How not to review something, lesson 1 of 1

Post by **tandino** » November 28th, 2006, 22:13

<a href="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006N ... >Clicky</a>

Need I say any more? I for one hope to one day own all of the forthcoming/current consoles (bar the PS3 with its £549.99 price tag), but Jebus H Christ, this is awful.

I'm off to get "freaked out" by a PS3...

/trundles off

/freaks out

Post by **FatherJack** » November 28th, 2006, 22:42

Was that review by Jeremy Clarkson?

Post by **tandino** » November 28th, 2006, 22:51

FatherJack wrote:Was that review by Jeremy Clarkson?

"Now we all know that I'M FUCKING EXCELLENT..."

Post by **Joose** » November 29th, 2006, 0:01

Um...I dont get it.

I may be missing something, but to me it seemed that the thrust of that article was "If you want messing around type fu, the wii is great. I dont want messing around type fun, so I like the 360 more". He wasnt bashing the system, he was just saying that its not to his tastes. Which I can understand, its not really to my tastes either, but I can understand why other people like it, and thats fair enough. He wasn't bashing people who got the wii either, just saying that people who like the wii are looking for something different from their console than he is.

Ok, so its not the best written article in the world, and the title is a bit of a misnomer, but I don't really see anything that controversial there.

Post by **FatherJack** » November 29th, 2006, 1:38

Where to start?

1. Supercilious attitude to people he dubs "casual gamers" unlike the "hardcore gamer" he claims to be.
2. The ridiculousness of the previous claim, given that he holds the 360 as the paragon of graphical excellence and FPS games. Surely a hardcore gamer would recognise that a fully pimped-out PC would represent the pinnacle for that particular genre. Anyone claiming that title, with the emphasis on Gamer, should be system agnostic.
3. Admitting he only actually played one game for five minutes, and that he'd pretty much decided he wouldn't like it before he'd tried it.
4. Selecting the one game of the available set in which his long reach and lack of fitness would cause the most problems for him - like when Clarkson complains a car designed for supermarket runs is not comfortable for the minority of people who are six-and-a-half feet tall.
5. Creaming over the PS3, which he hasn't even tried yet.
6. All the "smug" and "better than thou" comments comparing two completely differently-targeted game types, with vastly different release schedules and pricing structures.

And also the comments, which are mostly spot-on.

His review is almost completely without purpose, and of no help to anyone wanting information on either system or game.

Totally the reverse of the excellent reviews here on 5punk, where gamers play games for a decent amount of time first (at least 6 hours is not uncommon), review titles where they have a genuine interest in the game and are knowledgable and enthusiastic about the genre, compare like with like and don't make sweeping generalisations or out-and-out insulting comments about other gamers whose preferences differ from their own.
Mostly.

Post by **Dog Pants** » November 29th, 2006, 8:01

FatherJack wrote:Totally the reverse of the excellent reviews here on 5punk, where gamers play games for a decent amount of time first (at least 6 hours is not uncommon), review titles where they have a genuine interest in the game and are knowledgable and enthusiastic about the genre, compare like with like and don't make sweeping generalisations or out-and-out insulting comments about other gamers whose preferences differ from their own.
Mostly.

You heard the man. Review stuff! We're an untapped resource of gaming expertise (I wonder how many years gaming we have between us) and impact-shopped kittens.

Lateralus · Post by **Lateralus** » November 29th, 2006, 8:14

Dog Pants wrote:
You heard the man. Review stuff! We're an untapped resource of gaming expertise (I wonder how many years gaming we have between us) and impact-shopped kittens.

I think hehulk has crammed about a decade of Eve into a bit less than a year. The rest of us probably make up about half that.

Post by **Joose** » November 29th, 2006, 9:00

ok, first:

FatherJack wrote:His review is almost completely without purpose, and of no help to anyone wanting information on either system or game.

Its not a review. Its an article. An article about how he prefers the 360 to the wii. If it were a review of the wii, then yes, it would be shit. But its not.

FatherJack wrote: 1. Supercilious attitude to people he dubs "casual gamers" unlike the "hardcore gamer" he claims to be.

I think this is more a problem of terminology. I took "hardcore gamer" to mean that he prefers games with a more serious feel, games that you are likely to sit down and play for a couple of hours rather than a few mins. And I took "casual gamer" to mean people who like games that you can pick up for a few mins, games that you dont have to learn complex controls for. Games, in short, that nintendo have practically their entire sales structure based around.

2. The ridiculousness of the previous claim, given that he holds the 360 as the paragon of graphical excellence and FPS games. Surely a hardcore gamer would recognise that a fully pimped-out PC would represent the pinnacle for that particular genre. Anyone claiming that title, with the emphasis on Gamer, should be system agnostic.

Thats a kinda polarised view. Just because he likes more serious games, FPS's and graphical excellence does not mean that he should only be happy on PC. For one thing, many people prefer consoles over PC's cos theres less pissing around involved. If you get a 360 game, you know it'll work with the hardware you have. If you get a pc game, you might not have the required spec. Secondly, even a fully kitted out 360 is going to cost less than a "fully pimped out PC", by quite a margin. Maybe he just hasnt got the loot to pay for a great spec PC. A 360 plugged in to a large HD tv looks fucking nice, too, without all the buggering around worrying what graphics card to get, and whether your mobo is making optimal use of your memory. Some people prefer to keep their shit simple.

3. Admitting he only actually played one game for five minutes, and that he'd pretty much decided he wouldn't like it before he'd tried it.

again, problem if it were a review, but as he is not at any point claiming to be reviewing the system, not so muh of an issue.

4. Selecting the one game of the available set in which his long reach and lack of fitness would cause the most problems for him - like when Clarkson complains a car designed for supermarket runs is not comfortable for the minority of people who are six-and-a-half feet tall.

Did he select it for those reasons, or because in the first paragraph his mate was ranting on about how cool it was? Besides, its not going to be the only wii game with the fitness problem; ok, bowlings unlikely to break a sweat, but if the various videos are to be believed stuff like the tennis games and the like involve a fair bit of swinging about too. As for the reach thing: 6 foot 3 is hardly Clarkson like huegness. Im 6 foot, and most of my male friends are around my height or taller. If its a problem for him, its going to be a problem for many ofl my friends. I think thats relevant, myself.

5. Creaming over the PS3, which he hasn't even tried yet.

no he doesnt. In fact, the only mentions of the ps3 are the fact he may buy one (if he "so chooses") and at the end when he compares it to the 360 as a more graphicly powerfull machine to the wii. Which any ps3 gameplay video confirms.

6. All the "smug" and "better than thou" comments comparing two completely differently-targeted game types, with vastly different release schedules and pricing structures.

again, I dont think he does. He says he isnt the target market for the wii (true), he says that the wii will appeal to people who dont normally play games (true) and to 'casual gamers' (true). I think you are inferring that 'casual'=stupid, or something similar, which he never, at any point, says.

His review is almost completely without purpose, and of no help to anyone wanting information on either system or game.

Again, not a review. However, as an article, it says that if you are a graphics whore who likes more serious games, isnt bothered by the simplified controls and doesnt like the more casual style of games that nintendo is famous for, get a 360 and not a wii. Ok, its nothing I didnt already realise myself, but its not completely without purpose.

mrbobbins · Post by **mrbobbins** » November 29th, 2006, 9:12

But I had pretty much had enough of it --- I could nearly guarantee I wouldn't like it.

I just think this guys a bit of a dick, he'd had enough of people talking about a Wii and just had to prove his 360 was better, and he knew he wouldn't like the Wii so what's the point in the article?, to show that he proved his 360 was better to some of his mates.

It all seems a bit childish

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » November 29th, 2006, 12:15

I appreciate what this bloke is trying to say but this ARTICLE just shows him up as a 360 fanboy and renders the ARTICLE mostly redundant.

Joose wrote:I took "hardcore gamer" to mean that he prefers games with a more serious feel, games that you are likely to sit down and play for a couple of hours rather than a few mins.

One of the main reasons I'm buying the Wii is for Zelda and from what I've read it's not one that's going to be easy to get to grips with. It's designed to be true to the Zelda series and not dumbed-down for the "casual gamer".

cashy · Post by **cashy** » November 29th, 2006, 12:19

mrbobbins wrote:
But I had pretty much had enough of it --- I could nearly guarantee I wouldn't like it.
I just think this guys a bit of a dick, he'd had enough of people talking about a Wii and just had to prove his 360 was better, and he knew he wouldn't like the Wii so what's the point in the article?, to show that he proved his 360 was better to some of his mates.

It all seems a bit childish

I bet he drives a mercedes

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » November 29th, 2006, 12:25

cashy wrote: I bet he drives a mercedes

or a BMW, I wonder which is worse?

Post by **Joose** » November 29th, 2006, 12:34

spoodie wrote:I appreciate what this bloke is trying to say but this ARTICLE just shows him up as a 360 fanboy and renders the ARTICLE mostly redundant.

