By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - What is an "outstanding" game, and how reviews are constructed.

Rainbird on 09 March 2010
bugrimmar said:

hm.. but i also still stick to the idea that reviewers are stuck in a "high definition" mindset. everything has to be better looking, better sounding, sharper, etc. than before because they've come to expect games to go hand in hand with technology. also, i still have to stick with the idea about what  truly outstanding game is, but i gotta give you credit for making me see a modification in my theory.

That's not true though. Of course there is a standard, and if you're making a HD shooter/action game based on realism, you better well be prepared for being compared to Uncharted 2 (and most likely lose), but that doesn't mean games can't be unique and still score high for their graphics. Critter Crunch was praised for it's graphics, and that's one of the least technologically demanding titles on the PS3.

Any game that pulls off its look well can get a high score in presentation or graphics. Muramasa, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, LittleBigPlanet and Valkyria Chronicles are all games that aren't particularly impressive in terms of technology, when compared to games like Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, Forza 3, etc. but they were still praised for their graphics because they look damn good! Because technology isn't the driving factor here, it's all about pulling a look off. If a game fails to do that, it losses points.



Around the Network
bugrimmar on 09 March 2010

btw i wanna thank you guys for not posting "wtf, you're an idiot. mgs4 is the best!" or utter crap like that. i really wanted to have a civilized discussion about this and thanks for not being barbarians :)



Rainbird on 09 March 2010
bugrimmar said:
btw i wanna thank you guys for not posting "wtf, you're an idiot. mgs4 is the best!" or utter crap like that. i really wanted to have a civilized discussion about this and thanks for not being barbarians :)

There's a special "VGC highfive" going around to everyone who posted in this thread



rocketpig on 09 March 2010
bugrimmar said:
rocketpig said:
bugrimmar said:
^ we might think we have few expectations coming into something, but our preconceived ideas and background in entertainment can't help but control our point of view.

the best example is mgs4. most reviewers have played the first 3 to death, and have no idea what a new player must feel when playing the game. it's very very unlikely for a new player to enjoy it at all because it's far too thick into it's own. but reviewers praised it to heaven because they were thinking in the mindset of a fan of the series.

just like us watching a movie like "lost in translation". i have very little knowledge about the plot (actually i have no idea what it was about). but before watching it, i knew it was about japan, a country that i love, and it has bill murray, an actor i admire, and that it's been nominated for an academy award. so in my mind "it has to be good". that in itself can influence me already as to whether or not i will enjoy the movie, even if i'm not aware of it. when i had my dad watch it, he fell asleep coz he didn't know anything that i knew.

what i'm saying is, preconceived expectations can really influence our decisions and most of the time we have no idea at all.

Then replace Apocalypse Now with Punch Drunk Love, a movie I knew nothing of, had no one in it of whom I am a fan, and yet still loved.

Expectations do factor into certain things but for others, they're irrelevant or contradictory. MGS4 was reviewed poorly because reviewers are, by and large, a group of sophomoric idiots, not because they had expectations coming in about the previous games. Using your basis of argument, it's unfair to reward Return of the King with any rewards because if people didn't see Fellowship or Two Towers, they'd be missing 75% of the story. After all, to fully appreciate the film, it's expected that the audience put in anywhere from 5-7 hours of "work" to see the first two films.

hm, i agree. yeah.

hm.. but i also still stick to the idea that reviewers are stuck in a "high definition" mindset. everything has to be better looking, better sounding, sharper, etc. than before because they've come to expect games to go hand in hand with technology. also, i still have to stick with the idea about what  truly outstanding game is, but i gotta give you credit for making me see a modification in my theory.

sure, return of the king is a great movie. but it isn't one of the best movies ever made, because it's "incomplete" by itself. the lord of the rings trilogy, however, is outstanding.

so based on that reasoning, mgs4, by itself, is largely "incomplete". but the metal gear series is, as a whole, outstanding.

but lone games by themselves (one game alone) that accomplishes completeness without the need for sequels is what i can call an outstanding "game".

Okay, I can agree with most of that.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Alic0004 on 09 March 2010

Haven't read the whole post, but thanks for a good read so far and for making a really good point. I really agree that expectations rule the tone and outlook of reviews. And expectations with games are different from expectations with movies, because gamers naturally take apart games to get to the part they like. Some insist they only care about gameplay, others story or characters...

This also relates to Twesterm's post about why some games get a free pass on issues while others get killed for them, and a really good post on Kotaku from weeks ago. I'm too busy to find links right now.

Anyway, I'll read the rest later.



 

Around the Network
bugrimmar on 09 March 2010
Rainbird said:
bugrimmar said:
btw i wanna thank you guys for not posting "wtf, you're an idiot. mgs4 is the best!" or utter crap like that. i really wanted to have a civilized discussion about this and thanks for not being barbarians :)

There's a special "VGC highfive" going around to everyone who posted in this thread


*high five* it's refreshing to see the phrase "i disagree" instead of "you dumbass". not very common.



rocketpig on 09 March 2010

DUM--

Just kidding.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

bugrimmar on 10 March 2010

rofl :P

ROCKETPIG YOR AN IDOIT LOLOLOLOLOL



makingmusic476 on 10 March 2010

I honestly think the scores for FFXIII can't merely be explained by "different tastes". Two years ago reviewers had no qualms giving even mediocre JRPGs relatively high scores. Eternal Sonata, a far shorter (~23 hours), far more linear (you can't backtrack AT ALL), and just all around weaker game than Final Fantasy XIII (particularly in story - really the only area it stacks up is in music), sits at an 80 on Metacritic on ps3. That's only two points below Final Fantasy. It's a joke.



SnesTea on 10 March 2010
rocketpig said:
I strongly disagree. Something can be outstanding and still not accessible to those who don't feel like putting in the time to learn or understand the piece. There are plenty of outstanding games that a large portion of the population would hate because they're too difficult (SotC, for example).

The fact that some people don't want to stop and examine films like Apocalypse Now doesn't make the film any less magnificent. Some things aren't going to be easy to understand and they shouldn't have points taken away for it.

Quoted for fucking truth.