The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why are strategy games and people who like them being ignored by so many people and magazines these days? OK, there are exceptions, but when most magazines review a game that isn't a first person shooter, it seems to get marked down because of that, whereas Quake 3, the most unoriginal game ever, is praised!
When someone reviews a game, they ought to review it in comparison of other similar games. I have seen reviews of games which say that the bad thing about the game is that it is a strategy game!
People should review games in genres in which they have played and liked other games, otherwise the review is pointless. If the target readers might not like strategy games, then the type of game should be stated in the review, but possibly still given a good score regardless: the person reading it can decide whether it suits them or not.
If I was reviewing any FPS game, I would mark it down because it was an FPS game, maybe even unwillingly, so I would never try and review a game of this sort, and I don't think that others should either!
When someone reviews a game, they ought to review it in comparison of other similar games. I have seen reviews of games which say that the bad thing about the game is that it is a strategy game!
People should review games in genres in which they have played and liked other games, otherwise the review is pointless. If the target readers might not like strategy games, then the type of game should be stated in the review, but possibly still given a good score regardless: the person reading it can decide whether it suits them or not.
If I was reviewing any FPS game, I would mark it down because it was an FPS game, maybe even unwillingly, so I would never try and review a game of this sort, and I don't think that others should either!
Page:
True but if you really want a strategy guie, try waiting for a couple years and you may be able to find one for less than a pound!
I found one for 99p the other day!
I found one for 99p the other day!
Strategy guides are also ridiculously expensive - you pay £10 or more for a flimsy, magazine sized book!
I remember seeing a Nintendo magazine which was slightly thicker than the normal mag, and it was £12.99.
It came with a "free memory pak"
hmmm....
It came with a "free memory pak"
hmmm....
>£5.99
It was definately a PC magazine, but I'm not sure whether or not it was a gaming one... I'll take a look next time I go down the newsagents
It was definately a PC magazine, but I'm not sure whether or not it was a gaming one... I'll take a look next time I go down the newsagents
nintendo is simon wrote:
> I don't like it beause it degrades games e.g. Mission: Impossible it didn't beat goldeneye so its rubbish. <
If done right, it doesn't degrade them necessarily. As I said, I like when reviewers compare like titles, but I feel it's good to mention any good features of the new game. Even if they feel it's not as good as a preceding title, they should still list what the new one has to offer.
> I don't like it beause it degrades games e.g. Mission: Impossible it didn't beat goldeneye so its rubbish. <
If done right, it doesn't degrade them necessarily. As I said, I like when reviewers compare like titles, but I feel it's good to mention any good features of the new game. Even if they feel it's not as good as a preceding title, they should still list what the new one has to offer.
By the way, seeing as someone mentioned it, have any of you EVER seen a review in the special reserve magazine which doesn't say the game is brilliant? I suppose this is probably because only the good(ish) games are reviewed, but it still doesn't look very authentic to say this about every game.
When I said magazines I didn't really mean that one: it is hardly a magazine, more of an oversized advert, and the reviews don't give scores or anything.
At least you don't have to pay £4.99 for it! I could stay here all day and complain about the prices of good magazines (and I've seen one costing £5.99!), but I don't suppose anybody would be interested!
When I said magazines I didn't really mean that one: it is hardly a magazine, more of an oversized advert, and the reviews don't give scores or anything.
At least you don't have to pay £4.99 for it! I could stay here all day and complain about the prices of good magazines (and I've seen one costing £5.99!), but I don't suppose anybody would be interested!
Personally I prefer to read the Previews and information about games so I know what the games about, I've seen what it looks like and I've had a brief description of the gameplay.
The rest I'd rather see for myself!
The rest I'd rather see for myself!
PseudoSavant wrote:
> nintendo is simon wrote:
> I personly think that comparing
> should only be used for
sequals. And that if you compare most
> games, they will get a bad mark for it. Games should be marked
> indivulaly to stop that. <
I disagree totally. I want games to
> be held to high standards, because I'm frankly getting sick of all
> these miserable titles being released. I want every RPG to come down
> the pike to be compared to FF IX, since it's the current top dog. If
> it's not as good a game, but it has some nice features all the same,
> I want to know that.
Come on, there's no way for a reviewer (or
> anyone for that matter) to be objective. As soon as you pop in a
> game of any particular genre, you automatically associate it with
> ones you've played before. So, if they're going to do that naturally
> anyway, I'd rather they be upfront about it and discuss the
> comparison in detail. They might've liked a feature in the last game
> that I didn't, or may have criticized a feature in the new game that
> I think actually sounds sort of cool.
I don't like it beause it degrades games e.g. Mission: Impossible it didn't beat goldeneye so its rubbish. (But FF9 isn't as better as Z:MM But that is another matter). But i can see why you like comparing, it's just i don't like it, thats all.
> nintendo is simon wrote:
> I personly think that comparing
> should only be used for
sequals. And that if you compare most
> games, they will get a bad mark for it. Games should be marked
> indivulaly to stop that. <
I disagree totally. I want games to
> be held to high standards, because I'm frankly getting sick of all
> these miserable titles being released. I want every RPG to come down
> the pike to be compared to FF IX, since it's the current top dog. If
> it's not as good a game, but it has some nice features all the same,
> I want to know that.
Come on, there's no way for a reviewer (or
> anyone for that matter) to be objective. As soon as you pop in a
> game of any particular genre, you automatically associate it with
> ones you've played before. So, if they're going to do that naturally
> anyway, I'd rather they be upfront about it and discuss the
> comparison in detail. They might've liked a feature in the last game
> that I didn't, or may have criticized a feature in the new game that
> I think actually sounds sort of cool.
I don't like it beause it degrades games e.g. Mission: Impossible it didn't beat goldeneye so its rubbish. (But FF9 isn't as better as Z:MM But that is another matter). But i can see why you like comparing, it's just i don't like it, thats all.
nintendo is simon wrote:
> I personly think that comparing should only be used for
sequals. And that if you compare most games, they will get a bad mark for it. Games should be marked indivulaly to stop that. <
I disagree totally. I want games to be held to high standards, because I'm frankly getting sick of all these miserable titles being released. I want every RPG to come down the pike to be compared to FF IX, since it's the current top dog. If it's not as good a game, but it has some nice features all the same, I want to know that.
Come on, there's no way for a reviewer (or anyone for that matter) to be objective. As soon as you pop in a game of any particular genre, you automatically associate it with ones you've played before. So, if they're going to do that naturally anyway, I'd rather they be upfront about it and discuss the comparison in detail. They might've liked a feature in the last game that I didn't, or may have criticized a feature in the new game that I think actually sounds sort of cool.
> I personly think that comparing should only be used for
sequals. And that if you compare most games, they will get a bad mark for it. Games should be marked indivulaly to stop that. <
I disagree totally. I want games to be held to high standards, because I'm frankly getting sick of all these miserable titles being released. I want every RPG to come down the pike to be compared to FF IX, since it's the current top dog. If it's not as good a game, but it has some nice features all the same, I want to know that.
Come on, there's no way for a reviewer (or anyone for that matter) to be objective. As soon as you pop in a game of any particular genre, you automatically associate it with ones you've played before. So, if they're going to do that naturally anyway, I'd rather they be upfront about it and discuss the comparison in detail. They might've liked a feature in the last game that I didn't, or may have criticized a feature in the new game that I think actually sounds sort of cool.
Page: