f13.net

Whored from slashdot. Worthwhile read. Though....the article should have been one sentence. Better writers giving honest opinions interjecting words like horsecock, mangina, and clitorati.

Anyway, linkie: http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=8

I'd like to hear what you all think.

Seemed like a lot of hot air.  Some salient points mixed in with a lot of buffer talk, but the biggest reason I no longer pick up a magazine and instead hunt my games on sites like here is for the gamer view that is not through a lense of free products whoring...

Big, long, laundry list of things wrong with video game reviewing.  Minimal suggestions on how to actually go about making game reviewing better.

bitchfest++;

Worth reading, and I definitely agreed with a lot of his list.  This should probably be staped to the foreheads of all the IGN and Gamespot monkeys, so they can take what suggestions he does offer to heart.

Not sure there's really much to say. Reviews are like mouths and opinions. Everyone has the latter and blows it through the former, with varying degrees of ability.

One core question though seems to be: when is it a good time to write a review?

The simple and obvious answer is: when you know what the hell you're talking about.

However, we know business, partnerships, swag, egos, and all sorts of other bullshit gets involved. This is an endemic problem with any place that needs to collect money to continue operating.

I totally agree with Fargull. GMR, Computer Gaming World, GameInformer, and PC Gamer (my subs) are good for big flashy images and perhaps some insight into what's coming next. But for stuff being played now, I'm hitting the forums.

That was too long. Too many words. Can someone give me a review of the editorial and then can someone else write an editorial about what's wrong with editorial reviews?

Interesting piece that is worth the time to read.  I agree that the author did bring up some good points, but the piece would have been strengthened by bringing in some examples of improvement.  

Reading that long-winded diatribe also made me take a look and my own recent writing.  I have read so many game reviews in the last 10 years that I think I lost some appreciation for the skill it takes to craft one that is worthwhile.  Giving it a shot recently with the DAoC Catacombs expansion, I realized that writing a review is a hell of a lot harder than it seems on the surface.  On that note, the author of that piece might have benefitted from the use one of his own reviews as a target for both criticism and praise.  

Let's face it, writing is a craft and there are obviously very few artists that do it well.

Maybe I didn't read it close enough, but I would've liked to see the author discuss the quality of the writing itself and how these publications are reviewing to their audience. For example, if the audience of CGW doesn't complain about the reviews, why would they change? Just wanting to do a better job is not enough of a reason for change for any review site or publication. Until their review style affects their bottom line, there is no reason to do things any differently.

Interesting article but at the end of the day I don't base my buying decisions or reviews anyway, be it video games, music, or movies.  Games are probably the toughest buying choices since they cost more than a CD or going to a movie but I don't tend to buy games on release day anyway so I usually have time to hear the word of mouth from people I trust, or rent the game.

At the very least I'll take sites like this were reviews are followed by topics where posters can throw their opinions in afterwards over a fucking magazine or a site like ign.

I still stand by my right to have the word 'Clitorati' in the title of my next review...whenever that shows up.

I concur, the more Clitorati is discussed the better it is for the rest of the community.

The Game Are Fun editorial was a surprise contender this winter as Slashdot linkage and community buzz turned a quiet release into a sleeper hit.

Unfortunately, anticipation quickly turned to disappointment, as a relase intended to be the pinnacle of the Self-Loathing Reviewer genre quickly revealed itself to be a mishmash of wandering plotlines and unsatisfying reading.

Execution was fine.  The words were in order, grammar and spelling in good shape, and the area was uncluttered by monkey-punching ads.  But the real strength of this genre comes down to two elements: virulent profanity and reasonable solutions.  This release provides neither.

Technical problems also abounded.  The layout was incompatible with my browser.  Slashdotting rendered the essay unusable almost immediately after release.  A patch is necessary, but probably not forthcoming.

Design: 5.43
Audio: 0.01
Profanity: 0.05
Rereadability: 4.38
Innovation: 2.17
Overall: 9.99

Just don't forget the mangina.

You hear that Haemish, you're halfway there!

Who edits this shit? Jesus.