One of the main reasons I'm buying the Wii is for Zelda and from what I've read it's not one that's going to be easy to get to grips with. It's designed to be true to the Zelda series and not dumbed-down for the "casual gamer".

I never meant to imply that nintendo only do games for casual gamers, or that that was in some way a bad thing. I know theres games there for non-casual gamers (I used to use my housmates gamecube to play the residfent evil games, for example), I just meant that nintendos stongpoint is, and has been for some time, the games it classes with the rather irritating but accurate title of "party games".

I also have no argument with the fact that this guys writing is far from even minded, and the article aint that great, or usefull. I just doubt that, if the guy was praising the wii and bashing the ps3 in the same way, he would be provoking the same response of "bah! fanboy!"

Sandwich · Post by **Sandwich** » November 29th, 2006, 16:23

the divide between gamers is opening up quite drastically. For me, the majority of nintendo games have been aimed to a more "casual" gamer ever since the game cube. Thats not to say the games aren't fun, but to be honest I'd rather play a gritty, realistic looking bloke than a cartoon dog, regardless of what the dog can do.

as in life, some people might not like a certain food or they might have a favorite food. Opinion i think it's called and despite how ruthlessly someone might assert how much they love or hate a certain food, it's their prerogative to do so.

Have pity on games like Zelda, bound by their commitment to Nintendo

Stoat · Post by **Stoat** » November 29th, 2006, 16:40

Sandwich wrote:Have pity on games like Zelda, bound by their commitment to Nintendo

This would be Zelda, currently placed at numbers one and five in the list of the best review scores ever?
That Zelda?
Is that the Zelda I should pity?

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » November 29th, 2006, 16:45

Stoat wrote: This would be Zelda, currently placed at numbers one and five in the list of the best review scores ever?
That Zelda?
Is that the Zelda I should pity?

not to mention zelda games are only good because they belong to nintendo - they never push releases to dates, games are sold when they're done.

oh, and Shigeru Miyamoto is god.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » November 29th, 2006, 16:55

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:oh, and Shigeru Miyamoto is god.

That

I think you're missing out if you don't give the Zelda series a go but I'm not going to try to talk anyone into it. So long as I get to play them I don't really care what anyone else thinks.

Woo Elephant Yeah · Post by **Woo Elephant Yeah** » November 29th, 2006, 16:57

Am I the only person that thinks every single Zelda game so far is boring run around pick up stuff, and talk to people drivel?

I'm probably being very harsh here, as basically I hate RPG games, as I lose interest within 5 minutes of talking to people about shit I don't care about.

The only game I have ever played in RPG and not turned off after 5 minutes has been Final Fantasy (don't know what number, but the big one that made the franchise huge) on the PlayStation.

This is kind of going off on a tangent, but RPG games are definitely a Marmite thing.

Slightly back on tangent though, I would personally rather keep my PSP to play SP games, buy a Wii for fun with friends round the telly, and a PC for online gaming.

Other than that, the PS3 or 360 doesn't really offer anything I'm interested in, especially the 360, as unless you like the American driven gaming market (racing cars, fps, sports) then it doesn't have "lots" to offer.

The PS3, well, we will have to wait and see.

At the end of the day, who gives a shit, I don't think it's possible to compare the 360, Wii or PS3 with each other.

The spec, games, direction and hardware have all changed and diversified in different directions, and no one console will win this "pretend console war" that all the review sites like to talk about.

As long as Nintendo, Microsoft & Sony make a profit out of it after 5-6 years, they won't give a shit.

/WEY thought on consoles mind dump

Sandwich · Post by **Sandwich** » November 29th, 2006, 17:04

wait, i never said the Zelda games weren't good, but i wouldn't buy a wii for just a handfull of good games.

It's disputable that Nintendo went the "fun over graphics" way because it can't keep up any more, and i'm worried good games like Zelda will be lost if Nintendo goes the same way as Sega.

As for what Berk said, I think the gameplay might have something to do with the games appeal. I very much doubt people would pay for a blank screen regardless of it's release date.

and yes WEY, i agree with that about Zelda games, but clearly they are popular, so for me that makes them good games, i'm just not partial to them

Post by **Roman Totale** » November 29th, 2006, 17:58

Woo Elephant Yeah wrote:Am I the only person that thinks every single Zelda game so far is boring run around pick up stuff, and talk to people drivel?

I have never, ever played a Zelda game. I live under a large gaming rock I think.

Having seen previews of it in shops, being played with the funky nunchuck control, I am quite tempted though.