It would be nice if video game sites did actual journalism

[ODogg]

I agree with most of Rebel10's post but I disagree that most gaming sites are extra-literate gamers. In my opinion it seems the opposite. It seems most gaming sites employ journalists who know just the basics of gaming. They only look at the surface of games.

But yeah, the gaming site reviews, aside from OS that is, are not going to give you what you're looking for. Ever. The kind of review you want is the review that is provided here at OS by people like Bill Abner who get the game early. Those are the reviews you should be reading if you want the real scoop.

[dalecooper]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pogo27

Which implies: working as intended.

That can't possibly be true. They intended for the game to have no A or A+ teams and half D- teams after just four seasons? They intended average team and player quality to drop 10-15 points? Or the NCAA's top awareness at various positions to be around 70 on a scale of 100? I'd be interested to hear an argument that makes sense out of that. For me, I think EA's utter silence on the issue speaks volumes. If it was intentional, someone would speak up and say so. There's a huge, much-viewed thread about this on their own forum and not one EA rep or developer has commented.

For my own part, I don't think this "breaks" the game, and I think that particular descriptor ("broken") is way over-used. Very few of the bugs we complain about, even the extremely irritating ones, actually break the game in any meaningful sense. You can still play dynasty (though quality of play drops, and it will drive a stat-head crazy); and you can still play all the other modes entirely unaffected by this. The game isn't broken, and dynasty isn't really broken either, it's just not what it should be. Enjoyment can still be had unless you're an OCD type. But a lot of OCD types play this game, and the rest of us are still going to be bugged by this as well - plus it remains to be seen how it will affect importing draft classes to Madden. If all my imported players are terrible in the Madden realm, suddenly this problem has seriously impacted by enjoyment of two games, for which I paid $120. I won't resort to saying it's "broken" for reasons just explained, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask EA to fix it, or at least explain their logic.

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bumble14

I find it funny how NCAA11 is broken now, and everyone that reviewed the game is irresponsible, all because of an "issue" in dynasty that very few people even think is a problem. Does anyone actually enjoy video games anymore? I'm losing faith in our community. We finally get a great college football game and the vocal minority nit pick it to death, find any perceived negative possible, and sensationalize it. And you think gaming journalisms bad? Look in the mirror folks.

You know Operation Sports is synonymous with Overreaction Sports but the honeymoon phase is starting to wear-off as it always does with sports games. This year hasn't been half as bad as '09 & '10 IMO.

I also think it's unfair to expect a sports video game reviewer to catch every flaw/glitch/bug etc... but the fact that so many don't even dive reasonably deep in the career type modes is disheartening. Now that companies are taking these modes online, the reviewers should spend a little more time focusing on these areas. Will it push back the review a couple days? Sure, but in the end we (the community) get a more comprehensive review.

I truly believe all of those folks (myself included) that have "nitpicked" this dynasty issue are doing so for the good of the game and the community as a whole.

[ODogg]

Bumble14 - so true man, NCAA 11 is a fantastic football game IMO and will provide hours and hours of entertainment. Yes it has bugs and hopefully EA fixes them but if you can't have fun with this title and enjoy it then you should seriously consider just quitting sports videogaming altogether IMO.

LOL - Overreaction Sports, good one there...

[aielchief]

Quote: Originally Posted by kgx2thez

Will it push back the review a couple days? Sure, but in the end we (the community) get a more comprehensive review.

The problem is it doesn't work like this. As journalists, we're expected to be timely. Reviewers jobs are to give first impressions, not playtest the hell out of a game until they find every bug. Should they spend a lot of time playing the game to give a complete view? Yes. However, in the time they have the game, they're not going to play as much as the hardcore fans on this site might.

You do make a good argument when you ask why the reviewers don't sim. At first, I was going to say that it's not a reviewers job; however, with achievements and awards for playing dyansties that last longer than three years, I can't make a compelling argument against why a reviewer should see how something like an extended dyansty plays out.

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

[Strummer101er]

I worked for several years as a journalist in the video game industry.

