So how should we fix the broken review system? (VGC Brainstorming Battle!)

[The Ghost of RubangB]

psrock said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

 

 

I think reviewers need to explain exactly what their criteria are on their front page before you see any numbers at all, so that readers can at least hope to expect some consistency throughout the various reviews, so we don't see different games getting rewarded and punished for the same thing, or games getting the same exact review but different numbers at the end.

The graphics/sound/controls review system made sense in the 80s and 90s when graphics/sounds/controls were advancing in huge leaps and bounds, but I feel it is now obsolete.

Nowadays graphics and sound are almost always good enough, and should only be discussed when they particularly hold a game back or particularly push a game forward. Now we just throw 10s at shiny bloomy HD games and throw 7s at Wii games. Wii games are getting punished for not being HD, as if Wii gamers give a shit about HD. Wii gamers bought Wiis for something new and are getting told their games are crap based on things they knowingly opted out of.

Handheld games have it the worst, as the DS, the PSP, and the GBA seem to be punished with bad scores across the board, simply for being handheld games. Reviewers seem to hate the concept of gaming on the go. I can grab a portable gaming device (tm) out of my pocket and play everything from Tetris to Nintendogs to God of War in short bursts on a bus or train, or my personal favorite, local wireless gaming in long lines. Even though the portability and local wireless gaming are advantages that console gaming is not capable of, reviewers seem to look at all handheld games as the inferior little bitch siblings of console games. Handheld gamers bought handheld games for portable gaming and are being told their games are crap based on things they knowingly opted out of.

 

These are just a few ideas. Anybody have any others?

 

 

graphic is important, the only reason you say it's not is because your console of choice is behind graphicly, i cant wait to hear you guys jumping for joy when a hd wii comes out. I cant wait.

 Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses.  Are you throwing that graphics argument at your dream stereotype of a rabid Nintendo fanboy who changes their arguments every generation?  Or are you throwing that graphics argument at The Ghost of Rubang B?  Because if you're talking to me... let me introduce you to a screenshot from Ancient Domains of Mystery, one of my top 5 favorite games of all time:

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see that light green?  That's grass.  Those dark green &'s are forests.  There are mountains to the north and east and a beautiful river flowing through the valley, just west of the two villages near the corner.  By the looks of it, I'd say this adventurer is approaching the fire tower.  I wish him the best of luck.  I've been playing this game on and off for about 10 years now.  It was made by one man alone, and has more depth than whatever new $20 million piece of shit FMV-fest of an RPG we're all supposed to be creaming ourselves over.

 

It's called my imagination, and it's been good enough for me since I was about 3.  I have never given a shit about graphics and the only reason anybody does is because reviewers throw numbers around like crazy based on it so we have fuel to argue with.  Games get shinier every year, and if I really cared I'd upgrade my PC.

 

That said, yes graphics can help or hurt a game, but they don't need to be a part of every review.  Does anybody give a shit that the 360 version of Hexic is... HEXIC HD?  You're rotating hexagons for fuck's sake.  Or Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix?  Adding HD to titles is like adding X-TREME to my Doritos.  They don't play different or taste different.  It's just upping the pixels and changing the packaging.