Shaanyboi's forum posts

#1 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -
#2 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

@m2cks: 4 years actually. By the time this arrives here, it will have been 4 years since the 3DS launch

#3 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

SHUUUUUUULK

Also Duck Hunt Dog. HA.

#4 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

That finale was fucking crazy. Some BRUTAL takedowns this season. Also seeing Jinora slowly grow into a leader is awesome.

#5 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

Kojima is an instant turn-off...

#6 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

yuck, if this is true, i hope it flops. they should have learned from titanfall

You hope a game flops, potentially resulting in a ton of people losing their jobs, all because you're upset that a game is coming to a different system than one that you own? What kind of attitude is this?

#7 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

Game seems like it would be fun on a harder difficulty

#8 Posted by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

"BUT WHEN I DO IT, IT'S CUTE!"

#9 Edited by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

@president_barackbar said:

@shaanyboi said:

@president_barackbar said:
@shaanyboi said:
  • Chris Wager raises the criticism that reviewers sometimes unfairly dismiss complicated games.

I hope people are reading this...

Honestly, its just the nature of the business. I know superfans of things like Smash or Metal Gear Rising or Wonderful 101 really like to shout down reviewers for not understanding why people like the games or playing them that much. The thing is that not every publication has someone who is super into a specific genre or game series, let alone someone good at the specific kind of game. For a lot of publications, its just not worth it to spend a ton of time with one specific game. I know that's super disappointing for fans, but its just the way it is.

Except it serves absolutely no one. The reviewer just comes off as ignorant to the people who actually played and explored the game. The reader who wants a review to inform their decision gets misled. The developer doesn't get an actual critique of their game, they just get a surface level glance. It's a poor, dismissive approach, and anyone that actually cares about balanced game mechanics is left not getting served any information.

I'm not saying every reviewer has to be a competitive-level master at every game - that would be incredibly unreasonable. But I'd hope the reviewer would be better able to articulate and more willing to engage with a game on a deeper level to understand what makes it different. In the writer's example, popping Smash Bros. Melee for an hour and then playing Brawl should atleast elicit could some kind of a response like "This does feel different... It has a different weight to it, and my character just feels slower." Just shrugging "Yeah, it was okay I guess. I pressed the button and the dude swing the sword. It's.... visceral?" doesn't help me. It says nothing.

And brushing off people who want an analysis with some level of depth as "the crazies" is a gross attitude to have. These are people who should be more willing and able to look deeper into what's going in a game rather than shaking their head after 20 minutes of not understanding and walking away.

"The nature of the business" isn't good enough. That's not an okay excuse.

Then find better game reviewers? I dunno, I'm not trying to apologize for bad reviews, but I think that if you feel that the reviews you read don't cover games in an adequate manner, find some other ones that do. I'm also not sure where in my post I derided anyone for being crazy, I was merely attempting to point out that many times game superfans will be overly vocal about how the reviewer doesn't understand the game like they do and render their criticism as illegitimate. I think most reviewers that I read do a good job at taking the appropriate amount of time learning a game for review, but then again I don't really read any reviews outside of Giant Bomb, so if this is a huge problem with a lot of mainstream game sites I wouldn't really know.

Regarding "the crazies" comment, that wasn't directed at you as much as it was an issue the author was having in the article about how those that disagree or call out reviewers get labeled. His post isn't without its own questionable statements, but he's not wrong about how reviewers will dismiss criticism towards them regarding their own analysis of a game. It's not a question about skill as much as it is about, well, effort. Effort in looking at a game with a pre-existing community and discussing what they may care about (even on a base level), effort in engaging with what the designers have put into a game, effort into articulating their feelings that aren't broad stroke statements, and even sometimes effort into noticing other options.

Giantbomb is in a unique position in that they rarely review anything, but there are plenty of Quick Looks where someone would be making a complaint again and again, and not noticing there is an option just on the side that would fix their problem.

#10 Edited by Shaanyboi (1347 posts) -

@president_barackbar said:
@shaanyboi said:
  • Chris Wager raises the criticism that reviewers sometimes unfairly dismiss complicated games.

I hope people are reading this...

Honestly, its just the nature of the business. I know superfans of things like Smash or Metal Gear Rising or Wonderful 101 really like to shout down reviewers for not understanding why people like the games or playing them that much. The thing is that not every publication has someone who is super into a specific genre or game series, let alone someone good at the specific kind of game. For a lot of publications, its just not worth it to spend a ton of time with one specific game. I know that's super disappointing for fans, but its just the way it is.

Except it serves absolutely no one. The reviewer just comes off as ignorant to the people who actually played and explored the game. The reader who wants a review to inform their decision gets misled. The developer doesn't get an actual critique of their game, they just get a surface level glance. It's a poor, dismissive approach, and anyone that actually cares about balanced game mechanics is left not getting served any information.

I'm not saying every reviewer has to be a competitive-level master at every game - that would be incredibly unreasonable. But I'd hope the reviewer would be better able to articulate and more willing to engage with a game on a deeper level to understand what makes it different. In the writer's example, popping Smash Bros. Melee for an hour and then playing Brawl should atleast elicit could some kind of a response like "This does feel different... It has a different weight to it, and my character just feels slower." Just shrugging "Yeah, it was okay I guess. I pressed the button and the dude swing the sword. It's.... visceral?" doesn't help me. It says nothing.

And brushing off people who want an analysis with some level of depth as "the crazies" is a gross attitude to have. These are people who should be more willing and able to look deeper into what's going in a game rather than shaking their head after 20 minutes of not understanding and walking away.

"The nature of the business" isn't good enough. That's not an okay excuse.