The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
PseudoSavant wrote:
> I feel that any game reviewer needs to be as objective as possible
> when it comes to a particular console or PC system. They shouldn't
> show favoritism for the PS2 or X-Box. But they should be associated
> with particular genres, since that only makes sense. It's like
> films: Asking a person who hates sci-fi films to review Blade Runner
> would likely be a very bad idea. Because they'd hate it and would be
> constantly saying throughout their review things like, "Well,
> this really isn't my thing," indicating quite rightly that they
> have no idea what they're talking about.
When I read a game
> review, I want it to be a comparative one. If it's a new Quake game,
> compare it to other FPSs and talk about its features in detail; I
> want to know that the person reviewing knows a LOT about that
> particular genre.
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 feel that any game reviewer needs to be as objective as possible
> when it comes to a particular console or PC system. They shouldn't
> show favoritism for the PS2 or X-Box. But they should be associated
> with particular genres, since that only makes sense. It's like
> films: Asking a person who hates sci-fi films to review Blade Runner
> would likely be a very bad idea. Because they'd hate it and would be
> constantly saying throughout their review things like, "Well,
> this really isn't my thing," indicating quite rightly that they
> have no idea what they're talking about.
When I read a game
> review, I want it to be a comparative one. If it's a new Quake game,
> compare it to other FPSs and talk about its features in detail; I
> want to know that the person reviewing knows a LOT about that
> particular genre.
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 feel that any game reviewer needs to be as objective as possible when it comes to a particular console or PC system. They shouldn't show favoritism for the PS2 or X-Box. But they should be associated with particular genres, since that only makes sense. It's like films: Asking a person who hates sci-fi films to review Blade Runner would likely be a very bad idea. Because they'd hate it and would be constantly saying throughout their review things like, "Well, this really isn't my thing," indicating quite rightly that they have no idea what they're talking about.
When I read a game review, I want it to be a comparative one. If it's a new Quake game, compare it to other FPSs and talk about its features in detail; I want to know that the person reviewing knows a LOT about that particular genre.
When I read a game review, I want it to be a comparative one. If it's a new Quake game, compare it to other FPSs and talk about its features in detail; I want to know that the person reviewing knows a LOT about that particular genre.
Edgy wrote:
> If reviews are to be taken seriously they should be reviewed by
> someone who is neutral and doesn't mind what type of game they are
> playing!
I've bought games which reviewers have said are rubbish
> but I loved them! That's cos the reviewers were
> biased!
Gamesmaster always prefer Playstation games!
NOM always
> overrate games!
These are two mags I read regularily (actually I
> haven't read GM for a while) and that's how I know!
Even Special
> REserve magazine is slightly biased cos Special Reserve want people
> to buy their games!
I don't think you can find a totally
> neuatral reviewer cos everyone has a favourite!
100% true, well done. But there is a solution, have a team of reviewers who have a cretian type of game they like. Then you get a review by someone who likes them games, and can tell the differnce between the different game s(e.g. PD is better than Goldeneye because...). Also i have got Mission:Impossible, that got rubbish reviews, I think it is completely underrated beause it wasn't a goldeneye better. But there will never be a complete, alround mag, the nearst i've found is N64 mag, but i havn't got that for months.
> If reviews are to be taken seriously they should be reviewed by
> someone who is neutral and doesn't mind what type of game they are
> playing!
I've bought games which reviewers have said are rubbish
> but I loved them! That's cos the reviewers were
> biased!
Gamesmaster always prefer Playstation games!
NOM always
> overrate games!
These are two mags I read regularily (actually I
> haven't read GM for a while) and that's how I know!
Even Special
> REserve magazine is slightly biased cos Special Reserve want people
> to buy their games!
I don't think you can find a totally
> neuatral reviewer cos everyone has a favourite!
100% true, well done. But there is a solution, have a team of reviewers who have a cretian type of game they like. Then you get a review by someone who likes them games, and can tell the differnce between the different game s(e.g. PD is better than Goldeneye because...). Also i have got Mission:Impossible, that got rubbish reviews, I think it is completely underrated beause it wasn't a goldeneye better. But there will never be a complete, alround mag, the nearst i've found is N64 mag, but i havn't got that for months.
