Support NeoGAF

[elostyle]

Wow, so now unfair game reviews are de facto fun? Contraversy does not equate worthiness.

I'll just repeat something mentioned earlier on this thread and be done: What score did they give Chrome Hounds?

EGM is over for me..

What the hell is "fairness" in game reviews anyways? You have a good time with it - you give it a high score. You have a bad time with it - you give it a low score.

You may not have noticed but EGM rating dead rising down because of a bad story is an attempt at fairness towards games with a more sophisticated story. There is your problem. Same with chromehounds. Oh other games have a much more developed single player campaign so obviously chromehounds can't get as a good of a score (out of fairness). That's bullshit.

 

[syllogism]

...is like saying Night of the Living Dead sucks because the plot sucks.

No actually that's quite fair, private

 

[RaijinFY]

I cant imagine the shitstorm that will happen if Gears of War get Dead Rising scores...

 

[tahrikmili]

What the hell is "fairness" in game reviews anyways? You have a good time with it - you give it a high score. You have a bad time with it - you give it a low score.

You may not have noticed but EGM rating dead rising down because of a bad story is an attempt at fairness towards games with a more sophisticated story. There is your problem. Same with chromehounds. Oh other games have a much more developed single player campaign so obviously chromehounds can't get as a good of a score (out of fairness). That's bullshit.

Yeah, let's agree on that.

I think you are confusing fairness with standardized scoring. Expecting each and every game to fulfill some certain criteria regardless of genre or gameplay goals' is stupid and unfair. In the Chrome Hounds case, while the game was obviously developed with a sophisticated online persistant campaign in mind the reviewers took it and held it up against games like MechWarrior that excelled in single player. The result was an unfair review that ignored the game's strengths and hammered down on inherent weaknesses and in the end the review was worth shit. They really dropped the ball on that one.

I think the same is going on here. Dead Rising is to games what Dawn of the Dead is to movies - reviewing it with standards that don't apply to the genre at all (poor story? wtf..) is like comparing zombie flicks to Citizen Kane. It may be a standardized exercise in reviewing but it sure as hell is not fair. They do not inform the reader of the entertainment value. While I haven't played the game yet, judging by their weakness bullet points and their Chrome Houdns review, I think it's safe to say they dropped the ball yet again.

As a side note, lack of multiplayer (afaik) did not stop Okami from getting 9.0 and 9.5 scores..

 

[Tellaerin]

i don't see how a review in which the reviewer invents a reader and then decides what he would think is at all meaningful.

Tell me how that's potentially any less meaningful than someone you've never met telling you what they happen to like or dislike, with the expectation that this should somehow be relevant to the stranger they're talking to.

game reviewers have a hard enough time telling us how good a game is or isn't -- better they didn't take on the burden of characterization.

Except that they're not telling us 'how good a game is or isn't' - this isn't some cosmic absolute that they're attempting to communicate to the reader. The review is going to tell us one of two things - either 'I, the reviewer, personally liked/disliked game x' or 'I think you, the person reading this, will like/dislike game x'. In both cases, the reader is being provided with information that will help them make a purchasing decision, and in both cases, that information may or may not be relevant to any given reader.

i'm all for idiosyncratic game reviews, but deliberately bashing good games is a very mean sort of idiosyncracy.

You're assuming that 'good' is an absolute value again. It isn't.

there's a lot of talk about a reviewer's obligations to readers, but what about a reviewer's obligation to creators?

A reviewer's obligation is to the reader - the potential buyer - first and foremost. There are other, better venues to express personal appreciation of what a creator is attempting to accomplish than the reviews section of the typical gaming magazine, which is intended to function as a buyer's guide.

toastyfrog says "zing" after he says that deep labyrinth is better than goku makaimura. wherefore "zing?" that "zing" speaks volumes, but let's excerpt the relevant material. if goku makaimura is obvious trash, and if its advocates are a set of specialized phonies, then o deep labyrinth where is thy "zing?" toastyfrog knows he's praising a bad game at the expense of a good one -- that to prefer deep labyrinth to goku makaimura is to insult goku makaimura. therefore "zing."

Bear in mind that my little diatribe wasn't in response to the Toastyfrog/Goku Makaimura issue - it was just me reflecting on these review threads in general. That said, I think you're assuming a lot in that last paragraph. Namely, you're assuming that GM is incontrovertibly a better game than Deep Labyrinth - not just to you, but to everyone in existence, that Toastyfrog must secretly acknowledge this 'truth' to himself even if he doesn't 'admit' it to readers in his review, and his 'zing' is an insult to a game that's totally undeserving of it.

