Quote:My character is a Jedi, so I'll just have to settle with Force Wave, which is a very handy Force Power.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
No, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean 'decent review' as in 'they praise it'. I mean 'decent review' as in 'they effectively explain the game and its pros and cons'.

Quote:Oh, and reviewers generally don't give 3.5s to games that many people think deserve 8's... that just doesn't happen much at all. I read PC Gamer for years, and have read it on and off ever since. I don't agree with all their review scores or reviews. How could I? No one can agree with all reviews. But I think they do a gret job of writing reviews... so that you know how good the game is in the review. If its a problematic game in some ways but you think the reviewer overemphasized some bad points or you don't find them that bad then if the review is well done you can tell that... and most reviews are well done.

Quote:Like Gamespot's F-Zero X review. I can't disagree more with the score, but at least I can understand their reasoning... if it was three reviewers I'd see one person give it a low score but they really wouldn't have the space to explain why -- worse.

Quote:but they really wouldn't have the space to explain why -- worse.

Quote:Maybe not to explain it in insanely huge detail, but they have plenty of room to explain why they gave the game the score they gave it.

Quote:They gave the ultra-crappy Enter the Matrix game a 7.something. That's way too high.

Quote:Yeah their reasoning was great. "The game doesn't have soul".

Quote:Wow.

You don't actually read reviews, you just look at the scores?

That explains everything about why you hate Gamespot (and PC Gamer) and why I like it... because I like it because their reviews are BY FAR better written and more professional than IGN's reviews. Not about the scores. Its really about the quality of the written reviews. Which is much higher at Gamespot than it is at IGN.

It also explains liking 3 or 4 short reviews over one.

It is also very, very stupid.

Quote:Sure, but what I was saying is that they don't have the space to really explain the game, which is what you should be basing your analysis of the review on -- not on the score. The score is just that person's arbitrary decision of quality which you will almost inevitably disagree with, one way or the other.

Quote:And PC Gamer gave Postal 2 a 7.9. But not having read those reviews I will not judge them at all... because you CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ever judge a review by its score. That is just stupid!

Quote:http://www.gamespot.com/n64/driving/fzero10/review.html

Oh, I certainly agree that "it doesn't have a soul" is bad reasoning. But if you read the review you'd see that it says that people like me would love it.

If that was a 2-paragraph review there wouldn't be room for that kind of detail and I'd go off annoyed at the stupid reviewer. But because of the fact that they do go into more depth that is not the case.

Quote:No shit, Sherlock. Perhaps you SHOULD READ what I write instead of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. That is just STUPID!

Quote:Gah, you are such an idiot. I don't just look at scores, but I don't usually read entire reviews for games unless I'm unsure about them. I'd rather make up my own mind on a game.

I have read several Gamespot reviews and they are not nearly as good as you think they are. Most of their reviews basically just repeat the game's instruction manual and go into too much detail about simple parts of the game. Basically they just try to fill as much space as they can in order to fool stupid people into thinking that their reviews are smart and well-written.

Quote:I look into games before they come out so I already know all there is to know about them, unless it's something like Metroid Prime where I want to know as little as possible so that I can be surprised. Long-winded reviews are only really useful if you know very little about a game and are having a difficult time deciding whether or not to get it. I visit gaming sites on a daily basis so I usually don't need any extra info from a review.

Quote:The only reason why you'd need the review to be longer than two paragraphs is if you don't know anything about the game. I don't need to know that F-Zero is a futuristic racer that's really fast because I already know that. I just want to know how much the reviewer liked it.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
Being evil is so much fun!

Quote:Then why do you judge games based on, as far as I can tell, just the score so often?

Quote:Uhh... you base opinions of games more on previews and news than on reviews? Are you sane at all?

Quote:Then why do you judge games based on, as far as I can tell, just the score so often?

Quote:OOH, you read SEVERAL REVIEWS! GREAT sample to decare that they have badly written and scored reviews on, yup!

Quote:Also... that first paragraph reads to me "I look at scores a lot. I also read some of the review, but not all of it, and then judge the review on this badly flawed sampling of what it says". Sure gives me reason to listen to you complain about another score that is "too low". Yup.

Quote:Uhh... you base opinions of games more on previews and news than on reviews? Are you sane at all?

Not even remotely sensible. Reviews are FAR, FAR better sources of accurate info about how a game actually plays than anything else short of playing it yourself... you can't judge games based on news and previews! Previews are innacurate and forgive games their faults in hopes they will be fixed...

