This week, we'll be joined in the studio by a special guest to be named later and the topic will be game reviews. We're looking for your questions and thoughts concerning what you look for in game reviews, and whether or not you find them useful in your purchasing decisions. Fire away in the comments below!
Comments are Closed
Comments
Displaying 21–40 of 100
1123453
Angelicsin87
Are some of your high rated reviews for highly anticipated games really for gameplay and graphics or sometimes for the hype the game has?
AirPrime
Okay, Mr.Sessler. I surrender. I am now a G4 Noob. However, I digress. I think there is a bigger issue with Game Reviews, now more than ever. I think the question should be, what is a game review? What should it incorporate and intent be? Who is the review aimed at? Should the score reflect the whole product or just because its a big game, which is backed by big money, by a big Company? And, what is the benefit, not just to the Devs and Publishers, but with the gamer reading the review, as well? Lastly, but equally important is, WHO should be the beneficiary from the review?
Game review of late has become a joke. A joke in a sense that it has become more than an opinion piece. They have become more or less an ad for those who are already sold on the game and for the companies backing said product, which often sound like a corporate check list of why we should buy said game. Even the scores that are given out are not consistent or reflective of the game in a way that is in any way shape or form, real or honest. How many games that were given a "10" or "5 out of 5" that turned out to be less than the sum of its parts? Also, game reviews have become redundant, too. With all the "Previews", "Updates", "Game Diaries", and "Screen shots", the review loses some of its power (often making a game irrelevant in some regards or become mere reminders of why we should buy said game). But. ultimately it comes down to the review itself and how well it communicate what the game IS and if "said game" is worth it's weight in gold or crap? But, often times the game reviews either misses the point or ignores it's intended audience. What is even worse is when it does placate to the audience. So, yes it good to read more than one review of a game, but nowadays it pretty hard to tell the difference, especially when they all read alike (read said Multi-platform games). How many times have you read a review of a game on the Xbox 360 and seen the same review, by the same reviewer, for the Wii, PS3, and PC (raised hands). It's has become, again, a joke, but sad, as well. And, have become more reflective of the state of gaming itself and the direction of where it's going. I guess you can say the real questions are how long will this sad story go on? And, when will the gamers decide to take back the "decision process" for themselves?
J3BUS
I like game reviews and i find them quite useful. However I really only use them when I see a game that has already come out and I'm not sure about it. I normally get my reviews from either X play or game informer because they go into more depth rather than just pros and cons. It also helps me to find games that may have not gotten as much hype as other games and would other wise go unnoticed.
Ankakaz
I have to say that what I use reviews most for is in evaluating the various aspects of each game for quality of production. I have a fairly decent idea which of the game play aspects I'm most interested in from the media and previous experience with related titles, and I like to see how each of these aspects is performed in a particular title before I buy it. Reviews are the way to get an impartial view of a particular game that will convince you one way or another if the game is worth playing.
happymeowmeow
Reviews are still somewhat relevant to me but I hardly ever pay attention to the scores any more. I feel like reviewers put them there out of sense of obligation more than anything else at this point. Most of my purchases are based on word of mouth or actually watching people play the games on livestream or some other site.
Naruzam
Well I m average gamer that clocks about 20 to 30 hours a week playing games. Reviews are important however I don t always have the time to read the review for the reason for the rating that been said if I m interested in the game but don t know how it going to play and if worth the investment I would try to find a review so could make a decision. Now I don t always have the time read the review so I look at three things the score the game got, the dot point review pros and cons of the game. Once that part is done I look at the price to see if it is worth to invest in.
My question is since G4tv has rating system when will you release how would rate the game such as if it falls short in area but excellent every else it would get this score?
ps gamespot does a good job of reviewing even though people they don't read the review find out how the scoring system works and then decided if the got it wroung i doubt they did.
triscuitman6
Yes I always find game reviews very helpful because me and my friends for the most part have very different views on games and what we look for in games. But this sometimes backfires on me a great example of this is Uncharted 2 where it won countless awards but when I played it I felt absolutely no draw in to its very well crafted world or even a reason to push forward in the story. Also a number score usually does infulence my decision but not in a way that cause me to completely over look some games. When I have the money to buy a game I look at a very wide variety of games and the way I look at a game and what kind of infulence a number score has on it changes with each genre (espically in the case of indie games) and in some cases developer. I really don't think a number score has any major affect on someone who wants to have an expirence rather than just play a video game.
philivox
I usually wait until a review comes out before I purchase the game, but that doesn't stop me from doing proper research prior to its release. Watching AOTS' coverage and Sessler's Soapbox talk about reviews put things in perspective. I not only buy games from ratings through different sources, I'll buy them through word of mouth. Why not? Most games nowadays have multiplayer options and they're always more fun with a bud. I agree that all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt; not only are the reviewers human, but they don't have the same exact tastes that I do. Which brings me to Steam. I'll admit I did buy a few games in the early days of Steam based on the metacritic score they provided me. Those days are gone after I read what the heck a metacritic score was really based on and how they "pulled together" these ratings. No developer/publisher should have to base their future projects on that... But unfortunately they do.
The fact that I am a hardcore gamer and video game enthusiast gives me the deciding edge over those who buy a game by looking at its cover or if it's similar to something thye've played. I currently live in a small town and I constantly see people who love to hunt and fish go to buy a game based on their interests that are a waste of money and time. Also there are those who just read one subscription like GameInformer, EGM, or any console-based magazine will look at games through the eyes of a loyal fan to those reviewers. Why venture out of the bubble that they've created for you? It's safe, and as humans, we like safety.
philivox
I usually wait until a review comes out before I purchase the game, but that doesn't stop me from doing proper research prior to its release. Watching AOTS' coverage and Sessler's Soapbox talk about reviews put things in perspective. I not only buy games from ratings through different sources, I'll buy them through word of mouth. Why not? Most games nowadays have multiplayer capabilities and they're usually more fun with a bud. I agree that all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt; not only are the reviewers human but they don't have the exact tastes that you do. Which brings me to Steam. I'll admit I did buy a few games in my early days when Steam first launched based on the metacritic score they provided me. Those days are gone after I read what the heck a metacritic score was based on and how they really "pulled together" these ratings. No developer/publisher should have to base their future projects on that... But unfortunately they do.
The fact that I am a hardcore gamer and video game enthusiast gives me the deciding edge over those who buy a game by looking at its cover or if it's similar to something they've played. I currently live in a small town and I constantly see people who love to hunt and fish go and buy a hunting or fishing game regardless of the miniscule review it was given or lack thereof. Those who just read one subscription like GameInformer, EGM, or any console-based magazine will look at games as a loyal fan to that magazine. Why venture out of the bubble that they've created for you? It's a safe place, and we like safety for our money. Right?
philivox
I usually wait until a review comes out before I purchase the game, but that doesn't stop me from doing proper research prior to its release. Watching AOTS' coverage and Sessler's Soapbox talk about reviews put things in perspective. I not only buy games from ratings through different sources, I'll buy them through word of mouth. Why not? Most games nowadays have multiplayer capabilities and they're usually more fun with a bud. I agree that all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt; not only are the reviewers human but they don't have the exact tastes that you do. Which brings me to Steam. I'll admit I did buy a few games in my early days when Steam first launched based on the metacritic score they provided me. Those days are gone after I read what the heck a metacritic score was based on and how they really "pulled together" these ratings. No developer/publisher should have to base their future projects on that... But unfortunately they do.
The fact that I am a hardcore gamer and video game enthusiast gives me the deciding edge over those who buy a game by looking at its cover or if it's similar to something they've played. I currently live in a small town and I constantly see people who love to hunt and fish go and buy a hunting or fishing game regardless of the miniscule review it was given or lack thereof. Those who just read one subscription like GameInformer, EGM, or any console-based magazine will look at games as a loyal fan to that magazine. Why venture out of the bubble that they've created for you? It's a safe place, and we like safety for our money. Right?
jscott0126
X-play game reviews r very mportant to me more so now than ever b4. U guys r the only game reviewers i trust really cus ur unbiased n give a straight forward opinion. I've went so far one time as to buy a game n not open it till i heard what x-play gave it. Plus wit the expensiveness of games nowadays u really need to b sure what ur buying isnt crap. Thx 4 all u guys do G4:)
jscott0126
X-play game reviews r very mportant to me more so now than ever b4. U guys r the only game reviewers i trust really cus ur unbiased n give a straight forward opinion. I've went so far one time as to buy a game n not open it till i heard what x-play gave it. Plus wit the expensiveness of games nowadays u really need to b sure what ur buying isnt crap. Thx 4 all u guys do G4:)
cyberninjasensei
Considering that my Rob Gordon-esque Top 5 Video Games of All Time includes a N64 game that wasn't exactly pretty (GoldenEye), but had the best damn multi-player that has ever, and probably will ever, be seen (even though the faux Nazi bears in the original Conker trumps Oddjob). Conversely, another of the Top 5 has fine graphics and an excellent story to boot (Mass Effect 2). So, a game's prettiness, to me, is the least important part of ANY review. I worry most about the product's ability to make me WANT to replay the game until I become sick of it, just to take a short break and come back. Like a bad relationship with great benefits. Did I have to complete all the achievements for ME2? No, but dammit, I had to ensure everyone lived at least once and I had to complete the game on Insanity, all in the same playthrough. Next, it would probably come down to the control scheme. Sure, the first Killzone (PS2) was pretty, but the controls were so debilitating and awful, that I have NO desire to play ANY of the follow-ups. As far as sound goes....meh. Just as long as it's not someone trying to whistle the entire Chopin catalog whilst splitting my speakers due to shoddy producing. But, a game with licensed music that appeals to me (i.e. Rock N' Roll Racing on the Genesis, GTA:VC and GTA:SA) does garner some quick appeal to me.
