I can't say. There is no one game that tops them all. Sure, your opinion may say otherwise and you could come up with 100 reviewers that orgasmed over it too but that does not make it good. Just because the game your thinking of right now is still in your collection, I want you think about this. There is someone out there that hates it. Like Jim Sterling. He LOVES Dynasty Warriors. I FUCKING HATE IT'S REPETITIVE ASS! IT'S THE SAME FUCKING GAME THROUGH 18 ITERATIONS!!!!!! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO SEE'S THIS???? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! But that's only opinion. Like when someone says that the PS3 is better or worse then the 360. That's some noobs opinion that everyone blindly follows.
People who say there is a winner in this game war always chooses the side that they've had the most time with. Have you really given thought about it? Every review you've ever read has opinion written all over it. Sadly, we have people who hate game genre's review those kind of games. We have people who don't understand what makes a good game in it's respective genre review it. Let's just say, people who obsess over racing games(besides choosing a new genre) shouldn't review shooters. They have a racing expertise so they should just stick with that.
This is only what I think. Though it would be like a deli shop owner planning the Special Olympics. That guy has never even seen special people before let alone host a sporting event of any kind. That's like having bush as our Commander in Chief(I thought i'd use an easy to follow example). What does this say about me? If you don't know what makes an FPS good, stick to racing games. Go watch some Nascar too(ya redneck!).
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?
Actually, it'd probably be best to have a mix of reviews. Someone who is a big fan of the RTS genre might be more forgiving to an RTS just because it's in his/her genre of choice.
So really, you should get an RTS fan, along with fans of related and unrelated genres to contribute their own reviews.
A mix would be alright but I still think a fan should review Genre's. A game will get bought by the people who know that style of games and I think a critical person who is also in the same boat as them should review it. Mixed reviews does sound like a good idea but if there are no mixed reviews, the fan should review for the fan.
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.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
about me
I am a person that,one day, is going to make genius for the related systems that'll be out. And the N-gage. Honestly, I believe in the Keep it simple stupid Mantra so much, that when I get behind the creating reins, i'm gonna beat you over the head with that. It looks like so much, yet it is only a tiny amount of effort that gets the ultimate payoff. Can't get the death scene perfect? Base it off the physics engine. Now every game uses rag dolls....
Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press living the dream since March 16, 2006
Deathsaw's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
The correct answer is Chrono Trigger.
Super Metroid.
That is all.
Seconded. Chrono Trigger.
Why are we here again?
So, do we get a serial killer to review Manhunt?
Do we get a horse to review Poniez: OMGWTF Edition?
Do we get homeless guy to review Carnival Games?
Space marine for Halo?
Elton John to review for Katamari Damacy?
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?
Actually, it'd probably be best to have a mix of reviews. Someone who is a big fan of the RTS genre might be more forgiving to an RTS just because it's in his/her genre of choice.
So really, you should get an RTS fan, along with fans of related and unrelated genres to contribute their own reviews.
Resident Evil 2
A mix would be alright but I still think a fan should review Genre's. A game will get bought by the people who know that style of games and I think a critical person who is also in the same boat as them should review it. Mixed reviews does sound like a good idea but if there are no mixed reviews, the fan should review for the fan.
Half Life 2, at the very least for shooters.
Metal Gear Solid.
Ufouria: The Saga on the nes!!
wow, you guyz have completely misunderstood what this guy is trying to say. seriously. oh yeah, and i third Chrono Trigger.
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.
Dynasty Warriors. And the PS3 is better or worse then the 360.
if i had to pick just ONE it might be Chrono Trigger.
FOURTHED!