So I've been very close to buying a 3DS for a few weeks now. I noticed how many quality titles came out for the DS when compared to the Wii, and it seems to be very in favor of the DS. It seems that the 3DS is picking up some serious steam now and has me thinking that the portable device in the end offers more than the Wii U ever will. Obviously the Wii U has barely been out, but I'm just speculating with the comparison of DS vs. Wii titles. So, my questions are:

3DS or 3DSxl? I know the resolution isnt adjusted for the larger screen size found on the 3DSxl, but does it make much of a difference?

I'll probably get Kid Icarus, RE Revelations, mario kart and mario land to start. Are there any solid RPGs coming out? (similar to FF, not into strategy games like Fire Emblem)

Do you think the DS served you better overall with gaming experiences than the Wii, and do you see the 3DS likely doing the same over the Wii U?

Thanks!

So I've been very close to buying a 3DS for a few weeks now. I noticed how many quality titles came out for the DS when compared to the Wii, and it seems to be very in favor of the DS. It seems that the 3DS is picking up some serious steam now and has me thinking that the portable device in the end offers more than the Wii U ever will. Obviously the Wii U has barely been out, but I'm just speculating with the comparison of DS vs. Wii titles. So, my questions are:

3DS or 3DSxl? I know the resolution isnt adjusted for the larger screen size found on the 3DSxl, but does it make much of a difference?

I'll probably get Kid Icarus, RE Revelations, mario kart and mario land to start. Are there any solid RPGs coming out? (similar to FF, not into strategy games like Fire Emblem)

Do you think the DS served you better overall with gaming experiences than the Wii, and do you see the 3DS likely doing the same over the Wii U?

Thanks!

[QUOTE="kgb1234"]

[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]

Remember how the site was covered in Duke Dukem ads? Remember how it scored 3.0? Clearly it doesn't happen all the time.

UnrealLegend

Clearly your taking one game out of the hundreds of thousands that have been reviewed. If you read the comments you would know that what I'm saying isn't 100% fool proof, and just so you know, on other review sites they actually gave that game positive reviews. The fact is that we need to separate the potential influence a publisher might have on a website, and if you can't agree or see my point on that, then you might as well be a troll for acitivision in a forum

Well, I think almost every one of GameSpot's reviews have been accurate, so you won't be convincing me otherwise.

to each their own

Everyone should make their own decisions and just use the reviews as a reference. you specifically mention activision so I take it you don't like the COD reviewGunSmith1_basic

No, i used activision as an example. Every publisher has the ablility to influence a reviewer, it's like the wild west! there's no rules to do such a thing. There's no way people have the time to decide on their own in the way that people live these days. They want something to trust and save time on, so they look at what the reviewers say. So I'm saying that given the market there is today, find a way to stop publishers from influencing reviewers on their reviews. just type it in on google if you really can;t see where im coming from.

And seriously, why is someone so argumentative?? why can't someone see where im coming from and just accept that this is normal practice in the video game industry? are you so easily naive to just accept that what you see is the truth? can you not swallow your pride and understand that a lot of what you see on these sites has you treated like a fool? come on

[QUOTE="kgb1234"]

[QUOTE="Cloud_765"]Sonic Generations, heavily advertized, gets an 8. Pokemon Black/White, heavily advertized, gets a 7.5. That's GameSpot, I'm just saying that I find reviewers BS in general. The only person whose opinion I 100% agree with is me. Which is why if I'm going to trust anyone's word on whether a game is good or not, it'll be mine. Cloud_765

Good for you, but there's another 6 billion out there that may not have the time to subject themselves to reading or watching a review. They may only have time to judge a game based on its score. You think by pointing out certain games that had many advertisments that your making a point? This is about separating the potential influence a publisher might have on a reviewer, it doesn't mean that it's 100% fool proof. The fact is that they should be separated. For the sake of arguing, please consider my point as a consumer and your support towards defending the publisher. thanks

Prove it buddy. And prove that games which score high scores right now deserve that score over other games. You know what?? you cant prove it, and neither can I. The only thing we can hope to see is a regulatory standard where publishers are not allowed to influence scores on a reviewer, just like any other book, music or movie review you see. hope you can see where im coming from.

Remember how the site was covered in Duke Dukem ads? Remember how it scored 3.0? Clearly it doesn't happen all the time.

UnrealLegend

Clearly your taking one game out of the hundreds of thousands that have been reviewed. If you read the comments you would know that what I'm saying isn't 100% fool proof, and just so you know, on other review sites they actually gave that game positive reviews. The fact is that we need to separate the potential influence a publisher might have on a website, and if you can't agree or see my point on that, then you might as well be a troll for acitivision in a forum

[QUOTE="kgb1234"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

There's obviously a conflict of interests that can lead to publishers influencing the reviews put out by these commercial game sites, but it's not necessarily the case always. I mean, there's only so much BS you can spew about how great a game, that people have and will play, without completely destroying your credibility. I'm sure there is a factor, but it isn't like they take a horrible game and give it a great review. More like a horrible game may get a bad review, a bad game becomes mediocre, and so on.

