rocketpig said:
Squilliam said:
rocketpig said:
So what if Portal challenged how gamers think about their medium? Fuck, it only received a 9.5. OBVIOUSLY, retreads like Halo 3 and GTA IV are BETTER because they copied their own formula and updated graphics. The same goes for Braid and other games that are truly outstanding. THERE IS NO SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN THIS SYSTEM.
Meh. People may complain about movie reviews but I'd rather see a critic have the balls to say "I didn't like Apocalypse Now and this is why" instead of blindly awarding the movie with a 9 or better because everyone else thinks it's great.
Yahtzee referred to game reviewers as "circus seals". I can't think of a better way to put it. They spend a lot of time doing tricks for free shit (fish or a totally sweet Rockstar North jockstrap which is mildly ironic considering the lack of testes found on the average reviewer), and they're naturally formed to have their head right around waist-height to a human for other, more obvious, reasons.
No trick, no treat.
|
If a game truely changes a medium then it ought to get scored highly because it would make it a great game to play. I still feel that a game ought to be reviewed on its merits and not given a free pass because it may do something differently. If a retread is still a really great game to play then it also ought to receive a high score. I don't see a problem here except that perhaps Halo/GTA IV and pretty much every other 90+ game got scored a little too highly, not that they didn't deserve to be rated as good games. Just because a game is like something else or even its own franchise isn't a particularly good reason to score it down because people buy them expecting a similar experience and they get disapointed if they franchise is unable to replicate that.
I don't mind that you don't like Halo for instance, I don't even mind if you get the Halo: Reach review and score it a 6. It means nothing to me that you would since our tastes are obviously different.
|
Oh, don't get me wrong. Some "re-treads" can be excellent games and deserve to be rated highly but SHOULD have an extremely hard time getting into the top 10% of all-time game rankings.
For example, let's look at a movie like Casino Royale. Yeah, it's a Bond flick. It's a remake (kinda). On the other hand, it's nearly flawless in its execution, flair, style, and substance. It's EXACTLY what it's supposed to be as a Bond flick. It deserves some pretty high fucking marks and reviews for doing that. Should it get into the top 10%? No, probably not. But it should be rewarded for its effort.
To put that in game terms, I'll bring up one of my favorite "example" games, The Darkness. It's nearly flawless in its execution (until you get the "I WIN!" power, which kinda breaks gameplay) and offers some truly engaging moments that 99% of games would kill for? You know what? In a movie system, I'd be "yeah, they got that about right" with its low 80-something Metacritic. Instead, it sits at 80-something while people bitch about FF-whateverthefucknumbertheyreatidontcare or the latest "let's do this again, kids" bullshit game that has enough of a PR budget to buy every reviewer in the land a hooker, some blow, a totally awesome sword-gun-thingie, and a pair of balls to bring back to the wife (or possibly just to roll around in their mouth while they review the next game to remind them who gives them shiny things that they like).
|
My favourite game puts me in a position where retreads have to be considered equally. The reason is my love for Civilization IV. I have put well over 1000 hours into the game and now its starting to feel a little worn to me and I want some slightly new game mechanics. Luckily Civilization V is coming out which ought to refresh everything in time for another 1000+ hours of gameplay. Each title is a retread of the most basic mechanics and you could say they are each a refinement of Civ 1.
The funny think about Casino Royale was that my opinion was completely different. I didn't like him right from the first scene as he was chasing that guy. He made it look hard and he ran like a stiffy and thats not what Bond is to me. I thought he was too stiff, the humour wasn't there etc which means our reviews would be completely different. 
I really enjoyed the Darkness game except for the fact that I could never figure out the controls properly, it was a bit disorientating. Perhaps if I played it now I would get it as the PS3 controls at the time were pretty unfamiliar to me. I never really played that many console games because for some reason the controls always sucked except with this generation and they are workable now for some reason, its like they changed something subtle with the sticks and the controls just work. I think the difference with a movie is that if you can't figure it out you can watch it again but with a game if a reviewer can't work it properly then he can't review the game for what it is.
I don't doubt that reviewers are bought all the time. I suspect every Sony/Microsoft title especially as there is even more onus on them to get good review scores. Like for instance, Eurogamer is usually one of the harder reviewers but they gave Fable 2 a perfect 10 at the same time they have a full page advertisement/site rework for the game. Every big title from any publisher has bought a few good reviews, Gerstman gate just made them hide it better. They only have to buy early reviews so the remainder fall in line with the early bullshit scores.