Quote:Oh, and no decent review would say "F-Zero is futuristic racer. Here's some stuff from the manual and my dumb comments". Sorry. And this one doesn't. You just completely misrepresent it to suit your version of the facts... because its a well written review, its just got a (IMO) wrong opinion of the gameplay fun factor and graphics of the game. But that's okay, because they explain both well enough for me to see that those aren't things I'd see as problems and indeed F-Zero X is a great game.

Quote:When did I ever say that I judge games based on scores? I'll point out if someone gives a good game a crappy score (like this thread), but I never decide on whether or not I'm going to buy a game based off of a score alone.

Quote:You read it like that because you are an imbecile. Think what you want. You and others like you (i.e. Darunia, nickdaddyg) are too stubborn to listen to reason.

Quote:You're right about one thing: no decent review would state those things, which is precisely why Gamespot's reviews are so bad.

Quote:Here we go again. ABF taking a note from Darunia by only taking parts of what someone says and twisting them around because that's the only way you're able to rebut in an argument. Very said.

Here's how it brakes down. Pay close attention now, because I know how hard it is for you to comprehend what people write:

1. First I read previews, impressions, and articles on games to get info on what they are about and how they play.

2. The next thing I do is wait for reviews to come around and what I usually do is skip past all of the useless info on the game (because I already know what it's about; refer to point #1) and get right to the meat of the review: how the final version of the game looks, sounds, and plays.

Now then, was that too difficult to understand? I could bring out the sign language again if you're still having trouble with this.

Quote:The score is, in the tiniest nutshell possible, the reviewer's opinion of the game.

Quote:I never said it affects your purchasing decisions, just that you complain overly long about what you see as mediocre or poor review for games that "deserve" better. I'd say that that is paying more attention to the score than to the review... which doesn't make sense, IMO.

Quote:Reason like "read a review before judging it"? If that's bad logic, I don't want to see good logic!

Quote:The point is that the review doesn't say that anywhere other than in your twisted mind.

Quote:Well that method clearly doesn't work because you constantly complain that good and/or well written reviews are bad.

Quote:I've never quoted a score without first reading the actual review, unless the review is in a language that I do not understand.

Quote:What the hell? That's not even a proper response to what I wrote! Go back and read what I was responding to.

Seriously now, it's like you're not even trying anymore.

Quote:Before I reply to this I'd like to point out that Gamespot's review is a whole five paragraphs long! Wowee! Yup, Gamespot's reviews sure are long! In comparison, IGN's review is fourteen paragraphs long, and is considerably better-written than Gamespot's shoddy review.

Gamespot's review explains how the game plays, then goes on to complain about the graphics and controls (controls? WTF? The controls are great!). That's pretty much it. Oh and they added this at the end of the review: "Practically flawless from a technical standpoint, the biggest thing missing from F-Zero X is that it lacks a soul." . So because the graphics are bad the game lacks soul? He also complains about the lack of a first-person view. WOW.

Quote:Perhaps if Gamespot's reviews were actually well-written, that would be the case. But unfortunately for you their reviews are a joke.

Quote:Then why in your complaints do you focus so heavily on the score if you read and think about the review?

Quote:Sounds like a decent response to me...

Quote:So its not Gamespot's greatest review. But its good enough.

Oh, and I've always gone to Gamespot more for PC than for consoles... I didn't even go to their console section for several years... so I really am more talking about PC reviews than console.

Quote:Compared to IGN's paragon of enlightened thought, I presume?

Quote: have a problem with short reviews that take a highly-anticipated games, give them low scores, and just say something like, "Colors are sharp. Speed is fast. Too hard. Let's pizza."

If you're going to have a controversial opinion, you need a better explanation, which usually means a longer explanation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly what I've been trying to get these people to understand... its not working.

Quote:In which case? This one?? Hmm, perhaps that's because the F-Zero GX reviews basically states "the game is the shining triumph of hard sushi, letting go never hurts".

Quote:But of course it does. /QUOTE]

Whatever...

[QUOTE]HA! So now you're slowly backing out of your argument, changing it because you're losing. Nice one.

Quote:They don't usually quote intruction manuals like Gamespot does, and instead of just trying to smart by repeating useless information over and over, they cut to the chase. Usually.

Quote:Oh yeah, I know what you mean! Oh wait, no I don't! And why is that? Because your statement is based off of a nonexistant review. Instead of quoting actual reviews like I do (it's great! You should try it sometime!), you make a vague comment about something that you made up. But of course, when you have nothing to back up your argument that is what you have to resort to. Genius arguing techniques, guys. I applaud you.

Quote:Oh come on, you complain about low review scores CONSTANTLY.

Quote:ever said their F-Zero X review was great, just that its decent and good enough... and isn't a badly written review.

Quote:Gamespot just DOESN'T DO THAT!