Pug-Nasty

Yah, but don't you think that there should be a way to filter this? There are centralized establishments for music, movies and books. Why hasn't this happened in vdeo games yet? obviously video game reviews mean a lot to the publisher otherwise they wouldn't be spending so much money on advertising on each website. So why isn't there a way to know that you can trust a video game website's review??? As you may have heard of, Jeff Gerstmann was kicked out of Gamespot because he didn't give a positive review to a video game that Gamespot was advertising. Therefore they created Giant Bomb which has little to no publisher influence on their reviews. Sorry I'm speaking up but there is an increasing ignorance on how these reviews are influenced and if no one says anythign we will all be buying into something that is established as good because of dollar signs and not content.

I'm not sure what you mean by "centralized establishments." I mean, you've got some websites that are independently operated and are likely not influenced. The flip side of that is that those sites may not get the same access as the larger, commercially operated sites. Additionally, if you want an honest game review, you should probably check out reviews on mainstream news sites. Mainstream news outlets have reputations of integrity to protect, and real news is closely monitored by outside watchdog groups.

Im saying that if there were a federal establishment watching what influences are put onto a reviewer, knowing that reviewers can obviously be influenced, this would benefit the industry. Look it up if you want but its actually been considered by the USA a few years ago. And just so you know, because a mainstream news outet has more things watching it, that doesnt justify its potential to have bias on video games. It still falls into the same issues as any other video game website, sorry.

[QUOTE="kgb1234"]

[QUOTE="super600"]

So you talking about something like this that influences the buying process for games.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-review-event-press-gifts-detailed.ars

super600

Exaclty. Thank you. I just wish that there were more gamers who would take notice of these influences and cause an uproar to change the way that the video game medium is being discussed.

I agree. I don't like when publishers do stuff like that. To stop this from happening we have to spread your message.

thank you very much for understanding my point. However, this point is as much as yours as it is mine, and its the ignorance that general consumers have about what they purchase that stifles awareness of the practices that are ongoing in the video game market.

Sonic Generations, heavily advertized, gets an 8. Pokemon Black/White, heavily advertized, gets a 7.5. That's GameSpot, I'm just saying that I find reviewers BS in general. The only person whose opinion I 100% agree with is me. Which is why if I'm going to trust anyone's word on whether a game is good or not, it'll be mine. Cloud_765

Good for you, but there's another 6 billion out there that may not have the time to subject themselves to reading or watching a review. They may only have time to judge a game based on its score. You think by pointing out certain games that had many advertisments that your making a point? This is about separating the potential influence a publisher might have on a reviewer, it doesn't mean that it's 100% fool proof. The fact is that they should be separated. For the sake of arguing, please consider my point as a consumer and your support towards defending the publisher. thanks

[QUOTE="kgb1234"]

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

As for sponsorship though, I'd agree, but I really don't take scores too seriously anyway - they pretty much never influence my decision to buy games (I preordered this one months ago).

Having said that, even if they are little more than one person's (potentially biased) opinions on a game, it's still a decent sign when the majority of review sites aren't noticing major problems like "the game is three hours long" or "the game crashes every so often, but...".

Planeforger

the second you say "I" in your perception of sponsorship your analysing this problem in an anectodal manner. Consider it in an objective way and you might figure out what im trying to get at.

Oh I understand what you're getting at, I was just saying how little I cared.
Player reviews are often more valuable than website reviews; you can't trust corporate-sponsored websites; etc etc...the bias really doesn't matter to me on a personal level; I make up my own mind about games, and am usually pretty good about reading between the lines.

I don't really have anything to say one way or another on how factually accurate the bias may be. If it's there, then it's endemic to this form of entertainment and...that's just the way it is. So take reviews with a grain of salt and move on.

As for the Gerstmann thing, I just assumed that he left for constantly giving unprofessional reviews, and for being painfully unfunny. I wasn't sorry to see him go.

Anyway, if we are to assume that the review is corrupt and untrustworthy, then at least it might encourage the mindless horde of gamers-who-can't-make-up-their-own-minds to buy a game that genuinely looks quite fun. I've got no problem with it, in this case.

The fact is that things won't change until there is enough of an issue to make it do so. Im sorry but most people dont look at user reviews, they look at video game wesbsites because they are perceived to have the knowledge and trust to judge these sorts of things so that the buyer can make a proper purchase. However, this is completely jaded as you can see in every gaming website advertising for a game. its impossible to distinguish between a reliable review for a video game online and a fake one.