I'm with him on scores, though. They gotta go. But otherwise, it's just a review of reviewing.

Oh, and it's "idea." Not "ideal."

No review was ever harmed by virulent profanity. Maybe a few kittens.

I thought porn harmed the kittens...

(http://www.f13.net/images/kitten.jpg)

You know, if Kerry had just used the word mangina once during his campaign I'm convinced he would have won in a landslide.  Politics could definately use more profanity to liven things up.

Dick Cheney would agree

EDIT: I found this in an amusing google search:  Is Dick Cheney Dead Yet? (http://www.isdickcheneydeadyet.com/)

Now that's fucking funny. It only works on that one level, but that's a pretty funny level.

Commenting on something being broken without any suggestions on how to fix it is just detrimental ranting. Why didn't he just say "I bought Doom3 because PCGamer said so, and I'm angry because it sucked!"

What's wrong is simple: Most people who have real writing and analysis ability can get better jobs than reviewing games.

Until that changes, reviews are going to suck. Most people who would make really good reviewers are out getting paid more for a better job.

Explain Haemish, then. I DEFY YOU TO EXPLAIN HAEMISH!

Yeah, my wife is still trying to explain me as well. I'll let you know how that goes. :)

It's a simple equation. Until more game review writers start valuing the cost of writing their review at a higher rate than "free games," reviews won't get better.

The problem is quite simply that most game writers are just avid gamers who want free games, and will write anything to get them. I will count myself among that group; I'd love someone to GIVE me games to review, and I'll review any game someone gives me.

But I won't ever promise I'll give a POSITIVE review because I get a free game. And I don't believe there are many companies with enough cojones to give someone a free game with no guarantee of a positive review.

Strangely, the PA guys get them all the time.  The running theme is 'We don't know why Company X invited us to the private screening and gave us a copy of Game Y, because we believe Game Y sucks donkey balls and tell you so repeatedly" and still they get the swag.  I think it's because they're independently famous, and if they review a game well it's like 2x sales, so publishers are willing to take the risk.  

(Also, never have they published a score, but they lay down the details.  PA for the best video game reviews in the universe, if not comprehensive.)

I like you Haem, but that is just plain stupid.
There's plenty of games getting bad reviews in magazines - and the mags never pay for those games.

I don't disagree, that there's a lot of bad reviews. And of course companies give out games hoping for good reviews/publicity - but they still give out the games, even if they got a bad review for the last one.
At least to media with apropiate large numbers of readers.

Our 2 out of 10 review of Leisure Suit Larry didn't prevent VU Games from sending their next titles to us.

To media with appropriately large numbers. That's the key there. Most web reviewers do not have appropriately large numbers for anyone to give a shit. Computer games magazines that are established however, for as much disdain as I personally have for them, DO have the numbers, and in web terms, PA most definitely has the numbers.

Also, not I said MOST companies. Some understand that just about any press is good press, even if it's tearing a game apart. Hell, the Nokia/Sega crew sent us free N-Gage's and Pocket Kingdoms, knowing full well we'd probably RIP THE GAME TO SHREDS, seeing as how anyone who wanted to could find both myself and schild blasting the inherent stupidity of the game before we ever played it. And yet they did it anyway, thinking that as long as we're talking about it, it's a good thing for them. The fact it was a good game took both me and schild by surprise, so maybe they just had the confidence of a good product. I don't know.

You monster.



The best game reviews come from people who neither review games for the purpose of playing them, nor play games for the purpose of reviewing them.  They play them because they want to, and then they tell you how it went.  Because professional reviewing organizations have a particular mandate and particular expectations from their customers, they have to play games for the purpose of reviewing them.  People like PA, who review as an incidental byproduct of their ongoing obsession with video games, and who are under no obligation to cover every game, and can blather on about Splinter Cell on Xbox Live for two weeks as long as they're funny doing it, will always produce a superior product.

In other words, the moment reviewing becomes a job the quality of the reviews fall?

Not sure I totally agree, but that's only because I don't consider game reviewers relegated only to those who front-page articles. There's a certain status to doing so of course, and is an honor in some circles. But sites such as this place, and the other descendants of previous descendants, have as much value in reviews posted on the forums as those on the front. Of course, the forum posts are generally less edited :)

In any case, the part I do agree with is that free shit is good and that large-subscription publications hafta worry about the current review while wondering how they'll be able to scoop future reviews. That definitely affects the quality of their review. That also affects their relevance though.

No numbers to go by, but I imagine fewer gamers are waiting for magazines to publish a review these days, while those waiting for a popular website to post their's is on the rise.

Reviews don't really matter too much today anyway. All the big name games get huge glowing previews, making the actual reviews irrelevant. You even see lists like "the top 10 games of 2005." If you spend 6 months saying a game is going to be great, then after it comes out you say it is mediocre, your mediocre review isn't going to have any effect.

I think the only thing reviews can do is help a game that didn't get a lot of hype. For all the big games there is too much knob-slobbering before the reviews even start.

Don't you believe that for a minute. Sure, people like us won't listen to them. We are a very small, very jaded and very fickle part of a much larger market. To equate our spot in the market with gaming, we are the marketing hardcore. We are the ubers of consumers. We eat up hype more than we play the games, just so we'll have something to bitch about.

However, for the normal person, which we are not, the review (or set of reviews) especially on the web are the last good chance these devs and publishers have to market the game postively (or at all). It's all about that first week push, because that's when most games will sell most of their copies. It isn't often that a title hangs around on the shelves for more than say 6 months.

Bingo.

If you're a trained journalist and have work experience writing reviews aren't that hard. In fact its a pretty simple formula:

- Overall thought of the game
- Summary of what the game is about
- Things the game did well
- Things the game didn't do so well
- Weighing the pros and the cons to answer the question "is this game worth buying"

if you do that its your standard length review that you see for everything from movies to plays to cds.

from what i've read in the past and what I see now it seems the reviewers are getting too buddy buddy with the companies that provide the game. its almost like sites like Gamespot and IGN are marketing pieces for the big gaming companies (go find the last time they trashed and EA game - I dare ya).

Is there someway to forceably restrict people from using video clips as sigs?

Seriously, I don't fucking want to watch the same 5 second video clip out of the corner of my eye while I'm trying to read a post of follow a thread.

The first rule of animated gifs is, nobody, and I mean nobody wants to see them more than once.

what's difference between looking repeatedly at an animated picture versus an unanimated picture?

and i don't agree with your assessment that nobody wants to look at them. i visit a number of forums, have seen many of them and have liked many of them. if people didn't like they, people wouldn't put them in their sigs ;-)

You could block his image, Firefox does this niftily. Don't worry, as soon as a mod sees it he should get yelled at. :)

And yes, it is distracting and annoying and makes me hate you without even reading your post. Sorry.

IIRC, the traditional rule in LTM/SND/WTO was that people who used pics (let alone animated gifs) in their sig would face ritual torture for the amusement of all.

Mnemon, please drop the gif from your sig. Animated gifs in your avatar are one thing, sticking them in your sig is another entirely.

This is not the Vault.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

That worked. Thanks (always nice to learn a new feature)

It is giving me a fucking headache. Die plskthx.

I second this rule.

The very next step after clips from Attack of the fricking clones is people putting 'What video-game-character-am-I?' gifs in their sig.

If anyone starts doing that I may well end up taking a shotgun to my monitor.

So it's best we stamp all this nonsense out before it gets going.

His sig is fixed.

It's the same question as why do high school math teachers suck? The answer is, a crack math mind can find a lot better job. So high school math teachers are either people not so good at math, or people really drawn to teaching high school students.

Working on a math minor I had to take a few classes with the Math for Education group...  There was a noticible quality difference between those students who were doing the math as part of a trip towards a higher degree in mathematics/physics/engineering and those seeking a career as mid-level educators.

Teaching high-school math to me would be the last stop on a road of career failure, to these people it was a high asperation.

there ya go ... hope that's better for ya.

Well, it's not like highschool algebra is brain surgery.  Calculus is a bit of a different game, but there aren't usually many calc classes at that level.