The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I've got to admit that some of the reviews I do for Special Reserve, or other certain sites, are slightly affected by the fact that I happen to like SR so I'll occaisionally beef up aspects of the game I'm reviewing in the hope that this will generate more sales for them.
But in essence, I'm ALWAYS trying to ensure that MY view of the game is the one that gets across. This is probably why I'll never post a review of The Getaway, because it could only damage sales if I posted my unusual views of that particular product. (It's naff, it really is, anyone who says it's a 9/10 game is undergoing the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome, i.e. it's great because all my mates think it's great).
There's a lot of factors that we consider when buying a game:
Is it the genre we like? We check the back of the box and yes, great, it says RPG so we should be OK.
Have we played a demo? If we're lucky, yes, we've had a quick play around on a level either via demo disc or instore to see if we enjoy that kind of gameplay.
Can we afford it? When it comes to the crunch, most gamers make sure they've got enough money before buying any title. Whether you save up specifically for one that you want or whether you just save up till you've got £40 then hunt around for a good one is up to personal preference.
Is it any good? Well, this is where reviews come into play. There is no way on earth that you can use your experience, knowledge of the developer, guesswork and sheer luck to hope that you're buying a good game. You HAVE to research it, you HAVE to take on board a lot of opinions from different places, and this is where the trouble begins.
But I've started questioning the review system, not just on websites but in magazines too. Just WHO'S opinion are you getting when you read these things? That of the reviewer? That of the editorial team? That of someone else entirely because the review has been cobbled together from lots of other opinions? And is the review itself affected by other factors, like the fact that it appears on a website that also happens to be selling that game, or the fact that the person posting the review is only after a reward?
Take the 'unofficial' console magazines, even the multi-format ones. It's common knowledge that publishers will often deliver a review copy of a game along with a few goodies just for 'merchandising purposes'. Then, of course, they send along little 'gifts' around Christmas to thank the editorial staff for their kind words over the previous year, and perhaps if the gift is large enough or contains a high percentage of alcohol, they're ensuring the kind words will continue the following year despite the quality of the games that are being reviewed. I'm not saying magazine reviews are scoring the way they do based on the size of their kickbacks, but can you truly tell which ones are the good ones?
It's tricky asking mates at school what they think of games, because social bonding is in effect; if the most popular guy in your school thinks that Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance is naff then the chances are half the opinions you get from other mates are going to be the same, despite what they really think.
It would have been impossible for me to get opinions on Kingdom Hearts before I bought it because I would have got strange looks in the pub whilst the conversation quickly turned back to whether Bristol Rovers would manage to stay in their Division this year.
So you've got to be a bit of a Sly Raccoonus when it comes to gathering opinions. (Did I mention that I've got a Sly Raccoonus coffee mug in front of me because the developers sent me a goodie bag yesterday?). Get my drift now?
I find that the only good way of doing this is surfing the Chatforums here. Because, for some inexplicable reason, it's only here that you can pick up clues, often subtle ones, as to how good a game really is. Take Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I've got it, and I'll tell you now quite honestly that it's a great game, if you've got a PS2 you really need to get this game if you haven't already. But the Chatforums are a dead giveaway too, because of the simple fact that they had to devote an entire seperate forum to the topic. Other hints are the fact that the topic crops up in nearly every other forum here at least once a day. And the fact that people are still reviewing it long after it was released. And the fact that dedicated fansite links are also starting to crop up.
If a game gets that much attention, then generally you don't need to read reviews to get the point.
But in essence, I'm ALWAYS trying to ensure that MY view of the game is the one that gets across. This is probably why I'll never post a review of The Getaway, because it could only damage sales if I posted my unusual views of that particular product. (It's naff, it really is, anyone who says it's a 9/10 game is undergoing the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome, i.e. it's great because all my mates think it's great).
There's a lot of factors that we consider when buying a game:
Is it the genre we like? We check the back of the box and yes, great, it says RPG so we should be OK.
Have we played a demo? If we're lucky, yes, we've had a quick play around on a level either via demo disc or instore to see if we enjoy that kind of gameplay.
Can we afford it? When it comes to the crunch, most gamers make sure they've got enough money before buying any title. Whether you save up specifically for one that you want or whether you just save up till you've got £40 then hunt around for a good one is up to personal preference.
Is it any good? Well, this is where reviews come into play. There is no way on earth that you can use your experience, knowledge of the developer, guesswork and sheer luck to hope that you're buying a good game. You HAVE to research it, you HAVE to take on board a lot of opinions from different places, and this is where the trouble begins.
But I've started questioning the review system, not just on websites but in magazines too. Just WHO'S opinion are you getting when you read these things? That of the reviewer? That of the editorial team? That of someone else entirely because the review has been cobbled together from lots of other opinions? And is the review itself affected by other factors, like the fact that it appears on a website that also happens to be selling that game, or the fact that the person posting the review is only after a reward?
Take the 'unofficial' console magazines, even the multi-format ones. It's common knowledge that publishers will often deliver a review copy of a game along with a few goodies just for 'merchandising purposes'. Then, of course, they send along little 'gifts' around Christmas to thank the editorial staff for their kind words over the previous year, and perhaps if the gift is large enough or contains a high percentage of alcohol, they're ensuring the kind words will continue the following year despite the quality of the games that are being reviewed. I'm not saying magazine reviews are scoring the way they do based on the size of their kickbacks, but can you truly tell which ones are the good ones?
It's tricky asking mates at school what they think of games, because social bonding is in effect; if the most popular guy in your school thinks that Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance is naff then the chances are half the opinions you get from other mates are going to be the same, despite what they really think.
It would have been impossible for me to get opinions on Kingdom Hearts before I bought it because I would have got strange looks in the pub whilst the conversation quickly turned back to whether Bristol Rovers would manage to stay in their Division this year.
So you've got to be a bit of a Sly Raccoonus when it comes to gathering opinions. (Did I mention that I've got a Sly Raccoonus coffee mug in front of me because the developers sent me a goodie bag yesterday?). Get my drift now?
I find that the only good way of doing this is surfing the Chatforums here. Because, for some inexplicable reason, it's only here that you can pick up clues, often subtle ones, as to how good a game really is. Take Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I've got it, and I'll tell you now quite honestly that it's a great game, if you've got a PS2 you really need to get this game if you haven't already. But the Chatforums are a dead giveaway too, because of the simple fact that they had to devote an entire seperate forum to the topic. Other hints are the fact that the topic crops up in nearly every other forum here at least once a day. And the fact that people are still reviewing it long after it was released. And the fact that dedicated fansite links are also starting to crop up.
If a game gets that much attention, then generally you don't need to read reviews to get the point.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> But in essence, I'm ALWAYS trying to ensure that MY view of the game
> is the one that gets across. This is probably why I'll never post a
> review of The Getaway, because it could only damage sales if I posted
> my unusual views of that particular product. (It's naff, it really
> is, anyone who says it's a 9/10 game is undergoing the Emperor's New
> Clothes Syndrome, i.e. it's great because all my mates think it's
> great).
I agree 101%.
I keep looking at the reviews of The Getaway on here and people are continually giving it 8s, 9s, and 10's out of 10, despite it being utter crap.
I was lucky enough to win it on GAD, but if I hadn't of won it and bought it instead after reading all thoses glowing reviews with the 10/10 scores, I would have thought it was the classic it was hyped up to be. I'd therefore be highly annoyed when I found I'd wasted money on the worst game of 2002. What's wrong with those reviewers? Can't they see it's a bad game, or have they been blinded by the Sony hype? Or do they think that giving it a low score would somehow lower their chances of the review winning a prize?
I think I gave The Getaway about 4 or 5 out of 10. I should have given it 1.
> But in essence, I'm ALWAYS trying to ensure that MY view of the game
> is the one that gets across. This is probably why I'll never post a
> review of The Getaway, because it could only damage sales if I posted
> my unusual views of that particular product. (It's naff, it really
> is, anyone who says it's a 9/10 game is undergoing the Emperor's New
> Clothes Syndrome, i.e. it's great because all my mates think it's
> great).
I agree 101%.
I keep looking at the reviews of The Getaway on here and people are continually giving it 8s, 9s, and 10's out of 10, despite it being utter crap.
