This game vs. that game...When does the fanaticism take a back seat?

Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#1
I'd like to start this off by saying that I don't understand the gaming extremist mentality, particularly when it comes to this "console war" that just won't seem to die.

We're not in some conflict between warring nations...all it takes for one to enjoy the games and features that they're jealous of is to bite the bullet and buy the console. That's it, folks. Nothing to do with birthrights, nationality, morality, nothing. We're all in it just to have fun, this sort of mentality has no place here whatsoever. Conflict in games should be kept right there...in games, not within the hearts of gamers.

Now, to get to the heart of the issue. Lately(like Resistance 2 lately) the fanaticism has crossed over, so to speak...to now be within the ranks, for lack of a better term, of the "devotees". By this I mean that ever since the big reveal, people have been pitting games against one another as if there was a dire need for a superior game...a "one game to rule the genre", if you will. I think it's a load of crap, personally, and here's why.

Before, many of us were pretty concerned about our console of choice. Insecurity ran rampant, and I'm no exception. While I don't think I let it get the best of me so as to engage in the fanatical nonsense, I was pretty worried for a while. Anyway, point was that when we were more or less against the ropes and starving for good games, whenever a promising exclusive was announced, the general reaction, disciples and "commoners" alike, would be along the lines of "Good to see that another great exclusive has been added to the growing lineup"

It was a good thing. In my head it marked the beginning of the end for the simpletons who just wouldn't let go of their petty grudges and prejudice. The venom they spewed forth seemed more and more irrelevant, foolish, and pathetic in the wake of the great announcements and revelations we've been enjoying. Ergo, most of us have been confident and more secure in our choices. Quite suddenly, it seemed, their voices were becoming a whisper, and it was a breath of fresh air for me.

Seems I was wrong though...seems that the elitism and puke coughed up by these morons didn't fade away or become irrelevant(for the record, I think these clowns have always been irrelevant, but bear with me here), rather it just...migrated.

Now, instead of the tirades and face-offs being about the PS3 at the XBox's throat and vice versa, I'm seeing the slow emergence of the Resistance vs Killzone, or Crysis vs Far Cry 2, or any combination of several games within any given genre. It makes me sick to my bloody stomach.

Here we've been for the longest time, waiting for a robust lineup of games that we've all been so antsy and gung-ho about owning, and now it's about owning only the elite few? That's despicable! I mean, when does it end? First it's my console vs. your console, but now that said "war" has been driven to a stalemate, it's all about my game vs your game? Where does it go next? Machine gunners vs shotgunners, blue pants vs red pants? GTFO outta here.

Where did this compulsion come about for owning or associating only with the elite? Why is there an urgency for this process of elimination when it comes to games? Most importantly, when the HELL did it become taboo to own several killer apps? A minute ago people were clamoring for a library of great games. The games finally come and all of a sudden I can't own anything less than the best. That's ludicrous. I can understand comparing a game like Resistance to say, K&L, Turok, Timeshift, or whatever, but when you get to a certain caliber, the high pedigree that games like Resistance, Far Cry, Call of Duty, Killzone, and others have, it's not necessary. Games like these raise the bar above other titles, and they need not be pitted against one another because they're ALL top tier. Why on earth is it so difficult to set the petty, snobbish nonsense aside to simply enjoy yourself?

D*mn, I missed having an immense library of great games from the PS2 days. It's just now showing signs of getting back to that glory and we're spitting in it's face because we have to choose just one? Preposterous. We're so self-important, and way too pretentious about these things.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that this Resistance vs Killzone, Killzone vs Far Cry crap has got to go. There are far too many titles that I think many of us can agree are pushing boundaries, doing things that were previously unheard of, and accomplishing things that were desperately coveted in times past that are getting the snobbish cold shoulder because it's not "that one title".

People, there are too many good things on the horizon for us to become elitist degenerates in the face of it. I fully realize that this isn't a widespread issue just yet, and while many of you may not have even noticed it just yet, let me assure you that it CAN get bad. Don't see how? Take a look at the illustrious history of "XBox vs. PS3" that's been dragging along for...I dunno...roughly 3 years now? It's too late to save that...it's fading away...or migrating, but we can put a stop to this nonsense right now by knocking sense into ourselves.