IGN, however, often pads their reviews with lots of moronic fluff that doesn't belong anywhere near the review page.

Quote:There are far too many examples of both to make it effective to link.. its not like I'm commenting on some one or two reviews. This is about my overall impressions of each site's review styles and quality...

These two reviews are both okay. I just prefer Gamespot's style...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/r...ape/review.html
http://pc.ign.com/articles/160/160732p1.html

Quote:EGM reviews 7 years ago were just barely longer than that...

Quote:Like when? If I complain about a score then I will also complain about the written review. The score is the summation of the written review, and is a good way to start with complaining or prasing a review.

Quote:It is a very poorly-written review. The reviewer just complains about the graphics and simplifies the game to its very basic aspects without going into more depth. It is very obvious that the reviewer didn't spend much time on the game, or the review itself for that matter.

Quote:Wow that... totally doesn't prove your point. You were agreeing with Nintendarse that their reviews consist of only two or three words, even though he was talking about Famitsu... which has absolutely nothing to do with your reply right there.

Quote:IGN usually covers everything that is needed to be covered in the review without spending too much time on useless instruction manual information like Gamespot does. They add some humor in their reviews (which is always a nice change of pace from Gamespot's terribly boring reviews), sometimes funny, sometimes not. But we've already established that you have no sense of humor.

Quote:So you actually have EGM issues from seven years back? No? Well I do, and back then each review was four paragraphs long, one for each reviewer. They perfected the review format over the years, but there was nothing better than it back then.

Quote:Are you trying to deny you complain about reviews (focusing on scores that are "too low" to you) fairly frequently?

Quote:ure Gamespot has done better, but still, its not badly written... its okay. You just disagree with his bad points so you've got to find other problems with it.

Quote:That was just to show decent examples both styles. And why I like one over the other... in response to all your complaints about Gamespot's style...

Oh, and I've never said IGN or Gamespot use super short reviews... that complaint is aimed at multiple-reviewer mags, not IGN or Gamespot.

Quote:'d say taht Gamespot's to the point and more professional-reading reviews are a nice change of pace after more IGN "humor".

Quote:And all we established about my sense of humor is that it doesn't see many of the things you find really funny all that funny. That's called "difference of opinion"... ever heard of it?

Quote:The only two or three issues of EGM I own are from between late '95 and mid '96 (one of them is the Spaceworld issue... with previews of all the N64 games...). So I know that four-reviewer, paragraph-long-review style as EGM's. As I said before. And I also said I've read a few issues of it from time to time since then, and have noticed the reviews were a bit longer... one longer review, and two even shorter ones... but they are still quite abrupt.

Quote:Of course I complain about scores every now and then, but only when accompanied by reviews. If the score and the written review contradict each other (like Gamespot's Metroid Fusion review) then I'll point that out.

Quote:The fact that you can't tell how poorly written that review is says a lot to me. The review only touches upon a couple of aspects of the game and doesn't get any deeper than the info you would find at a good site's first, brief impressions of the game. It's like the reviewer only played the game for two minutes.

Quote:We weren't arguing about the sites' different styles of reviewing. You just turned that argument into something else because you were losing.

Quote:Your definition is "professional" is hilarious. Gamespot's reviews are extremely unprofessional and they read like someone who knows nothing about video games is consulting an instruction manual and offering very ignorant observations of the games they are reviewing.

Quote:ABF, just admit that you are completely devoid of a sense of humor and Ill be on my way. You never laugh at anything, you never tell jokes, and you probably don't even understand the meaning or the word.

Quote:With their tiny reviews they are able to express more about a game's real strengths and weaknesses than Gamespot's terrible reviews do.

Quote: look at the review over the score. And don't get nearly as annoyed over slightly low reviews...

Quote:Reviewers have to pretty much complete games to do reviews... and it really isn't that bad. Not in my opinion anyway... and this isn't a objective issue...

Quote:We weren't because you refuse to answer every time I bring it up. Because you know its not something you can win...

As for review quality itsself I think you're deluding yourself if you think I'm losing.

Quote:All that says to me is how little you read Gamespot reviews. Because it couldn't be any farther from the truth.

Quote:Not true, not true, and not true. As you know if you think about it for over two seconds.

You just say that because I don't think stupid humor is very funny.

Quote:If you honestly believe that I think we have a good candidate for the insane asylum...

Oh... one more thing. There was a review style better back in 1996.

You found it in PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World.

Quote:As I said before, the score is a summation of the review, and if the reviewer knows what he/she is doing, it should accurately reflect the written review. And in the case of Gamespot's written review, I've seen better "reviews" in the user comment section at gamestop.com.

