Console Wars II

[Verto]

Originally posted by El_Cid
But they want your money - thats what the 9.4/10 rating is for isnt it?

To make you feel like your missing out if you don't get it - to kind of paraphrase Dr.Spike "you'll miss out on all those great games".

next-gen console gaming = yawnsville 90% of the time imho.

"oh look shinny stuff!! lets shoot it! - BANG! Oh look at the shinny stuff explode!"

10hours later

"ok thats the end of that game - what next?"

Wait, are we talking about Crysis?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by El_Cid
But they want your money - thats what the 9.4/10 rating is for isnt it?

To make you feel like your missing out if you don't get it - to kind of paraphrase Dr.Spike "you'll miss out on all those great games".

next-gen console gaming = yawnsville 90% of the time imho.

"oh look shinny stuff!! lets shoot it! - BANG! Oh look at the shinny stuff explode!"

10hours later

"ok thats the end of that game - what next?"

Not sure if you missed this but reviews don't generally get done by the people releasing the game.

As Asher said it's multi-plaform too. And it isn't likely to be a brainless shooter on any platform - this series is known for it's varied balanced weapons, strong SP action and strategic MP.

So all in all, safe to say you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.

[Kataphraktoi]

You hit the nail on the head el cid, but for reasons you already mentioned, it wouldnt be accepted
wasting your breath in a console thread

[DrSpike]

Not really - although some people in this thread are admittedly closed minded when it comes to accepting criticism of things they like, the vast majority are open to well-reasoned criticism.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any of that recently.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
You hit the nail on the head el cid, but for reasons you already mentioned, it wouldnt be accepted
wasting your breath in a console thread

I don't get this.

I own all 3 consoles, and an extremely high-end gaming PC. I refer to a multiplatform game as being great, and you go on like it's some kind of weird thing that us lowly console games don't know.

If there's one observable fact in this thread, it's that the biggest ignorant tools out there are not gamers on all of the platforms, but those tied to only one.

[ZargonX]

Uh-oh, console warriors; the NPD is no longer going to distribute numbers to the media! Now we will no longer have facts available to twist to our own ends

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by DrSpike

Not sure if you missed this but reviews don't generally get done by the people releasing the game.

As Asher said it's multi-plaform too. And it isn't likely to be a brainless shooter on any platform - this series is known for it's varied balanced weapons, strong SP action and strategic MP.

So all in all, safe to say you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.

Ah sorry my context wasn't clear. It wasn't about the game specificaly that Asher was marketing It was about reviews in general, especialy in reguards to ANY new console game.
I have played the original Call of Duty(it was ok), but none of the later versions.
Call of Duty 4 may well be the best game eVar! but it was the viral marketing that aroused me

Yes reviews are not done exactly by the people responsible for the games, but the line is definately less defined these days. Bribes(I can call them that can't I?) do get given out by the software houses to help smooth the review process.

We have always had an element of this in the industry - It's just that now with such huge stakes to loose I think it fair to critique the whole review based structure we have currently for AAA gaming, especialy on the console end of it.
Reviews are now less about providing a 'customer service' and more about selling, and even the old trusted sources have been losing their credibility imo.

What does 9.4/10 actualy mean these days? I certainly have played large amounts of games in recent years with as good rateings, and many times the games certainly were not 9.4 in my books.

With so much money floating around I just don't find the review system that useful or acurate these days.
User based reviews are more reliable, but if people are getting swept up in the hype(as with Oblivion or Halo2/3 for example) even they can be pretty biased.

And finaly it was a a semi tongue in cheek remark mainly for wiglafs benefit as he was complaining about this game series in general.

hope that clears it up a bit.

Dear Asher, I own more platforms than you do(I suspect), just no next-gen consoles, for the reasons I often give.

[Asher]

Dear Asher, I own more platforms than you do(I suspect), just no next-gen consoles, for the reasons I often give.

You can't be serious?

I've basically owned every home gaming platform since the dawn of man. It's my thing. I don't have a Saturn or SegaCD, but I do have Atari 2600, NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, Genesis, Dreamcast, Playstation, Playstation 2, Playstation 3, Xbox, Xbox 360, Windows, Linux, MacOS X...I'm probably leaving some out. Granted, most of those older platforms are back "home" in Calgary in a basement still...

[Wiglaf]

El Cid is kind of right. Game reviews tend to toss around absurdly high numerical scores like 9.5/10 or 92% or whatever (which most film reviews fortunately do not have). This is because the audience of most games tends to be younger and because a lot of reviewers themselves are younger. I guess they're more susceptible to hype as well.

Movies also have a far lower average score on metacritic than do games. There's only about 50 movies above 90% on metacritic, and considering there have been about a billion movies over the last 40 years, that's not too many. By contrast, the Xbox 360 has 12 games above 90 and it's only been out for 2 years.

Point proven, and nailed out of the park,

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
El Cid is kind of right. Game reviews tend to toss around absurdly high numerical scores like 9.5/10 or 92% or whatever (which most film reviews fortunately do not have). This is because the audience of most games tends to be younger and because a lot of reviewers themselves are younger. I guess they're more susceptible to hype as well.

Movies also have a far lower average score on metacritic than do games. There's only about 50 movies above 90% on metacritic, and considering there have been about a billion movies over the last 40 years, that's not too many. By contrast, the Xbox 360 has 12 games above 90 and it's only been out for 2 years.

Point proven, and nailed out of the park,

No, he's not right. His comment was about console vs PC, but I've seen that on both sides (Black & White, anyone?)

He can ***** all he wants about quality of reviews, which is something I've also ranted about, but he's confusing the issue with console vs PC.

[UnOrthOdOx]

In general I agree as well. That reviews in general are way too high. On all games.

But, I think the reasoning is that most reviews are done on the LOOK of the games.

And it's not the reviewers fault. I highly doubt reviewerd get the 40+hours most games are claiming as 'gameplay' time to sit down and thuroughly dig into a game.

As such, I've witnessed many a game that come off starting strong, looking good, but half way through you find there's really nothing but more of the same. Yeah, the first half is a great game. Impressive, and I'ld generally review such a game well myself at that point. But the overall picture is much less appealing.

The last final fantasy being a case in point. It was beautiful. It was fun for the first half or so. And, if you asked me during that time, I would have claimed it the best FF yet. Then, you realize, all you're going to do is unlock a bigger sword or spell that you don't even need. Even boss battles lost meaning when the gambits let your characters defeat anything by themselves. No challenge left. So, roughly 1/3 of the story sits unplayed.

[ZargonX]

I think UnO hits the nail on the head for a lot of these reviews; the reviewers just haven't played the games all that much. Games with amazing starts that quickly drop off will probably score high since the reviewer never gets to the slow part, and games that start with a slow burn may get reviewed poorly because they don't hit you with a big bang right off the bat. Plus, it also means the reviewers often buy into the hype that the rest of us get for games they maybe haven't played all the way through, since everyone assumes they are probably right.

It's an unfortunate situation, but not one I see being resolved any time soon. Hence, I tend to put more trust in reviews that come out well after a game is out, rather than one day after sites receive their review copies.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by El_Cid


Ah sorry my context wasn't clear. It wasn't about the game specificaly that Asher was marketing It was about reviews in general, especialy in reguards to ANY new console game.
I have played the original Call of Duty(it was ok), but none of the later versions.
Call of Duty 4 may well be the best game eVar! but it was the viral marketing that aroused me

Yes reviews are not done exactly by the people responsible for the games, but the line is definately less defined these days. Bribes(I can call them that can't I?) do get given out by the software houses to help smooth the review process.

We have always had an element of this in the industry - It's just that now with such huge stakes to loose I think it fair to critique the whole review based structure we have currently for AAA gaming, especialy on the console end of it.
Reviews are now less about providing a 'customer service' and more about selling, and even the old trusted sources have been losing their credibility imo.

What does 9.4/10 actualy mean these days? I certainly have played large amounts of games in recent years with as good rateings, and many times the games certainly were not 9.4 in my books.

With so much money floating around I just don't find the review system that useful or acurate these days.
User based reviews are more reliable, but if people are getting swept up in the hype(as with Oblivion or Halo2/3 for example) even they can be pretty biased.

And finaly it was a a semi tongue in cheek remark mainly for wiglafs benefit as he was complaining about this game series in general.

hope that clears it up a bit.

Not really - PC games are not immune from hype, overgenerous reviews, or brainless gameplay.

[Asher]

coughBlack&White

[Asher]

coughCrysis