The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
All of us here buy games to play, and I would assume that all of us here read reviews or previews of the games we want to buy. If we didnít we could walk into a shop, pick up a game, look at the blurb and screenshots and think, "Hey, that looks pretty nifty, I think Iíll buy that" Weíll buy it, get home, play it and throw it away if itís rubbish.
This shows just how important reviews can be. They let you know how good the game is, tell you all about the features, list its good and bad points... They more or less tell you everything about the game, and the more or less tell you whether itís worth buying or not. Iím sure Iím not the only one here thatís bought a game on the basis of the hype and some reviews Iíve read about it. We trust the magazines or websites to tell us if a games worth a buy.
But thereís two well known sayings that comes in here, "Beauty is in the eye of the beerholderÖ" I mean beholder :-D and "One manís heaven is another mans hell..." Unless Jennifer Lopez is concernedÖ
Itís a well-known fact that somebodyís dream house will be another personís nightmare. Everyone has his or her own tastes. Indeed, thatís why some of us will be buying PS2ís, while others will be buying GameCubes. Thatís why some of us love coffee while others prefer tea. Everyone ahs their own individual likes and dislikes. And that is precisely why reviews canít be trusted... Much. But weíll come to that later.
Ones manís gaming hell, will be another manís gaming heaven. Itís as simple as that. One of them may love Black and White, while another may hate it. It all comes down to the personís tastes.
Iím sure weíve all experienced it at some point. A gameís been slated in a magazine but youíve played it somewhere and really enjoyed it. I know thatís happened to me. On many occasions.
Of course, itís not the reviewerís fault. Theyíre giving their *personal* opinion of the game. Theyíre writing the review from their feelings and opinions, which are most probably different to lots of other peoples. Thatís why you should nearly always not believe what you read about a game. Of course, if thereís a majority view from all the magazines and websites that one game is superb, then that is most likely going to be correct to most peopleís tastes. Not all obviously, but most.
Basically, you should always play a game before you make a decision to buy it. Thankgod for the idea of rentals! Unless thereís a majority view from a variety of different sources you really should play before you buy, otherwise you really canít be sure. And even if there IS a majority view, it canít always be trusted.
[Are trying to justify your unjustifiable liking of Clayfighter again?]
Ummm... No... :-D
Anyway, to use another clichÈ, the proof is always in the pudding.
RBS
This shows just how important reviews can be. They let you know how good the game is, tell you all about the features, list its good and bad points... They more or less tell you everything about the game, and the more or less tell you whether itís worth buying or not. Iím sure Iím not the only one here thatís bought a game on the basis of the hype and some reviews Iíve read about it. We trust the magazines or websites to tell us if a games worth a buy.
But thereís two well known sayings that comes in here, "Beauty is in the eye of the beerholderÖ" I mean beholder :-D and "One manís heaven is another mans hell..." Unless Jennifer Lopez is concernedÖ
Itís a well-known fact that somebodyís dream house will be another personís nightmare. Everyone has his or her own tastes. Indeed, thatís why some of us will be buying PS2ís, while others will be buying GameCubes. Thatís why some of us love coffee while others prefer tea. Everyone ahs their own individual likes and dislikes. And that is precisely why reviews canít be trusted... Much. But weíll come to that later.
Ones manís gaming hell, will be another manís gaming heaven. Itís as simple as that. One of them may love Black and White, while another may hate it. It all comes down to the personís tastes.
Iím sure weíve all experienced it at some point. A gameís been slated in a magazine but youíve played it somewhere and really enjoyed it. I know thatís happened to me. On many occasions.
Of course, itís not the reviewerís fault. Theyíre giving their *personal* opinion of the game. Theyíre writing the review from their feelings and opinions, which are most probably different to lots of other peoples. Thatís why you should nearly always not believe what you read about a game. Of course, if thereís a majority view from all the magazines and websites that one game is superb, then that is most likely going to be correct to most peopleís tastes. Not all obviously, but most.
Basically, you should always play a game before you make a decision to buy it. Thankgod for the idea of rentals! Unless thereís a majority view from a variety of different sources you really should play before you buy, otherwise you really canít be sure. And even if there IS a majority view, it canít always be trusted.
[Are trying to justify your unjustifiable liking of Clayfighter again?]
Ummm... No... :-D
Anyway, to use another clichÈ, the proof is always in the pudding.
RBS
Page:
Stryke wrote:
> Clayfighter ruled! You should all respect the fun of beating up piles of clay.
> And it was Nintendo. So its good.
:-P
I liked Clayfighter, although I'm ashamed to admit it... Uou should be too! Because you're me...
> Clayfighter ruled! You should all respect the fun of beating up piles of clay.
> And it was Nintendo. So its good.
:-P
I liked Clayfighter, although I'm ashamed to admit it... Uou should be too! Because you're me...
Clayfighter ruled! You should all respect the fun of beating up piles of clay. And it was Nintendo. So its good.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
Yeah that's fair enough, `i
> don't buy games very often either, I probably buy roughly 4 or 5 a YEAR. That's
> why I'm very careful with my choices. And that's why I like to know what I'm
> buying before I buy it. Magazines and websites are perfect to give a general
> idea, whether it's good or not, but to really decide whether I want the game, it
> will have to get a truly fanschmabulous score or I'll have to play it
> myself.
See?
Fair enough. But if the review is good, it'll tell you exactly *why* the reviewer gave it that score.
Say it's an FPS, it could only get a score of 70, say. You'd think that this wasn't as good as others out there.
However if upon reading the review, you read:
"The game is marked down for poor graphics. However, if you have a low spec PC, this game is ideal."
If you had a low spec PC, or weren't too bothered about the graphics, then you'd probably buy this game.
See?
Yeah that's fair enough, `i
> don't buy games very often either, I probably buy roughly 4 or 5 a YEAR. That's
> why I'm very careful with my choices. And that's why I like to know what I'm
> buying before I buy it. Magazines and websites are perfect to give a general
> idea, whether it's good or not, but to really decide whether I want the game, it
> will have to get a truly fanschmabulous score or I'll have to play it
> myself.
See?
Fair enough. But if the review is good, it'll tell you exactly *why* the reviewer gave it that score.
Say it's an FPS, it could only get a score of 70, say. You'd think that this wasn't as good as others out there.
However if upon reading the review, you read:
"The game is marked down for poor graphics. However, if you have a low spec PC, this game is ideal."
If you had a low spec PC, or weren't too bothered about the graphics, then you'd probably buy this game.
See?
Your Honour wrote:
IF the
> magazine is any good, a mid-eighties/low ninties score will mean the games is
> fantastic!
Think about it, an average game should get an anverga score, which
> is 50%. If all mediocre games get 80%, good games get low 90's, what the hell
> happnes when a trule fantastic game comes along?
That's why I like PCZone, in
> the last 18months, they've scored only about 9 games with 90%+. Those games
> inlcuded B&W, Max PAyne and Operation Flashpoint.
I don't buy games very
> often, not even 1 a month. So if I'm reading PCZone, and there's a game that
> Iv'e been interested in, and it's got 89%, then I know it's going to be damn
> good, so I buy it.
See?
Yeah that's fair enough, `i don't buy games very often either, I probably buy roughly 4 or 5 a YEAR. That's why I'm very careful with my choices. And that's why I like to know what I'm buying before I buy it. Magazines and websites are perfect to give a general idea, whether it's good or not, but to really decide whether I want the game, it will have to get a truly fanschmabulous score or I'll have to play it myself.
See?
IF the
> magazine is any good, a mid-eighties/low ninties score will mean the games is
> fantastic!
Think about it, an average game should get an anverga score, which
> is 50%. If all mediocre games get 80%, good games get low 90's, what the hell
> happnes when a trule fantastic game comes along?
That's why I like PCZone, in
> the last 18months, they've scored only about 9 games with 90%+. Those games
> inlcuded B&W, Max PAyne and Operation Flashpoint.
I don't buy games very
> often, not even 1 a month. So if I'm reading PCZone, and there's a game that
> Iv'e been interested in, and it's got 89%, then I know it's going to be damn
> good, so I buy it.
See?
Yeah that's fair enough, `i don't buy games very often either, I probably buy roughly 4 or 5 a YEAR. That's why I'm very careful with my choices. And that's why I like to know what I'm buying before I buy it. Magazines and websites are perfect to give a general idea, whether it's good or not, but to really decide whether I want the game, it will have to get a truly fanschmabulous score or I'll have to play it myself.
See?
RastaBillySkank wrote:
Yeah, that's fair enough if
> they've got a brilliant score. I'm talking about the more iffy scores, the mid
> eighties to low nineties... That's when things get a bit more difficult...
IF the magazine is any good, a mid-eighties/low ninties score will mean the games is fantastic!
Think about it, an average game should get an anverga score, which is 50%. If all mediocre games get 80%, good games get low 90's, what the hell happnes when a trule fantastic game comes along?
That's why I like PCZone, in the last 18months, they've scored only about 9 games with 90%+. Those games inlcuded B&W, Max PAyne and Operation Flashpoint.
I don't buy games very often, not even 1 a month. So if I'm reading PCZone, and there's a game that Iv'e been interested in, and it's got 89%, then I know it's going to be damn good, so I buy it.
See?
Yeah, that's fair enough if
> they've got a brilliant score. I'm talking about the more iffy scores, the mid
> eighties to low nineties... That's when things get a bit more difficult...
IF the magazine is any good, a mid-eighties/low ninties score will mean the games is fantastic!
Think about it, an average game should get an anverga score, which is 50%. If all mediocre games get 80%, good games get low 90's, what the hell happnes when a trule fantastic game comes along?
