PC game reviews

By Shock0311 on May 6, 2009 1:17:31 PM from

Could these be any more out of touch with current PC gaming?

Now that I've got your attention think about what I just said. A PC game isn't a movie it's not static, it's dynamic, and any PC gamer will tell you that after release most PC games become better. Support is what matters here whether that is future content, new features, or simply bug fixes it happens. Now the problem however is the vast majority of PC game reviews focus either on pre release game clients or initial retail clients of the game. So what you're left with is an initial release review, that's it not a true review of a product that changes. I don't read reviews of games that are updated acknowledging that developers have either added content, fixed issues the initial review complained about, or the developer has totally dropped support for that game. Why not? Why is the standard PC game review the same static review process of other media that in fact doesn't change?

PC game reviewers need to get with the program already. Gone are the days of an initial release review and that applying throughout a game's lifetime. For the insignificant amount of work it takes to read a few patch notes and content feature updates why isn't this being done? Take for example Demigod and Gamespot's "review" That review really only applies to the initial release week of the game not what the game is right now that players enjoy. It's as though these "gamers" that write these reviews are anything but and instead just using an obsolete format of reviewing because either their readership is too stupid to notice or nobody is calling them out on reviews that don't actually reflect the experience.

Thoughts?

+1 Karma | 13 Replies

Most PC game reviews seem to have been made by someone who spent a couple hours or so looking at the various early screens in a game and who never really played it, certainly not enough to understand it and write a decent review.

Therefore, I ignore reviews except for screen shots.

A think you are just angry at the demigod gamespot review. I think pc game review still can be applied to single player games like mass effect, gta4, and sins of a solar empire.

multiplayer games can still be reviewed like team fortress 2, demigod, quake, crysis wars. They should be played online and then reviewed.

Now, it's mmorpg games that don't apply. WoW, Age of Conan, and other mmorpg changes over time much more than Demigod.

As for the gamespot review, lets hope they re-review it in a month. I think they were trying to tell a message saying to stay away because of multiplayer issues. When I bought warcraft3 6 years ago, I could start playing multiplayer right away on day 1. I had no issues with Red alert3 last year on launch.

If Stardock fixed it 2 days later, then I would cheer for them. It's 3 weeks after launch and multiplayer still sucks. You can't get a 5v5 game going. You'll be spending atleast 10 minutes to get into a 3v3 game if you are lucky.

PC game reviews are about as biased as you can get. Companies pay for positive reviews or at least to postpone the review until their initial sales are capitalized on. Gamespot is notorious for this. There were big name games that didnt have a review on GS even 2 weeks after the intial releases because the games were abysmal, but the publishers (*cough* EA *hack*) paid for them to postpone the reviews until after the majority of their sales had been met. The reviews on Gamespot themselves are heavily unbalanced when looking at review sites like metacritic where the GS review is way at the bottom or way at the top compared to other gaming sites/magazine reviews.

Now I do agree that reviews should be "revisited" so to speak or have release bugs taken into account when setting up the review. Granted there have been some releases where the bugs prevented the game from even installing let alone running and no patch could correct such behavior, but to dock reviews based on factors that are fixed within days is absurd.

Taking directly from the gamespot review of Demigod, how the lack of a tutorial or single player campaign was a negative, this is highly inconsistent with other games they've not mentioned this in with similar characteristics. For one, anyone who has played a single player match of Demigod already knows how to play by the end of the match. If someone needs a tutorial to play DG, then they are either a noob to gaming in general or just lazy. As for the single player campaign, DG is not about single player. Perhaps this is the fault of Stardock for promoting the fact that it has a single player experience etc... but the primary purpose of the game is to play online in a tournament setting. By the same reasoning games like unreal tournament, left 4 dead, or any other MP based game with SP parts should be docked heavily in their scores. Further, games like half life 2, mass effect, etc should be docked for not having MP when clearly they could.

I just think that reviews should be based on factors that appeal or disappeal to particular genres of gaming. Meaning, if a game is strategy, rpg, etc, it should be treated as such by a reviewer who favors said type. Further, MP and SP should be reviewed and weighted independently because often times people do not care that it has SP if they want it for MP or vice versa. Also should be considered the games focus and whether or not it delivers what is advertised. Longevity of the game needs to be factored as well as price of the game. In fact, they should indicate what they feel the game is "worth" compared to other titles of similar type. There are many first party titles that release for say $50US that should really be in the bargain bin at $20US at most.

There are general things that should be factored as well like how good the sound and graphics are, how well the game controls (because I dont care how good the game is, if you cannot control it well, it's garbage in my book) for the platform released, and how well balanced the game is (this is subjective as it balance is typically adjusted over the life of the game) and further how buggy the game is (as often times there are bugs in the engine itself that will never get resolved - rubberbanding in titan quest anyone?). Overall value of the game should be a primary factor, not just that it sucks or doesnt suck based on the reviewers bias toward the game.

I've rated quite a few games, both games that I like or disliked, and given them fair reviews (not necessarily all positive to the ones I liked and likewise vice versa to dislike) and I've found many people find my reviews helpful when deciding whether or not to purchase a specific title for a specific price.

I think Stardock should start up a branch in their company for gaming reviews They've proven themselves honest and trustworth with their releases and I think they could do the same in the review world. Perhaps when the economy improves we'll see "Stardock Reviewing Monthly" or some such business. I just want to see more honest reviewing that isnt based on which publishers pay more for postponed and positive reviews of horrible products while smaller companies get the shaft.

I had no issues with Red alert3 last year on launch.

Wow, you were lucky then. I had my computer set to DMZ and still had issues with MP. Then again RA3 to this day does not load on the first attempt. It hangs at a specific bit range (when SecuROM is checking its stuff) and I have to manually shut it down and retry. This usually goes for 10 minutes before it loads. Connecting to MP wasnt viable until about the 3rd or 4th patch 2 months later. By then, I had no interest in the game any more and was miffed that I wasted $50 (granted it was a gift and I didnt actually waste $50, but still).

I don't like this "they will patch it later" lame excuse. When I get a game to play I don't want to feel like I paid money to beta test a game. You brought up demigod, you do know that the reviews don't only talk about the failed online right? The lack of a single player I think is a huge blow in a game that is part RPG with short battles. Sins gets the get out of jail card on this one because it is epic and some MP skirmish games can last as long as some single player games out there.

The review is supposed to give you an idea what you are about to face when you buy the product NOW and not a year later after it is patched.

Quoting love9sick,

reply 4

The review is supposed to give you an idea what you are about to face when you buy the product NOW and not a year later after it is patched.

Which Gamespot's review doesn't. It spends most of its time on the negative aspects of the game, spends no time on how the engine itself performs in the single player nor how well the game is balanced. I agree that a game should play right out of the box, and DG does. I had no problems connecting after the second day and the first two days had a legitimate excuse as many copies were released before they were supposed to be and the games' 'street date' was pushed back artificially causing massive scramble on the part of developers to compensate. I dont doubt that some of the fault is on the developers in terms of the MP issues, but when a review is significantly lower than the majority of the other reviews on other sites (further reviewed less than 6 hours after the product was officially released indicating the review was already put together days before the product had been released - especially when a video review is in play), it's difficult to find validity within the review.

IF I remember correctly, World of Warcraft, a strictly online game, took 3 months before people could reliably connect to their servers without waiting in half hour queues. I remember this quite well. Was WoW docked points across the review sites (including GS) for inabilities to connect right NOW? No because blizzard is a large developer and heaven forbid GS piss them off.

I should add there are a number of console games that required patches after their release because they were flawed and buggy that got over the top reviews inspite of those facts.

Quoting love9sick,

reply 4

That's the whole problem though, the games don't stay static, new content is introduced and issued fixed. I don't know about you but I don't purchase many PC games the first week of their release. I'll wait until they drop in price and take for example Dawn of War 2 which was said to have little multiplayer options that certainly isn't the case now. They are adding a new game mode, have released more maps, and are also improving the AI. That isn't reflected on the release day review of the game that doesn't exist any longer because the incorporation the steam downloads all those things for you. Demigod and DoW2 aren't the only games either I could name a whole slew of PC games that has changed for the better compared to the initial release day reviews. Right now you aren't getting anything but a glimpse of release day history reading them now especially if you're reading reviews of PC games that have been out for months.

Quoting Verkinix,

reply 5

funny isn't it that the game went on to be the most played MMO of all time, god forbid Gamespot actually got it right despite the issues huh?

Gamespot are amongst one of the best reviewers on the NET, because they dont' review it purely on their own opinions instead review how much the game would be received by the public it's intended for. Sure the overall quality of their pc gaming reviews has been on the low side, yet they were spot on with almost all their reviews I've read this year.

Demigod was one of my most anticipated games of this year and yet in it's current state I would even call gamespot's review generous. Giving demigod anything higher based on assumptions things are going to be better would be far worse IMO.

Game reviews are terrible way of deciding to buy a game. Any game I've bought is based off a prior good experience with a game from that company or a friend recommending me one. Just so happened that 75% of the games I play ended up being from Valve and Blizzard lol

Best way imo if you are looking into a game is just watch gameplay videos of it. Having one sole person decide what a game's worth seems odd to me, look to the people playing it!!!

