In playing through a lot of PS1 games, I've also been checking out some old IGN and Gamespot reviews. It's funny because a lot of them are little more than three our four short paragraphs that say almost nothing at all about the game. I though, surely, the reviews for bigger games must be better, more in-depth.
I checked out IGN's review of FF7 and, though longer, I have no idea how anyone not familiar with the game already would have any idea at all about what the game actually is from reading the review. Everything is pitifully vague, if it even gets mentioned at all [the music isn't, nor does the review give even the most basic outline of the plot]. Heck, the review doesn't even mention anywhere that the combat is turn-based, it just assumes that you already know that.
In fact, you could glance through the manual and crank out the exact same review in a couple of minutes. Which may actually be the case since the review mentions the play time of Next Generation Online, rather than his own, in discussing the game's length.
The review also mentions that the backgrounds are "hand-drawn".
Magazines were the premiere medium then I would say... their reviews wouldn't be any longer though of course, but probably were of higher quality.
I also have noticed how short IGN and Gamespot's early reviews are, and yeah it is kind of funny, but magazines definitely were way better then. This certainly true for PC games at least, PC Gamer vs. 1996 Gamespot? Not even close!
I read magazine reviews back then, and a large number of them suffered a similar problem. It's review decay, and it lasts to this day. I still don't read IGN's reviews because they tell me basically nothing I actually want to know about a game.
Old PC game magazines in particular churned out so many reviews chastising any game that wasn't gory and violent like Doom. That is, they critized King's Quest 7, not for having somewhat easier puzzles due to the new interface as the fans were doing, but for the art style looking cartoonish (sound familiar? Same thing happened with Wind Waker, and just like Wind Waker years later they pretend like they loved it's style all along). Sierra, who's game designers were starting to feel the effects of their own internal decay in the form of the marketing department making demands, "responded" with the really "dark gritty" Mask of Eternity, adding violence and blood and an art style all "realistic" when none of the fans asked for it. It's the only game in the series that lacks any references to classic fairy tales in it's story. Also, the "action" is simplistic and unnecesary overall. A change in direction that looked like an attempt to cash in on that Ocarina of Time market failed miserably by failing to have either engaging combat or puzzles. The overall setting and story isn't that bad, but terrible execution.
And in the end, the reviewers gave a short pithy review of it that also called it bad, but then again, they DID more or less ASK for it.
Actually I wouldn't mind a good remake of Mask of Eternity, or more a total reimagining keeping more of the lighthearted tone of the normal King's Quest series, maybe having a feel like Twilight Princess. That's probably never going to happen though. The current owners of Sierra seem content to just hold onto those liscenses, only "using" them to push out really lazy "modern rereleases" of the games, never bothering to actually add to them with a new KQ or Quest for Glory, and that's probably for the best. I have no idea which developer they'd stick with that task. I kinda hope that fan group does succeed in buying out that liscense, but only if they decide from there to open it up for everyone. I'd hate for fanfic writers to end up completley in charge and run it into the ground by doing what they all do, give deep tragic backstories to completely whimsical characters. Does Bump on a Log on the Isle of Wonder really need to explore his feelings of rejection?
Wind Waker got great reviews when it came out and most reviews praised the graphics and art.
Quote:Old PC game magazines in particular churned out so many reviews chastising any game that wasn't gory and violent like Doom.
I bought PC gaming magazines through most of 1996 and subscribed to PC Gamer from early 1997 to early 2001, and that just is not true. PC Gamer did drop its educational games column in 1997, but all the way until the mid '00s, they had a dedicated wargaming column, despite the niche nature of that genre, various columns for sim games, etc. Or how about their Game of the Year awards... in 1996, for instance, Civilization II won (runner-up: Tomb Raider).
Yes, technology has always mattered in PC gaming, but if you go back and actually read the magazines, they didn't say that all games with older graphics were bad, or only FPSes mattered, or any of that stuff. In genres like strategy games, 3d did not become common until the early '00s; for wargames, it has never become common. Adventure games also have remained mixed. Also, the FPS focus thing in particular really was not true back then I would say, it's only in the past few years that the entire industry focused so much on that one genre.
