What is Digg?49 Comments
- tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23It's funny how much you can take about the video game reviewers and apply it to Digg and its users.
This is actually a great article. I think everyone could stand to see the other perspective on this one. - Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Yes, domokunt, your post is.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I keep thinking that game developers should produce a capsule version of the game for the game press that contain just levels that highlight certain features of the game that would not be gotten to in a time limited playing of the game. Regular gamers have time to discover "Feature X" on their own, but if a reviewer misses it, the review will suffer. Plus, regular gamers will have had the benefit of the time it takes for the fact that "Feature X" exists, while reviewers are usually right on top of release.
- Elohir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I've read worse but some of it is complete rubbish.
>Also, games that are more innovative and creative will get more play time by reviewers. Plus, it never hurts to frontload gameplay with some of the best action and the flashiest features. If the reviewers are only going to give you a couple hours, make those the best few hours of the game.
Yeah, what the industry needs is games made not for games players but for reviewers. Games where you've seen everything and done everything or given screenshot friendly FMV of everything within the first hour. Genius. - mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Dugg. Great article. Great points about online game reviewers that miss far too many details because they're more concerned about traffic and content on their site rather than quality, honest, and unbiased reviews. Too often do I see reviews from games that I own that aren't the most popular, but get a raw deal because the reviewer only played the first level.
- prax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I took pride in my relationships with the developers when I did game reviews. If not for the developers, no games, no fun, no job. I poured on the gushing praise when appropriate and damned them when necessary. I was never quick to go to extreme ends of the scale, on either side.
It was the publishers that I didnt care for. The developers? I miss 'em. - Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't like the ones who write reviews playing beta versions.
- itcheh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh yes - the publishers have a lot to answer for ...
- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Yeah, we do this actually.
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would never, ever trust a game review based on an incomplete version of the game.
- ZergyPoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Or Halo, where the first few levels are really cool, but the levels with the flood are repetitive and boring.
- OAKsider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Love 'em when they help, play nice... Hate them when they put you down. Typical.
- futoranime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I can see why some game writers can do this. When it's November and you 30 games to review and you have to write put a 2 - 3 page report on each game, and then have to write a 3 page papers on a gaming topic for another part of the magazine, I can see how some game reviewers can put very small time into a game before they have to ship the magazine. It's not right, but I can see why. Too bad many gamers place reviews as the final verdict on the purchase of a game.
http://www.gameaddicthotline.com - Wahngrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's a nice journal entry from the developer of Galactic Civilizations 2 on that issue:
http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=107789 - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I would say it takes less than an hour of gaming to determine whether a game is good or not. Let's face it - if you've played for a couple of hours and not enjoyed the experience there's hardly any point playing all the way through before deciding how to score it."
That would ring true for a game that had horrible gameplay. But what about those games that seem typical at first only to get better as the game progresses? I have played hundreds of games to date and I happen to know of may really good games that start of slow or even downright bad yet turn into something good. - itcheh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dugg for being an interesting read .... not that I necessarily agree with some of the points raised.
"Developers spend months and even years creating games, and nothing quite makes them angrier than realizing a reviewer only played their game for a couple hours before dismissing it."
I would say it takes less than an hour of gaming to determine whether a game is good or not. Let's face it - if you've played for a couple of hours and not enjoyed the experience there's hardly any point playing all the way through before deciding how to score it.
"Game reviewers don't understand the obstacles, the expectations and the limits faced by developers. Therefore, when Konami invests 30 million dollars and hundreds of programmers on a single blockbuster title, reviewers all of a sudden expect the same depth and production value from a small boutique developer."
Irrelevant. I don't care whether a game cost £10 or £10m to produce - I want a good game, and the critic understands that. I'm spending the same £35 and I want the best possible entertainment for that money. If a game is lacking depth and productio value as a result of limited production budget then it should be priced accordingly as a budget title. - bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I've always kinda took what a game reviewer says with a grain - nah, a bag of salt. Obviously we're all human and have our biases sometimes, but it seems to me like game reviewers always seem to outdo each other in that category. I think a lot of times the reviewer is under pressure to be funny and entertaining in their review, and not be responsible towards the idea of simply telling some people how good or bad a game is.
My fav all time was when IGN gave Mario Kart Double Dash a 7.9, and then the same site (different reviewers yes, but why not be consistent?) hands out 9+ scores to rehashed sports games. In that case, I think the reviewers were disapointed with Nintendo in general and the fact that they weren't trying to revolutionize the industry each time out with Gamecube software, that they slapped a 7.9 on the game. - AdverseE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's a 3 step surefire way to always get the straight story on a video game...
1.) Go to www.gametab.com or www.metacritic.com/games and do a search for the game in question
2.) Read the highest scored review for the game and the lowest scored review for the game, preferably one after the other. Don't just skim it, read it.
3.) Make a decision whether you want to buy the game or not and don't second guess yourself.
Works everytime, no disappointment. - ochimaru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Video game reviewers are definitely snobby elitest gamers who tend to only give good reviews to buzz games. And I love how they always knock sequels of games for being too much like their predecessors... but if a game was good, why the heck should the developers change it? Sure, Dynasty Warriors 5 is just an upgraded Dynasty Warriors 4... otherwise they would have changed the name! And game sales certainly speak for themselves. RIP TechTV... and burn in hell G4TV!
- atroxodisse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What game developers don't realize about gamers: Most of the time we don't care what the reviewers say. As with all forms of art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unless a writer is particularly gifted I don't read the whole article. Especially the online ones which tend to go on for 5 pages. Reviewers are only human and tend to be biased. You can't really count on them. That's why you release a demo so the fans can try it and buy it if they like it. If the consoles actually start bringing us some game demos I imagine we'll see the better games having good sales instead of the most hyped games getting the most sales.
- drake111, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i definately hate it when i played a game that i really enjoyed, finished it, and then see the EGM reviews (my favorite gaming publication) as abysmal, simply because it might be too much like the old one and only slighty better, well if the old one got a 7.1, why not give the new one a 7.2 instead of a 4.0? since its the same, only slightly better
- nubious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't know if you've noticed, but the majority of games in the last few years have either been Spinoff's of other games (albiet some have been done well), or they've been crap compilations based on other people's engine design. I don't know HOW many FPS's I've played that feel like 90% of the other FPS's out there... only a FEW REALLY stand out.. Honestly.. how fun was Doom 3? It didn't even have muliplayer co-op without 3rd party mods.. that's part of what made the original so great - the teaming up with friends...
Develop some decent games and maybe reviewers will spend more time on reviewing them. - SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just recently started picking up game magazines again after a long break (literally since the old Electronic Games magazine from the 80's). They're just not the same anymore. Now they're all trying to be hip and edgy or whatever - it seems like they spend more time trying to figure out how to work in their "clever" attitude into the articles. Don't get me wrong, there is actual decent content in most of the reviews, but it's hard to filter out all the snarky personality sometimes. A little attitude or snarkiness or whatever you call it, can actually enhance an article or review if done correctly, but it seems like they are trying too hard - It's like putting too much salt on your food.
Although the gaming industry has changed a lot since Electronic Games was published, so it's hard to make a direct comparison. And who knows how the EG reviewers would write in today's game reviewer marketplace. - IceColdFever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A couple people from the PC Gamer staff had some good comments in their latest podcast about this article. (episode 41)
http://pcgamerpodcast.com/ - alexkorova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm, I would certainly not trust those reviews any more then current previews, becouse they've not reviewed the game I pay money for and play. It's like trusting a review of a trailer to pay to go to the movies.
- BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Reviewers complain about: bugs, glitches, BSD's, and bad net code.
How game developers can help: Stop using paying customers as beta testers, thinking we'll wait patiently for one patch after another. - 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Develop more inovative games and the reviewers will spend more time reviewing them?
So, the backups I do today, because they're not innovative, I can just walk away once they're half done?
It's the reviewers JOB to review the game, not their impression of what the game may be if it doesn't get better. Some parts of my job are borring, but I have to do them because that's what I'm paid to do.
In the next breath,
When most games have a shelf life of 1-4 weeks, it's almost impossible for a reviewer to get a decent review out while the game is still poinent. By the time they've played through it, written the review, gone through editing, etc. the game has succeeded or failed and everyone knows it already.
They either need advanced copies (the way movie reviewers get advanced screenings) or to couch their initial article as a preview, impression, etc. with a full review to follow. - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg needs a section for video game reviews..... this way the gamers can digg the games they like.... that they TRULY play... and bury the ones they hate....
- 4tygames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I say one great example of a game that gets better the farther you go in is Killer 7. I hated the controls the first hour I played the game. But then, as I progressed, the different controls actually helped the game. The controls were to play differently than any game ever. Looking at metacritic, you can tell who actually spent time playing the game and who spent 5 minutes and wrote a review telling how bad the controls were.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It would seem developers, or at least publishers like reviewers that only play their games for a couple hours.