True, but what's fun to one person may not prove fun to another one, and this is generally separated along certain lines. As I've said before, there are different types of gamers: No one game can please everyone, so having a person that's a fan of a particular genre reviewing a game of that genre makes a helluva lot more sense than having someone who isn't.
If reviews are to be taken seriously they should be reviewed by someone who is neutral and doesn't mind what type of game they are playing!
I've bought games which reviewers have said are rubbish but I loved them! That's cos the reviewers were biased!
Gamesmaster always prefer Playstation games!
NOM always overrate games!
These are two mags I read regularily (actually I haven't read GM for a while) and that's how I know!
Even Special REserve magazine is slightly biased cos Special Reserve want people to buy their games!
I don't think you can find a totally neuatral reviewer cos everyone has a favourite!
I've bought games which reviewers have said are rubbish but I loved them! That's cos the reviewers were biased!
Gamesmaster always prefer Playstation games!
NOM always overrate games!
These are two mags I read regularily (actually I haven't read GM for a while) and that's how I know!
Even Special REserve magazine is slightly biased cos Special Reserve want people to buy their games!
I don't think you can find a totally neuatral reviewer cos everyone has a favourite!
All games should be reviewed one on fact, do you like it? If you don't enjoy the game it isn't good, and if you do its good. This is how you say Zelda is better than Goldeneye, beause you like it more. It has nothing to do with the type of game, its about if you enjoy the game. ANd if stat games are marked down beause of it, it shouldn't be revied by someone who hates them all.
I agree with this. To be eligible to review a particular type of game, you should at least be a fan of that genre. Asking someone who adores Quake 3 to write a review of The Sims is probably not a good idea. It's immediately going to be less attractive to them, since a)the graphics aren't up to par with a FPS, b)there's no competition in it, and c) you don't get to kill even one person. There are lots of different types of gamers out there, and some of these types just don't affiliate well with others.
Strategy games are much more appealing to me than the typical First Person Shoot-em up game.
Strategy games involve the mind more than FPS's cos you've got to think new tactics to beat the enemy/enemies especially if the strategy game is really good and the computer learns and changes stragegies to combat yours!
FPS's seem to be all the same! You have to use your trigger finger more than your mind. The originals like Doom, weren't so bad (infact I love the original 3D FPS's) as the levels were huge, weren't too graphically detailed and often involved puzzles and sequences.
Both types of games have their flaws and they do tend to lose their originality as they improve technologically.
However, games companies tend to make games for the major market and not so much the minority. And I hate to say this but Strategy games are more liked by the minority. I have games of all types but Strategy and 2D platform are my favourite, both types are rare to find now!
Games magazines tend to review games of a certain type better than another because of the reviewer. The reviewer may be as thick as two short planks and may think that any game made by another games company is rubbish, or another game of a different type is rubbish but remember, it's not what the reviewer thinkgs that counts! It's what you think!
After all isn't it the games player who decides what games go on the market? If everyone believed everything they read in magazines, they'd think the world was flat, humans could naturally fly and that half of us came to Earth in UFO's!
My advice is, don't listen to magazines reviews, but take a look for yourself!
Strategy games involve the mind more than FPS's cos you've got to think new tactics to beat the enemy/enemies especially if the strategy game is really good and the computer learns and changes stragegies to combat yours!
FPS's seem to be all the same! You have to use your trigger finger more than your mind. The originals like Doom, weren't so bad (infact I love the original 3D FPS's) as the levels were huge, weren't too graphically detailed and often involved puzzles and sequences.
Both types of games have their flaws and they do tend to lose their originality as they improve technologically.
However, games companies tend to make games for the major market and not so much the minority. And I hate to say this but Strategy games are more liked by the minority. I have games of all types but Strategy and 2D platform are my favourite, both types are rare to find now!
Games magazines tend to review games of a certain type better than another because of the reviewer. The reviewer may be as thick as two short planks and may think that any game made by another games company is rubbish, or another game of a different type is rubbish but remember, it's not what the reviewer thinkgs that counts! It's what you think!
After all isn't it the games player who decides what games go on the market? If everyone believed everything they read in magazines, they'd think the world was flat, humans could naturally fly and that half of us came to Earth in UFO's!
My advice is, don't listen to magazines reviews, but take a look for yourself!
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: