How come all those reviewers that turned out to be wrong about their respective games said knew all they needed to from only a couple hours of play?

Arrogance.

Sometimes it's fine and you're right.  However believing that you will always be right is foolish.

What reviews were wrong? And who said you can't get a reivew wrong while still playing the game? And who's to say someone's opion is wrong?

And just to expand a little bit on my above statement, lets look at Dewey's Adventure (since that's one of the things I'm playing right now). The basic mechanics of Dewey's adventure is sliding around in his various forms, stomping with water, freezing with ice, combo and spining with ice, expanding and melting things with steam, lightning strike, making wind by shaking the remote up and down, and making earthquakes by shaking the remote side to side. Those are all of the Dewey gameplay mechanics (aside from a few envinroment cannons and the likes). You don't get any new abilities at any point in the game and you just use and combine those mechanics the whole game. This isn't a bad thing, it's good actually they have a small rule set to base their puzzles on.

So now that I know what Dewey's Adventure is about and I've experienced a good amount of puzzles with each of those, I know what this game is all about. Of course there are puzzles that I haven't experienced because I haven't finished the game, but I still know what the game is about. The story isn't particularly anything interesting and doesn't do a thing to affect the game and won't do a thing to affect the game so there's no worries there.

So there you have it, I'm only a few hours into a game and I could easily talk about all the gameplay aspects of the game along with anything else I needed to talk about a review. Remember, you don't give spoilers in reviews so there's no use talking about and explaining the story in great detail beyond the basic idea.

And even with the other game I'm playing, Eternal Sonata, I'm barely into that game and I'm nearly at a point where I can review it. I'm not going to for a while because I want to finish this game so I don't mind waiting to write a review, but it's nice to know that I can fairly soon. So why can I write a review on this massive RPG while only being 6-ish hours into it? The have simple gameplay that's easy to manipulate to fill an entire long game. True, you get new powers and abilities, but these are still going to be the same tricks just dressed up differently. Line up enemies, get in light or dark, use an area of effect, ect.

When you understand the base gameplay it's really easy to see what the game is doing.  I know how to do this because this is the kind of stuff I make for a living and reviewers know how to do this because they constantly play these games and have to analyze them.  Next time you pop in a game, really think about what you're doing and just start paying attention to the base gameplay.  Try to think of a x is fun type of tagline for the game and build from there.  Every game has one of those.  For any Mario game it's jumping is fun, for Gears of War it's shooting from cover is fun.  What quick one liner about the game you're playing is fun?

Depends on your workload. For me, I am the only reviewer and sometimes, I get bombarded with tons of games. I can't possibly complete the game AND have a review written in a week. I cover what I have played - and most times, I will play through it after the review. I try to get the game done and reviewed within a week or two at the very latest. For Halo 3, I got the game Saturday and had the review done and like 3 sidebars by Monday morning. I was really hustling on that one.

The bigger sites - that's all they do so they have a lot more time. For me, I am also an editor, so I don't have as much time as I'd like.

Regardless, as long as the PR firm/developer/publisher is pleased with your work, you get more games. If they aren't fond of your reviews, they cease from contacting you.

What reviews were wrong? And who said you can't get a reivew wrong while still playing the game? And who's to say someone's opion is wrong?


Too lazy to dig up examples. If we were talking about Joe Schmoe then getting a review wrong is nothing, but we're talking about places that pride themselves on their reviews. They're held to a higher standard.

I'll skip the last question, that's a different subject entirely.

And just to expand a little bit on my above statement, lets look at Dewey's Adventure (since that's one of the things I'm playing right now). The basic mechanics of Dewey's adventure is sliding around in his various forms, stomping with water, freezing with ice, combo and spining with ice, expanding and melting things with steam, lightning strike, making wind by shaking the remote up and down, and making earthquakes by shaking the remote side to side. Those are all of the Dewey gameplay mechanics (aside from a few envinroment cannons and the likes). You don't get any new abilities at any point in the game and you just use and combine those mechanics the whole game. This isn't a bad thing, it's good actually they have a small rule set to base their puzzles on.

So now that I know what Dewey's Adventure is about and I've experienced a good amount of puzzles with each of those, I know what this game is all about. Of course there are puzzles that I haven't experienced because I haven't finished the game, but I still know what the game is about. The story isn't particularly anything interesting and doesn't do a thing to affect the game and won't do a thing to affect the game so there's no worries there.

So there you have it, I'm only a few hours into a game and I could easily talk about all the gameplay aspects of the game along with anything else I needed to talk about a review. Remember, you don't give spoilers in reviews so there's no use talking about and explaining the story in great detail beyond the basic idea.

You can talk about all the gameplay aspects you've seen. You don't know if there could be more. You're assuming based on what you've seen so far, what you've read about the game, and a whole slew of other things that you're right.

Sometimes assumptions are good ones. Not always though.

And even with the other game I'm playing, Eternal Sonata, I'm barely into that game and I'm nearly at a point where I can review it. I'm not going to for a while because I want to finish this game so I don't mind waiting to write a review, but it's nice to know that I can fairly soon. So why can I write a review on this massive RPG while only being 6-ish hours into it? The have simple gameplay that's easy to manipulate to fill an entire long game. True, you get new powers and abilities, but these are still going to be the same tricks just dressed up differently. Line up enemies, get in light or dark, use an area of effect, ect.

Again, you assume for better or worse that the game will not surprise you, it will not switch it up, and will continue to just put out more of what you've already seen.

When you understand the base gameplay it's really easy to see what the game is doing. I know how to do this because this is the kind of stuff I make for a living and reviewers know how to do this because they constantly play these games and have to analyze them. Next time you pop in a game, really think about what you're doing and just start paying attention to the base gameplay. Try to think of a x is fun type of tagline for the game and build from there. Every game has one of those. For any Mario game it's jumping is fun, for Gears of War it's shooting from cover is fun. What quick one liner about the game you're playing is fun?

The moment you become so closed minded as to believe you understand everything about the game you are playing before seeing it all the way through to the end, either you have failed or the game has.

I find that people are too quick to assume and too quick to judge. Once upon a time, when gaming was new to you, when you hadn't experienced all the genres in some form or another, and when gaming still had its shiny wrapper on for you... I'd have trusted your opinion much more.

A good game has a defined set of rules. in Eternal Sonata's case a melee attack can hit multiple enemies, a line attack has a set range, an AoE has a set radius, an attack takes so much time, ect. These are all set in stone. Every good game has a system and they define those systems well. This isn't me being arrogant, it's just me seeing the system and that's it. Sure, there are games that do things outside of the system every now and then, but those are generally reserved for boss fights and other one shot events that aren't a major part of gameplay.

Again I'll say, every good game will have a small set of defined rules and they will then just use those same rules over and over again. Name any good game and I guarantee that just about all of those will have a very simple set of rules (granted I can tell you what all those rules are because I haven't played every good game).

-edit-

Also, it sounds like you think I have a negative view on these simple games with simple rules: I don't. With Eternal Sonata and Dewey's Adventure (very simple rules set in Dewey) I'm loving these games and having a good time.  I'll likely finish Dewey's Adventure this week and more than likely finish Eternal Sonata...at some point as long as the story and art continue to keep my interest.

i always thought "legitimate" sites and reveiwers got advance copies of games to play and complete so they could review them in advance?

i'm not sure how it works in the gaming industry but i know in the music industry you recieve an album about a month or so before the release date so you can reveiw it by the time it hits the stores and add hype to it.

that's how i always assumed it worked. that being said i think it's up to the staff and sheer volume of games that they they have coming in.

if you work for a site/mag that only has 10 people on hand to review ps3, ps2, 360, ds, psp, wii games every month? then it might get a little hairy.

but i think a lot of the top tier sites have a staff that can cover those things on hand.

Very well.  It's a valid point that the gameplay of many games do not deviate from their core gameplay.

And I'm not assuming you have a negative view; I didn't mean to give that impression.

 You are correct. The top tier mags and sites get their junk first ... and then second tier sites/mags get advanced copies ... and writers like me get the leftovers - if the PR firm/site still has some. I could careless - I get a chance to play games and a chance to write an honest assessment. If you are top tier, you also get showered with tons of swag. But honestly, you shouldn't think of it as free swag, games and the like - it's still journalism. You still have to be honest and not swayed by free handouts.

@twestern - I havn't played Oblivion (my PC can't handle it... sniff, sniff) sorry if it was a poor choice.

@madskillz - It must be hard to balance giving fair reviews and not biting the hand that feeds you, so to speak, by pissing off the publishers. I notice IGN generally gives favorable previews, but then reviews are often lower than you'd expect based on the previews (Red Steel notably comes to mind). How do you handle that balance?