On the other hand, especially since this was posted on his blog rather than review text, it could just be that he genuinely didn't like the game for the reasons he mentioned, to the point where games like Deep Labyrinth that 'don't completely suck' are preferable. You know, the interpretation you arrive at when you take what he says as he actually meant it. Of course, that would also mean having to admit that your personal opinion of a game isn't some sort of universal value judgment, and that Toastyfrog isn't just in denial of the game's obvious superiority and/or trying to bait you.

 

[Amir0x]

Okami did not even attempt a multiplayer; its package is fully and only single player. If it had included a shitty multiplayer mode then I see no reason why it shouldn't be docked some. But, again, that's just my point of view.

 

[Ceb]

Speevy, thorns and tahrikmili rallying for people to look past the "pretty good" EGM reviews... whodathunkit?

 

[drohne]

my cat's name is mittens.

 

[thorns]

Speevy, thorns and tahrikmili rallying for people to look past the "pretty good" EGM reviews... whodathunkit?

wtf? who's rallying who?

 

[DodgerBlue]

Wow, so now unfair game reviews are de facto fun? Contraversy does not equate worthiness.

I'll just repeat something mentioned earlier on this thread and be done: What score did they give Chrome Hounds?

EGM is over for me..

Let me help you out here buddy, 6,5,8

main criticism:
-mechs too slow
-Bland battlefield
-"dedication to realism kills the fun"
-weak single player

DB

 

[KeithFranklin]

I think Dead Rising is a game that will get scores like this if the reviewer plays it simply to complete it. I have only watched the videos and since it appears you can use anything as your weapon/tool of choice and you can do things like cover the zombies in stuff that experimenting and simply playing around will be a big part of the game. Yet this playing around will probably not be required at all to complete the missions and the game.

So if you simply play to finish you miss out and dont enjoy the game. From what I see of Dead Rising you probably can play through it many times and never really do the same thing.

 

[kaching]

Tell me how that's potentially any less meaningful than someone you've never met telling you what they happen to like or dislike, with the expectation that this should somehow be relevant to the stranger they're talking to.

Unless the reviewer I never met only reviewed one game, I can get a feel for what they like and don't like over the course of their reviews. I can see how negatively or positively they regard certain elements in a game and how I generally feel about those elements in comparison. So, for example, if a reviewer establishes himself as a stickler for rock solid 60 fps gameplay and I know myself to be less picky in this regard, if he complains about the framerate being lower than he'd like, I can be reasonably assured that I'll have no problem with the framerate.

I only ever want reviewers to give me THEIR opinion of a game. With the internet at my fingertips, I don't need them to be guessing what other people might think of the game because I can just go and find out for myself.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think reviews should not be totally subjective, and to make all criticism completely subjective would be a disservice to those seeking real, analytical criticism. Objective criticism has a place in game reviews.

 

[Geek]

What's the problem with someone disliking a game you're excited about?
Reviews are pointless if they are not subjective.

Well, I don't really give two flying dog shits if Jeremy doesn't like the game or not. We clearly don't see eye to eye on what constitutes a good game a better portion of the time.

What's kind of a problem for me is informing us how anyone who actually does like the game only does so because they've been blinded by "nostalgia and franchising". We're all deluding ourselves that there are any positive aspects of the game at all! His implication that we have been so expertly snared by his logic and deep psychological analysis of our gaming habits -- and that he's "zinged" us -- is just the typical smug, ornery bullshit he's famous for.

I really don't care about his numerical score. Just the cantankerous, superior whining.

 

[cheekymunky]

Well, I don't really give two flying dog shits if Jeremy doesn't like the game or not. We clearly don't see eye to eye on what constitutes a good game a better portion of the time.

What's kind of a problem for me is informing us how anyone who actually does like the game only does so because they've been blinded by "nostalgia and franchising". We're all deluding ourselves that there are any positive aspects of the game at all! His implication that we have been so expertly snared by his logic and deep psychological analysis of our gaming habits -- and that he's "zinged" us -- is just the typical smug, ornery bullshit he's famous for.

I really don't care about his numerical score. Just the cantankerous, superior whining.

QFMFT!!!!

It is his whole attitude about why anyone else would like the game that is bullshit....not necessarily the score...for me, at least.

 

[Odrion]

anyone who's saying the Dead Rising score was "expected" needs to check just about every thread on GAF over the past month.

Did you really think a game like Dead Rising would of got a 10 or a 9.0?

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Did you really think a game like Dead Rising would of got a 10 or a 9.0?

Seriously. I love the shit out of this game, but I wasn't expecting it to score in the stratosphere. But then, I've given up on reviewing in general, AC (After Chromehounds). Games just aren't built to be completely experienced in a few days anymore. Better for us, worse for them; I guess. But if people really want to take the opinion of someone who's played the game for a few days as a contributing factor as to whether or not they want to spend a significantly longer period of time with it, well, caveat emptor. I buy games because they interest me. I read previews to find out the game's actual content, and I might skim a review to find out if something is like seriously broken, but comments about Game Length, Simplicity, stuff like that, are to be ignored, IMHO.

I don't blame reviewers, obviously. This is the system they work in. But I do think anyone who takes next-gen scores seriously these days is pretty deluded. Buy what you think will interest you. There's no chance in hell that a reviewer is going to be able to fully experience any next gen game worth its salt. Dead Rising might not have an online component, but not being able to fully experience what leaderboards bring to the table, what DLC is in the pipeline, seriously hampers the ability to properly judge the game, especially the longevity of the game. A game that supposedly unlocks things several times over after beating it each time.

Games Should Be Judged By The Following Criteria In Print:
Very Broken
A Little Broken
Not Broken At All

Everything else is either subjective or unable to be judged at press time.

 

[levious]

"Unlike the golden-age of EGM, during the 16-bit days."
.
I know right? Those guys were so awesome they could score a game after playing it for like 30 minutes -- not like us lameasses who have to play it all the way through.

from his blog comments, and slightly off topic... so I'm confused now, I thought a couple of years ago, EGM guys (can't remember who specifically) were arguing against the idea that a reviewer should always beat/complete a game before giving it a score, now toast acts like they always complete them before reviewing? Which is it?

What's kind of a problem for me is informing us how anyone who actually does like the game only does so because they've been blinded by "nostalgia and franchising". We're all deluding ourselves that there are any positive aspects of the game at all! His implication that we have been so expertly snared by his logic and deep psychological analysis of our gaming habits -- and that he's "zinged" us -- is just the typical smug, ornery bullshit he's famous for.

I really don't care about his numerical score. Just the cantankerous, superior whining.

he's young and bald, those types are always cantankerous... I'd be too so I can't blame him too much.

Oh, uh, zing?

edit: is this the same guy that liked Princess Peach better than NSMB? Maybe he just has quirky taste.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

It really does make for some good reading.

BTW SatelliteofLove, what inspired the Miles Copeland avatar?

I'm a Wishbone Ash fanatic, and I just got done watching Night of the Guitars. It's like he's preaching up fire and brimstone before that concert. :lol

 

[svenuce]

nt

 

[Avalon]

Lol, I just Pre-ordered Deep Labyrinth.

 

[plagiarize]

review scores are and always have been bullshit. the only magazine that i put any weight on their scoring system is Edge. sure they regularly rip the shit out of stuff i love but if they give something more than eight, it's pretty much guaranteed gold (they gave UGnG 9, first 9 in months).

the thing is, that not every game is trying to do the same thing, so trying to assign every game a score so that you're essentially saying this racing game is an 8 and this fps is an 8 so they are as good as each other, is obviously nonsense.

dead rising is a AAA game that's unashamedly based on low budget zombie movies. i don't watch low budget zombie movies for their plots. dead rising has a campy storyling that isn't very well developed. was anyone excited for the game expecting any different?

heck was anyone excited for the game because of it's story?

not every game is scary. not every game is funny. not every game is fast paced. not every game is cerebral. not every game has single player. not every game has multiplayer.

here's a great thought experiment. you have a lengthy single player game. would it be fair to mark it down if it didn't have multiplayer?

i think most people would say 'no, that wouldn't be fair.'

what if it HAD multiplayer, and the multiplayer was awful? the single player game is just as good as it was, but the game gets a lower score. Gamespy's reviews are bullshit, but at least they seperate the single player and multiplayer scores.

i guess what i'm getting at is this. a game like dead rising has a lot of content. you don't have to play the story if you don't want. you can just go and kill stuff for giggles. if killing stuff for giggles is worth a more than an 8 or more, should you mark the game down because other stuff it has isn't as good?

i've never finished a GTA game. the storylines haven't interested me at all. once i've unlocked all the areas, i don't touch that stuff again. the quality of fun i have playing those games isn't remotely effected by the quality of the missions i don't play... and i got dozens of hours out of all of them (1 through to san andreas) and wouldn't think twice about buying gta4 despite knowing i'll never finish it because i don't like the missions.

read the text. don't focus on the scores... and i'm sure someone can see from EGM's review whether or not Dead Rising is for them. point out the flaws in it, and i can make an educated guess on whether or not those flaws will bother me too...

you only need to look at how many run of the mill average games are marked the same as flawed games that strived to do something original and different to know that the whole idea of scoring is broken.

 

[cartman414]

edit: is this the same guy that liked Princess Peach better than NSMB? Maybe he just has quirky taste.

Actually I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. New SMB in a few ways was a slight disappointment for the Mario series (lesser non-Fire Flower powerups, save system), and aside from some nifty tricks and design choices here and there played it safe with the franchise. Super Princess Peach on the other hand, while being rather easy, did things a little differently and was quite fun. I must admit I'd sooner replay the latter.

I'm a Wishbone Ash fanatic, and I just got done watching Night of the Guitars. It's like he's preaching up fire and brimstone before that concert.

Gotcha. He's a cool guy, being the founder of IRS records and manager of the Police/Sting among others. I just don't care for his pro-recording label side views.

 

[levious]

I really don't get the save system complaints with NSMB. I mean, you can save after every castle, would you really want to be able to save after every level?

And I have a better appreciation for the power ups after going through again getting all the three coins.

 

[Mau ®]

The new Elder Scrolls title is probably either an expansion or the PSP game (which could very well be an original effort).

I want the PS3 version, cmon bethesda we all know youre porting it!!!

The Ghosts and Goblins score is crap. The guy says the game looks ugly when in reality its one of the most beautiful 2.5D efforts Ive seen ever.

 

[-Rogue5-]

6.5 for Prey.

Should have been lower?

 

[Goreomedy]

1up's score for Dead Rising seems to fall in line with EGM's higher rating, an 8.0.

Read the full text here:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3152674

The end result is a relentlessly inventive game worth the price of entry. With more than enough first-person shooters, racing games, and other cookie-cutter filler swamping the 360, it's encouraging to see such an original title land on the system. The experience is flawed -- some might say hampered -- by the save system and curiously designed game structure. But whether you 'get it' or not, Dead Rising nevertheless provides a wealth of secrets and mysteries for both eager gamers and the adventuresome. With each repeated play through a stage, Frank becomes stronger, better able to uncover the mysteries behind this allegorical horror adventure (we'll let you discover what really makes zombies zombies), and the experience becomes richer for it. While there's plenty of room for polish and finesse in future iterations, no hardcore gamer should miss the wholly unique experience provided in Dead Rising's debut.

 

[Reilly]

"Dead Rising follows a structure much like Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter (a few Dragon Quarter dev team members are on Dead Rising's team). "



well, looks like I'm not playing this game.

 

[MrDaravon]

"Dead Rising follows a structure much like Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter (a few Dragon Quarter dev team members are on Dead Rising's team). "



well, looks like I'm not playing this game.

That actually makes me WANT to play the game :lol

 

[Speevy]

demi has to buy it now.

 

[BamYouHaveAids]

All of you are concentrating on the numerical score, maybe you guys should read the content of a review and make a informed decision on your own?

 

[AZ Greg]

"Dead Rising follows a structure much like Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter (a few Dragon Quarter dev team members are on Dead Rising's team). "



well, looks like I'm not playing this game.

So you were actually gonna play the game before you read that? Could have fooled me, especially with your recent comments on the game.

"You guys have to remember that Capcom advertised the hell out of Dead Rising in EGM, so the scores are probably 1 or 2 points higher than they should be."

"Dead Rising, another GAF hype game."

"I don't want to sound like an asshole, but are there any other monsters in this game?"

 

[Error]

So you were actually gonna play the game before you read that? Could have fooled me, especially with your recent comments on the game.

"You guys have to remember that Capcom advertised the hell out of Dead Rising in EGM, so the scores are probably 1 or 2 points higher than they should be."