Two things:

1) To review a deep game like NCAA -- to peel back all the layers and truly get a feel for the gameplay and all the nuances -- I'd need two weeks. If I said that to my editor, he'd laugh in my face and rip my heart out of my chest like Mola Ram in Temple of Doom.

2) Most games aren't worth two minutes, never mind two weeks. If I'm getting paid $250 or $300 to review an RPG that I know is a hunk of junk that'll take 60 hours to finish, well ... do the math. That works out to far less than minimum wage. And you usually have to turn around a review on a 24- or 48-hour deadline.

The best-kept secret in the industry? Most journalists don't even finish the games they're reviewing. And why should they, with slave wages and unforgiving deadlines?

So there's your journalistic integrity at work.

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by aielchief

The problem is it doesn't work like this. As journalists, we're expected to be timely. Reviewers jobs are to give first impressions, not playtest the hell out of a game until they find every bug. Should they spend a lot of time playing the game to give a complete view? Yes. However, in the time they have the game, they're not going to play as much as the hardcore fans on this site might. You do make a good argument when you ask why the reviewers don't sim. At first, I was going to say that it's not a reviewers job; however, with achievements and awards for playing dyansties that last longer than three years, I can't make a compelling argument against why a reviewer should see how something like an extended dyansty plays out. TL;DR version: reviewers should be expected to give a first impression on a game, not an indepth thesis.

You are 100% right. Reviewers are not play-testers, but I feel like comparing last years version to this years is a big part of the review. Seeing if known issues from last years game still exist should be a high priority but an issue like this (dynasty one) would most likely only be caught by sim-natured gamers.

I feel like sports reviewers should give their review which includes a review of all modes. Would you rather be the first person to review a game or be the person who takes their time and produces a more in-depth review?

I'm guessing most reviewers would want to take their time but since their under deadlines they give an accelerated review.

Storm,

Excellent points but I feel sports games are different because you really can't "finish" them. I don't know if you review sports games but please don't take any offense to this statement, I feel most non-casual sports gamers brush off sport genre reviews. I honestly can't remember the last time I read one at the time of release. I will go back after a certain time to see how accurate I think it was but I don't hold it against the reviewer if they're off.

[StormJH1]

Quote: Originally Posted by dalecooper

That can't possibly be true. They intended for the game to have no A or A+ teams and half D- teams after just four seasons? They intended average team and player quality to drop 10-15 points? Or the NCAA's top awareness at various positions to be around 70 on a scale of 100? I'd be interested to hear an argument that makes sense out of that. For me, I think EA's utter silence on the issue speaks volumes. If it was intentional, someone would speak up and say so. There's a huge, much-viewed thread about this on their own forum and not one EA rep or developer has commented. For my own part, I don't think this "breaks" the game, and I think that particular descriptor ("broken") is way over-used. Very few of the bugs we complain about, even the extremely irritating ones, actually break the game in any meaningful sense. You can still play dynasty (though quality of play drops, and it will drive a stat-head crazy); and you can still play all the other modes entirely unaffected by this. The game isn't broken, and dynasty isn't really broken either, it's just not what it should be. Enjoyment can still be had unless you're an OCD type. But a lot of OCD types play this game, and the rest of us are still going to be bugged by this as well - plus it remains to be seen how it will affect importing draft classes to Madden. If all my imported players are terrible in the Madden realm, suddenly this problem has seriously impacted by enjoyment of two games, for which I paid $120. I won't resort to saying it's "broken" for reasons just explained, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask EA to fix it, or at least explain their logic.

While I haven't experienced this first-hand yet, I think it's just an expected overreaction to a problem in NCAA 10 that sites like this KILLED them on last year, which was that ratings were overinflated and teams were maxing out at A+ like crazy.

We see this all the time in sports games--if one title suffers from a problem, they'll go the extreme opposite direction the next year to appease people looking for that flaw. If one football game has too much fumbling, you'll see almost none the next year. 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"

Having teams in the B range as a maximum isn't great, but it's not as bad as having teams maxed out so that they're all pretty much the same. As long as the competitive balance of the teams I play against remains decent, I don't care what the ratings say.