• 22Aug 07

  GameSpot hates everyone

  So apparently, GameSpot hates just about everyone on the planet.

  At least, that's the impression one would get from browsing around article commentaries and forums.

  GameSpot posts a review of a Wii game, and the game DIDN'T get an 8.5. Therefore, GameSpot is biased against the Wii.

  GameSpot posts a review of a PS3/360 game, and the PS3 version scores a bit higher on account of some tech problems with the 360 version. Therefore, GameSpot is biased against Microsoft.

  GameSpot posts an article about how Sony has managed to get themselves in trouble yet again, either through idiotic marketing strategies or moronic comments. Therefore, GameSpot is biased against Sony.

  And most recently, I've read that since GameSpot doesn't post a video review with every PC game, they're biased against PC games.

  Somebody must be lying. They can't be biased against everyone in favour of someone else, because there IS no one else.

  So who's lying? Everyone.

  The developers didn't take the time to refine the controls and polish the game, so that Wii game deserves that 6.5.

  The 360 version of that game drops to single digit frame rates and freezes from time to time, so it deserves to be scored lower.

  Sony has made a lot of idiotic moves in the last year or so, so it's a bit hard to report anything else on them.

  PC games are often multiplatform, and receive a video review based on the console version (which is quite often identical to its PC counterpart). Further, not every game needs a video review. There are plenty of video clips and written reviews out there for you to peruse.

  Stop crying foul every time your beloved company isn't treated to perfection. They're not perfect. And when they're shown in a negative light, it's because they brought it on themselves.

  • Posted Aug 22, 2007 6:28 pm GMT
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 20Aug 07

  Elitist attitudes

  (This blog was written in a hurry after reading some idiotic comments, so there's a lot of complaining. Don't like? No one's making you read.)

  Breaking news: Jeff Gerstmann is an idiot.
  
  No, that's not me talking. That just seems to be the general consensus floating around the 360 forums after the review for Bioshock went up.
  
  Here's a nifty little quote I'd like to share:
  --------------------
  
  "To me, a 9 is just Jeff's way of being a fanboy elitist *****.
  
  Guess what Jeff, if you score games crappily to piss us off, then you've damn well suceeded..."
  
  ** Apparently, rating a game a 9 out of 10 is scoring it "crappily". 9 out of 10... 90%. That's an A+! Try telling someone with an A+ average they performed "crappily".
  
  And of course, there's no shortage of folks moaning, whining and complaining that it's not the score they disagree with (though 9 is still WAY too low!), it's the quality of the review. "Jeff is a crappy reviewer, he doesn't give a fair assessment, he doesn't play the game properly!"
  
  You don't think so? Then pay attention for a minute (assuming you have an attention span that long), and listen; there's a solution to that.
  
  It's a revolutionary invention called "user reviews". Don't like the review the site gave a game? Think you know your stuff better than them? Think the game deserves a perfect 10 (along with those other 14 games you've reviewed that are all 10s)?
  
  Post your own damn review. And to keep it sounding a bit more professional, try not to mention how much you hate Jeff. I know it may be difficult to get through a whole paragraph without using the words gay or 'sucks', or some method of death suggested for Jeff, but perseverance is your friend.

  Oh, and try not to call him fat. It doesn't affect his reviewing, it makes you sound like you're 10, and there's a good chance he'll eat you.

  Seriously, what the hell is up with this elitist attitude everyone seems to take on when their beloved game scores lower than they would like? It doesn't even have to be a BAD rating; anything less than perfection, and "GameSpot is biased against *insert name of company*!"

  It's not like this is the first time this has happened. Remember Twilight Princess? The dreaded 8.8? People were calling for an execution over the 0.2 they felt the game was robbed of. And of course, GameSpot was biased against Nintendo. They flopped Zelda; they wanted the Wii/GC to fail. Couldn't POSSIBLY be because the game had the occasional flaw.

  But how many of those people wishing death on Gerstmann took the time to write a carefully crafted user review? I would suggest... very few. After all, creating threads in the forum about how lousy the reviewer is at his job is time consuming work.

  You think your own, small opinion counts for more than another guy's? Write your own review among your crowd of friends (who no doubt all agree the game deserves a 10), where someone will give a rat's ass what you think.