I really would rather not see this forum and the rest of the internet degenerate into a bunch of whiny little tirades about why Killzone is superior to game X and this is why you shouldn't own it, why so and so has a bias for Far Cry, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

We just don't need that garbage. Let the fanboy wars be a thing of the past...please let those old, nasty habits just DIE EASY and enjoy all of the good titles coming out. We're on the heels of a VERY pivotal year for the PS3...this crap is so unnecessary, and the realization that it's even had to be as small as it has is just staggering.


I apologize for having gotten so long winded, but I really think this needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand.
 
Y

Yip-Man

Guest
#2
Hi, good but vey long post, glad u got that off ur chest, I fully understand what you are going on about. I feel this is a sad thing that everybdoy how mindless has a view and can express it to as wider audience as possible ( the internet as a whole). as you stated in the post people are obsessed this is better than that mines bigger than yours etc, take the Restistance killzone one, both these games are not out so who the hell can tell.

Back when i was a young boy, well not that young i saw in a mag sony hasd launched the PS1 had always had Sega's up untill that point, had to look for myself, no internet for me just my own views, same wit the PS2.

Just really makes me laugh, reminds me of being 6 again in the playground. to be honest it is a joke. I did start writting sometihng like this too, but as yours was getting very long, so decided to delete it.

All i want is to talk about my game system(s) and find out some hot news on new developements and get some help form friendly guys and girls whne i need tooo.

so great post mate
 

Idenowhereiam

Bandw!dth Savior
Oct 26, 2006
8,277
0
0
In Miami, man <3
#3
i agree.. while i've continued to visit these forums i no longer visit the ps3 sections or the games section because its filled with utter nonsense now.. people shouting one mag is biased and direct quotes about someone saying something good about the ps3 all gets blown way out of proportion..

i guess it just the lack of news, but i mean c'mon now.. theres alot of stupid threads now..
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#4
[QUOTE="Yip-Man, post: 0]Hi, good but vey long post, glad u got that off ur chest, I fully understand what you are going on about. I feel this is a sad thing that everybdoy how mindless has a view and can express it to as wider audience as possible ( the internet as a whole). as you stated in the post people are obsessed this is better than that mines bigger than yours etc, take the Restistance killzone one, both these games are not out so who the hell can tell.

Back when i was a young boy, well not that young i saw in a mag sony hasd launched the PS1 had always had Sega's up untill that point, had to look for myself, no internet for me just my own views, same wit the PS2.

Just really makes me laugh, reminds me of being 6 again in the playground. to be honest it is a joke. I did start writting sometihng like this too, but as yours was getting very long, so decided to delete it.

All i want is to talk about my game system(s) and find out some hot news on new developements and get some help form friendly guys and girls whne i need tooo.

so great post mate[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly, thanks.

[QUOTE="idenowhereiam, post: 0]i agree.. while i've continued to visit these forums i no longer visit the ps3 sections or the games section because its filled with utter nonsense now.. people shouting one mag is biased and direct quotes about someone saying something good about the ps3 all gets blown way out of proportion..

i guess it just the lack of news, but i mean c'mon now.. theres alot of stupid threads now..[/quote]

Indeed, but I hope you don't lose it for the forums. With this being a pretty big year, I think there is a lot of good discussion and fun stories to share about the experiences of the coming year. I'm just hoping to bring attention to a potential problem before it gets as big as this other 3 year itch that's still got fragments lying about.

Personally I do believe these problems you speak of are on their way out the door though...but as a community we've gotta do what we can to stop these new ones from being ushered on in.
 

Naxi

The Dawkness!
Sep 3, 2006
11,550
46
0
28
UK
www.last.fm
#5
Great post, i always laugh when someone says "We don't need this title, x is so much better".Like a game has to be the best of it's genre or else it won't be enjoyable.
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#6
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]
Ultimately what I'm saying is that this Resistance vs Killzone, Killzone vs Far Cry crap has got to go. There are far too many titles that I think many of us can agree are pushing boundaries, doing things that were previously unheard of, and accomplishing things that were desperately coveted in times past that are getting the snobbish cold shoulder because it's not "that one title".
[/quote]

I completely agree with everything you said and all the nonsense fights have to stop; however, not all of the AAA title vs. AAA title threads/posts are worthless - some people may only be able to buy one so want advice on which one to go with.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#7
[QUOTE="Naxi, post: 0]Great post, i always laugh when someone says "We don't need this title, x is so much better".Like a game has to be the best of it's genre or else it won't be enjoyable.[/quote]
Exactly, right? Part of what makes it so ridiculous is that we've all been clamoring for more good titles. Now that we're about to get them, half of them suddenly don't matter? :lol: Come on...