I was lucky enough to win it on GAD, but if I hadn't of won it and bought it instead after reading all thoses glowing reviews with the 10/10 scores, I would have thought it was the classic it was hyped up to be. I'd therefore be highly annoyed when I found I'd wasted money on the worst game of 2002. What's wrong with those reviewers? Can't they see it's a bad game, or have they been blinded by the Sony hype? Or do they think that giving it a low score would somehow lower their chances of the review winning a prize?
I think I gave The Getaway about 4 or 5 out of 10. I should have given it 1.
It's amazing how well some games sell despite all the negative hype from reviews, both in mags and on websites like this. Usually this is due to the game being based on a famous movie/character or being hyped to hell, but sometimes people just don't get the point that the game is bad and buy it anyway. Take Fifa 2002, it sold like hot cakes but was decidedly average (and a lot of mags had much stronger opinions than that). I've played it myself and it wasn't bad, just not really any good.
I will review games honestly, but I seem to review games I like much more often than ones I don't rate, simply because I'm interested by games I like and therefore more eager to produce a review on them. Had I been working for a game magazine, it may well be a different story.
Still, reviews DO influence some people and that's better than not getting through to anyone at all.
I will review games honestly, but I seem to review games I like much more often than ones I don't rate, simply because I'm interested by games I like and therefore more eager to produce a review on them. Had I been working for a game magazine, it may well be a different story.
Still, reviews DO influence some people and that's better than not getting through to anyone at all.
That's true, but sometimes I found that when I'm uncertain of a game to get, reviews helped me decide. But I always make sure to look at a number of reviews and if it fits in with word of mouth in the forums, I go for it!
I've never reviewed a game I haven't fully played either. It helps me fully review the game's good and bad bits, instead of leaving huge gaps and going on just about its graphics and gameplay.
Good post!
I've never reviewed a game I haven't fully played either. It helps me fully review the game's good and bad bits, instead of leaving huge gaps and going on just about its graphics and gameplay.
Good post!
I've got to admit that some of the reviews I do for Special Reserve, or other certain sites, are slightly affected by the fact that I happen to like SR so I'll occaisionally beef up aspects of the game I'm reviewing in the hope that this will generate more sales for them.
But in essence, I'm ALWAYS trying to ensure that MY view of the game is the one that gets across. This is probably why I'll never post a review of The Getaway, because it could only damage sales if I posted my unusual views of that particular product. (It's naff, it really is, anyone who says it's a 9/10 game is undergoing the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome, i.e. it's great because all my mates think it's great).
There's a lot of factors that we consider when buying a game:
Is it the genre we like? We check the back of the box and yes, great, it says RPG so we should be OK.
Have we played a demo? If we're lucky, yes, we've had a quick play around on a level either via demo disc or instore to see if we enjoy that kind of gameplay.
Can we afford it? When it comes to the crunch, most gamers make sure they've got enough money before buying any title. Whether you save up specifically for one that you want or whether you just save up till you've got £40 then hunt around for a good one is up to personal preference.
Is it any good? Well, this is where reviews come into play. There is no way on earth that you can use your experience, knowledge of the developer, guesswork and sheer luck to hope that you're buying a good game. You HAVE to research it, you HAVE to take on board a lot of opinions from different places, and this is where the trouble begins.
But I've started questioning the review system, not just on websites but in magazines too. Just WHO'S opinion are you getting when you read these things? That of the reviewer? That of the editorial team? That of someone else entirely because the review has been cobbled together from lots of other opinions? And is the review itself affected by other factors, like the fact that it appears on a website that also happens to be selling that game, or the fact that the person posting the review is only after a reward?
Take the 'unofficial' console magazines, even the multi-format ones. It's common knowledge that publishers will often deliver a review copy of a game along with a few goodies just for 'merchandising purposes'. Then, of course, they send along little 'gifts' around Christmas to thank the editorial staff for their kind words over the previous year, and perhaps if the gift is large enough or contains a high percentage of alcohol, they're ensuring the kind words will continue the following year despite the quality of the games that are being reviewed. I'm not saying magazine reviews are scoring the way they do based on the size of their kickbacks, but can you truly tell which ones are the good ones?
It's tricky asking mates at school what they think of games, because social bonding is in effect; if the most popular guy in your school thinks that Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance is naff then the chances are half the opinions you get from other mates are going to be the same, despite what they really think.