Quoting _Pedro_,

reply 7

I would be inclined to agree with you IF the review had not been release moments after the game was officially released. Further, I would agree with you if other games had had the same treatment of reviews being release in the same time frame. However, I watched other highly anticipated games from other, bigger publishers have their reviews postponed up to 2 weeks after their releases because the game itself was overhyped and poor overall clearly for the purpose of getting their initial sales out there before anyone sees a review.

Further, I read reviews across the board and I didnt find GS's review of DG to be valid on the points it was making. He was complaining about no single player campaign and a lack of tutorial, but this game is marketted toward the hard core, online tournament crowd of gamers who, if they've ever played an RTS or RPG before, they should have no problem jumping right into this game. I dont see why lack of these things are a negative toward a game that clearly is geared a different way.

Now he does have a valid point about the multiplayer, but had the review been released in a time frame that other reviews from GS get released, the point would have made more sense. I have seen reviews on GS of games that released with horrible online bugs at release that were never mentioned nor discounted toward the review score. If, after a day or two of release the multiplayer is still shakey, then comment on it. But that review I read the morning of the release date. The game had only officially been released a few hours before the review was posted. That means the reviewer had to have been writing the review before the games release and before the servers were even fully functional. I'm not saying his review of the online problems is invalid, but they were clearly based on incomplete data of the time frame.

The video review played up DGs strengths as the game is extremely fun to play, but the overall review score does not reflect the games strengths. In my reviews I've posted DG between 80 and 85% positive. Multiplayer and online issues are temporary in any online game, so a shakey release (that every online game company goes through) is moot.

You're point about how WoW's review was superb to how the game was inspite of the connection and login issues contradicts what you were saying about reviews anticipating future events. It was positive because it was anticipating that the problems would be fixed. Likewise, once DGs online problems are fixed, the game will definitely be a hit. Then, unlike how WoW's review reflects its current state, DG's review will be grossly under what it should be in the eyes of the players who enjoy that genre nitch.

GS reviewers simply dont factor in enough variables to their scores and the reviews end up being more personal opinions rather than factual balance scales of positive and negative. (I should point out that one of GS reviewers a few years back was fired because they gave a bad review to a game that the publisher paid for a good review. The reviewer refused to change their review and were fired because of it. After which the score was changed, but the review remained the same. This sort of behavior has been prevailent through GS's history and therefore invalidates their claims as a game review company.)

Reviews are bogus, period. For everything; some more than others at any rate.

PC reviews are probably the least tainted of all platforms. I like to think it's because the people doing the reviews are PC gamers, and therefore have a modcium of sanity and experience to base the review off of. And given that it's the oldest platform, they probably know what the fuck they're doing. Whereas a new console comes out, any Joe Blow can kick off his gaming career on it.

All reviews suffer from two glaring problems. The first is the 'final score'. At best, they're ambiguous, at their worst, well, utterly misleading. While breaking down the aspects of the game to figure into the score can reflect where the game failed, is it really fair to have a game with brilliant gameplay and a gripping story trashed on the final review because the graphics weren't up to snuff? Who the hell decided how technically impressive the game is was worth exactly the same 'weight' as the meat and potatoes of it? If a game was designed to be an awesome single player experience, and had a lousy multiplayer thrown in just to satiate the annoying whining dipshits, why would a '10' for single player be marginalized by at '4' for multiplayer?

Were I, in my infinite wisdom, to change reviews, the 'Final Score' would be replaced with, at best, a "Cliff Notes" version of the full-body review. Sum up your thoughts for readers, don't package a gameplay experience into a single number. That's asinine.

The second problem and the BIGGEST problem is that... reviews are hardly reviews anymore. Those of you who have read the 'main body' of reviews instead of the score should know what I'm talking about. Most game reviews reek of being massive, verbose advertisements for the game in question. Even a heavily flawed game rarely gets more than a line or two thrown out about the weak voice acting or the repetetive gameplay, but the reviewer will go on for a paragraph or more about how fun it was to chop off heads. I find CRITICISM to be MORE helpful when it comes to deciding to buy a game or not. You can go on and on about how fun it is to blast zombies, but who cares when you're bored as hell of playing the same lousy levels over and over again? An equal portion, if not MORE, of a review should be soley dedicated to ripping it apart. Gushing about how awesome it was to see the mountains in the distance in Oblivion does nothing to stop me from noticing how hideously terrible the gameplay is.