That's why I like PCZone, in the last 18months, they've scored only about 9 games with 90%+. Those games inlcuded B&W, Max PAyne and Operation Flashpoint.
I don't buy games very often, not even 1 a month. So if I'm reading PCZone, and there's a game that Iv'e been interested in, and it's got 89%, then I know it's going to be damn good, so I buy it.
See?
Your Honour wrote:
All 5 of my PS2 games I
> got without trying them first, just on the basis of reviews, which are
> essentially other peoples opinions. And all 5 of my games are fantastic....
Yeah, that's fair enough if they've got a brilliant score. I'm talking about the more iffy scores, the mid eighties to low nineties... That's when things get a bit more difficult...
All 5 of my PS2 games I
> got without trying them first, just on the basis of reviews, which are
> essentially other peoples opinions. And all 5 of my games are fantastic....
Yeah, that's fair enough if they've got a brilliant score. I'm talking about the more iffy scores, the mid eighties to low nineties... That's when things get a bit more difficult...
IMHO, that's a bunch of poo.
I hardly ever try games before I buy them. I go completely by reviews, and I've never had a duff game yet.
The best bet is when you get a new console, buy a couple different magazines, read them all from cover to cover, and base your opinions from that.
I bought Amiga Power, still buy PCZone, bought Offical DC Mag and I buy Official PS2 mag.
Why?
Because I agree with the reviewers. If that magazine gives a game 9 out of 10, then I know (if I like the genre) that I'll like that particular game.
I'd never buy a football management game even if it got 100%, simply becuase I don't like that genre. However, if a drving game gets 8 out of 10, chances are I'll like it, as it's more my kind of game. So, if I 've got enough money, I may well buy it, without trying it first.
All 5 of my PS2 games I got without trying them first, just on the basis of reviews, which are essentially other peoples opinions. And all 5 of my games are fantastic....
I hardly ever try games before I buy them. I go completely by reviews, and I've never had a duff game yet.
The best bet is when you get a new console, buy a couple different magazines, read them all from cover to cover, and base your opinions from that.
I bought Amiga Power, still buy PCZone, bought Offical DC Mag and I buy Official PS2 mag.
Why?
Because I agree with the reviewers. If that magazine gives a game 9 out of 10, then I know (if I like the genre) that I'll like that particular game.
I'd never buy a football management game even if it got 100%, simply becuase I don't like that genre. However, if a drving game gets 8 out of 10, chances are I'll like it, as it's more my kind of game. So, if I 've got enough money, I may well buy it, without trying it first.
All 5 of my PS2 games I got without trying them first, just on the basis of reviews, which are essentially other peoples opinions. And all 5 of my games are fantastic....
RastaBillySkank wrote:
> Armitage Shanks wrote:
>rmemerb
A new word I see... :-D
Oi! you cheeky blighter! :)
Yeah that pretty much seems it. Of course, the shops
> have the new consoles but they only allow 1 game to be played!
They let you play the game? ... I generally find they have remeved the joypads and just let you see the title screen and (if your lucky) the game demo run...
> Armitage Shanks wrote:
>rmemerb
A new word I see... :-D
Oi! you cheeky blighter! :)
Yeah that pretty much seems it. Of course, the shops
> have the new consoles but they only allow 1 game to be played!
They let you play the game? ... I generally find they have remeved the joypads and just let you see the title screen and (if your lucky) the game demo run...
Armitage Shanks wrote:
>rmemerb
A new word I see... :-D
It seemes shops were less willing to have ques
> of teenagers trying to play the lastest game for free?
Yeah that pretty much seems it. Of course, the shops have the new consoles but they only allow 1 game to be played!
>rmemerb
A new word I see... :-D
It seemes shops were less willing to have ques
> of teenagers trying to play the lastest game for free?
Yeah that pretty much seems it. Of course, the shops have the new consoles but they only allow 1 game to be played!
I rmemerb in the eighties, trying a game before you bought was almost standard practice...
Even places like boots used to have a row of computers (a speccy, CBM, Amstrad, BBC, etc...) which, although intending to show people the computer before they bought them, were largly used to try games before you decided (normally) not to buy them after all :)
Though, when the 16bit machines came into vogue... shops seemed less included to allow people to try before they bought, despite allowing people to play titles without having to wait five minutes for the game to load?
It seemes shops were less willing to have ques of teenagers trying to play the lastest game for free?
Even places like boots used to have a row of computers (a speccy, CBM, Amstrad, BBC, etc...) which, although intending to show people the computer before they bought them, were largly used to try games before you decided (normally) not to buy them after all :)
Though, when the 16bit machines came into vogue... shops seemed less included to allow people to try before they bought, despite allowing people to play titles without having to wait five minutes for the game to load?
It seemes shops were less willing to have ques of teenagers trying to play the lastest game for free?
Page: