Generalized Reviews - This needs to die

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
We all know the feeling. You go to your favorite review sources, hoping to find a review for the version of an upcoming game you want to purchase. Only, you find that the site in question published the exact same review for every version of the game released.

What value is there to this? Virtually, to be frank, none. Its a bullshit, lazy, cost saving practice. A recent example is FFX and FFX-2 HD released on both the Vita and the PS3. There has to be differences, all the way down to the controls of the game. If you want to generalize a review for the games contents and mechanics, if their both on consoles, FINE, but highlight the differences. I dont know if I should get the PS3 or the Vita version, im sure as hell not buying both. The game may be the same, but there is absolutely no way the experience is.

The biggest travesty to this is when review sites publish the same review for console and pc versions, its utter crap.

Whats your opinion on the topic?
 

BiH115

Gif Guy
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
9,327
I just found out FFX is actually out on Vita, this is the best news this month...I'm so excited now. I honestly thought we'd never see it. Grabbing a copy right after work.

On topic though, I'm seeing more and more of that. If the reviews can't be discerning and in-depth enough, what the hell is the point? That's like doing something for the sake of doing it, not to actually get anything done and bring about some value...
 

Domini

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
2,079
Their job is to review the game and that's it, if another platform has the same game then why review it again? For cost saving reasons its more efficient to do one review which will most likely be the best looking verison. Why wouldn't the experience between PS3 and Vita be similar? The only major difference will be graphics quality
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
Their job is to review the game and that's it, if another platform has the same game then why review it again? For cost saving reasons its more efficient to do one review which will most likely be the best looking verison. Why wouldn't the experience between PS3 and Vita be similar? The only major difference will be graphics quality

If thats the case then no review would ever be done on a console, ever, if a PC version exists. And then they would all be reviewed on tri-sli Titans with triple 1080p+ hd monitors in surround mode. Yeah lets all review games like that since its the best looking version and ignore differences in image quality and control schemes :rolleyes:
 

Zinn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
3,010
VladDracula, taking what you say one step further, game reviewers should be reviewing the technical experience of playing the games, not just the game experience. So they should write a separate review for each possible hardware configuration it's possible to play the game on. If it's a PC game, they should write a review for laptop graphics cards, surround monitor setups, SLI, Crossfire, and Macs running Windows under Boot Camp. They should write a review for AMD and Intel hardware, and also comparisons to how the game runs on overclocked vs. stock CPUs. Since the experience could be slightly different on each different hardware configuration, games reviewers owe it to us to review every possible hardware configuration. To do otherwise is a slap in the face, an affront to humanity. Game reviewers who don't review games exactly how I think games should be reviewed should be rounded up and executed. This will set a good example for the industry and ensure that consumers are getting the gaming experiences they paid for.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
Yes. Game reviewers should even write a separate review when drunk, as alcohol consumption may make a game more interesting to play.
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
nice thread shitting by everyone btw. If a review site purposely publishes multiple articles, on multiple sections of their site, giving the guise that they did a review specific to that version of the game, when in fact they did not, its utter bs. PC ports of games that are shitty ports but sites do nothing but repost their console review under the guise of being a PC version review are ridiculous, and I counted it on at least 10 initial reviews of the Dark Souls PC port, which in a lot of ways, is a disservice, because it was a shitty port.

If their going to just post a generalized review they need to post it as such. Dont post a score for a PS3 version and a PSVita version if you didnt do seperate reviews. Post one score, in one article, and do not even list it as being a separate review
 

Zinn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
3,010
You shat on your own thread by being rude to people who expressed differing opinions from you. Also, reposting the opinion you expressed in the OP with different wording doesn't make your point stronger.

F-
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
You shat on your own thread by being rude to people who expressed differing opinions from you. Also, reposting the opinion you expressed in the OP with different wording doesn't make your point stronger.

F-

No I didnt i simply highlighted the point that the same game on different platforms can be vastly different. This is highlighted by some sources and completed ignored by others. Every single person cried foul of resolution and IQ difference in ghosts when review sites released their reviews and then Digital Foundries comparison came out. IGNs initial review of the Dark Souls port was literally just copy and pasted from the console version, and yet the passed it off as a PC review, thats nothing but click bait for adverts money.
 

biggles

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
2,193
The practical solution would be to review the game and then set aside one or two paragraphs to highlight the platform differences (graphics, controls, etc).
 

lilbabycat

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
3,810
The practical solution would be to review the game and then set aside one or two paragraphs to highlight the platform differences (graphics, controls, etc).

this.

