Reviews on NTSC-uk

[Uli]

just coming from reading the review of Legendary i feel it's now the time to speak...

i think that the review section on NTSC-uk generally suffered in the recent months - in terms of quantity and quality of review content, not in respect to the quality of the reviews themselves i have to add.

i dare to raise the question: if there's so much quality games out there why do reviewers spent time to review games which have very little appeal and also don't show any quality or oustanding features which might make them interesting for a mostly hardcore gaming community?

also i miss the feedback thread for every review - like there was in the good old times however, posting reviews on a forum site without an actual feedback thread is kind of pointless for me.

what do the other users think?

[noobish hat]

There is a feedback thread for every review...

[Kongster]

I think Uli is referring to the dedicated feedback forum from back in the day.

[Spatial]

i think that the review section on NTSC-uk generally suffered in the recent months - in terms of quantity and quality of review content, not in respect to the quality of the reviews themselves i have to add.

i dare to raise the question: if there's so much quality games out there why do reviewers spent time to review games which have very little appeal and also don't show any quality or oustanding features which might make them interesting for a mostly hardcore gaming community?

By way of a personal explanation, I reviewed Legendary because I was playing it. I tend to take that ethos - if I'm playing something, and the mood takes me (as it often does), then I'll put something together for NTSC-uk to contribute to the very reason why we're all gathered here together in the first place.

Besides, in this case it was a public service announcement to warn others of the danger.

[chopemon]

I also reviewed a couple of games recently that weren't heavy hitters.

I really enjoyed spending time with and writing about games that don't get a lot of coverage everywhere else. I also really enjoy reading reviews about these types of games. Reading about a game that I haven't heard much about is far more interesting to me than reading yet another review about Megaton Game X (not that I don't enjoy the reviews of big games here, I do).

I read far more reviews about bad/obscure games than I do about high quality million sellers. Especially here where games get reviewed that people have spent their money on which adds a certain amount of hilarious irony to reviews like the one in question.

[noobish hat]

lol, I was just reading the review and all I could think was 'who the **** is Hugh Griffins? ....oh'

[Dogg Thang]

I can only speak for myself of course but I love some of the more obscure reviews. I guess it really depends on the point of the reviews. As it is, I see something in the banner I don't recognise, go check what it is and often I'm introduced to something I don't know. It can either make me think about tracking the game down, or it can have me pleased I dodged a bullet and just enjoy watching a game get torn to shreds.

With the games we're all playing, well, for me much of the point of a review is well covered in the First Play threads. When it comes to games I'm actually playing or know I'm going to play, I do quite like reading reviews just to see if I agree with them or not but, like I say, there's little that wouldn't be covered in a First Play thread.

I agree quantity might be an issue but then I never used to read the reviews here and have recently. You know - if it wasn't for the banners, I probably would miss most of them.

[sj33]

To be honest, I prefer reading reviews written by people who have actually purchased the game out of choice, and writing their opinions, rather than a review written by someone who doesn't actually want to play the game, but has been assigned the task of reviewing it.

[charlesr]

I certainly raised an eyebrow that anyone had bothered playing, let alone reviewed Legendary, but I presume you aren't just talking about that one.

The ethos has always been "review whatever you play", so unless the writers are playing all the top brass games, it's really luck of the draw what comes out.

As for feedback, I'd encourage anyone to either PM the writer via the link on the review, or use the comments thread (in General Gaming) for the review (it's up to the writer whether they want one or not).

Hopefully quantity will be addressed by the new recruits that are banging out reviews at the moment. Hope so. Certainly keeping me on my toes behind the scenes.

[toythatkills]

I tend to take that ethos - if I'm playing something, and the mood takes me (as it often does), then I'll put something together for NTSC-uk to contribute to the very reason why we're all gathered here together in the first place.

I really enjoyed spending time with and writing about games that don't get a lot of coverage everywhere else. I also really enjoy reading reviews about these types of games. Reading about a game that I haven't heard much about is far more interesting to me than reading yet another review about Megaton Game X

These two points about cover it for me, too.

I don't think this site really needs to cover the big hitters because it's not what we're about. We review the games we buy ourselves on release day, by the time we could have reviewed Grand Theft Auto IV, for example, there was already probably 100 reviews on metacritic, though arguably we could do a much better job than anyone else with the absence of hype.

[prinnysquad]

Besides, in this case it was a public service announcement to warn others of the danger.

Or flog them the **** games

[ItsThere]

What would you like the site to review?

[averybluemonkey]

Without playing the bad games how can you put the good ones in context? Experiencing a wide cross section of the market gains a better understanding of what's out there and the merits of a title in comparison to others. Personally I find myself playing more mediocre titles because I've often already completed the good ones, or I'm intrigued by them. If every review was only of good games then what would be the point?

Plus it's not like Ntsc haven't featured some high scoring, high profile reviews recently.

[Uli]

i have to point out that it's not the "heavy hitters" i miss to see here. i was thinking of the "sleeper hits" and "underdogs" or the quality "special interest" games which are targeted at hardcore gamers like us. but maybe these games have just become very rare these times...

however, i am kind of relieved that no writer or admin of NTSC-uk seems to be pissed (Jamie especially) because i appreciate your dedication and opinion on games.

[egparadigm]

What would you like the site to review?

Answer this question, Uli. Give us a list of "sleeper hits" and maybe someone will review them!