Quote:That is, they critized King's Quest 7, not for having somewhat easier puzzles due to the new interface as the fans were doing, but for the art style looking cartoonish (sound familiar? Same thing happened with Wind Waker, and just like Wind Waker years later they pretend like they loved it's style all along).
I actually liked KQ7 quite a bit, but it was a big change of tone, I think that's what the reviews were referring to... it was aimed at a younger audience tonewise I think.
Quote:Sierra, who's game designers were starting to feel the effects of their own internal decay in the form of the marketing department making demands, "responded" with the really "dark gritty" Mask of Eternity, adding violence and blood and an art style all "realistic" when none of the fans asked for it.
And the game received scathing reviews, as it deserved. It got no benefit reviewwise from being 3d.
Quote:And in the end, the reviewers gave a short pithy review of it that also called it bad, but then again, they DID more or less ASK for it.
Some did, some didn't, but either way none asked for it to be done so poorly... and lots of people were quite angry that the tone changed so much! That hurt the game more than it helped it, really.
I think that Sierra did that not because of criticism against KQ7, but because adventure games seemed to be dying, and they thought that they couldn't just keep making them as they had been. That was the cause. And indeed, at that time adventure games were in serious decline, one that they really wouldn't recover from until perhaps a year or two ago.
(Might say more later too)
What's sad to me is that in order to review a game you have to be educated and well-rounded, have an understanding of everything that goes in to how a game is made and every aspect of it, not just "the music is good", you have to know music dialect, song creation, arrangement, theory and education on the history of music. A video game uses a reversed version of a classical piece of music originally used for funerals at a scene where a character is tranformed, it has depth and meaning but the reviewer will only cite whether it sounds good or bad. In the Zelda series, often times the themes are transposed, reversed, or just conducted differently to become new pieces that carry their original meaning to bolster the scene at hand as part of the "legend", but it completely goes over these people's heads. Then you have color, contrast, the art of art, understanding vectors and design. That's before you even get to gameplay theory and design which is a hell of lot more than "it's like such and such game with some of such and such game" as there are principals of work load Vs. reward among other dynamics. Then you have writing - is the story of the game based on classic literature? is it a retelling of the bible or eastern religious writings? Is it catcher in the rye told in a futuristic setting? are the sub-plots interactive and dependint on the game player, is the game player the antagonist? etc
I hate reviews, I haven't found a single educated reviewer who can actually pass judgement on anything, be it film or video game. I've met food critics with excellent knowledge who can really get in to the entire history and methodology of an item, but trying to find that from a video game review? it doesn't exist. I only use reviews to generalize whether or not a game will be popular among the masses. But that means anything thats not IN YOUR FACE will be ignored or misunderstood.
On the other hand, I think most of us lack a lot of that. I don't expect someone to review in that direction most of the time. It's perfectly acceptable for a review to be from the perspective of someone entirely new to a series. All I ask for are details.
It does help though when someone actually makes the claim to have been a long time fan of something for the review to actually reflect that, which often enough it doesn't. If someone says they have always "loved the Zelda series" and then states that "for the first time in the series Link is a kid" or "Ocarina of Time's music is great but where's the main Zelda theme?" (I should explain, as far as I'm concerned that "main theme" is present in the form of the overworld theme, though it's more like small snippets from that melody or a really heavy remix.) I also don't appreciate a review where they complain about problems that are ONLY problems if you need to get a review out on the day the game is released. If someone out and out complains that there are "too many side quests eating up too much of your time", or that a game is "too easy, though admittedly I only played on easy mode", they didn't do their job.
The big problem if they go too far into the history of every single little thing is you can miss the forest for the trees. If I read a review on food, I don't WANT to know about which part of the mediterranean it came from. I just want to know if it tastes good. What use is the history lesson in judging whether or not I should eat it? If I was studying how to write game music, detailed information on the method and research done by the composer would be useful to me. Otherwise, I just need a general synopsis like "the music is done in a simple but effective style". In the end, a review is basically a statement of whether or not the author liked something. It's not an in-depth analysis. That's a completely different thing for a different audience.
That's exactly the issue tho, you just want to know if its good.
What is "good"?