  • Posted Aug 20, 2007 6:45 pm GMT
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 16Aug 07

  Attention video game industry: Knock off the knockoffs

  So I finally realized I had a blog space, and figured I'd use it. No one cares about blogs, but at the very least, they make decent bathroom reading.

  So if you feel the need to go number two, print it off, pull up a toilet and read.

  Does anyone else miss the good old days of gaming as much as I do? Back when a game didn't have to run at a steady 60 FPS without exception, and when you didn't have to see the minute detail of the cross-stitching on your character's clothes for it to be fun? Maybe I missed the memo, but at what point did it become unacceptable for a game to have anything less?
  
  I've been gaming for nearly 20 years. Over that time, I've seen games evolve from an 8-bit sprite of a plumber running to the right to character models so realistic, you'd swear you were watching it on TV. It's a given that the look of games would evolve over the years. But as appearance has evolved, one thing has lagged behind; originality.
  
  I know this argument is super-mondo old, so I'll give everyone a chance to stop reading here. I'm sure you know what I'm saying next.
  
  Now, for anyone still with me:
  
  What's the video game industry's obsession with First Person Shooters? The look may have changed, the guns may have changed, but essentially, they're Doom with a new setting. I'm sure some are thinking there's not much freedom within that genre to work with, but I disagree. Geist was original, and all because of one major gameplay mechanic; the ability to possess people, animals and objects. Unfortunately, the game's linear structure somewhat soured that freedom, but the idea was there.
  
  Original thinking can be done. So what's with all the World War 2 shooters? Call of Duty, Medal of Honour, Battlefield 1942... just to name a scant few. The setting may change, maybe some marginally improved teammate AI. But each game boils down to the same thing. And GTA: San Andreas? I played that twice already, when it was called GTA: 3 and GTA: Vice City.
  
  I can't help but roll my eyes when someone says every idea has been done. Not so. Pikmin was original. Super Monkey Ball was original. Animal Crossing was original. Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents was original. Maybe not all 100% original from scratch, but with enough original elements to make them feel like something you hadn't played before. So don't give me that line about how EVERYTHING is a knockoff of the first of its kind. That's a weak argument meant to justify stagnant thinking. "Everything is a knockoff of something, so there's no originality left". Bull. That doesn't excuse the 12th WW2 shooter, or next year's Madden (now with updated rosters and realistic sweat physics!).

  Think of games like movies; how often have you heard someone complain that part 4 of a series isn't as good as part 2 because they tread no new ground? Rehashing the same ideas in movies turns off viewers. So why not in video games?
  
  So why the lack of unique thinking? It's our own fault. We buy that 4th WW2 shooter, and that copy of Madden with a different year on it. We've sent the message that developers can get away with milking the same, tired formula time and time again and get away with it. We've become numb to redundancy; comfortable, even. And the reason for that is that generally, people fear change.
  
  Think I'm full of it? How many times was the DS called a gimmick? More importantly, WHY was it called a gimmick? Because it did something we weren't used to in a handheld: two screens, and a touch screen/stylus. Half the gaming population reviled the thing as soon as it was announced, predicting it would go the way of the dinosaur in no time. "The PSP... now THERE'S a handheld." A traditional handheld, yes. A gameplay screen and buttons. Which is perfectly fine if that's your thing, but I prefer the road less travelled that Nintendo took.
  
  And when change did happen, what did we get? Some pretty good stuff, actually. Quirky, more unique titles like Elite Beat Agents, Trauma Center and Phoenix Wright, which were far more interactive than anything else done on a handheld.
  
  Now Nintendo is on the right track with the Wii. The potential the system has is off the charts. Once developers learn to use it properly (and we do our part by encouraging unique thinking), we can be treated to new experiences.
  
  And one final shout to the folks crying "gimmick" and "fad": regardless of the system's longevity, it encourages change in thinking. And change is not only good, but necessary. Any business that doesn't change with the times dies out. And I'm not talking about a few extra frames per second, or a new roster in "generic sports game #243". I mean a fundamental change in thinking, so our decades-old hobby feels new again, and can entertain the next generation. Don't settle for "the usual". Demand "the unique", and don't hand over your hard-earned money until they give it to you. We work for our money; make them do the same.
  

  • Posted Aug 16, 2007 8:40 am GMT
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »