Unfair reviews - In your opinion of course

[Kieran76]

You know what I mean though. I've never met a middle aged person with even the slightest interest in those types of films.

Mark Kermode

[eastyy]

I and i am sure many people idea would really hate the idea of someone reviewing something and reducing the score purely because it had 2d graphics

[Leon Retro]

Mark Kermode

I didn't know the guys name, but I still knew it was him before I checked on google!

When I make statements, I'm not saying they're 100% concrete. People should just get my drift, and if they don't, that's not my problem!

I will be a middle-aged horror fan someday, but I won't review Scary Movie 25!

[Kieran76]

I wasn't having a go just answering a question. There is also Kim Newman, a massive fan of b-movies.

[Leon Retro]

I wasn't having a go just answering a question. There is also Kim Newman, a massive fan of b-movies.

Sorry mate! I just get a lot of smart-arse comments, and thought you were trying to be clever!

[TheShend]

I really believe Edge should do a Time Extend on SFIII:3rd Strike because although some points are fair enough such as the backgrounds; characters shouldn't share the same one really, give them some greater identification with a nice backdrop, but they're also not as a good as previous iterations, it fails to mention the parry system at all. Just a very woolly "refined blocking arrangement, reffered to as System Direction" remark which is confused.

So what the parry brings in organic and non-repetitive fighting, which is a very significant apsect is entirely left unremarked upon. System Direction is inaccurately portrayed, significant and not just "slight" changes to the games system can be made, to the extent you can turn the game into an Alpha (air blocking, all SA's), vs (5 super bars, All SA's, extended juggling) or classic SFII:CE (No SA's, No parrying) style instead. A noticeable and notable inclusion. Even in the face of such confused dismissal, there's a box-out actually exlpaining System Direction albeit based on what's open when you first press start, there's another 3 unlocked pages (8, 9 and 10) plus further Extra Options.

There's also an apparent lack of effort with the new cast and what they bring i.e. a genuine greater variety in the play style's, Twelve and Q for instance.

In spite of this I don't hate/blame the reviewer, alot of what SFIII is about comes about after playing it for abit, adapting to the new style and breaking out of SFII/Alpha habits. So i suppose it's abit much to expect the reviewer to notice what this game truly brought to 2D beat-em-ups considering it really only saw wide spread appreciation after a couple of years and what was capable could be seen.

So with that last paragraph, I do wonder whether SFIII was in a sense ahead of its time with a system such as the parry and what impact it had for fighters. With hindsight could it be a revolution? The end of repition and the freedom to express your fighting style without the worry of compromise from 'top-tier' users?

So with the UK having a team present to compete along with the US, Japan and Australia in the Tougeki/Super Battle Opera 4 tournament this year, $64,000 in prize money for the upcoming Evo'06 tournament in the US and SFIII: 3rd Strike ($10,250 allocated in prize money) still a major part of the games played (unlike CFJ and A3) I really do believe it revalued in a Time Extend.

[SummAh]

Hi guys, I just stumbled onto this thread a wee bit late...

Quick question, what do you guys thinks of in terms of gaming skills lvl when it comes to being a reviewer?

With some of the reviewers out there, I truly wonder just how 'good' they are in gaming itself.

For example, I knew one the guys that worked in famitsu as game reviewer under the 4-man panel system. What was great was b4 I buy any game, I'll msn him n he'll tell me if it's worth it lol. Well, he's with Sega now last I heard, anyway.....

He really is one hell of a gamer, serious skills in his games. In famitsu/arcadia, they have exceptionally great shooters, racers, RPGs, fighters etc etc type of gamers working in each specific genre.

I supposed the question I'm really asking is...what set of skills should a particular individual need to be a game reviewer? Alot of times, I think a particular reviewer misses the boat simply because their gaming lvl/mindset is just, not high enough imo.

Other times, geniune complaints abt bad camera etc etc...are spot on, but who can't spot them in the first place? It doesn't take any skills to spot out a bad camera, but being able to review in depth abt the game engine and explain the details requires another set of knowledge.

Other times, I find reviewers complaining abt the most minute sort of useless details. For example, complaining that in RE4, a player will have to pause, go to inventory, select a gun in order to change weapons. Yet, this problem is never highlighted in Ninja gaiden! Why is it a problem in RE4 but not a problem in NG???

Difficulty lvl issues are often mentioned in a reviews. That imo, is strictly based on the individual's skill lvls. For example, gamespy's review abt Ikaruga being excessively hard, denting the fun factor of the game...but hey, it's OK for it to be tough in NG (I think itagaki's premptively insulting the players worked very well tbh.) Suddenly, there's an ego factor to consider.

Hmm, I'm getting a bit lost here.....any opinions guys?

[Kaladron]

I agree with the Famitsu point - magazines should have a well rounded body of staff with individuals who specialise in certain genres.

The latest issue of ONM has a review of Metroid Prime Pinball wherin the reviewer admits that he doesn't understand pinball and goes on to criticise the game because of the pointlessness of achieving a high score. The game got 64%, which to any pinball fans who've played MPP is clearly ridiculous. Shouldn't the game have been reviewed by someone who understands and likes pinball so that readers that are genuinely interested in buying the game can benefit from an informed and knowledgable review?

[Matteh]

Star Wars Podracers allways one that comes to mind to me, got slated by most reviews but i thought it was brilliant

Oh yeah, and igns 6.8 for metal slug 3! mental! deserves at least a 9.0

nintendo official magazine giving south park 90% i must be missing something, where the hell did the other 80% come from, what an abysmal abysmal game. There are probably quite a few ****ed up reviews in that mag

I just about to say that actually. I've played out of **** games in my 6 years in gaming, but really, really stands out in my mind as a **** game. quite possbilly the shiitest ive ever played bar possiblly enter the matrix and digimon card whatevers.

at a quess id say they were trying to seem more grown up, but yeah they did give quite a lot of **** games 90%+ Actually iirc they made a little freebie book about all the games they rated 90%

[Kaladron]

Star Wars Podracers allways one that comes to mind to me, got slated by most reviews but i thought it was brilliant

Agreed on that, the original (not PS2) is great. Seem to remember one magazine giving it a fair review. Might have been N64.

[Ish]

I enjoyed podracers in the arcade with the odd steering setup. Was cool. Still I have fond memories of it because I took first place on the cab's high score table on my second go

[Tetsuo]

Episode 1: Racer was a lovely game that was slated by lots of magazines, but it was played really nicely; lovely, floaty handling, excellent audio and fast, deatiled graphics that really pushed the machine (N64).

Edge magazine gave it a 6 I think.

I felt Edge magazine were also totally off the mark with thier Super Smash Bros. review, which they awardrd a 5. It read as though (*shock*) they hadn't actually bothered to play the multiplayer mode. For me, it was at least an 8, possibly a 9 for it's sheer playability and tight controls, and I had expected Edge to give it an 8 or 9 too.

Their review of the GameCube update was about spot on though.

[sj33]

I also agree with Episode 1 Racer got slated too much. It got compared too much to F-Zero and WipEout, which I felt was unfair as it was going for a completely different approach. There was a decent game to get stuck into once you stopped moaning about how the combat sucked - the focus was clearly on speed and the customisation of your craft.

[gozaimas]

I disagree with pretty much all of you in this thread. A good critic doesn?t have ?just an opinion?. They throw perspicacious, incisive truth and light onto their subject in a way that a simple consumer cannot. I value the critique of a skilled and artful critic immeasurably above a layperson ? no matter how many games that layperson has played or how many high scores they can pull off.

A job of a good critic isn?t just to ?tell you facts?: it?s to be incisive, enlighten the reader, extol a game?s virtues and berate its shortcomings, to highlight things in a game you might not notice otherwise, to place the game next to it?s rivals in the canon and weigh it against the highs and lows of the appropriate genre. Above all, it?s to wrap all of this up in good writing that entertains and compels the reader to finish their critique without thinking the whole exercise was a waste of time.

A critic should be able to write incisive, clear and exciting text to make you want to read, hear, understand and value their ?opinion? as far more than that.

Also: consider that it is quite possible to enjoy vastly flawed videogames. I liked the latest Tomb Raider, even though there are lots of things wrong with it. A critic isn?t telling me whether I?ll like it or not ? they?re telling me, as empirically as possible, what is right and wrong, good and bad, solid and broken about it.

You?re not five years old anymore. You can work out for yourself, based on your own bias and passions whether you?ll like the game or not. That?s not the primary job of a critic, even though it might be a secondary result of their work.

[Leon Retro]

I disagree with pretty much all of you in this thread. A good critic doesn?t have ?just an opinion?. They throw perspicacious, incisive truth and light onto their subject in a way that a simple consumer cannot. I value the critique of a skilled and artful critic immeasurably above a layperson ? no matter how many games that layperson has played or how many high scores they can pull off.

A job of a good critic isn?t just to ?tell you facts?: it?s to be incisive, enlighten the reader, extol a game?s virtues and berate its shortcomings, to highlight things in a game you might not notice otherwise, to place the game next to it?s rivals in the canon and weigh it against the highs and lows of the appropriate genre. Above all, it?s to wrap all of this up in good writing that entertains and compels the reader to finish their critique without thinking the whole exercise was a waste of time.





A critic should be able to write incisive, clear and exciting text to make you want to read, hear, understand and value their ?opinion? as far more than that.

Also: consider that it is quite possible to enjoy vastly flawed videogames. I liked the latest Tomb Raider, even though there are lots of things wrong with it. A critic isn?t telling me whether I?ll like it or not ? they?re telling me, as empirically as possible, what is right and wrong, good and bad, solid and broken about it.

You?re not five years old anymore. You can work out for yourself, based on your own bias and passions whether you?ll like the game or not. That?s not the primary job of a critic, even though it might be a secondary result of their work.

If a writer wants to express all the things you say, why don't they just write a book with a more fitting subject matter, or fiction. Imo there is no place for intellectualising and searching for deeper meaning in videogames which are basically about fun more than anything.

When a games journalist writes prententious contrived waffle, it really irritates me, rather than bolstering my reading pleasure. This is because I know from years of experience that games shouldn't be scrutinised for deeper values other than entertainment!

I have recently been reading some old magazines such as Mean Machines, and the writers knew their stuff, but they didn't feel the need to intellectualise gaming, and instead chose to be clear precise and transparent with their videogame appraisals.

Decent videogame journalists should have a strong knowledge, and a deep passion for the subject. Most of all, they should know that games are based on fun, and therefore the writing should be enjoyable, clear, precise, and most of all friendly.

No amounts of intellectual posturing can disguise a lack of passion, or make readers respect your opinions!

Keep it friendly and full of passion, and people will appreciate your work far more!

EDGE... I'm looking at you!