[QUOTE="Federal, post: 0]I completely agree with everything you said and all the nonsense fights have to stop; however, not all of the AAA title vs. AAA title threads/posts are worthless - some people may only be able to buy one so want advice on which one to go with.[/quote]

I agree, but that's not who I'm addressing. I'm strictly talking about the dirtbags who were once on the "we need more games bandwagon" and are now on the "I'll only own the absolute" wagon.

Most times when I see people looking for advice, they do it in a non-snobbish, genuinely inquisitive manner. Even then, in their cases their mind is at at least open to the idea of getting those other games, because at the time their pressing concern is money, not ego.
 

Idenowhereiam

Bandw!dth Savior
Oct 26, 2006
8,277
0
0
In Miami, man <3
#8
Indeed, but I hope you don't lose it for the forums. With this being a pretty big year, I think there is a lot of good discussion and fun stories to share about the experiences of the coming year. I'm just hoping to bring attention to a potential problem before it gets as big as this other 3 year itch that's still got fragments lying about.

Personally I do believe these problems you speak of are on their way out the door though...but as a community we've gotta do what we can to stop these new ones from being ushered on in.
Oh i dont think those issues will ever make me leave.. when theres news theres news.. its just when there isn't you get more and more of the bs threads..
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#9
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]
Even then, in their cases their mind is at at least open to the idea of getting those other games, because at the time their pressing concern is money, not ego.[/quote]

Ahh well said, thank you. So, is your soultion to the problem for people to be more open-minded to all games of all qualities and not argue about it?
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#10
[QUOTE="Federal, post: 0]Ahh well said, thank you. So, is your soultion to the problem for people to be more open-minded to all games of all qualities and not argue about it?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much, yeah.

It's this simple: If a game is worth playing, then play it. Sure, one game is inevitably going to better than the other, but they will all have their redeeming qualities and provide a fun experience, so why deprive yourself of that? Just because you had to feel special? Bo**ocks.

There's no reason to fight over good games, and having the best game doesn't mean you can't play other good games.
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#11
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]
There's no reason to fight over good games, and having the best game doesn't mean you can't play other good games.[/quote]

Now you have to convince the masses that just because a game isn't 5 star, 10 out of 10 material that it can't be fun/entertaining/worth the money.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#12
[QUOTE="Federal, post: 0]Now you have to convince the masses that just because a game isn't 5 star, 10 out of 10 material that it can't be fun/entertaining/worth the money.[/QUOTE]
I wish. That sort of thing deals with a plethora of personal problems. Insecurity, the lack of critical thinking, logical fallacies, pre-conceived notions and the like.

I think that one, much like the 360 vs PS3 wars, is a bit too deeply ingrained for any one person to tackle...this is still in it's infancy though, but I'm sure(like all things) that my words fall on deaf ears in this case as well.
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#13
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]I wish. That sort of thing deals with a plethora of personal problems. Insecurity, the lack of critical thinking, logical fallacies, pre-conceived notions and the like.

I think that one, much like the 360 vs PS3 wars, is a bit too deeply ingrained for any one person to tackle...this is still in it's infancy though, but I'm sure(like all things) that my words fall on deaf ears in this case as well.[/quote]

Well if you believe its too late to change peoples thoughts and views towards the rating systems maybe instead of trying to change peoples minds (hard to do) maybe as a community we should vie for a more fair and appropriate rating system based less on hype and new features and more on gameplay, graphics, sound, etc. Either was is no easy task, but unfortunately I think you are right that despite the truth behind your words its hard to reach out to the majority of PS3 gamers, let alone the nooks and crannies.
 

