Yeah... Feels super weird. Like visiting your old high school or something. Everything/everyone has changed and you don't know where stuff is anymore. :$ Exactly, I don't know these new editors and personalities. I always liked Giancarlo, VanOrd, Tom McShea though. These forums, with the signatures, I moved on from all that.
[QUOTE="digi_matrix"]First time back here on Gamespot since Giantbomb happened. I feel weird. AllanIceman
digi_matrix's forum posts
That was a brilliant response. I think after reading this "100 lamest game-industry cliche phrases", it makes a lot more sense to me. Game writers don't have as sophisticated a vocabulary. "Hopefully that'll be fixed before the game ships - It won't be, and whatever it is you're complaining about will be the crux of the game's critical and commercial failure." Every time I see that phrase on a preview/hands-on I cringe. They might as well say Im going to deduct some magor points for that when I review the game. They always, always do that in every preview I've read. "I hope the game isn't mindblowing awesome, so I can complain a little here..." is like what they're trying to say.
[QUOTE="digi_matrix"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]I think it's because game is much easier to divide into pieces than a movie - gameplay, graphics, sound, multiplayer, etc - so the reviewer will often blow through those sections, add a comparison to similar games or a prequel, and call it a day. I'd love to see more esoteric reviews, but at the same time I don't know if we really have the right kind of personalities to make those sort of reviews useful. I love Ebert's movie reviews, for example, but not because I agree with him - because I've read enough of his stuff that I know where he's coming from and I can get a sense of the movie, whether I would enjoy it, and a good read at the same time. I think we're a ways off that in game journalism, and people have gotten too used to the structured review and numerical score. Even if I'd rather have a much more personal review and a brief 'it sucks, it's okay, it's good, it's awesome' rating at the top. Oh well.Blissmemberment
Whenever a triple A game's reviews come out, they all sound the same. Like Fox News. Everyone sounds like a parrot.
Is this because critics focus on the game as if it's a toy/product, vs its artistic merit? What's good about the game, what's bad about it, bullet points. Is this the fault of using review scales, like 1-10?
This doesn't make sense, compared to film reviews, because playing a game is surely a more subjective experience than viewing a movie.
Are they all paid for? Or are only the highest rated reviews let out first, like Game Informer?
Some more gameplay at the end.
Far exceeded my expectations.
Login to their new website to see some additional gameplay of the "down-not-dead system", more weapons, and scenarios. Bikers!
What does this piece of art speak to you?
Log in to comment