Are gaming journalists as ignorant as gamers??

[Heebejeebes]

Like many of you out there I'm sure, I grow tired of all the ignorance shown by modern gamers. However the journalists who review games sometimes seem to be adding to this. I watched the IGN review of Fallout New Vegas today and all the comparisons were with Fallout 3. There was no mention of anything relating to Fallout 1 or 2. Its like the person reviewing the game had no idea that Obsidian Entertainment is made up of a good number of people from the team that worked on Fallout 1 and 2. Obisidian entertainment for all intensive purposes IS Black Isle Studios. A journalist in any other genre would have found this and reported on it. They would have compared their work on Fallout New Vegas to the original Fallouts or at least made some mention that the original Fallout team has come back to work on the franchise but there was nothing.

I feel a great amount of frustration that so called professional journalists dont bother to do any research on the topic they are writing about. Maybe gamers wouldn't be such morons and non gamers would take the genre more seriously if the people covering the news were taking some professional responsiblity to at least look into the past of the game they are reviewing.

 

[KarmaPolice]

If you have just realised this, then welcome to the cynics club.

I'm not gonna rehash the stupid things reviewers say...i'm sure there is a blog or two who can do that. What I will try to do is explain the logic and reasons on why it is like it is.

Firstly, how hard is it to gain knowlage on a subject? Yes, you can wiki something and get the info on something, but as an old teacher of mine used to say 'you need to know what questions to ask'. To get the correct info, you need to have a good general knowlage on your topic. This means lots and lots of gaming, in our case. You need to know your history, have had played both the turkeys, the classics and the flash in the pans. Having turned your hand at a bit of modding and pissing around with the engines themeselves helps too - cause you'll know abit about how to make a game. All this equals alot of time spent.

Secondly, how long do you need to play a game to really be able to write a good (accurate) review? Well, it depends with genre. With sports - a couple of hours. A CoD clone? Enough time to quickly blast through story mode. But with a RPG - I would say anything from 20 hours for a KOTOR-style (linear style) to 50 hours+ for a sandbox in the ilk of Fallout 3/Oblivion. With a super-sandbox like Morrowind, possibily over 100 hours. That's a hell alot of gaming.

Reviewers are under pressure, and game reviewers are the same as any. They are often given 'baches' of stuff to review each week/month, with the demand that each review is x amount of words long. A batch could look like:

101 Minigolf World
CSI - Fatal Conspiracy
DJ Hero 2
Fable III
DeathSpank
Get Fit With Mel B

Now, off that list, there is only 1 game I'd actully want to play. The CSI is gonna require a hell of alot of time to play. Two of them I suspect would be the gaming eqivilant of pulling teeth. The others I'm indifferent to.

Now, there are rules to reviewing. Firstly, you will have to play just enough so it is not obvious to all that you are talking out of your arse. You are not allowed to be biased, even if you hate the genre, or the maker. You can't slate many games, unless it is voted crappy by all (the recent Leisure Suit Larry, for example). You have to keep the makers sweet, particulary if you work in print media and you are a reviewing a EA game or another big fish. (They pay you indirectly, through all the ads). Your editor will edit your reviews for 'tone', which usually means removing the most negitive comments. Last of all, you will be required to find a game to wet yourself over each month you may as well start wearing adult nappies.

Lastly, you won't allowed to write 'over your readers', so no big words or refrences to old games they will not have played. Your editor will live with the assumption that all games are still bought by 15-year old teenage boys who will have not ever played any game over three years old. And have the reading level of a 10-year old. Even worse, the editor is a jurno, not a gamer and the last game he played was Sonic 2 in 1994.

We need to remember, the reviewers are professionly interested in games. They must of had a flame of passion for them, at least once. But they are jaded. From playing batches of mediocre games, having a workload that is really too high. Sometimes being given games that are still in beta to review. Occasionly being given a few clips to watch of the game rather than the game itself. Having to discover a 'this years ultimate game' every month is tiring.

So they cut corners. Get a couple of screengrab pics, cut n' paste the blurb that the developer thoughtfully gave with the review copy (they DO exist - I have seen them!), pad the blurb with meaningless waffle and statements of the fuckin' obvious to the required length, then give it a nice score. Simples. As that idiotic meercat would say.

Me? I don't even really read them anymore, not when I'm looking for a new game to get. I don't even trust any game studio per se - with the possible exception of Paradox Interactive. What I do is wait a week or two, then go onto sites like this, and read what the game is really like, from people who usually care and have played it properly.

 

[Requete]

Exactly I give the privilige of doubt only to sequeals of titles iliked and for studos I still respect, but only after checking on fansites. What the payed reviews says is of noconsequnce since times of Oblivion scam.

 

[Korin]

I watched the IGN review of Fallout New Vegas today and all the comparisons were with Fallout 3. There was no mention of anything relating to Fallout 1 or 2. Its like the person reviewing the game had no idea that Obsidian Entertainment is made up of a good number of people from the team that worked on Fallout 1 and 2. Obisidian entertainment for all intensive purposes IS Black Isle Studios. A journalist in any other genre would have found this and reported on it. They would have compared their work on Fallout New Vegas to the original Fallouts or at least made some mention that the original Fallout team has come back to work on the franchise but there was nothing.

1. F1/F2 are not all that relevant given they were made a decade ago and 99% of the people reading the article are wanting to know how NV stacks up against Fallout 3, not a series of games they've probably never played or heard of.

2. Telling people that Obsidian is comprised of Black Isle members is certainly an interesting bit of information, but probably more than most people would want or need to know.

3. You assume ignorance on the part of the reviewer as a member of a Fallout fan forum. It's not surprising that most reviewers will not go into the depth that you expect, be aware of or find relevance in things that you know intimately and believe other people would find of as much interest. You likely don't find such faults in reviews of games that you are only casually familiar with.

I've read plenty of reviews that included information about Black Isle, F1/F2, etc but it isn't all of them. You don't need to play F1/F2 to write a review about F3/NV.

 

[Plautus]

As a Fallout fan, I share your frustration with reviewers' opinions of New Vegas; I almost shouted when one moron complained that "the revenge quest of New Vegas doesn't resonate as deeply as the plot of Fallout 3", as if Bethtards were actually more intelligent writers than the people who wrote New Vegas. Then I remembered a couple important things:

1. They're reviewing the game for a specific audience: the main stream gamer. The main stream gamer usually just jumps the bandwagon from one successful title to another without looking beyond that particular game. For them, all that matters is a shallow good time. If game is too intelligent (by that I mean actually intelligent like the first two Fallouts) then they won't like it. In summary, they know their audience.

2. Who cares what the reviewers and mainstream gamers say anyways? We know that Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are great, and that New Vegas is an attempt to relive that glory. Why would we need validation from somebody that plays a hundred games a year? Be content in your personal truth, and disregard those of others.