Super Metroid.


That is all.

Dvddesign:

What? That makes no sense. I'm just saying that people who never play RTS games shouldn't review them. Someone from the target audience should review the game, not someone whi is forced too. They should WANT to review a game, not make it feel like a chore. Because your going to get a forced review instead of one that informs. Why do reviewers always say the game was boring? Because they never even play those games. Who are they to say gameplay is boring if they've only played 2 games in that genre before?

Resident Evil 2

Half Life 2, at the very least for shooters.

Ufouria: The Saga on the nes!!

Haha, I understood what he was saying, I just had to throw out the CT nomination. I suppose I should talk about his actual post though.

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to pretty much disagree with you. I certainly wouldn't want someone who knew nothing about games at all reviewing something or someone who has never played a single game in that genre, but I think there's something inherently dangerous about having a fanboy/fangirl(/fanperson?) review anything, whether they be a system fanboy (Everything on XBOX rules! Everything on Wii sucks!), a genre fanboy, or even a specific game fan (FF7 was the best! Nothing can ever beat it EVER!).

Even if the person reviewing isn't a fanboy but just a huge lover of the genre in general, they're probably going to like things that the average gamer, hardcore as they be, may dislike, and vice versa. For me, the best reviewer is generally just someone who has a vast knowledge of video games in general who writes from the perspective of the average gamer. Absolutely, if there's something they don't like in the game but think that a hardcore fan of the genre should love, then they should specifically say that ("While I didn't like the fact that you had to micromanage 70 different units individually during the same battle, fans of intense RTS' may enjoy this level of control", etc.")

I liked your Special Olympics/Bush analogies, so I'll try to boil my argument down to something also easy to follow. If a game is genuinely bad, then everyone is going to know it (except maybe someone who is so in love with the genre or company producing the game that they refuse to acknowledge it). When it comes to the difference between a good game and a great game, I would actually trust the more generalized review. Look at it this way. A new sports game comes out (Let's call it Bladden '08). For me, a review that says "You know, I've played a lot of sports games and thought they were ok, but I've really gotten into Bladden '08. It's a great game." is more helpful to me than the review that says "I've played Bladden '99, Bladden '00, Bladden '01, Bladden '02, etc., and they were all AWESOME. This game is also AWESOME."

I think your frustration with reviews might not come from people who don't like the genre reviewing games, but from people who either are just bad reviewers or who don't have the experience in video gaming to give any kind of helpful review. They don't have to be fans though. I certainly wouldn't know enough about sports games to write a review (despite my Bladden example), but I think I could do a decent job of reviewing a shooter, even though it's a genre that isn't necessarily one of my favorites. I'd like to think that based on what I've played before, I have an idea of what works and what doesn't work, and what might appeal to hardcore fans of shooters even if I don't like it myself.

if i had to pick just ONE it might be Chrono Trigger.

FOURTHED!