Maybe some of it has to do with being starry-eyed. Reviewers rarely get to invest large amounts of time into a game, and initially the razzle-dazzle will probably stick with them longer. But that's the fault of the reviewer, not anything less. AAA titles these days are just massive hype machines that wind up to deliver a substandard product, and an amazing amount of morons customers get caught up in it. They're TOLD it's going to be a great game, so they CONVINCE THEMSELVES that it's a great game. The human mind of those more 'fragile' than others can sometimes do some amazing mental gymnastics to convince someone of anything.

And nowadays, and the PC platform tends to be largely excemt from this, reviews are just about upstaging. How many games have you seen get 10/10 scores BEFORE, say, 2004? I don't think I ever saw ONE. Go compare multi-platform releases of the exact same game. Why did Bioshock on the Xbox score way more 'points' than the PC version? Why is anything 85% and below considered to 'suck'? Go look at Metacritic for Killzone 2, Halo 3, MGS4.

When's the last time you EVER saw that many 100s? NO GAME is worth 100 'points' no matter WHAT you score it on. There's no such thing as a perfect game. The most brilliant, epic game I've ever played, Planescape: Torment, still has spots where it can drop a point or two. I figrue there's two reasons for this. First of all is that console gamers are easily impressed, usually have little to no gaming experience, and ridiculously low standards. And if that offends you, you can pretend that the second reason is why, that the people reviewing these are pressured by their magazine and advertising dollars OR publishers (In the case of "Official _ Magazine" handing out 100's obligatory to EVERY exclusive title).

Frankly, the best review site? There isn't one. Piracy, maybe. I don't trust my stupid friends, I don't trust any media any more. I have EXTREMELY high standards most people don't even begin to understand. Everyone at work thinks COD4 is the most amazing shooter ever made, the best I can do is scream at them with my mind and sigh heavily. Oblivion is thought to be the best RPG ever made, and I think that every single, minute aspect of that game (EVERY ASPECT - GO AHEAD, NAME ONE! EVEN THE UNINSTALLER LEFT SHIT ON MY HARD DRIVE) was an abomination, and the developers deserved nothing less than to be castrated and tortured. I'd have been fucking ashamed if I had had any part of that atrocity.

Reviews are one of the worst things the gaming industry has going for it right now.

I really don't pay reviewers much mind, the only games they really influence me on are games I never really intended to buy but had my slight interest. Demigod is actually one of those games, and I'd honestly buy it now, if it weren't for the fact that I'm broke. Even with GS's review, overall the game seems well recieved despite its launch issues. I usually don't discount GS's reviews anymore then another sites, but for the various reasons already stated above, this particular time smells like old tuna.

Personally I really wish we'd get away from straight numerical or alphabetical grades and switch to a more abstract system, similar to the one used by X-Play. I know most people hate them for one reason or another, but I take their scoring as follows.

1/5 stars = Just Terrible. Almost no one will find a redeemable quality in this game.

2/5 stars = For the fans. If you like this genre, you may like this title. If not, you probably want to stay away.

3/5 stars = A decent game. If you like this genre you'll enjoy this game. A toss up if its not your normal bag.

4/5 stars = A good game. Not perfect, but most anyone can find something they like here.

5/5 stars = An excellent game. A fantastic title, highly recommended for any gamer.

Thats how I see it at least.

Well, I have yet to read a movie review I 100% agreed with, and I am not expecting to read a game review that I 100% agree with either. I read them for key words and key issues and for entertainment purposes. A lot of games not considered mainstream don't do well on reviews. So what? How long are we going to hear complaints about the Demigod reviews. If you have the game and like it, go write one of your own review about it. There are plenty of sites that offer an avenue for it. Add your opinion instead of spending time trying to silence someone else's.

As a PC gamer, I stopped paying much attention to reviews a long time ago. Most games are reviewed in a rushed fashion; the reviewer has to get their content out quickly and so they brisk over the game's content quickly. I'm the kind of gamer who likes to play the same game for months on end, if not years on end. These reviews just cover the fluff on the surface of the game, and don't even begin to represent the package underneath. Support is just one issue; you can't tell me how a strategy game plays with only a week of experience. I find you need to play for upwards of a month before you get a feel of the underlying mechanics of a suitably complicated game. Very few reviewers actually take this kind of time.

So where do I look for my reviews? I look for fan reviews that were posted over a month after the game was released. These are by far the most reliable reviews you will find on the internet. The fanboys and "professionals" will have posted their hasty reviews long before this date, and the people who take the time to make an informed and detailed review that late are usually the ones you can trust; they're in it because they enjoy the game, and their review is going to tell you why.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

PC game reviews