Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Why video game reviews suck

Recommended Posts

I think the reason video game reviews suck is that they review the technical achievement of the game rather than how good it is. They are afraid of criticizing technical achievements in graphics.

Movie reviewers don't care about special effects achievements and neither should video game reviewers. A game like a movie must not only be fun but be special to be good. Games are not good just because they are fun. They must be special, different, and interesting to be good. The games with super good graphics and nothing else that is special should get a rating of 70% for average at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main reason game reviews are flawed is because gameplay is only one of several factors in the overall rating. They should instead make the rating all about gameplay. We should be rating the game and not the programming achievement of the product.

It is no longer the early days of the video game industry. Back then it would make sense to give huge points for a game that makes achievements in graphics. Now, it is the gameplay that sets one game apart from another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a 'buy/rent/don't bother' scale. I seem to have a personal 'money vs fun' scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by rapilot:

I think the main reason game reviews are flawed is because gameplay is only one of several factors in the overall rating. They should instead make the rating all about gameplay. We should be rating the game and not the programming achievement of the product.

It is no longer the early days of the video game industry. Back then it would make sense to give huge points for a game that makes achievements in graphics. Now, it is the gameplay that sets one game apart from another.


I agree. But instead of making it technical why not simply call it "fun"?

And ... ask not the question, "is this game fun?" versus the question, "is this game fun for the audience it's intended for?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game reviewers need to base their reviews on many categories and subcategories. However, they should be our guide to tell us not only what is fun but what is the best. They should be more harshly critical than the audience so we don't waste our time with games that our merely fun, but are not the best of its type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with reviewers is that the BIG dollars never get a bad rap, and the indies are the ones that get trashed, let's face it, these guys don't care so much if a small indie who doesn't spend a dime with them gets their ass handed to them because they figure, they're not likely to get any cash out of them anyway.

I remember the reviews for freelancer, the game was in development for what? 10 years, I don't remember but with the kind of cash MS was throwing at it, I though we would see something 100X Bigger and better than UC. What did we get, a basic shooter that covered a very TINY universe. It was pretty much all over in a matter of a couple of months. The AI sucked, the replayability was crap, hell Privateer, which came out 20 years prior had more features and a better AI!!!! Where were the scorching reviews, the flame wars, the demands for Gates Head on a plate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You try and rate a game higher than the highly vocal majority. Especially in the case of Derek's games...where he's got a lot of people that don't like him, regardless of the game.

It is simply, a nightmare.

If you dare to give something an 8/10 or even a 7, watch what happens

Not as though I've ever given a crap what other people think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×