WaspMonkey

Forum Elder
Aug 16, 2007
2,746
0
0
39
#14
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]Pretty much, yeah.

It's this simple: If a game is worth playing, then play it. Sure, one game is inevitably going to better than the other, but they will all have their redeeming qualities and provide a fun experience, so why deprive yourself of that? Just because you had to feel special? Bo**ocks.

There's no reason to fight over good games, and having the best game doesn't mean you can't play other good games.[/quote]

I agree but you have to consider the cost of games. At $60 a pop parents can't afford to buy their kids a lot of games. When I was a kid I got maybe 5 a year so I made sure those 5 were a great 5. I buy my own now but still carefully make my purchases. I play as many games as I can, but when a game last 5-7 hrs (ala Heavenly Sword, Uncharted) I am more apt to pay $8 to rent it and beat it in a week. I try to reserve purchases to games that I feel I get my money's worth.
 
Jan 9, 2006
52
0
0
#15
Arguing and complaining is a huge part of our culture (at least, in the US, it is). It keeps everyone's mind off of the fact that life sucks and we have no power to change it (speaking very pessimistically, of course). People need something to argue about - when things are going well, they're going to argue about something that seems even more pointless to argue about than the things they argue about when they really are forced into a corner (such as back when everyone 'cept a few claimed that the PS3 was a huge flop).

The maturity of some of the arguments is kind of disappointing, but you should expect that on an online forum.

I'm not sure if I have a point. I just wanted to argue.
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#16
[QUOTE="WaspMonkey, post: 0]I agree but you have to consider the cost of games. At $60 a pop parents can't afford to buy their kids a lot of games. When I was a kid I got maybe 5 a year so I made sure those 5 were a great 5. I buy my own now but still carefully make my purchases. I play as many games as I can, but when a game last 5-7 hrs (ala Heavenly Sword, Uncharted) I am more apt to pay $8 to rent it and beat it in a week. I try to reserve purchases to games that I feel I get my money's worth.[/quote]

I agree with you and I think this goes back to the OP's post saying that 'good' arguments or commentary on games is appropriate and needed, its just the mindless flame wars he is discrediting. But yes with game prices I want to make sure my 60 goes a long was as well
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#17
[QUOTE="Federal, post: 0]Well if you believe its too late to change peoples thoughts and views towards the rating systems maybe instead of trying to change peoples minds (hard to do) maybe as a community we should vie for a more fair and appropriate rating system based less on hype and new features and more on gameplay, graphics, sound, etc. Either was is no easy task, but unfortunately I think you are right that despite the truth behind your words its hard to reach out to the majority of PS3 gamers, let alone the nooks and crannies.[/quote]

That's a good idea, and I've thought of something similar for a while now. A big problem I have with the numerical rating system(be it 1-5, 1-10, 1-100, etc.) is that it's entirely too arbitrary.

Regardless of how many times you drum YOUR interpretation of your ratings down people's throats, they're bound to have their own POV on what an 8, 9, or a 10 means. They're just bound to, people have shown that when it comes to numerical values, they have to have their own interpretation of it. Another problem that arises is that the guidelines set forth are most likely by the editor in chief, and any given reviewer may still have his/her own 'terp on the matter. Doesn't make them right or wrong, it's just how they see it.

The problem is that it DOES get interpreted so many different ways by so many different people despite clarification by whatever source. Throw these asinine aggregate sites like Gamerankings into the mix and that only makes things worse. Why? Exactly what I just said. No matter what average of 100 reviews comes in, Gamespot's 7 and IGN's 8 may mean the same thing, but in an average, such is not the case. Hello pandemonium.

I've thought for some time now that a good idea would be a four tier system: Pass, Rent, Own, and Classic.

There are no two ways about any of those terms. NONE. Granted, different folks will of course have different opinions on certain games, but there will be no disparity when talking about a particular review from a site or journalist. How many times has it come up that "Oh, that game sucks 'cause it's a 7!", "No, I think a 7 is a good game!". Repeat ad nauseum. Neither party even bothers to take into account what the reviewers interpretation of 7 is, only theirs.

