I cant trust reviews anymore

[jackson]

forget about the hail mary, running, and sim problems. . . I just want a game that isn't always in slow motion.

[trobinson97]

Quote: Originally Posted by jackson

All I have to say is somebody was smoking some good stuff when they adamantly said that the slowdown was completely gone. They must have accidentally put 04 back in their system and reviewed it. Unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

True that. I saw a lot of people here saying the slowdown was gone, I was thining it was just my game or something.

[wwharton]

i'd agree that these games shouldn't be rated in the 9's but the thing is one year maybe 10 years ago, maybe more... somebody started giving 9's based on how the game was compared to the year before. now some still review that way, some base it on other games out, but the bottom line is if a game with the imperfections it had was a 9 ten years ago then these games are damn sure 9's now. i'd have more of a problem with high scores if some games were rated accurately (like a 7) and others got 9's. then i'd cry foul. but as it is, you look at how good is the game compared to last year rather than the perfect game that doesn't exist, and it's definitely a 9.

the problem is people either don't read or ignore the entire review and focus on the number. and when you focus on the review, don't look at it like "this game is great b/c of these reasons and i don't see anything wrong" but more like "this game is great, these are some of the reasons." if a reviewer's had more time he may go into more detail with what's wrong but for the most part they are stating how they feel about the game and the reasons why.

with that said, some go overboard, i agree. but it's in overall playability, or graphics, or whatever. i can't get mad at somebody for not picking up a glitch before putting a review out.

[MK47]

I dont think its necessarily a matter of picking up a problem with a game, its more a matter of deliberately ignoring problems on the reviewers' part. I think most blatant bugs and glitches simply are ignored as a matter of principle by reviewers, it may have to do with them getting earlier versions of the games and thus having the promises and assurances of the developers that those bugs will be fixed in time for the version that eventually hits the shelves.

It may simply be that reviewers or rather the entities they are representing are trying to stay on good terms with gaming companies (probably more likely). Every industry has a bit of "one hand washes the other" going on and the gaming industry is no different. There's also a bit of group think going on I'd imagine, if the 3 biggest reviews have a game around 90%, it'd be difficult to be the one going against the grain giving it 60%. People would likely choose to simply disregard your view and that could permanently damage your magazine or website. If you look around the web you will find that almost all the review sites are within 10-15% of each other which sort of defeats the point that reviews supposedly represent the unique interests of different people. I imagine the sameness is both an effect of gaming companies lobbying certain big reviewers like IGN and Gamespot as well as other reviewers simply parroting the line of thought given by those big reviewers.

EA is particularly bad that way and not just since yesterday, you can go far back into the mid 90s to see mediocre games of theirs with 90+ scores in magazines. Sometimes it's blatant as with the magazine editor who moved to become EA's marketing rep in between stints with magazines, other times its more subtle.

Generally speaking though, I dont think its that big a deal with NCAA Football really. Why? Its not like theres an alternative. If you want college football you must buy this game as there is no other such game, you may not want to buy it every year though. Ive been playing NCAA 2003 on the Gamecube for the past few years because I am experienced enough with EA to know that the subsequent versions were little but minor facelifts. It was blatant enough through the past few years that EA wont change their NCAA and Madden games all that much, EA has never dramatically changed these games, Ive been playing EA football games overall for 10+ years and its always been a slow evolution with some things even today reminding me of the games of the mid 90s where you can see that the design idea is still the same. I have bought NCAA 2006 now simply because I want a college football game for my Xbox as well, not because I think its a revelation. When I look at the player models in NCAA 06 I still see the soul of Madden 99 on my PSX, thats the way these games are developed, snail's pace (and thats why the VC games were such a necessary breath of fresh air).

[NYJets]

Quote: Originally Posted by jackson

All I have to say is somebody was smoking some good stuff when they adamantly said that the slowdown was completely gone. They must have accidentally put 04 back in their system and reviewed it. Unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Or maybe they just haven't seen it? I haven't seen any slowdown in all the games I've played.

[Sully]

Quote: Originally Posted by NYJets

Or maybe they just haven't seen it? I haven't seen any slowdown in all the games I've played.

I've seen slowdown, but it's usually during a tackling animation, or after the play is over....nothing to even worry about.

[Troller]

What?

[GTheorenHobbes]

Quote: Originally Posted by MK47

When I look at the player models in NCAA 06 I still see the soul of Madden 99 on my PSX, thats the way these games are developed, snail's pace (and thats why the VC games were such a necessary breath of fresh air).

Isn't that the truth. Similarly, I can see the soul of Triple Play '97 in MVP '06.