Quote:You'd think that was true, but it's not. I've spoken with several editors at various gaming sites and magazines and they told me that they rarely ever finish games that they don't really care for.

Quote:I know that I can't win an argument that you just brought up out of nowhere? Do you think that I don't pay attention to your posts? You just said that you prefer Gamespot's "style" over IGN's, which is a completely different topic.

Quote:Think whatever you want to think, ABF. I'll have as much luck convincing you of the truth as I will convincing nickdaddyg that the Gamecube has some great games. It's just hopeless.

Quote:Better if you know very little about games, which seems to be the case with you. I keep up with news, previews, and impressions for most games, so having short reviews by three or four different people is much for useful than having one long review by a single person which basically just covers everything I already know about a game.

Quote:Yes, of course the score should reflect the attitude towards the game contained in the review. And they almost always do, on both sites. That isn't a problem.

I am not talking about a review saying "the game is great" then giving it a 70. I'm saying a review saying, in depth, all the good and bad points about a game, then giving the score that that person thinks is best... now I might disagree with their conclusions. A lot. But if the review is well done, as I've said ten times now, that doesn't matter -- I still get a very good idea of if I'd want the game.

Now... I won't say that that F-Zero review is one of Gamespot's best. Its not. But it IS decent. Yes, it could use more depth and explanation. But it does have a fair amount and does explain the reasonings for the score well. You just disagree completely with that reasoning so you write off the whole review... which I would not do.

Quote:Oh, did I mention that, IMO, PC Gamer writes the best reviews of any gaming magazine/website? Sure they don't cover consoles, but I wish they did, because they'd be far better than any of the console mags...

Quote:I didn't say finish, I said play a good amount. Not "two minuites" obviously.

Quote:Different but closely related.

Quote:Just like its hopeless to get you to read enough Gamespot reviews to get a fuller picture of their review quality.

Quote:No decent review just regurgitates the news and previews. (and no, that F-Zero review doesn't do that)

Quote:Their reviews are pretty good, but if they reviewed console games then you would get two-sentence reviews from them. PC Gamer actually devotes less pages to reviews than EGM does.

Quote:Considering how ignorant their reviewers sound I'd bet that two minutes really isn't too far off.

Quote:I've read enough of their reviews to see how bad they are.

Quote:Gamespot's F-Zero review simply repeats info that you can find in any preview of the game but with some whining about the game's graphics by the reviewer added in to make it look like an actual review.

Quote:You think? Then we're lucky they cover PC then.

They sure do review a lot of games in those issues I have, but its a very small number of pages of the reviews... most pages are a Nintendo Power-like focus on strategy guide pages and stuff...

Quote:It doesn't sound like that to me.

Quote:They aren't bad, so I don't know what reviews you have been reading...

Quote:So what, exactly, should it have said?

Quote:You've never actually read a single issue of EGM, have you? They devote many two, three pages to cheats/strategies, with most of the pages going toward previews and articles. Your ignorance shines through yet again.

Quote:You just don't know what a good review should look like.

Quote:It should have started off with a brief introduction to the game and then gone on to explaining the main parts of F-Zero (i.e. graphics, controls, sound, "fun factor", etc.) without just dwelling on a single aspect of it (which Gamespot did). After the reviewer has gone into detail about the gameplay and the intricacies of the game (which Gamespot failed to do), you'd have a final paragraph summarizing how the reviewer felt about the title. That is basically what should have been done.

Quote:Of course, PC gaming mags are different... focuses are on feature articles and reviews...

Quote:I haven't read my two or three issues from '95 and '96 in a while, I admit... but I remember them well enough.

Letters, news, reviews (fair number of pages, but 3 per page with 4 reviewers and ads on half the pages), info pages/previews (I mean the many pages of one or two page short previews of games which I think aren't out, but might be. Not sure about that... its got format details and game info and stuff but not a review. A bunch of pages of that...), strategy guide stuff (one has a insert with special moves for a fighting game), etc... and lots of ads of course.

And you are right most of the pages are those previews (of unrealeased games?) and articles.


Of course, PC gaming mags are different... focuses are on feature articles and reviews...

Quote:Yes, it could/should have been better. But it just wasn't totally negligent... yes more detail would be nice but there is enough for a decent amount of info...

Quote:No there wasn't. You could find much more info in EGM's review of the game. What EGM often does is have a large preview of the game in the same or previous issue that the game is reviewed, so you get plenty of information on the game.

Quote:And as GR pointed out there are many more ads in PC Gamer than there are in EGM, most likely due to the fact that EGM has a larger readership than PCG does.

Quote:Yeah, I do recall previews of games in the same issue they are reviewed in... it seemed a very strange way of doing things.