This way they can make games like Perfect Dark Zero which is great for the first hour of gameplay and then turns to crap.
They can make games like Kameo which have pretty graphics, but the gameplay feels like they grafted two games together and cut between them at random.
They can make games like PGR3, which although a good game, has very little depth due to the developers running short on content. (PGR3 has no enforced car classes for races and thus you can finish the entire game with the first car you buy).
I feel bad using XBox 360 games in each case, I like the 360. But Launch titles are usually the kind of games that don't stand up to deep play, and the Xbox 360 was the most recent console to launch so I remember it best. Maybe I should have blasted on the Ridge Racer instead, it has appeared with every recent launch despite becoming stale long ago. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's the reviewers JOB to review the game"
That true, but all press is biased and that's just a fact of life we have to deal with. Look at Edge Magazines reviews-- Sometimes they fly in the face of the popular decision even if it goes against their own morals... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This article actually sounds kind of like sour grapes to me. "Boo hoo, the big mean reviewer man didn't like my game." Did it ever occur to those game developers that maybe, just MAYBE, you might have actually developed a stupid, boring game? OH NOES.
Not all reviews are fair, but I highly doubt that developers are the best judges of their own work. You won't please everyone but if you're not pleasing much of anyone, guess what, the problem's not with those evil reviewers, it's you, your game and your attitude. GTF over it and make a better game next time. - Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Being an "ex-reviewer" myself, I can confidently say that developers are pretty much right about reviewers. We're lazy. We're, in all likelihood, not interested enough in your game to play past the first few levels. We're (generally) unpaid, motivated more by the thought of selling as many crappy games on eBay more than the thought of producing an insightful narrative on your game. I mean, heck, the vast majority of video game reviews are as formulaic or moreso as the games being commented on: slap up a general statement about the game's genre, a few notes about past games if it's a sequel, a couple thoughts about the actual gameplay at hand, then a slew of information about the game's production values, because you don't even really need to play the game or research it to glean any of that information. Toss in an ending paragraph and an arbitrary number score and you're done. Part of the problem are the people in charge: they want 2,000 words, they want you to cover the bases, and oh - take 20 or so screenshots while you're at it.
It's wrong, I'll admit. But all things considered, most of the games out there are not Half-Lifes. They're really uninspired, boring, downright pointless Half-Life knockoffs. If you're not getitng a good review, it's because your game isn't even worth reviewing in the first place. The most in-depth reviews I've written are the ones based on games that I really wanted to play or surprised me in how good they were - and on rare occasion, a game so bad I had to elaborate on just how bad it was with a probably-not-very-witty commentary.
I'm not proud of it, but I'll admit that there were a few reviews I knocked out after playing literally five minutes of a game. Working up the nerve to actually play a bunch of horrible games in between the rare good game and spew a bunch of ***** about every one became more stressful than my day job. That's why I don't review games anymore. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[quote]Yeah, what the industry needs is games made not for games players but for reviewers.[/quote]
Heh. Sort of like Hollywood makes those low-budget Oscar contenders for the critics and bragging-rights, and the summer blockbusters for the $$$. - SocialPoison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I stopped trusting game reviewers right around the time that the Matrix games started coming out and getting decent marks. And as much as I'd love to feel sorry for game developers who churn out Madden game after Madden game or make the 1.5 x 10^7th WWII First Person Shooter and then bitch and moan about being lumped into a genre, I'm finding it a little tough.
I'm a pretty typical gamer, so I'll toss my two cents in on his main points.
-Developers hate game reviewers that only play their games for a few hours
(actually that's fair... heh)
-Developers hate game reviewers because they don't understand games that are targeted for a specific audience
The article debunked its own point on this. Oh PSM gave Muppets go to Jersey a bad score? You don't say? Honestly though, PSM has got your more hardcore gamers... FPS players and RTS and what have you. Why not pitch your game to Disny mag or something if that's your target audience.
-Developers hate game reviewers who review games in proxy for an entire genre.
Oh cry me a river. If your game gets sucked into a genre because it to strongly resembles Battlefield then that's what you get. Want to dodge this? Innovate. Give us something we haven't seen.
-Developers hate game reviewers who have no idea what it takes to make a game.