I know a gripe about this four tier system could be that it isn't specific enough, but that's the point IMO. Too many people look at an arbitrary score and think they can conclude everything about a game from that. With this, it would provoke readers and inquisitive gamers to figure out why a certain game was only a rent, or why a certain game was worth owning. Of course, no individuals word is law, so I would only hope that people wouldn't continue taking these opinions as fact as they so often do these days.

Anyway, to address the difference between Classic and Own, I think no game should ever be given classic status right off the bat. It may be noted that it's a potential, or could be a classic somewhere in the review, but it should be tagged as own worthy after the initial review and reassessed about another year out to see if it stood the test of time.

Like I said, this still doesn't make anyone's word law, but IMO it would cut down on the mindless disputes that spring up over another persons opinion. EVEN STILL, If IGN or Gamespot rates your favorite game a pass or a rent...it's no reason to get all up in arms or be insecure...it's just opinions.

[QUOTE="WaspMonkey, post: 0]I agree but you have to consider the cost of games. At $60 a pop parents can't afford to buy their kids a lot of games. When I was a kid I got maybe 5 a year so I made sure those 5 were a great 5. I buy my own now but still carefully make my purchases. I play as many games as I can, but when a game last 5-7 hrs (ala Heavenly Sword, Uncharted) I am more apt to pay $8 to rent it and beat it in a week. I try to reserve purchases to games that I feel I get my money's worth.[/quote]

That was actually my point. I'm all for budgeting yourself, particularly in this day and age. My thing though is that I don't think people should dismiss good games so they can feel elite. If you don't buy a good game because you're saving money for a better one, then cool. You probably still have an open mind about the game you passed up. However, if you're dismissing good games solely on the basis that you feel as if you've found the quintessential embodiment of the genre...then that, my friend, is a horrendous contrivance.

*phew*
 

WaspMonkey

Forum Elder
Aug 16, 2007
2,746
0
0
39
#18
Typically I will pick up games as greatest hits later on that I couldn't justify the purchase of the first time around, and by doing so I have found gems. Final Fantasy XII for example I picked up at Sam's Club for $30 - got 120+ hours of out it. So definitely worth the price of admission. I agree that you shouldn't keep passing good games by, if only the prices were more competitive. :-?
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#19
[QUOTE="WaspMonkey, post: 0]Typically I will pick up games as greatest hits later on that I couldn't justify the purchase of the first time around, and by doing so I have found gems. Final Fantasy XII for example I picked up at Sam's Club for $30 - got 120+ hours of out it. So definitely worth the price of admission. I agree that you shouldn't keep passing good games by, if only the prices were more competitive. :-?[/QUOTE]
Exactly.

Even though there aren't GH on the PS3 just yet, you can still find deals if you shop around. Only people missing out soon enough are the ones on the high horses. The rest of us "common folk" will be having loads of fun with those inferior games. :lol:
 
Y

Yip-Man

Guest
#20
Lord Arklon posting like a demon today anyway sound like a plan to me... good thing about your rating system is two fold,

one an even number of ratings, two good, two on the downside, as you never want to have an odd number as gives a fence sitting rating one right in the middle, therefore as a premise i think a very good idea

Two is using words i.e. a description of whever its good or not whether you should buy it, it is very true that is 7 or 8 good or bad like marmite you either love or hate it.. one persons good is another bad.

At least with this type of rating you are trying to give some advice to someone looking at buying a game, however, its still very subjective, possibly should be an average of a select number of reviewers that find that type of game exciting and one or two more generalised gamers to give balance and an even rating across all game types.
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#21
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]
I've thought for some time now that a good idea would be a four tier system: Pass, Rent, Own, and Classic.[/quote]

I like this idea, however without numbers it may be more subjective. I also have a fear that everything will start falling into one category or another. For example every overly-hyped game will be an instant classic and everything under the radar will get tossed into pass/rent. however, if executed properly a new rating system like yours could work well and is definately needed. Also it would be nice if it could be universal, so IGN's rating would be equivalent to GameInformer which would be consistent with Gamespot, etc..
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#22
[QUOTE="Yip-Man, post: 0]Lord Arklon posting like a demon today anyway sound like a plan to me... good thing about your rating system is two fold,

one an even number of ratings, two good, two on the downside, as you never want to have an odd number as gives a fence sitting rating one right in the middle, therefore as a premise i think a very good idea

Two is using words i.e. a description of whever its good or not whether you should buy it, it is very true that is 7 or 8 good or bad like marmite you either love or hate it.. one persons good is another bad.

