It would be nice if video game sites did actual journalism

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by aielchief

TL;DR version: reviewers should be expected to give a first impression on a game, not an indepth thesis.

I actually disagree with this. Well kind of. I agree that it shouldn't necessarily be an in-depth thesis, but something more than a first impression is required.

Would you expect a movie reviewer to watch just the first 15 minutes of a movie then go write his review? Or a book reviewer to read just the first few chapters? Or a food critic to take just a couple of bites? A car review based on driving the car for 10 miles...?

Now I realize, that in all of these examples, that equates to relatively little time.

But consider the time the average movie goer spends watching that movie: anywhere from an hour to heck, as much as four hours, depending on how long the movie is, etc. A movie critic watches the whole movie.

I understand how journalism works with its deadlines and such. But deadlines are merely a product of the business, in that people want their information immediately, so the deadline on the reviewer forces him to get it done quickly so that whatever publication he works for can have their review published early, and hopefully one of the first, and therefore more readers.

But, if it is a game that I may be playing for 60+ hours, possibly many, many more, I should expect any serious review to have at least explored fairly deeply all aspects of the game. You don't have to play all 60 seasons of a dynasty, but I think you at least need to take a look at recruit progression. Or maybe at least ask the guys at EA Sports, "Hey, you put this game out every single year. What changes did you make?" and explore all the changes they told you they made. I mean, after all, the core of the game remains the same year-in, year-out. And if they told you, "Hey, we changed how recruits come in, their ratings and such." then how about take the time to explore what happens to their ratings over time. I mean, they drastically changed the recruiting system itself, so you have to go through at least one full season to get a feel for that if you're going to write a serious review, right?


And the problem with that is... without getting the game a few weeks, if not a month+ before it's actual release date, it's hard to get this sort of review published on the same day (or at least same week) as the game release itself.

And apparently no gaming publication has figured out that you can't review video games the same way you review books, movies, food, cars, etc, etc, etc.


Yes, the review needs to be a fairly cursory overlook at the game at the whole...but all aspects of the game definitely must be explored.

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by StormJH1

In MLB 2k9, outfielders could not catch the ball. In MLB 2k10, I don't think I've ever seen a single error--they took that out of their game because they knew any mistakes by a fielder (even legitimate ones) would be perceived as the "glitch"

In the first patch for MLB2k10, if you look in the notes... they made a comment about adding Errors for the fielders...but couldn't, because they didn't have an animation for it.

[Game4fun]

You guys all got good points. And theres some substance to it. And I'm glad that some people know what they are talking about and bring quality content to the forums and can discuss things like this. But honestly I don't think most gamers care. And I know thats not the point you trying to make but I think most gamers all ready know the deal about review sites. It's kind of common sense IMO. Well anyways thats how I think I don't wanna speak for everybody but I would generally think that most people are smart enough to judge there games by themselves. But I have never been the type of person to put so much stock into everything. Healthy debate is good tho. Play on playa lol

[ODogg]

One issue is that if you step back and look at this whole debate, reviews are meant as a general opinion of a game. What we are speaking of that we would like is more of a specific and exhaustive in-depth. I agree with you guys here that I would like to see reviewers rip a game like NCAA 11 apart and just give us from head to toe the entire story, with details and bugs galore, but that's just not what reviews are about.

Think of it this way, a review is seeing the overall picture of the game, not the specific detailed minutia of it. If you want the detailed minutia of it then that's what OS is for!

[vegaas]

I guess I expect people to take pride in their work. If were given the game to review my first question would be, what were the issues from last year? I would then test to see if it was resolved or not.

As for the person who said there are millions of gamer versus testers so we cant expect them to catch everything, I agree, but this is not some very specific event. Its not like the like the problem was " If you play as Miami against Ball State and the flanker runs a post while in tight man coverage with less than ten yards to the end zone and you lob it the game freezes". The problem can be discovered by simming 4 seasons and looking at the rosters. I guess that is too much to expect from EA or a game reviewer.

Also, for those who question the dynasty "problem", show me one real life team that carries 7 QB's and only three offensive tackles and then i will agree that there is no problem.