And you know what? Neither does your average gamer. And do you know what's more important? The average gamer also doesn't give a damn. They want to play the game and they want it to be good and worth the 40-60 bucks your shelling out for it. Yeah there's a lot of pressure when you're on a project like Enter the Matrix. I've got a degree of understanding that (especially with movie title games) there's a huge push to get the game out the door by a certain deadline. That doesn't excuse the developers from putting out a steamer.
Economic strains and time constraints are beyond the control of the developers, and their anger and frustration is misdirected. Yeah, you were rushed and under budged and you put out a crappy game. Oh no your crappy game got a crappy review. Boo hoo. The problem with this point is how management is handled in the gaming industry.
At the end of the day, the gamers want good games... and reviews provide us with at least a glimpse into what we're getting ourselves in to. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, it's the publishers.
You don't realize how bad it is. They've got them working like slaves. Game development is one of the worst occupations you could possibly have. It's right up there with the military and Alaskan crab harvesting.
It might be even worse than that. Ever see a QA tester after a few years in the biz?
See these two guys? They're two of the people that developed Quake 2 a few years ago, back when they were just in their twenties. Look at them now! This is what game dev does to you thanks to the sweatshop conditions imposed by greedy corporate fascist publisher bloodsuckers!
http://artmuz.com/Old%20man%20with%20yung.jpg - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are good reviewers, and there are bad reviewers. There are also advertorials that are disguised as reviews. Learn to tell the difference.
But the best thing to do is to try the demo first, or at least watch some gameplay videos. You're the best reviewer. - robpadbury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1X-Play was always very good about reviewing games. Each game was contracted out to a pool of writers who would spend around 40 hours with a game. I remember getting a complaint from a developer who complained that in the review there was only footage from the first few levels of the game. I explained that it was the interns (and the xplay team) who captured the footage, not the people who reviewed it.
For the most part, you shouldn't believe a thing you read in game reviews. On the other end of the spectrum, publishers pay off media organizations to get better reviews for games. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Once again, it is the publishers. They decide that something has run past its budget or dev time and they'll cut it with an axe. Devs can't do anything about it.
Here's a good example. Remember KOTOR II? Lucasarts nearly killed that game by insisting it ship on time. What was the rush (besides costing an extra 6-12 months dev time)? It could have been a far better game, instead they cut out nearly 20%, including the intended ending! It's not like there wasn't a giant fanbase for the game, KOTOR I was a smash hit with everyone eagerly awaiting the sequel. - vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's funny that you don't demand the same level of quality from gaming magazines. I pay good money for a gaming magazine, and I expect the game reviewers has played the entire game. Regardless of the quality of the game. It is their *job*, I don't care if they like their job or not. I don't care if they have a strict deadline or not. Their job is to play the entire game and give a decent review. No excuses.
- grayman222, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1at least your post had a good ending that you aren't reviewing games no more.
- grayman222, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I find one of the best ways to know if a game is good or not is to see what the regular people playing it on forums think. You get multiple opinions right away and can ask questions tailored to your own needs. So yes a game review section with discussion would be great.
- ImbecileCorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I personally don't listen to many review sites except X-Play. If I like a game I'll buy it, I'm not gonna listen to a Halo fanboy who rants on how its not like Bungies Super-game (don't get me wrong, I love Halo but too many reviewers have Halo on the brain when they review something)
- ZarkonGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll dig it, but wanted to throw out a comment also.
As a reviewer, we're usually being asked pretty consistantly by the developers / publishers "Where's our review?" Especially when you get two or three (or more) games to review at the same time, and are told "try to have this next week". Especially when you're freelance, and not getting paid for it. :)
That in no way excuses everything in the article, of course, and most of us could do the job better, but there's other factors as well that should be considered by the game devs.
But it's a good article, all in all. - vonnie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It seemed to me that the reviewers are just not doing their job, and that they are finally called on it in this article.Â
"Boohoo, the game is bad, I'm giving up after 5 minutes playtime". Don't give me that *****, as a reviewer you play the entire game wether you like it or not. It is your bloody job.. - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Reminds me of Half Life 1 most of the cool features were in the first couple levels then it turned into a fairly standard FPS afterwards.
- FearlessNinja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0why do video game developers hate video game reviewers? BECAUSE THEY'RE HONEST.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I hate reviewers/critics of all sorts. They're usually frustrated, bitter, and failed writers/artists. Those who can, do. Those who can't, piss on everyone who can.
- domokunt, on 10/12/2007, -38/+4these sorts of posts are genric and boring
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 