Game Reviews- For Entertainment or a Buying Guide?

John Gibson · Game Reviews- For Entertainment or a Buying Guide?

Haha, it's quite entertaining how amateurish this review is. People fail to realize that there is a responsibility coming with reviewing. "No one's telling you to watch it"? Actually, that fun little human feeling of WANTING TO KNOW IF THE GAME IS WORTH THE MONEY is telling you to watch it.

Newsflash: people don't watch reviews for entertainment. Only the upper crowd.

And a game isn't fun in the long run if it isn't deep.

The latest comment on my Virtua Fighter 5 review says

"No one watches reviews for Entertainment"

It also says I should have a responsibility to tell viewers whether to buy the game or not.

People like this could not be more wrong. A reviewers job is to share his or her opinion, not convince the viewer to buy X game. Of course, any reviewer who is compensated to tell the viewer(s) to buy the game is not a reviewer, in my opinion.

Let's say X Game Company came to one of us and said "We'll give you a billion dollars if you tell your viewers that X game Part 17 is great". Then we decide to play the game, and it's horrible. Do we still give it the "Keep It"?

Absolutely not! Cause we're lying, plain and simple. VMTV, and people like us, such as Retroware TV, and even those angry reviewers, review the games for entertainment purposes, not to act as a buying guide because your dumb ass can't decide if you want to buy X game or not.

If, by some chance, someone watches a review to an out of production game, and says "Hey, your review inspired me to go to Ebay and buy it, thanks", that's cool, but it's not our job. I'm happy that one of our reviews was inspirational enough, but the reviews on VMTV are NOT meant to tell you if you should invest your money in a game.

Hell, we review Arcade games, for Christ sake. Are we about to tell you invest $6000 in Mortal Kombat II? Hell no!

This could make a good rant, too. Oh, and there's also something to be said about his last comment about how games aren't fun if they're not deep. That cracked me up.

Black Flag NC

Fuckin A.

I've never let a review influence me to buy or not buy a game. Now if a game got nothing but bad reviews, I may wait till I can find it cheap. But I'll still play what appeals to me.

To me the score given to the game is the least important part of the review. The reviewer should explain why they did or didn't enjoy the game. Every reviewer is biased towards the style of game they like. For example, I hate long cutscenes and tons of dialogue. Therefore I naturally don't care for Final Fantasy, Shenmue, or Metal Gear Solid. It's not that they're bad games, it's just not my thing.

I always get pissed at these reviews of shoot-em-ups when you can tell the reviewer don't even know the difference between a vert and a hori: "Duh... this game sucks because it's hard and I die too much. What's the point of the score? This game got stuck in a time warp! Etc..."

That's what I like about our own Kepp it/Try it/Toss it system. It leaves room for our own bias. Theoretically, everything should be a "Try it if it looks like you'd dig it"... but that's a bit wordy. Laughing

John Gibson

Yeah, you'll notice that I never say this game sucks, or whatever (at least I don't think I have, hahaha). There are games that I'm not interested in. If someone says have you played X game, and I haven't, I won't say Oh it sucks. I'll just say no, it's not my game, don't have time for a game like that, etc.

HAHA, your quote about "This game sucks. It's hard and I die too much" sounds like something the Angry Nerd, or Irate Gamer would say.

It's just so funny that people think reviews are supposed to influence you to buy a game. I'd like to know who says so.

StrifeDeliveries · HAHA

That's some funny stuff right there. Anybody who knows anything knows a review is not to be a condemning action or a set in stone for every person in out there. And you can be predisposed to certain genres as my friend Matt described, as I have been a long time fan of Final Fantasy's and dialogues (suck it Matt Laughing

) but i enjoy many other types as well. To me a review is nothing more than a first rough draft of an essay to the President, simply put its only there to basically lure you in to try it and stop being the a dumbass and religiously following them. Matt has included me into a review of a game and I understand the process of it and how it is. I love the fact of the reviews for VMTV follow a comically overtones while still showing you whats what. And for somebody to give great reviews because they are sponsored by the company, its horseshit. One of my favorite movies "The Matrix" got terrible review and I loved it. So what I have to say about this entire debacle.......... "It's Alright"

John Gibson

Considering a whole bunch of crap that's been happening lately, between my videos being pulled for copyright, and just various issues I have, it's hard to pick a rant.

But I think since this is relevant to the show, I may bring this up at the beginning. Guess you'll know how the show opens when ya see it. hehe

Splodge

I wouldn't say any review should be used as a buying guide - no one should use a review as the sole reason for buying a game.

Having said that, I do freely admit that I have avoided / watched (or played) movies or games based purely on reviews. I had planned on skipping Punisher War Zone but after a couple of reviews said it was actually a fun movie, I decided to watch it. I only really got into Metal Gear Solid after seeing a few video reviews. Before that, I had no interest what-so-ever.
So reviews can be enough on their own to influence my decisions. But that is not what a review should be - that is not the point of the review.

But a reviewer does have a responsibility. A reviewer has spent time with a game and they do truly have a responsibility to share their experience with people who have not - most people who watch reviews are interested in seeing opinions of games they have not personally played yet.

I'll admit that I'm not in 100% agreement the way VMTV reviews everything (No hard feelings - just a difference of opinion).
I do believe a reviewer should offer more than just a casual opinion - they should almost be an expert on the games they review before they can share their experience - or at least have completed it. A lot of great games only make the jump from good to great, at a certain point. To properly review it, it's important to know it all, know the full weight of every part of the game.
Even if it's not a buyer's guide - there should be some level of expertise behind a game review.

The other thing I don't agree with is ruining the endings of movies. With some retro-games, I can forgive it but I can't say it's a good thing to ruin a movie, especially a short film.

Still, like I say, just a difference of opinion - keep doing what you're doing.

Black Flag NC

Splodge

It was very good. Better than I was hoping for. Definitely the best fun I've had with a film in a long time. I'm not sure if it would be as good on my own - it seems like the kind of film you have to watch with an audience, but it was awesome.

StrifeDeliveries

Well, I do tend to agree that when coming to review a game that there should be a level of expertise involved, yet I know a reviewer and been part of one as well (truly only 1 lmao), I got to say, that if you are looking for a hardcore in depth intensely reviewed game of whatever check out your local magazine rack. Plus this show from what I have seen has trended toward more retro and the reviews of said, include humor as well as a general outlining of said game. If you ask me, VMTV is quite entertaining with there main objective of showing games to people that people might not of played. I mean are you seriously going to hold responsible ultimately if somebody reviews a game and TELLS you, not opinionated such as toss it, try it, keep it system, wether or not your going buy the game? NO!! Of course not, screw that! I mean, Final Fantasy fan here, really big one, Bad reviews for FFX.5 (Ya it truly wasn't the best but at least there are some really funny parts and almost haunting info in there that makes me, well a geek for it) but I bought it almost new, like anything I want, I get. Also where else are you going to get video media except on G4 or whatever and you never hear anything about anything older than PS3 or Wii or Xbox 360. Huh? I don't know many but maybe that's me. And if a show where in season 1 John mushes Mario in a laptop, do you think VMTV is out there to bring hardcore solidifying reviews of your FAVORITE GAMES?! Um apparently not really, kinda sorta, break out the cam and go for broke!

So all I am really kind of saying is that ya, Reviewers have responsibilities, and that main goal should be relate a generalized sense of feeling of the game to other gamers who been playing so long they have forgot what day like looks like (no just kidding actually most gamers are productive in society). Because face it, you play enough games, you are always going to play what you want to, not what a review might say, if you want more solidarity, pick a media predisposed to marketing influences and how somebodies wallet might get a little bit fatter if it sells, even if its a COMPLETE flop.

Thank you, and this has been me, ranting uncontrollably for no reason but just to do it.

Oh before I forget, FFX.5 had a kid name Shin-ra (Obviously FFVII) and they discover that in the game a sort of life force flows throughout the planet and how to possibly to use it in the future to make energy for cities and everything like that (See where I am going? Warped sense of creativity handed out by a unique game)

So basically, enjoy the reviews, hold them close, but don't in particular let them influence you so you miss out on some great stuff.
ENJOY

Black Flag NC

Black Flag NC

John Gibson

Splodge

John Gibson

Ya know, in the case of Resident Evil 4 for the Wii, when it was reviewed at the time, it was fairly new, I didn't have to complete the game to review it, nor did I need to to help me figure out if there was a good enough challenge to it. If I spent that much time on it, and I was still not finished upon review time, then there's a great challenge.