KosherPickles
Im not a big fan on the numbers rating system, but when i'm too lazy to read the review, that's what i jump to for my decision. do you think there is another way games can be rated other than stars/numbers?
KosherPickles
Im not a big fan on the numbers rating system, but when i'm too lazy to read the review, that's what i jump to for my decision. do you think there is another way games can be rated other than stars/numbers?
NeoBlaze22
Infamous 2 Lightning Tornado.
Jonnyboy92345
I cant buy all the great games out their so i try to rent then but when i go to rent them all the good games are gone but as i play the infamous trail i tought if i can rent games on my ps3 like i rent movies on psn.
Illinois Broski
Why don't you guys update the podcasts anymore? All of them are about a month old.
loveassassin13
Okay there are currently 2 things on my mind concerning gaming I would love your guy's opinions on.
First, I am not quite sure all the games coming out really have enough value in them to live up to the $60 price point. What I mean is, how there are a lot of games coming out, and, that have come out, which look fun but I really don't see spending $60 on them because it seems they just don't have enough content to be worth it. As an example, Breach is coming to Xbox Live Arcade, and it is a full multiplayer shooter with pretty amazing physics, which does have the potential to be a AAA title, but its only $20. It gives you a lot of gameplay and innovation but for a smaller price which is what I think will raise the bar. How a lot of great games (like Breach, Monday Night Combat, Etc.) are coming out for arcade and smaller prices, which I think will raise the bar for AAA titles to add even more content and Last Appeal, because of the $60 price point, with a lot of great games coming for a fraction of the AAA title price. Also note, this is coming from the guy who would rather spend $60 on Xbox Indie Games, than buy, say, Battlefield: BC 2. Do you guys think the newer games coming out will be able to have enough gameplay and Lasting Appeal to be worth $60, especially when comparing them to games like Breach?
The 2nd thing is, like you said in the post-E3 feedback, is how there aren't really any new IP's coming out. I think the problem is deeper than that, its not that there aren't a lot of new IPs coming out, its that a lot of those IPs lack innovation and don't actually bring anything new to gaming. For example, Bulletstorm, to me it just seems like a borderlands copy, and it seems like most of the new IPs aren't bringing something new, or, the point I am trying to explain, is that they don't bring enough to actually do "Something Different". I don't mean just pushing the Xbox Hardware to have shineyer graphics, because I am completely Gameplay over Graphics. I mean like what Deus Ex did 10 years ago, it brought a whole new Experience, and a whole new way of playing a game with what it did about giving players freedom to play it how they want. There are a couple IPs that caught my eye though. Like Brink, it isn't just a shooter, it adds parkour, which I believe will open up a lot of new gameplay styles and allow for more "Using of your environment". Also, Rage, but not because of its graphics, but because of how the enemies actually use their environment and how each type of enemy has a different "playstyle", which requires you to change your strategy accordingly. Why do you guys think alot of games aren't really bringing anything new or, why a lot of them aren't even creating new IPs. Do you think its because they are afraid to take risks? Or maybe because game developers are just stuck in a "loop" so to speak, about how games are meant to be created, and that they don't have the creativity to create new Ideas, like, back to the reference, Deus Ex did 10 years ago with the gameplay innovations which brought something different, and new, which, even today isn't really replicated in any other game, which is able to KEEP Deus Ex original, and, allows the developers to create a Deus Ex sequel, because they have such a well known IP, and such a loved, and, original, style of gameplay incorporated into their games.
RPG-fan
I find game reviews to be useful in making purchasing decisions. I go to different gaming websites and read several reviews on a game before deciding to buy it or not. I tend to look for pros and cons and sum up whether the game is worth buying. If I'm still not sure to purchase the game, or not, I just rent it first and make up my own mind. But sometimes even if a game received positive reviews from majority of reviewers, doesn't mean I too will agree with them. For example, I bought Splinter Cell: Conviction without even renting first because it received mostly positive reviews but I found the game wasn't quite as spectacular as the reviews are making out to be. Oh well, different strokes for different folks, it happens. Doesn't mean I go the websites and say the reviewers is wrong and it should have got so so out of 5 or say the website is bias, like some people tend to do.
Displaying 21–40 of 100
1123453