Console Wars II

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Asher
coughBlack&White

Yes, that pretty much scored a hat-trick, and also didn't appear on consoles.

[snoopy369]

I think Console probably has a higher proportion of overhype, just because of the higher marketshare (more desire and ad money to overhype). That said, B&W is certainly one of the crown jewels of overhyping

Dai-Katana anyone

[Wiglaf]

El cid never claimed pc games were immune from over hyped reviews. He did say console games scores were a little more inflated, and I'm not sure how true that is, but it seems to make sense with what I've seen from these reviewers

[DrSpike]

I don't think that's the case. I was just reading the Gamespot CoD4 review (pretty flattering btw) and I checked.

Over the last 6 months 5 PC games have 90+ on both PC and Xbox. Several are multi-platform with 1 PC only game (World in Conflict) and 2 Xbox only (Forza2 and Halo3). In fact if you do it over a year then the PC has more 90+ games.

I think people just need to face facts - the barrage of high review scores for recent Xbox games reflects that a lot of genuinely good games are being released.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I have no doubt a lot of "genuinely good games" are coming out. But are a lot of "really great games"?

Scores over 8 are "great", over 9 excellent. Or supposed to be anyway. I get very suspicious of anything getting under an 8 due to the inflated nature of the review process, myself.

__________________________________________

I do think that game reviewers are encouraged to be kind with their reviews.

It's a business, after all. You get advance copies to review, to get the reviews out quicker, so people are more likely to view your review rather than someone else's who beats you to the punch.

If you have a reputation of being more critical than someone else, chances are you'll be getting fewer of those advance copies, thus your reviews will be later, thus your readership suffers as people want to know now.

Even when critical of some aspect of a game, reviews often are most polite in glossing over the problems.

Coupled with the time factor I mention above, you get reviewers encouraged to be somewhat kind in their reviews, testing incomplete games, and not able to devote the full time needed to make that 30 hour commitment to fully test out a game.

This is just the nature of the beast.

Now, as for the whole "console vs PC" debate.

Yes, I have no doubt that the console has suffered from this more than the PC. Not that the games are not more overhyped, but that previously, the PC was the only format capable of fixing it's problems post-release.

A PC game that is not as great as expected on release is often fixed to some degree later, bringing it closer, if not all the way there, to it's hyped version.

The Console has not had that potential until very recently. Thus, it has most likely suffered more from 'overhyping', because the games were never upgraded post release.



Comparing the video game review process to a movie review, however, is faulty. Movies are a 3 hour thing, you've seen it all, experienced it all, that's it. You have a more complete picture when reviewing a movie. And, as such, you are encouraged to be more critical.

IMO anyway.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I have no doubt a lot of "genuinely good games" are coming out. But are a lot of "really great games"?

Forza 2, Halo 3, Bioshock & Orange Box definitely qualify (the 4 highest recent scores). CoD4 now can join them it seems (though I haven't played it) and likely Mass Effect very shortly.

All great games.

And they are supported by other very good games like PGR4, GH3, VF5 & a few sports titles as well.

[Wiglaf]

One problem is that a lot of game review sites have relationships with the companies whose games they are reviewing. I see plenty of ads for games on gamespot right next to that same game's reviews. IGN and Direct2Drive have a similar relationship (they are probably owned by the same company actually). How MOO3 got a 9.5 or whatever on IGN is beyond me. I also don't see what it's ok for game companies to give free gear and games to reviewers, like Microsoft, Sierra, and lots of other publishers do.

[Kataphraktoi]

Forza 2, Halo 3, Bioshock & Orange Box definitely qualify (the 4 highest recent scores). CoD4 now can join them it seems (though I haven't played it) and likely Mass Effect very shortly.

All great games.

Ah, and in years to come, they will be eclipsed by more ''great games'' and will lie forgotten, next to their 2\3\4\5\6th version, which is equally great of course

Of course game mags cant mention the industry is spinning its wheels and truly great games mostly exist in the past on both console and PC. That would just depress the spirits of their customers and dampen game(and magazine ) sales

[Asher]

Yes, in a few years no one will remember what "Halo" and "Half-Life" were.

Good argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Or "Bioshock"...

[Asher]

Even Forza 2 -- in the racing games market, it is king. It's not some simple one-hit wonder that doesn't have replayability. Forza 2 will be played to death for years.

[Wiglaf]

Start naming games from 2-3 years ago you still "play to death."

[Asher]

I don't, I go through them too much to play older console games regularly.

Halo 2 is still heavily played to this day. Guitar Hero is a few years old as well. I booted up Ninja Gaiden not too long ago as well.

On the PC, Warcraft III.

But, personally, I usually don't play games to death as I play so many games. I'm still working through a backlog of new games now, there's not enough time to play the old ones over and over for me.

Other people with less money and/or platforms aren't so lucky, but it'd be stupid to think games like Gears of War (from last year) is dead, or Halo 2 has no players.

I can guarantee you that games mentioned by DrSpike will still be played with regularity in 2-3 years. Not by every single user, that'd be stupid, but by new users of the consoles and then the odd user who boots it up who hasn't played it in a while.

Games like Halo 2 -- a great example -- are literally played to death years after their release.

Even now, midnight on a Wednesday night 3 years after its release on a platform that's been officially dead for 2 years, Halo 2 has over 7,700 players playing online.

[Kuciwalker]

That's not very impressive-sounding when every Halo 3 matchmaking playlist has more than that.

(Not a criticism of your argument, just an observation.)

[Asher]

Yes, Halo 3 has a lot more. Why wouldn't it? It's better, it's newer, it's on a supported platform.

But your observation is going to derail the argument. You need to remember who is arguing here. If we don't focus for the sake of Wiglaf et al, it'll spiral out of control.