[Guess Who]

Keep in mind that while it may be fine and dandy for the average gamer to think "ugh, werehog, more tacked-on bullshit, I'll pass", a paid reviewer should go in to each game with an objective mindset. It's not a professional review if they go in expecting bullshit, quit playing after a level or two, then berate the game without giving it a fair chance. That's like Roger Ebert going in to the theater, watching the first ten minutes of a movie, then reviewing it.

This post has been edited by Guess Who: 27 November 2008 - 02:50 PM

[BlazeHedgehog]

Guess Who, on Nov 27 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

Keep in mind that while it may be fine and dandy for the average gamer to think "ugh, werehog, more tacked-on bullshit, I'll pass", a paid reviewer should go in to each game with an objective mindset. It's not a professional review if they go in expecting bullshit, quit playing after a level or two, then berate the game without giving it a fair chance. That's like Roger Ebert going in to the theater, watching the first ten minutes of a movie, then reviewing it.

We are, though, coming off the tail end of the Christmas Rush. When a reviewer has 4-5 games to review in one week, why should they waste their time on something they already expect to be garbage? There are bigger fish they need to fry before deadline.

This post has been edited by BlazeHedgehog: 27 November 2008 - 04:03 PM

[TimmiT]

You all know Out of the Box isn't a review show, but is about first impressions right?
Maxifent Corey (the girl at the computer that was telling them the questions) responded in the thread at Screwattack:

Quote

I think the biggest misconception about OotB, in regards to audiences outside of the ScrewAttack community is that it's a review show. It's not. The whole idea for OotB came from watching...maybe Ben (?) play a new game for the first time, and his initial reactions to it. A lot of opinions are formed within the first few minutes of gameplay. This isn't a review show as we haven't even played through the whole game yet. Most of the time, whoever's going to be on that day's show has taken the game...out of the box...for the very first time, only a few minutes before we air.

95% of the games we feature on OotB end up getting a proper review the following week - VGR (or Video Game Review).

Now, as for this week's OotB, I watched the show just like everyone else, and I was left with a different opinion over how Ben and Craig felt about Sonic. Ben stated that the game really isn't that bad, contrary to popular perception, and even said he'd take it home and play it over the weekend. If he truly hated it, he wouldn't want to spend his weekend playing.

Craig made a comment that I think really rings true - the expectations for Sonic games are pretty high. If this WEREN'T a Sonic game, it would probably get a better response, because it didn't seem as bad as everyone else was making it out to be. However, since the bar has been set pretty high for Sonic in the past, people are going to be disappointed when the game doesn't measure up to their hopes.

In the end, both Craig and Ben said that the game is at the very least, worth a rent. To me, that doesn't sound like they were trashing the game, at all. Ben is a HUGE Sonic fan, and could have very easily fanboyed out over the "new Sonic game," and advised everyone that it was the greatest game ever because it was starring SEGA's poster child. But he didn't - he gave his honest feelings on the matter. His initial impression. The whole purpose of Out of the Box.

[Dark Sonic]

Well at least it's good that Sonic has high expectations. Shows that people still think he can be good. Some hope.

[BlazeHedgehog]

I think it's just sad that they feel the need to defend themselves over the review of a Sonic game because people like us are freaking out. I like Sonic games too, but I don't expect everybody else to like them. Infact, I kind of expect most people don't like Sonic games nowadays.

We are very quickly being grouped with the same type of people who still play Dynasty Warriors games; Sonic fans are the "battered wives" of gaming.

This post has been edited by BlazeHedgehog: 27 November 2008 - 10:21 PM

[Guess Who]

BlazeHedgehog, on Nov 27 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

Guess Who, on Nov 27 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

Keep in mind that while it may be fine and dandy for the average gamer to think "ugh, werehog, more tacked-on bullshit, I'll pass", a paid reviewer should go in to each game with an objective mindset. It's not a professional review if they go in expecting bullshit, quit playing after a level or two, then berate the game without giving it a fair chance. That's like Roger Ebert going in to the theater, watching the first ten minutes of a movie, then reviewing it.

We are, though, coming off the tail end of the Christmas Rush. When a reviewer has 4-5 games to review in one week, why should they waste their time on something they already expect to be garbage? There are bigger fish they need to fry before deadline.

You're right, of course. Why should reviewers do their job when they can just half-ass it, finish quicker, and get paid the same? (I do understand what you're saying though.)

Also consider that most of the major sites like IGN and Gamespot have yet to post their review of the 360 version, meaning either they simply haven't got around to the game or are taking their sweet time on it.

This post has been edited by Guess Who: 28 November 2008 - 12:05 AM

[Xilla]

I just read the Unleashed review on Gamecentral (UK teletext), they're pretty damning of the whole thing, although their reasons for hating it don't really go any further than "because Sega are stupid".

[Quexinos]

Xilla, on Nov 28 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

I just read the Unleashed review on Gamecentral (UK teletext), they're pretty damning of the whole thing, although their reasons for hating it don't really go any further than "because Sega are stupid".

Bad reviews AND bad grammar.

[BlazeHedgehog]

Guess Who, on Nov 28 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

BlazeHedgehog, on Nov 27 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

Guess Who, on Nov 27 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

Keep in mind that while it may be fine and dandy for the average gamer to think "ugh, werehog, more tacked-on bullshit, I'll pass", a paid reviewer should go in to each game with an objective mindset. It's not a professional review if they go in expecting bullshit, quit playing after a level or two, then berate the game without giving it a fair chance. That's like Roger Ebert going in to the theater, watching the first ten minutes of a movie, then reviewing it.