At least with this type of rating you are trying to give some advice to someone looking at buying a game, however, its still very subjective, possibly should be an average of a select number of reviewers that find that type of game exciting and one or two more generalised gamers to give balance and an even rating across all game types.[/QUOTE]
It is very subjective, but by nature reviewing any sort of art or interactive experience is. It will of course differ for every person, but my philosophy is that it will end a lot of the confusion and misinterpretation that runs rampant with todays reviews.

Of course, I think anything you read from a third party should be taken with some pinch of salt. The thing about reviews is that when you don't always have videos or a demo to go by, they can be very useful. As much as I hate journalism today, I still read reviews for the synopsis and gameplay breakdown. I hate scores though...I absolutely loathe the principal behind it.

To be honest, and I know this will sound paradoxical, but I wouldn't give much thought to the verdict on that rating scale I just said, either, because like I said, everyone's interpretation of an interactive experience is bound to be different, however marginal or major.

I think it's the best alternative because it pushes people to read up on why this game was a rent or own, and it's not inherently arbitrary. That way, people can't argue about how to interpret Own or Rent. There's no two ways about that stuff...if I feel that game is worth owning...then that's what it is to me...but if I feel that it's a rental...then it's a bloody rental.

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 will NEVER tell someone that, so it leaves room for people to bicker, brag, and harass one another about it.
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#23
Although some parts of reviews are subjective some things are not. It is very obvious whether a game has good graphics or sound for example. Also to some degree "replayability" is not subjective for if a game has a decent multiplayer/online mode or if there is incentive to replay maps (arcade mode, rewards, etc.) However when it comes to 'fun' and entertainment it is obviously different for everyone, so hopefully the 4 tier system will be defined by non-subjective markers, and then maybe sub-tiers within - or this may be getting away from the desired simplicity.
 
Y

Yip-Man

Guest
#24
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]It is very subjective, but by nature reviewing any sort of art or interactive experience is. It will of course differ for every person, but my philosophy is that it will end a lot of the confusion and misinterpretation that runs rampant with todays reviews.

Of course, I think anything you read from a third party should be taken with some pinch of salt. The thing about reviews is that when you don't always have videos or a demo to go by, they can be very useful. As much as I hate journalism today, I still read reviews for the synopsis and gameplay breakdown. I hate scores though...I absolutely loathe the principal behind it.

To be honest, and I know this will sound paradoxical, but I wouldn't give much thought to the verdict on that rating scale I just said, either, because like I said, everyone's interpretation of an interactive experience is bound to be different, however marginal or major.

I think it's the best alternative because it pushes people to read up on why this game was a rent or own, and it's not inherently arbitrary. That way, people can't argue about how to interpret Own or Rent. There's no two ways about that stuff...if I feel that game is worth owning...then that's what it is to me...but if I feel that it's a rental...then it's a bloody rental.

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 will NEVER tell someone that, so it leaves room for people to bicker, brag, and harass one another about it.[/quote]


its a very good idea, a lot easer than numbers people relate a lot more to words its drawing a mental picture in their head, whereas i feel number can just mean anything.. the number of iterations is also very important, and to me four seems about right, and the words are too, i.e. buy it or pass..

all i was mentioning is that it should be reviewed by a number of people rather than just one, and with people who only usually play the game type and some that have interest in all types.

so in summary - a BUY into the idea :)
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#25
[QUOTE="Federal, post: 0]I like this idea, however without numbers it may be more subjective. I also have a fear that everything will start falling into one category or another. For example every overly-hyped game will be an instant classic and everything under the radar will get tossed into pass/rent. however, if executed properly a new rating system like yours could work well and is definately needed. Also it would be nice if it could be universal, so IGN's rating would be equivalent to GameInformer which would be consistent with Gamespot, etc..[/quote]
Referencing the subjective thing again, that's true, but this rating system that is widely accepted today is subjective as well.