It would have been impossible for me to get opinions on Kingdom Hearts before I bought it because I would have got strange looks in the pub whilst the conversation quickly turned back to whether Bristol Rovers would manage to stay in their Division this year.
So you've got to be a bit of a Sly Raccoonus when it comes to gathering opinions. (Did I mention that I've got a Sly Raccoonus coffee mug in front of me because the developers sent me a goodie bag yesterday?). Get my drift now?
I find that the only good way of doing this is surfing the Chatforums here. Because, for some inexplicable reason, it's only here that you can pick up clues, often subtle ones, as to how good a game really is. Take Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I've got it, and I'll tell you now quite honestly that it's a great game, if you've got a PS2 you really need to get this game if you haven't already. But the Chatforums are a dead giveaway too, because of the simple fact that they had to devote an entire seperate forum to the topic. Other hints are the fact that the topic crops up in nearly every other forum here at least once a day. And the fact that people are still reviewing it long after it was released. And the fact that dedicated fansite links are also starting to crop up.
If a game gets that much attention, then generally you don't need to read reviews to get the point.
But in essence, I'm ALWAYS trying to ensure that MY view of the game is the one that gets across. This is probably why I'll never post a review of The Getaway, because it could only damage sales if I posted my unusual views of that particular product. (It's naff, it really is, anyone who says it's a 9/10 game is undergoing the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome, i.e. it's great because all my mates think it's great).
There's a lot of factors that we consider when buying a game:
Is it the genre we like? We check the back of the box and yes, great, it says RPG so we should be OK.
Have we played a demo? If we're lucky, yes, we've had a quick play around on a level either via demo disc or instore to see if we enjoy that kind of gameplay.
Can we afford it? When it comes to the crunch, most gamers make sure they've got enough money before buying any title. Whether you save up specifically for one that you want or whether you just save up till you've got £40 then hunt around for a good one is up to personal preference.
Is it any good? Well, this is where reviews come into play. There is no way on earth that you can use your experience, knowledge of the developer, guesswork and sheer luck to hope that you're buying a good game. You HAVE to research it, you HAVE to take on board a lot of opinions from different places, and this is where the trouble begins.
But I've started questioning the review system, not just on websites but in magazines too. Just WHO'S opinion are you getting when you read these things? That of the reviewer? That of the editorial team? That of someone else entirely because the review has been cobbled together from lots of other opinions? And is the review itself affected by other factors, like the fact that it appears on a website that also happens to be selling that game, or the fact that the person posting the review is only after a reward?
Take the 'unofficial' console magazines, even the multi-format ones. It's common knowledge that publishers will often deliver a review copy of a game along with a few goodies just for 'merchandising purposes'. Then, of course, they send along little 'gifts' around Christmas to thank the editorial staff for their kind words over the previous year, and perhaps if the gift is large enough or contains a high percentage of alcohol, they're ensuring the kind words will continue the following year despite the quality of the games that are being reviewed. I'm not saying magazine reviews are scoring the way they do based on the size of their kickbacks, but can you truly tell which ones are the good ones?
It's tricky asking mates at school what they think of games, because social bonding is in effect; if the most popular guy in your school thinks that Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance is naff then the chances are half the opinions you get from other mates are going to be the same, despite what they really think.
It would have been impossible for me to get opinions on Kingdom Hearts before I bought it because I would have got strange looks in the pub whilst the conversation quickly turned back to whether Bristol Rovers would manage to stay in their Division this year.
So you've got to be a bit of a Sly Raccoonus when it comes to gathering opinions. (Did I mention that I've got a Sly Raccoonus coffee mug in front of me because the developers sent me a goodie bag yesterday?). Get my drift now?
I find that the only good way of doing this is surfing the Chatforums here. Because, for some inexplicable reason, it's only here that you can pick up clues, often subtle ones, as to how good a game really is. Take Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I've got it, and I'll tell you now quite honestly that it's a great game, if you've got a PS2 you really need to get this game if you haven't already. But the Chatforums are a dead giveaway too, because of the simple fact that they had to devote an entire seperate forum to the topic. Other hints are the fact that the topic crops up in nearly every other forum here at least once a day. And the fact that people are still reviewing it long after it was released. And the fact that dedicated fansite links are also starting to crop up.
If a game gets that much attention, then generally you don't need to read reviews to get the point.