We are, though, coming off the tail end of the Christmas Rush. When a reviewer has 4-5 games to review in one week, why should they waste their time on something they already expect to be garbage? There are bigger fish they need to fry before deadline.

You're right, of course. Why should reviewers do their job when they can just half-ass it, finish quicker, and get paid the same? (I do understand what you're saying though.)

Also consider that most of the major sites like IGN and Gamespot have yet to post their review of the 360 version, meaning either they simply haven't got around to the game or are taking their sweet time on it.

Well, it's just, like... the example about Roger Ebert having to review movies. Most movies are, on average, 2 hours. Three, if you're pushing it. Dude can watch three or four movies a day, and even if there's a sudden rush of stuff hitting theaters, he can generally power through them all in a single three day weekend.

Games are a very different beast. They require skill and a much, much larger time investment. A typical game nowadays is at least seven hours or more, and during the holiday rush you'll hit a period where 6 games will come out and they're all at least 20-40 hours long. So they're staring down the barrel of 120+ hours worth of gaming and they need to have these reviews up on the site in a week.

There's a story Dan Shoe of EGM used to tell, about how they got Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas the night before the deadline for their review, and the whole review staff stayed up all night, playing the game in shifts in order to have their review ready. And that was on GTA, a game that mattered to the mainstream.

When faced with the option of either playing more of a game they expect to suck ass, or going back to a longer, possibly better game like Fallout 3 or Valkyia Chronicles... well, I'd assume they'd spend their time as wisely as they think they should.

I have to wonder if IGN, Gamespot, or Gametrailers even plans on reviewing the 360 version at all.

[muteKi]

Quexinos, on Nov 28 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

Xilla, on Nov 28 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

I just read the Unleashed review on Gamecentral (UK teletext), they're pretty damning of the whole thing, although their reasons for hating it don't really go any further than "because Sega is stupid".

Bad reviews AND bad grammar.

No, it's a singular collective noun (hence, re-fixed). There's Only One Sega!

[SoNick]

Indeed; if they had said "the people of SEGA" or something to that extent then "are" would be correct, but they did not.

As for Screw Attack?
It's simple, really:
99% of vlogs are stupid; Unless you have a really compelling reason to use video to get your point across, I'd rather read what you have to say at my own pace instead of having some jerkoff read it aloud. Yes, nearly every time the jerkoff reading it is the jerkoff who comes up with the material in the first place but that still doesn't invalidate my point.

Screw Attack is no exception to this rule; if I want to see what your "Top 5/10/[x] [Best|Worst] of [y]" is, I'd rather be able to skim it for the important points to see if you actually have a clue what you're talking about before all of the details behind each choice come at me.

They also apparently do reviews of games, as this topic strongly hints.
This is good and all, but... why should I care what they think of [game z]? What good does it do me to know that some kid on the internet liked/didn't like it?

Sure, they probably go into detail and all that, but that's where we hit the text/video problem again: I really couldn't give two shits about most of what they have to say; if their key points make sense then I'll read the bits that sound interesting. If they don't, I'll look over the section to see if they have any form of reasonable explanation for their stance.
This is all lost when the reviews are in video form.

[OKei]

I hope nobody busts my ass by saying this but, I'm pretty surprised the members of Sonic Retro (let alone anybody) would actually take the people of Screw Attack so seriously. Especially, Stuttering Craig.

[Vaiz]

BlazeHedgehog, on Nov 28 2008, 07:56 AM, said:

I have to wonder if IGN, Gamespot, or Gametrailers even plans on reviewing the 360 version at all.

It'll be a damned shame if they don't, since that's the version that really shines. I'm afraid if they only review the Wii version, people will assume the higher tier counterpart will be the same thing, but prettier.

[Phos]

Kei, on Nov 28 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

I hope nobody busts my ass by saying this but, I'm pretty surprised the members of Sonic Retro (let alone anybody) would actually take the people of Screw Attack so seriously. Especially, Stuttering Craig.

He has a bunch of Nintendrones who think he knows everything about video games. The guy recommended people buy Facebreakers, then a month or so later said that it sucked in comparision to Ready 2 Rumble (a Dreamcst launch title). I find myself doubting that he'd played it for more than a half hour before recommending people pay $60 for it.

[Quexinos]

muteKi, on Nov 28 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

Quexinos, on Nov 28 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

Xilla, on Nov 28 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

I just read the Unleashed review on Gamecentral (UK teletext), they're pretty damning of the whole thing, although their reasons for hating it don't really go any further than "because Sega is stupid".

Bad reviews AND bad grammar.

No, it's a singular collective noun (hence, re-fixed). There's Only One Sega!

I never fixed anything. I quoted what he said and bolded the wrong part. He wrote "Sega ARE stupid" which is incorrect. The correct phrase, as I was saying as you ALSO said is, "Sega IS"

and now I miss my Unleashed. I feel like I hardly knew thee... I see my cousin tomorrow, I wonder if he has a 360 or PS3 he'd be willing to let me use until Christmas.

This post has been edited by Quexinos: 29 November 2008 - 02:31 AM