Part of the issue that I have with reviews is mostly with the multiplayer. It seems that often reviewers are in a smaller group playing the game and don't seem to encounter many of the multiplayer issues that seem to show up after launch - I also think that a review of the Xbox version of the game is completely different than a PS3 version of the game.
On the PS3 there seem to be ongoing problems with poor (or non-functioning) voice chat, with broken matchmaking or group systems that don't seem to work. Lag and the technical issues that can arise with lag and large groups of people playing just don't seem to be as much an issue.
For myself, I tend to now wait until a game has been out for awhile and get feedback from PS3 gamers specifically before putting my money down for a game. I've just been burned too many times in the past.
In regard to single player, I think that reviewers may also simply be more patient with issues. They've played so many games that issues are to be expected and these issues may not be as frustrating as they are for someone who might only buy fewer new release games in a year.
My biggest issue with reviews is that they often don't include some of the basic information on infrastructure - especially with multiplayer games. Are the servers dedicated or peer to peer, and how's the lag. How many players in a match. Are private games supported. What are the clan/group functions and do they work. How is the voice chat. What's the leveling like in terms of how many hours do you have to put in to get decent weaponry/armour/etc. Is there a huge difference and will someone waiting to buy the game be totally outclassed by early adopters.
A lot of people that play multiplayer games tend to play in larger groups (many clans go from game to game), yet reviews are often based on the person that just jumps into a game solo. Both types of information are needed for MP games. The games infrastructure just needs more attention in a review, because a bad game with great infrastructure (Call of Duty) is much more fun than a really good game with awful infrastructure (Homefront).
On the PS3 there seem to be ongoing problems with poor (or non-functioning) voice chat, with broken matchmaking or group systems that don't seem to work. Lag and the technical issues that can arise with lag and large groups of people playing just don't seem to be as much an issue.
For myself, I tend to now wait until a game has been out for awhile and get feedback from PS3 gamers specifically before putting my money down for a game. I've just been burned too many times in the past.
In regard to single player, I think that reviewers may also simply be more patient with issues. They've played so many games that issues are to be expected and these issues may not be as frustrating as they are for someone who might only buy fewer new release games in a year.
My biggest issue with reviews is that they often don't include some of the basic information on infrastructure - especially with multiplayer games. Are the servers dedicated or peer to peer, and how's the lag. How many players in a match. Are private games supported. What are the clan/group functions and do they work. How is the voice chat. What's the leveling like in terms of how many hours do you have to put in to get decent weaponry/armour/etc. Is there a huge difference and will someone waiting to buy the game be totally outclassed by early adopters.
A lot of people that play multiplayer games tend to play in larger groups (many clans go from game to game), yet reviews are often based on the person that just jumps into a game solo. Both types of information are needed for MP games. The games infrastructure just needs more attention in a review, because a bad game with great infrastructure (Call of Duty) is much more fun than a really good game with awful infrastructure (Homefront).
In the case of Diablo 3, maybe because they're actually reviewing the GAME rather than getting angry because they can't play it?
A different world...
You can tell some white people that American is racist and they simply won't see it. After all, they went with one black guy in college, so it MUST BE all equal on balance. To admit it not fair just does not fit their world view. They don't see that fair is all about who you know and who you drink with.
I’m sorry but there is a whole different relationship between top reviewers and developers. We all know there are developers who’s shit never stinks, right? Very few reviewers, even the tough ones, will EVER say Bethesda, Bioware, Naughty Dog, Bungie, Blizzard, or Irrational Games are ‘messed up’ even when they arrive broken. If your studio has a charismatic leader, a funky fun looking space to work, and a friendly attitude by staff your games are GOOD. If you’re a small studio owned by a big publisher that looks like Dunder Mifflin then your games STINK.
Game critics and game reviewers will say it doesn’t matter, they will say, “You crazy there’s no biased…we’re not BOUGHT!!!” But, the you see games like Diablo 3 come out broken, Skyrim broken, Mass Effect 3 with half and ending where colors change, yet these games get excellent scores. Something is going on and what it comes down to the way human act like primates in a troop - We all want to be liked by COOL PEOPLE. We all want to have Alpha-people with power like us, and we all want the people we know & like to get a break. Thus cool games by cool companies get to put out broken games the score well, yet cool games made by un-cool people published by un-cool corporations that have poor PR get shafted and shafted and shafted again.
And guess what some game reviewers are cool people too, so the disease can jump breeds too.
- Jim Sterling likes this game, so I like this game too.
- Ryan Davis over at "da bomb" likes this game, so I like it too.
- Hey, look Adam Sessler likes this game, so I like it TOO.
You can tell some white people that American is racist and they simply won't see it. After all, they went with one black guy in college, so it MUST BE all equal on balance. To admit it not fair just does not fit their world view. They don't see that fair is all about who you know and who you drink with.
I’m sorry but there is a whole different relationship between top reviewers and developers. We all know there are developers who’s shit never stinks, right? Very few reviewers, even the tough ones, will EVER say Bethesda, Bioware, Naughty Dog, Bungie, Blizzard, or Irrational Games are ‘messed up’ even when they arrive broken. If your studio has a charismatic leader, a funky fun looking space to work, and a friendly attitude by staff your games are GOOD. If you’re a small studio owned by a big publisher that looks like Dunder Mifflin then your games STINK.
Game critics and game reviewers will say it doesn’t matter, they will say, “You crazy there’s no biased…we’re not BOUGHT!!!” But, the you see games like Diablo 3 come out broken, Skyrim broken, Mass Effect 3 with half and ending where colors change, yet these games get excellent scores. Something is going on and what it comes down to the way human act like primates in a troop - We all want to be liked by COOL PEOPLE. We all want to have Alpha-people with power like us, and we all want the people we know & like to get a break. Thus cool games by cool companies get to put out broken games the score well, yet cool games made by un-cool people published by un-cool corporations that have poor PR get shafted and shafted and shafted again.
And guess what some game reviewers are cool people too, so the disease can jump breeds too.
- Jim Sterling likes this game, so I like this game too.
- Ryan Davis over at "da bomb" likes this game, so I like it too.
- Hey, look Adam Sessler likes this game, so I like it TOO.
Y'know, as much as I love Jim Sterling, he and I almost never like the same games. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. Maybe I'm one of the few who can separate his favorite writer's work from his favorite writer's personal tastes.
I really wish more people would do this.
I really wish more people would do this.
This was a pleasure to read. Very well written. And you have a point. Another thing to add is that, with the internet, gamers will complain about everything and they have a voice now. Its so easy to blow something out of proportions.
Good blog and nice to see a sane person's perspective on this kind of thing. I'm sure not having to pay for the game does influence how you feel about it although I'm not sure that it would necessarily make you look at a game more positively. For me personally, the more I pay for a game the more I try to overlook flaws because I wan't to believe it was worth my money. I'm more likely to admit a game sucks when I only payed $10 for it.
Yeah, I suppose I just see it as eliminating a potential negative, the cost, when considering the score of the game. Perhaps that shouldn't be a consideration, but in my opinion, as a consumer, it's definitely a consideration for us.
You have a good point many AAA blockbuster reviews don't seem to tackle the issue of value for money like revews of more niche games. While on the other end of the scale many oldschool genres like platformers & shmups get slammed if they are priced higher than a $10 XBLA title, even if they are AAA of their own genre and ooze quality, game mechanics and deep ballancing.

surf dtoid with 






Rising (10+)
People you follow














send message
follow
followers