Gaming journalism as a whole has pulled off a fantastic masquerade in getting the general public to pretty much accept their systems as being somehow scientific. The fact that numbers are used helps satisfy that illusion. The thing is, like I just said to yip-man, we'll never get away from subjective opinions on games.

I think the objectivity part comes in with the review itself, not the verdict. Instead of saying the controls sucked, or the graphics were ugly, tell the reader the specifics of the button layout. Explain certain button combos, the reaction time, is it responsive, does it facilitate certain tasks within the game, etc. That, I think, is how a journalist should separate the opinion from the critique. The opinion is where the verdict comes in, in how the reviewer feels about the game.

Like it or not, there's no science to reviewing games. Regardless of how objective many reviews can read or sounds, that arbitrary little number erases all of that. I think both have a place and coexist within reviews, there just has to be a clear cut distinction. This is one of the reasons I like IGN reviews and dislike 1up's. IGN reviews are often times several pages that go into detail about several pertinent aspects of the game. I find 1ups to be short and too opinionated. It gives one no information or data to go about formulating an idea about the game. Eurogamer is another who's reviews I enjoy reading, but they fall in the middle. Often times, they seem to get carried away with their witty quips and jabs at games, and that sometimes falls into 1ups opinionated territory and leaves me with no information. That's my opinion though, but with both, I don't bother with their scores. Sure, I look at them, but they mean nothing.

Balance objective information with subjective viewpoints and I think we'll have an effective, not winning, formula. I say not winning because neither method is perfect...I just think one is the lesser of the two evils.

*EDIT*

I'm loving the discussion, but I've gotta get some sleep...work in 4 hours, lol. I hate myself for being an insomniac sometimes...
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
47
#26
I have to really agree with this. The "true gamers only like A, not B" line is stupid. Individual true gamers might dislike Mario, or dislike shooters, or be sick to death of racing games, but what makes you a gamer isn't all the games and systems you aren't into, but all the ones you are.
 
Jun 11, 2007
120
0
0
36
#27
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 2411776] what makes you a gamer isn't all the games and systems you aren't into, but all the ones you are.[/quote]

Very very well said. I wish there was more focus on the positive than what is wrong with games or how they stack up to others. However there is a balance, because too much positive and you are slapped with "fanboy" and too much negative and its "you just have a grudge against PS3"
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#28
Whew...it's been a while.

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 2411776]I have to really agree with this. The "true gamers only like A, not B" line is stupid. Individual true gamers might dislike Mario, or dislike shooters, or be sick to death of racing games, but what makes you a gamer isn't all the games and systems you aren't into, but all the ones you are.[/quote]

Bolded for truth. :snicker

I find it kind of ironic how gaming snobs feel that they're true, chic, priveleged, or whatever the case may be, when they're the ones missing out on so many good things in the gaming world.


[QUOTE="Federal, post: 0]Very very well said. I wish there was more focus on the positive than what is wrong with games or how they stack up to others. However there is a balance, because too much positive and you are slapped with "fanboy" and too much negative and its "you just have a grudge against PS3"[/quote]

I think in that a lot of people may have lost sight of the single most important factor in gaming: fun.

I've read reviews and heard from others of games that weren't perfect on a technical level which garnered glowing praise. I've experienced it myself, but the thing that sets some games apart from the technical showcases and visual masterpieces is fun.

Certain factors like pop-in, clipping, glitches, and what-not are a pain these days, and I complain about them when I see them myself.

Still, every so often you'll play a game that blows you away in spite of it's faults. That is something special right there. I think a problem with some reviewers these days is that they're torn on whether they should rate game X highly because it was pure fun, or dock several points for minor gripes that didn't diminish the experience.

Personally, I don't think there's much of a grey area there. If the fault takes away from the game experience, then it should definitely be noticed and addressed. If it doesn't though, then sure it should still be noted, but should it really kill the experience?
 

Gunner

Apprentice
Nov 19, 2007
173
0
0
41
#29
i find comparison threads of games of a similar genre very helpfull . i agree with OP that threads arguing the cases of Killzone vs Resistance are pathetic because both games are a long way off from being released .

Comparison threads are only helpfull when its between games that are actually in the shops and posters have played the games and can give informed opinions and criticism .