"Dead Rising, another GAF hype game."

"I don't want to sound like an asshole, but are there any other monsters in this game?"

:lol

and BoF DQ owns! so that mean this game rox

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm pretty sure he was just hating on BoF.

 

[Error]

more like hating on both

 

[John Harker]

Damn, this thread is huge.

Are there any rumors posted?

 

[Wario64]

Damn, this thread is huge.

Are there any rumors posted?

Saint's Row to be PS3 launch title
New Prince of Persia for next-gen consoles
Crysis sequel/spin-off to next-gen consoles
Luigi's Mansion sequel for Wii
Free Virtual Console games to be packaged with select Wii launch titles
Dumbed-down Halo to launch with Microsoft's inevitable handheld
The next Elder Scrolls game is scheduled to ship next summer

 

[John Harker]

Saint's Row to be PS3 launch title
New Prince of Persia for next-gen consoles
Crysis sequel/spin-off to next-gen consoles
Luigi's Mansion sequel for Wii
Free Virtual Console games to be packaged with select Wii launch titles
Dumbed-down Halo to launch with Microsoft's inevitable handheld
The next Elder Scrolls game is scheduled to ship next summer

Sweet, thanks.

Luigi Mansion 2? Thats a no-brainer. Damn thing sold millions - and the vacuum mechanics look like they were originally designed with the Wiimote in mind anyway.

Dumbed-down Halo?
What does that mean? Halo was pretty watered down FPS anyway.
What are they gonna make it - play like Geist?

har har.. I kid, I kid.

A new ES already?? Woaness. Is Oblivion still coming to PS3?

 

[rod furlong]

EGM aren't even gamers IMO. They seem to hate most everything these days. In the past, I'd rarely see them give games lower than a 6.

lol, bring back the 6-10 scale, let's get some real gamers up in here.

 

[rod furlong]

Every magazine I read gave it at least an 8, PC mags tend to 9. It's insane fun... WTF is wrong with EGM?

Of all the driving games to carry a torch for, you pick the one based around ejecting your driver through the windshield and into bowling pins.

 

[adg1034]

I've been browsing this thread for a while, but I haven't seen any mention of the Mass Effect cover story. How does it look? Impressions? Has this turned into the next "must-get" RPG?

 

[Wario64]

The reason why EGM is being hardassses on the reviews is answered in the editorial section of last month's EGM issue. Basically they're taking a harder stance on sequels and will only score high for games that really wows them

 

[scooby_dooby]

I've been browsing this thread for a while, but I haven't seen any mention of the Mass Effect cover story. How does it look? Impressions? Has this turned into the next "must-get" RPG?

Hell, this was a 'must-get' back when it was called 'unnamed bioware project #1'

 

[SantaC]

The reason why EGM is being hardassses on the reviews is answered in the editorial section of last month's EGM issue. Basically they're taking a harder stance on sequels and will only score high for games that really wows them

that's a good thing imo.

 

[adg1034]

I meant about new information. Some people are stuck getting their issues on the 20th (or something) and don't get to see the cover story so soon. By the way, what's in next month's issue?

 

[momolicious]

LOL @ people hating on EGM because their hyped game doesnt get perfect 10s

I think EGM is fair, they use the whole 1-10, if its average its 5

why does it make people angry when they see low score in a game they are hyped about and havent even played it

oh yeah and the dead rising score isnt bad, its just not a perfect game like you all think it is

 

[Soul4ger]

I got the issue yesterday. Seriously, is this magazine getting worse and worse with every installment? A ****ing Jack Thompson meter? Are they serious? Good thing those staff meetings everyday are going to so much ****ing good use. Maybe they should cut out the meetings and work on playing games, and reviewing them, so they don't have one guy doing three for three separate publications.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

LOL @ people hating on EGM because their hyped game doesnt get perfect 10s

I think EGM is fair, they use the whole 1-10, if its average its 5

why does it make people angry when they see low score in a game they are hyped about and havent even played it

Well if you had read the thread you would realize that alot of people here have played the game.

 

[momolicious]

the scores people are complaining about arent even Horrible as they are making it out to be~

the dead rising score means really good

okami score is amazing

disgaea score is good but more of the same

it realy makes sense

 

[Forceatowulf]

PS2
Okami - 9.0, 9.5, 9.0 Gold Award, GOTM

**** yeah!