        I don't generally read too many reviews, but when I do, I tend to look for words like "fun."
    • I know people like to rip on it, but X-Play gives, I think, good reviews while showing near continual game footage. Their simple 1 to 5 system is better than all these other attempts at "accurate" rating systems, especially when you consider the bias. They rarely gives 5s, and they do give 1s and 2s. The basic scale (from memory) is:

      5 - a truly innovative game, or an outstanding example of an existing genre that transcends the competition
      4 - An above average game. Nicely done but maybe has one or two thi

      • THey really are biased by genere though- anything FPS will tend to the higher end of the scale, and non-FPS tends to the lower end. They'll talk about how great and innovative a new puzzle game is, but it will score equal to or lower an FPS they reviewed and gave lukewarm comments to earlier. Thats fine if you're a show/mag with a focus on the genre, but bad for a general show.
    • Game Informer is really bad about writing ridiculous advertisements instead of game previews, but they are generally honest in their post-release reviews. They give out a lot of 4's and 5's.
    • Like with Amazon book reviews, I always look for the most insulting user review to a game, figuring it will say something those fanatic about a game never will. Some are simply "it sucks", but surprisingly many have at least one valid point. Then you can judge whether the point is going to sway your purchasing decision.

      The drawback to this is you have to wait for the game to come out to start finding comparable reviews.
  • "NavelGazing"? I thought the booth-babes were banned?
  • This article was written by a person assuming that game reviewers ACTUALLY play the game, I can say this isn't always the case.

    I know of a few Canadian game reviewers in some popular newspapers, grey haired guys or even a few women, that review games, and it is obvious they simply browse through the game's menus and probably spent only a couple of hours playing the game. Just looking at the guys suggest these people can't set their VCR clocks (and the fact they most likely still use VCR's suggests somethin
    • Are you sure the game with the awful menus wasn't Gran Turismo 4? It really did have a terrible main menu.

      GT1 and GT2 had the same problem, and then they got it right in GT3. GT4 is definitely a step backwards. They forgot that everything that's not actual gameplay (i.e. driving) needs to be as simple, straightforward and streamlined as possible so you can zip through it and get to your next race.
  • I posted this on the article's comments section but it'll probably get more attention here so I'm reposting it. I hate all the ads on that site too.

    From the article:

    Second, a short but intense experience is definitely better than a long game that's repetitive.

    I don't think that is a universal truth. It depends on the way you play games.

    Take "God of War" for example. An excellent game by most standards, and one that definitly falls into the category of "short but intense". I bought it because of the
    • You can pay $5 to rent it and have the same experience as the guy who bought it for $50.

      And if everyone did that, how many more great games like God of War would come out? Sure, you save money, but the publisher and developers don't get a lot of money they would have if you had bought it. And then no more God of War.

      Or, the alternative, companies start tacking on lengthening, but boring, intermissions, in order to artificially make the game longer. Examples are Metroid Prime and Zelda's Windwaker. Great
    • Second, a short but intense experience is definitely better than a long game that's repetitive.

      Certainly not universal, though definitely opinionary. Say, soda for example... I want something to drink, but only have the options of having either a 12 oz. can of Coke or a 24 oz. bottle of Pepsi per day. Personally, I prefer the taste of Coke, but after that 12 oz. is gone I'm done... whereas with the Pepsi I would have more to drink, but it wouldn't be as thrilling. Which one would I pick? Depends on if
  • I strongly disagree with the idea of innovation bias in the firing squad article. Yes, you are going to write about a game differently having played every other game in the series, or even having played a few games in the genre. However, this is not a bad thing. Do you think a movie or book critic is hired by a major newspaper or other publication without ever having watched a movie of a particular genre before? I doubt it. One of the most important aspects about game journalism is knowing what's come
    • In an ideal world, your ideas would work. But there are things called "deadlines". Readers don't want to wait until reviewers have had time to sit and dwell on a game, they want to know an opinion ASAP so they know whether to bother with it. Similarly, most people are not going to go back and follow up on updates. It's way too much effort when all people want to know is whether a game is good or not. Hindsight is 20/20 and some games feel better or worse after time, but that's just not an option.
  • From the article on Dead or Alive 4:
    In the game, a counter often does substantially more damage than a standard attack with extra points being awarded for better timing. The difficulty is predicting the opponent's attack and timing your counter. This produces a very challenging and varied experience where it is crucial that your attacks remain unpredictable, making it difficult for your opponent to compete, and where it's also crucial to be familiar enough with your opponent's fighting style so that you can

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close