Indra was here (20745) on 10/4/2010 7:33 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start חד-קרן·山猫 wrote--]Also, professional reviewers are only human. They haven't played everything.

Isn't it your obligation as a professional reviewer to have - perhaps not played everything, but at least heard of everything connected to the game you review?

I find most professional reviewers disastrously lacking in knowledge. [/Q --end חד-קרן·山猫 wrote--] We really should have a thread that highlights professional reviews that are actually good.

Sicarius (61513) on 10/4/2010 11:25 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

Well "everything" is a bit too much but yes, its important to have knowledge you can throw around even if you never touched that particular game yourself. It's even one of the ways to differentate between good and bad ones. A good one can fake-talk his way through a normal conversation about a particular game without the other guy ever knowing that he's never really played it.

Having said that: It's equally important to give the reader a comparison he actually has heard something about or even played himself. It's nice if I know that feature A was already present in that one obscure game from 1979 for a system only 100 people ever owned and I can certainly mention it to show that I know it but it won't help the text as much as if I take a hugly popular game from the last 5 to 10 years that picked feature A up again and made it accessiable to the masses as a point of comparison. It may be unfair to the older game but if you have also give credit to the newer title: Without Max Payne, the market wouldn't have been flooded with bullet time. And its the same with GoW. The curse came after it - not before, even though the mechanic was already "known".

My point being: You know that feature A was there and probably even played that game on its original system. But always remember: We're here at MobyGames are a special kind of people and we're not the only ones reading (or writing) those reviews ;).

Zovni (10502) on 10/4/2010 11:46 PM · Permalink · Report

Well the thing is the "professional reviewer" is a mythical creature, at least at this moment in time. Videogames don't have the credibility to attract serious enough critiques as it is, nor to warrant someone with actual journalistic training, integrity and a thorough understanding of the subject matter and the medium. Thus professional reviewers for the most part are just people who like videogames first and know how to write second, and had the fortune to get into the biz.

In realtity they are like most of us in their ner-sightedness and fanboyism, so let's cut them some slack guys.

Late (77) on 10/6/2010 1:36 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

The only professional review of GoW I've read made no mention of 'innovation' in respect to gameplay - perhaps because what other games are like is not really relevant when reviewing a particular game. It basically stated that the graphics are really good (they were at the time) and the gameplay gets pretty boring after a while. I consider that to be quite accurate.

EDIT: Feel free to call me a liar. I dug up the issue of Pelit from 12/2006 and there actually is one sentence in the 2,5-page review mentioning innovation regarding gameplay: "Disregarding the fact that the same was seen in the latest Ghost Recon, the simple combat system feels ingeniously innovative in the beginning." (my translation). Then it goes on to explain how the system sucks.

Starbuck the Third (22596) on 10/3/2010 9:23 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q]Yeah, it's not a bad game by any means. And I never said that. Although I do think it's highly overrated. I found it boring after not so long. [/Q --end Simoneer wrote--]

I wouldnt say Its boring, purely because it's one of the few games i've completed more than once or twice on single player. Highly overated.... maybe. like many things, it kind of depends on who you ask. I personally don't think so. I consider it to be one of the most refreshing games for a while, purely because it is bloody and gorey in an increasingly politicly correct world. And it is also a decent game. Few games i think are both refreshing AND good AND not very PC.

Adzuken (836) on 10/3/2010 9:32 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Simoneer wrote--] I suppose you're right, although I think Gears of War is a tad bit too new to start discussing how influential it was within the genre. It does deserve SOME credit, though, indeed; there are some games inspired by Gears of War out now, like Vanquish. [/Q --end Simoneer wrote--] Gears of War came out four years ago. It's practically ancient. And it didn't just influence a few games, it influenced an entire generation of games. Stop-n-pop games are everywhere these days, and there's a good chance that this wouldn't have happened without Gears of War. Now we have games like Uncharted, Mass Effect, Kane and Lynch, Rainbow Six: Vegas, and even Mafia 2 all employing a sticky, health regenerative, cover-based combat system. It's getting to be even more common than the first-person perspective.

[Q --start Simoneer wrote--] Also, indeed, they are only human. But if they get paid and all that, and have their texts published in magazines that will be around for ages, they can at least do their freakin' research. That, and you'd think people who are so into games that they write about them for a living would know more than the average person. [/Q --end Simoneer wrote--] Just because they get paid, doesn't mean they're all-knowing. A lot of them are likely hired more because of their writing talent and charisma than their enthusiasm for video games. Even still, they're constantly under pressure by deadlines, relentlessly assaulted by PR departments as well as their own readers, and forced to scour every aspect of new releases. It isn't as easy as a lot of people seem to think and mistakes are easy to make.

Simoneer (29) on 10/5/2010 10:59 AM · Permalink · Report

I care. It's about justice. :P