The differences between a Vita and PS3 port would be inherently huge, not just graphics wise. Though, I'm the kinda guy that would argue basically every major videogame reviewing website is corrupt / shills / paid by devs, so you probably shouldn't be using them anyways...

IGN, PC gamer, Gamespot, Game Informer, Polygon, Kotaku just to name a few are all jokes. Handing out 95+ scores like candy.
 

Pringle

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,757
No I didnt i simply highlighted the point that the same game on different platforms can be vastly different. .

There are polite ways of doing it. A 'tone', so to speak. You lack that tone.

On topic, it's a shitty practice. But an understandable one. The average gamer isn't on these forums, and they far exceed those that consider computers more than just a hobby. Reviewers need to cater to a broader audience, with minimal cost.

Is it shitty? Yes. Does it make sense? Yes.
 

demingo

Trump is My President!
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
2,702
Digital Foundry does an excellent job of comparing technical details between platforms on almost all major releases. You really don't need every review site to do it as well.

In the end review scores don't tell you anything. The best way to figure out which review site to "trust" is to match up their opinions with your own. I "turst" Eurogamer because their reviews usually reflect with my views on a game. So after playing X number of games where I felt that Eurogamer was accurate with their review, I can trust that in the future the trend will continue as we have similar tastes. This leads me to placing more value on their reviews than other sites before purchase.
 

CEpeep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
6,061
Most people only own one console for which a multiplatform title is released. If a title is out for both XB1 and PS4, people are just going to buy the one for whichever console they own. The differences between the versions are probably worth mentioning, but they have to be pretty drastic to warrant a completely different score for the game. Either the game is worth your time or it's not, and you'll get it on the console you most want to play it on, or you won't. If a review site hasn't given you enough information to decide, read a different review instead.
 

BiH115

Gif Guy
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
9,327
Most people only own one console for which a multiplatform title is released. If a title is out for both XB1 and PS4, people are just going to buy the one for whichever console they own. The differences between the versions are probably worth mentioning, but they have to be pretty drastic to warrant a completely different score for the game. Either the game is worth your time or it's not, and you'll get it on the console you most want to play it on, or you won't. If a review site hasn't given you enough information to decide, read a different review instead.

I'd agree here, most of the time, if it's the same/similar generation of hardware, the experience is usually the same, or very similar. There might be more stuttering or a slightly crappier textures in one version, but it's usually not enough to deter or sway someone from a decision on which version to get.

I'm the kind of person that reads multiple reviews regardless, even from the shills...just to gather some kind of perspective on the thoughts people have.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,134
I agree, reviews should at least have hardware specific sections related to gaming quality, even if it is to say that it is the same.
There will be glaring differences in many games between handhelds, the different consoles, laptops and PCs.
Leave the major quality differences for PC hardware to the PC review sites.
 

MetalX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
4,709
Their job is to review the game and that's it, if another platform has the same game then why review it again? For cost saving reasons its more efficient to do one review which will most likely be the best looking verison. Why wouldn't the experience between PS3 and Vita be similar? The only major difference will be graphics quality

You are wrong on the internet.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
30,668
I believe that reviewers should, when reviewing a title, take the time to point out the differences between the versions if they are significant. If there are no significant differences, they should state such
 

Master [H]

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
2,629
Reviews are nice, but they need to have a value.
And I mean, beyond suck or not sucks.

Oh, a new Pokemon/CoD/Battlefield game is out? Reviews don't matter to fans of said games.
A lot of pro reviews are vauge on what makes them appealing or a pile of shit.

Also, these reviewers tend to nitpick at the smallest thing, especially when it comes to innovation.
I don't play a game for innovations, I play it for fun. If there's something cool in there, great, but that's not why I'm there. If it's not fun, it's a worthless purchase. CoD: Ghosts was not intellectually stimulating, but it was fun while it lasted. It's a completely different game in that it feels like an interactive bro movie.
That's fine. However, I'm not going to bitch up a storm because it doesn't play like Deus Ex.
 
Top