Politics in gaming don't bother me. Sites pile Polygon and Kotaku.com had some interesting articles. I just hate how they pretended to care about gamergate and their article on it. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another to be fake about it.
Yeah sorry that I don't think gaming journalism of all things is something worth screaming at people online over. I don't read articles to see what some whiny liberal says about them, I just read them to look at the games and what's in them. If I actually legitimately gave a shit about the quality of the review I wouldn't have read things like GameInformer years back.
Do consider that gamergate was targeting them as examples of awful journalism because of the whole Zoe Quinn shit. Bad journalism has been a thing for years though, Kotaku and Polygon haven't been doing thing that sites like Gamespot, IGN, GameTrailers, and so on haven't been doing for years, yet it only got flak because of the political opinions of it's writers and some of the (admittedly fucking moronic) articles people like Patricia Hernandez would post.
Plus like who cares? I don't really think it's all that bad that the guy was bad at the game or something. I don't get on to my mother for not being good at games like PSO2, Mega Man Zero, and so on. While some criticism can be dismissed depending on whether or not they were playing the game wrong (IE complaining about weight limits in games like Armored Core while using very light legs that can't lift anything, and incredibly heavy weapons), someone's review is not totally worthless or the reviewer themselves stupid just because they weren't good at the game. I think people care way too much about this and use it more as an excuse to shit on reviewers. Take the Polygon Doom footage for example.
You shouldn't attempt to show the gameplay of a game if you can't play the game. It's like being a guitar player and make hundreds of mistakes while playing Stairway to heaven and then justify yourself that you don't play those songs. Either practice or let someone else more capable do it.
Sure thing buddy.
Not knowing the game and not knowing how to play games are entirely different. The former can be fixed by playing through enough of the game prior to review so you can have a justified experience. The latter really can only be fixed by experience. Watching people that can hardly aim a gun play first person shooters or people that struggle through tutorials shouldn't be allowed to review IMO. It detracts from the overall opinion. Then you've got IGN...
To be perfectly honest, they are hosting the ROM's CONTENTS, so while not ROM itself, it is at least part of it along with the patcher...
I disagree. I'm not good at games like Starcraft 2, but I think I could do a proper review of the game, and it's mechanics, and I could reasonably explain why I find the game unappealing. Also, what about buggy, laggy, or just flat out poorly designed tutorials? If they don't get through them well, should they still review it?
If the game is bad or has some issues, that's one thing. When I watch you fail a double jump due to poor timing or movement, and then turn around and blame it on the game? I have to question you. I'd be willing to bet your skills in SC2 would be more than enough to best a fair chunk of these paid reviewers.
Not really. I can't really manage base defenses for shit in the game or know how to counter anything, despite being the world's biggest turtle in C&C Generals and Zero-K. Controversial as it may be to hold such a point, and as unintended of an outcome as it might be, I personally welcome awful skill in reviews, because it demonstrates how easy it is for someone with no experience or very, very little in the genre/game to pick it up and learn far better than a paragraph about it's simplicity ever could. I think people are too harsh on the reviewer and on reviews with lack of skill, and don't look at the bigger picture and how harmless they really are.
That's a fair point, but I've seen reviews where points are taken off due to the 'player' misunderstanding simple concept. Let me rephrase.. I think a reviewer should be competent in their reviews and skills. They don't have to be "pro" level by any means.. They just have to have played games before and understand what they're looking at.
I disagree to a certain extent, and agree to another. Lemme elaborate.
That's the takeaway. It's all opinions. Mine is that I tend to ignore most reviews as I prefer to gain opinion by playing it myself. I don't mind reviews. I guess I just expect an odd standard when it comes to them.
@
RedColoredStars:
@
SylverReZ:
