| scottie said: Ok, response time, and I do apologise for what is bound to be rubbish spelling. I cant turn a light on without waking my gf, so get over it if I have some typos. Hey, I didnt even know I could touch type. As to the points that people did raise, if you dont mind, ill try to summarise them. If I missed something let me know Point 1 - reviewers need to spend more time I stand by my ckaun that people are expecting too much - I saw 100 hours thrown out as the amount of time a reviewer should play GT5 before reviewing it. 100 hours to produce a 500 word review? I'm sorry, but commercial sites cannot afford to do that. VGChartz reviews of new games doubtleaa do not sink 100 hours in, nor should they. Maybe when reviewers look at old games they love, but not for games releasing now. If developers have made a long game, then they should consider sending the reviewers a save file with all content unlocked on it to allow for a more thorough review. Why is that such a horrible expectation? A game should be played as much as possible before being reviewed. Many websites can and have (in the case of GT5) delayed the review until later, so obviously it is affordable, especially for huge sites like IGN. Secondly, magazines and websites have and should always give more space for highly anticipated titles. Over 3000 words for a big title like GT5, CoD, Halo, is not absurd. How much detail can you go into with only 500 words? That's barely more than 2 paragraphs. Point 2 - a delayed review is good eventually, a bad review is bad forever. This is a fair point, but it comes down to two things. If a review comes later, it will be read by less people (ignore for a second that a delayed review is better), and thus make less money. Being read by less people means it is less useful as consumer advice. I made the point in my last reply that this equates to short-term profit vs long-term credibility. If the practice of poor and early reviews continues, no-one is going to go to the site to read reviews and long-term revenue will decrease. It's a stupid practice. In order to counteract tje megatives og a late review, the review must therefore be better AND cheaper, reducing the amount of time the reviewer can play the game. If the reviewer cannot play the game for an appropriate amount of time, the review will never be good. Point 3 - reviews are art Well, not exactly, but this covers the opinion that reviews should show integrity, and should be good, ratger than simply useful, that reviewers owe something to their fans. This opinion is only held by us forum dwellers, and not by those that the reviews are mostly aimed at. Don't think reviews are art. However, I will say I expect them to be professional. IMO video games journalism and its lack of professionalism is a major factor in perception of the industry by the general populace. The poor reviews are just an extension of this. Point 4 - benefit of the doubt. Sorry, but this doesnt really work. You cant really go into reviewing a game assuming that all things that are bad about the game, graphics, music, lack of features, will disappear when you hit a certain level. No, but I can expect that they will experience all areas of the game and give a full asessment. I hope that IGN eventually patches their review
@ ssj12 - I know VGChartz is different to other review sites, that;s why I read the reviews here after all. Although I was under the impression that VGChartz reviewers were either unpaid or paid a token fee? (maybe that is no longer true) In which case the argument of being unable to afford to give your reviewers time is much less relevant. |
See comments above. Your touch typing is actually quite impressive ;)