Same with Super Paper Mario. I played a lot of that game, was close to finishing it, but I had to get the review out. Completing a game isn't vital to a review, it's not the same as watching a complete film. You cannot review a film if you just watched half of it, and left the theater 45 minutes into the film.

I wouldn't say you have to be an "expert" on the game. No one does. It does help to do your homework on the game. By that, I mean don't look up other people's review, but I find it helps to look at a Wikipedia page, or a website where I can get general info about the game, release date, what other consoles the game was on, etc, and maybe a fun fact here and there.

You are right about RPG's, to a point. I still don't think you have to complete an RPG to review it, especially nowadays, where you have to devote 100 + hours to it in order to get somewhere. Let's say the highest level of experience you can reach in a certain RPG is 60 HP, or whatever. I get 46. I'm maybe another 10 hours or less from the games completion. I can still review it, because I've devoted so much time to it already. I've visited every town, every cave. I'm intimate with every single enemy character in the game, and am familiar with their fight patterns. I've also unlocked 75% of the game's secrets. I can still review the game.

Other people might disagree, and that's fine. Maybe one day, I will pop in an RPG title, and devote some ungodly amount of time to it, and then once I've reached a high level, or decide if I like the game or not, I'll review it.

Naturally, I have found it's not easy to review a game if I can't even get past the first level. Perfect examples of this are when I reviewed Adventures of Batman and Robin on Genesis, and when I almost reviewed Castlevania on the N64. I couldn't review the game because I couldn't even get far enough in the game, so I can review it properly. I thought the graphics were ok, sound was fine. Control was Eh, but it's hard to rate the challenge when you have such a hard time with Level 1. I'm not about to pull an Angry Reviewer and say "This game sucks cause I can't get past the first level". If I'm having so much trouble, I either won't review it, or just devote more time to it, and see what happens.

Splodge

I see what you're saying but I don't think I can completely agree with you.

You could play an RPG to death, get all the secrets, get a high level, visit every town but not finish the game. At that point you think you might have an idea of the quality of the game but really there's no payoff. The ending of that sort of game counts for everything, it's the culmination of everything you've done and a good ending can make the difference between a good game and a great game. You might say that that payoff is not a part of the actual game but it's an important part of the experience.

Imagine playing the lottery. You pick your numbers and buy a ticket. At that point you might think you've captured the lottery experience (you've done everything you've had to do). But the real payoff is checking the results to see if you've won or not. If you don't check, it's a pointless thing to do.

I wouldn't say that only goes for RPGs. In games like Metroid and Zelda, every part of the experience counts. I could play the first two or three dungeons in Ocarina of Time - that would give me an idea of how the game plays technically, but I would have no idea of the scale or impact of the game as a whole.
The same goes for bad games - games that are too short or have bad elements that need to be discovered. The endings of Bioshock and Fallout 3 were a bit of a letdown - while the games were good, they never were great because the ending made things sour and detracted from the experience as a whole.
(And I don't just refer to the ending cinema when I say 'ending' - I mean the actual end-game, be it the last level or final mission or whatever but yes, also the cutscenes too).

But I don't completely disagree with you. This is just another point of view.

John Gibson

StrifeDeliveries

I know, chatty Cathy here again to rant and rave. OK, I see where you are coming from, and I understand your "beefs" with the reviews and shit. But here is where I am going to come from. Your concern is uncompleted games and the reviewers level of responsibility to you, the gamer (consumers Razz

) but its quite simple to me my friend. There is sometimes no way to always review a completely, as John stated, RPG's and some games just EAT YOUR time. So your view is that a 5-7mins segment including opening and closing skits, well written scripts with comedy infused, but how can one justify, reviewing every single minute minute (haha like that double use of a word and differentiating terminologies) of a game? Simply put, unlike a movie which takes only 1-3 hours (hopefully unless your planning a Matrix Marathon or some other hair-brained craziness) a game is pretty basic in, a couple ways, most games offer a unique platform of how they are played, NO game is made equal for all intensive purposes, Ex. are a followed, FFX and FFX.5 same chars, same areas, COMPLETELY different styles, another example would be shoot em ups, every one is different, even if its so minuscule its not even there for you to see. But you can review something because as I stated before, a review is a rough draft, now if you are doing a review or a follow up or a walk through, then ya, dammit play it through all the way. But come on, a review says ya, this is its feel, its movements are decent, graphics blah but it works.

See if a review is that then ya its a REVIEW, and Wikipedia defines consumer reviews as this.......

Consumer review refers to a review written by the owner of a product or the user of a service who has sufficient experience to comment on reliability and whether or not the product or service delivers on its promises.

Expert review usually refers to a review written by someone who has tested several peer products or services to identify which offers the best value for money or the best set of features.

And then you have

Bought Review is the system where the creator (usually a company) of a new product pays a reviewer to review his new product. Primarily used in the car, movie and game industry this system creates a kind of undercover advertising. Bought reviews obviously are often biased, although exceptions occur.

So how can you surmise that, simply put, reviews should be only done after a completion of a game when, in all truth and aspects that game can be reviewed if you have enough experience involved in such game you can make an accurate assessment upon what you have. I mean, you don't play and entire game for 30 hours and do a 5 min review, that's just going to bog you down in producing a show. So, for me a review needs 3 critical information to me, 1) Is the controls difficult to use, learn or how the operation of it goes, 2) Is it fun or is it OMG i died two steps into the game when I was mauled viciously by rabbits!!! 3) Would it be something that I might be interested in by seeing what they are showing on the bright screen in front of me? That's about it, endings are endings, just like beginnings are beginnings, some people like em for what it is and if it wraps up nicely, other people, such as my friend Matt, I don't think he would give a rats ass about an ending if they are going to ramble on about YAY I AM THE SAVIOUR OF THE UNIVERSE. No Matt just wants see shit get blown the frick up.

So, can you review a game without completing it, I DO THINK SO, in fact, if everybody followed the way of the people who get it pre-release (How did they get it unless hmmm, they wanted the review before it came out cause it is MARKETING, CONSUMERISM AT ITS FINEST *gets sick at the thought of consumerism*). I mean look at the types of reviews I wrote............. They get paid from the companies to sit around a fuck off and play for pointless hours to give you the same review as if someone who saw enough of it to give the same damn outline without the pressure of being bias.

AGAIN me ranting uncontrollably spewing forth total nonsense!

Splodge

I don't have any beefs at all with VMTV (I love the show). I guess I'm really just fueling a healthy conversation with a foreign viewpoint.

For the types of reviews VMTV provides, I completely agree - I get an introduction to a game, and a general overview of how much fun it is, as well as whatever extra information you guys want to put in. That's cool and it's definitely entertaining and useful for learning about games I haven't played.
Also, you're right - no point spending 30-100 hours on every game - the show would never get done and a lot of that time would be wasted and have little effect on the quality of the review.

But for professional reviewers / game writers, I would have different expectations. If it is someone's job to review games - if that is how they make a living professionally - I would definitely expect them to finish the game - especially if it's a textual review, which would normally mean a lot more information. Sure it takes a long time - but that's what their time is supposed to be used for.

That's not to say that Professional reviewers are any better than VMTV (mostly they're not) but like I say, VMTV gives me an introduction and some gameplay information and a recommendation - a hardcore information site would want a little more depth - not necessarily in the review but definitely in the work behind the review.

John Gibson

Somehow I have a problem with the words "Hardcore" and "depth".

But then I have a problem with the words "Tangy" and "Zesty", hehe.

Splodge

I don't use 'hardcore' the way the new kids use it (they've ruined it for everyone).
As for depth, that's not to say that VMTV isn't deep - I just mean if someone's job is to review games, they better put the time in and give a complete review.

Again, not to say that VMTV doesn't give complete reviews. I just mean that VMTV recognises that it's an entertainment show. If these 'serious' sites want their reviews to be more than entertainment, they better write them that way.

I hope that sounds fair.

John Gibson

Well, when it comes to X-Play, they just sound too sarcastic, and rely more on jokes than anything else. Both Adam and Morgan sound obnoxious, and sadly, that's how most of the modern gaming generation is.

How that show got to be "TV's most watched video game show" is still a mystery to me.

Splodge

Eugh no. I've only seen clips of that show online and I don't want to see anymore.
I guess I mean sites like IGN or even Gametrailers (to a certain extent).

IGN usually gets the games at least a week or two before the review is due and even then, they've usually had some hands-on time already for previews and at events.
The reviews they put out are normally 2 or 3 pages long (or more). I'd like to hope they'd have finished the game and that there is substancial game-time and general gaming experience behind those reviews.
(This is all speculation of course, based mostly on their podcasts and articles they put out).

StrifeDeliveries

OK, now I am seriously confused. More in fact that I am confused about you and your standpoints. A) I never said you had a beef with VMTV, for all intensive purposes, you won't be on here if you did, B) clearly, as stated by both you and I, that yes, IGN and whatever text based reviews are more in depth because of the standpoint of them getting a pre-release. I mean come on, do you really significantly believe that somebody who does a game for 100 hours has any more experience in a game than somebody who spent 10-15 hours? Same game, same experience, just a hell of a less content when it comes to in-depth hardcore reviews? Also, how is anybody who gets a pre-release have anymore knowledge pertaining to the backdrop of the game unless they been told about it...... You can get most that info on Wikipedia and it can also be a leak about it to you through the magic of the internet...And John is right, Adam and Morgan are nothing more than Gen X's trying their bit in the marketing world, I mean, I couldn't believe their sarcasm or their innuendos if it came from them themselves.

OK, my main objective, you say a professional reviewer should in all its glory review the game completely from start to end, right? No doubt about that at all, right? But what seriously, what is the difference from John telling you a game that he has all but an hour left in, or even he has only made it to level 5 out of 20? Is it not the same as completing it, for as said review.

AGAIN pointing out what the word review, since my definitions seem inadequate. A REVIEW is a generalize, well, overview of the game in question. I am thinking you are misconstruing the word REVIEW from its definition, to making it, as you said, hardcore and with depth. What the hell is a review, it's telling you about the game, if not it, would not be called a review but an analysis of the game in question. A review is not particular to completion of said game, but a overlook, and introspectively show you the motions of game. And see as I said, there is a monumental difference between a review of a movie and a game.......

You can review a movie no fricking problem at all, tell the plot, the hero, or tell about the villian, the climax or the twist.......

But a game, have you ever read a review telling you, "Hey ya, I played this game all the way through and just got to tell you, wow, I cannot believe this game for all its worth. I seem memorized but its tantalizing features and its stunning game play. I mean I played this game quite alot, yet it wont be out for all you guys till August 28th, which sucks to be you because you don't understand what your missing. I can't believe this game for what I played of it ,and also completed it quite numerous times before publishing said article so you the people know what I think of a game. BUT all of it looks interesting but hey, guess what, it isn't. This game is shiny and has all the trimmings attached, but hey guess what, I got this game as a beta, so no doubt things are going to change accordingly to this in-depth review of this game. I played it for 100 hours and I still feel I learned everything I needed to know within the first 15 hours of how this game feels and what the people want to know."

HAHAHHAHA BULLSHIT. I swear to you, unless you are going to pay people per hour reviewing a game, it simply isnt done unless somebody has no life and is hired per-say to write a walk-through. I am just simply stating true facts here, Review is a review, not a completed introspect of the game...... FF fan here and here is what I mean....

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/741/741991p1.html

This website is the REVIEW of FFXII from IGN and is 4 pages long. Personally this is one of my favorite FF's but if you read said review, it is that a review, nothing over the top, nothing I couldn't do with literally 10 hours of game play, wikipedia, and some cool screen shots. They don't list anything in-depth other than how they personally felt by, it, and this is IGN. Simply put even in-depth, its not really in-depth...... its them leading you onto it showing whats what, like I last stated about reviews........ they are written to tell you about its feel (that review explains the battle engine), graphics (explains that too) and how much fun this game is going to be for FF fans.......... SIMPLY PUT IGN REVIEWS ARE NO MORE IN DEPTH THAT 10 HOURS OF PLAY AND SOME REEEEAAALLLY COOL MOVIES IN BETWEEN. rotflmao

See Final Fantasy a RPG gaming revolution since its days as a Gameboy black and well yellowish tinted screen, to this.

It can be shown that reviews, I mean any decent reviews from a game, SIMPLY doesnt have to be a 100% completion of a game. I mean, HELL, if I wanted a review to tell me that hey the ending is what tied it together for me, or the fact that the game was great just because I could complete it and it was awesome that I did, it just wouldn't be any fun picking up any game.

And how serious does the reviewer have to be about his responsibility towards his review of a game? The only time he is concern about it is, predisposed to the game because it is a pre-release and it needs media....... DON'T BELIEVE the hype, cause that is all it is..........

VMTV to me, and I know I rather new, actually, rather wet behind the ear, its seems they want to convey the general aspects of games, whether new or old (thank you for correcting me) it is NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT the reviewers responsibility to play a game completely through to give you their views........ I mean, I could review a game I just started called The Bard's Tale. 80's computer game turned into a a multi-leveled, story oriented base, with a walking systems that seems to swagger with each step, nice controls with the whole summoning musically inspired creations to save you from hordes of enemies. World map includes unlock worlds but also little subtleties such as priest walking around and a trow (basically a troll) who sells treasure maps. Fighting system is good.........BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. That is my point, I have played up to Chapter IX of I think XVI and none of the bonus areas, yet I know if I reviewed it, I have enough experience to tell everyone about the game.......

WOW, again, way to long, probably lost points and bored the frick out of anybody who thought I knew what I was saying. But come on, rationality simply dictates that one who reviews has a resposibily to show and tell you a general outline, and not completion of a game. Just read some reviews of your favorite games and see what I mean first hand......

NOTHING BEATS READING A REVIEW AFTER YOU COMPLETED IT!!!!
Its like, wow, ya, really? HUH! Uh, NO DUH!

O.o shutting up now..... hopefully

StrifeDeliveries

ALSO, this..... I promise shorter posts.... less that 1200 words next time....or this time errr whattttevvver!!!

John Gibson

LOL, wow, this is going to take me an hour to read.

Let's not fight with our fellow posters. I know you're new, buddy, but it seems Splodge never meant any harm, and I know you don't, either.

I know you both like VMTV. You can't help being a misguided soul. Tee hee hee.

But I joke....or do I? Very Happy

StrifeDeliveries

I didn't realize I was fighting.....O.o I thought we were debating, lmao. I just get a little verbose....... OK ok ok, maybe reaaaaally verbose. Like he said, just fueling a debate from the other side. BUT I think I might kicked a dead horse to death.......... again and again and well you get the point

No harm meant by any of it to Splodge, I was just debating back, I enjoy a challenge, especially if its a good debate, I tend to bring the kitchen sink, when I should just bring wet naps. So if I have offended anybody I am truly sorry.

And as much as the "misguided souls" well, hmmmm, only got to blame only one individual....... THE CREATOR!!!!! lmao And Matt has suggested I be on the show, in fact John, when Matt submits some of his stuff, you will see me as a guest reviewer............. Unlike on here, my words are much much MUCH shorter on it Wink

Ask Matt, I swear!!!

Also my apologies for the humongus post as well.

Splodge

I don't see this as a fight - I think it's a fairly healthy debate and it's cool to think about this stuff.

When I talk about the depth of the review, I don't just mean what's written. A review is more than just the words on the page or in the video - the review is all of the work that has gone into the review, playing the game, the entire thought process. Okay, I chose bad words to describe that but thats's what I mean.
For me. the review is the entire amount of work done by the writer from the first time they play the game to the final word they write.

So when I say, I expect there to be a lot of game-time, a lot of depth to the review, that doesn't necessarily have to be apparent on the page. One person who's played five hours of a game could write exactly the same review as someone who has completed the game, have the exact same opinion on the game.
The difference is that one of them has a stronger basis for that opinion. Even if the reviews, read the same, one opinion is more complete because they're basing it on the overall content.

So if you say that FFXII review, has nothing major in it, nothing beyond a ten hour play session, I can understand that (Sorry, I haven't read it yet. I'll read it later). But the point is that the work behind the review is what solidifies the opinion more than what 'information' is in the article. That's how deep the writer has gone to find the truth of the game.

That is my argument for completing games. Being aware of the overall content solidifies your viewpoint. Even if completing a game doesn't change your opinion, it does give you a better basis for having that opinion.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/833/833298p1.html

This is a Super Mario Galaxy review. He doesn't reveal any more than a casual review might - it is a lengthy review but a lot of that is background about the game and the series.
But you can tell he is confident in his opinions. He makes a point in saying that getting 60 stars is too easy and that the game is only challenging when you go for the full 120. He goes into detail on the good and bad points of the camera system (maybe a little too much detail).

These are all things someone with minimal experience with the game might point out. The difference is that he is completely certain of what he's saying. He's played the game, probably completed it multiple times. Even if the entire game experience (and the time he spent with it) is not written in the review, it is evident that his opinions are well-founded and he is confident enough to share them. I truly believe that is because he knows the game (but he doesn't have to prove that in the review).

Splodge

(Sorry for the double post)

I don't think it's completely fair to compare game reviews to movie reviews.
But I will say, that it is common for reviewers to view a film multiple times before writing a review. That can depend on the type of review they want to write (sometimes it can verge almost on being a study). For me that's the same thing - if they want to review a movie completely, they might watch it multiple times, build a stronger basis for what they believe about the film.

StrifeDeliveries

Hmmmmm, Splodge, your point is well taken and understandably validated with your points. Sincerely I see where you are coming from with a more clear perspective, and I must say I see your standpoint.

And also, ya, somebody who has spent and done a lot of game work would seem more confident and notice more of the game and all their strong aspects and then their weaknesses.

So that being said, I really have no steam to come back on, simply because, well I agree with what you are saying. And the similarities between 10 hours of game play to the whole game, ya your going to figure some stuff out, or get something later one which someone who hasn't play it all the way through wouldn't of experienced.

But either or, no matter which way you flip a coin, to get back to the basis of the entire debacle, is that a review shouldn't be considered heavily as a buying guide as much as so as entertainment or a generalization of a game.

John Gibson

StrifeDeliveries

Well I cannot remember such title as of right now, but it was a game that Matt wanted a 2nd player to help try out the 2 player mode (duh) and I had a very minute part. Until I am able to get a camcorder and VCR w/ (drawing a blank, the multi-colored wires), then I think I am going to try to do a few things with Matt and Bree pertaining to reviews and such. But once my life gets more solidified then I would love to join the show.

John Gibson

Well, until such time, you're more than welcome to team up with Matt and/or Bree. I'm sure they would love to have a collaboration.

We tried a 3-way collaboration (I know, sounds dirty) once in 1997. It was myself, Jason and Jose, doing a review to Starfox 64. The only thing was I wrote the script for all three of us.

Now, the 3 of you can change that. Maybe there's a huge game that the three of you like, or can get in on, and write a review together, and divide the voiceovers up between the three of you.

Here's the Starfox 64 review I mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40GvEsb5TM

John Gibson

If you're wondering, yes, everybody filmed at my house. Once in a while, I would go to Jason's house and we'd film his stuff there. But everyone who's ever been on the original Video Masters had to come over my house to film.

It's up to you guys, who would go over whoevers house to film. See, now I'm anxious to see some of that action. It would make me proud to see that we're really spreading our wings, and reaching other eager reviewers.

And you can ask Matt, or anyone else on VMTV. No previous experience required. Smile

StrifeDeliveries

I find myself laughing at your last statement...... no previous experience required is EXACTLY what Matt said.

But it would be an interesting feat to do a game like that....... in fact that would be like really wicked. And I am pretty sure that Matt, Bree, and I could co-op something because I know them and they are quite smart and we all can write well.... (as you have seen from my gigantic posts, which again sorry...)

Hmm, when I get my phone on again I will contact Matt & Bree and approch them unless they get their butts on here lol.