[QUOTE="Cyber-"]Kevin-V
Indeed; sorry to contribute to a certain amount of off-topic ranting here, but I did want to speak to some of the feedback I saw. I've actually considered doing a big blog entry on the art of reviewing (or if you don't think it's an art, then the craft, or the job, or the what have you), because a lot of this speaks to the position a reviewer finds himself in everytime he sticks a disc into a machine. There isn't a magic formula, and old-school game can be refreshing (i.e., Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars) or it can be stale and almost upsetting (Heavenly Guardian). There's the Blizzard approach (work with an old formula and polish until it's shiny and perfect) or the SUDA-51 approach (craft a new and unique experience that hopefully succeeds in spite of its mechanical or technological flaws).
Both ways can lead to incredible games (World of Warcraft and No More Heroes, respectively); one game perfects a formula, while the other disregards formula for the sake of something new. And both can be exciting. A flaw that's extrenely noticeable in a formulaic game, however, is easier to forgive in a new and exciting approach, which is why I think both approaches can coexist.
So I think it's a misnomer to assume that we require every game to be innovative, though we do give an edge to games that try something unique, per our published reviews guidelines. But there are so many other factors to consider. If innovation were the only requirement to make a good game, titles like Stranger would get universally high marks, while C&C3 would have been deplored. The same is true in film reviews: a good old-fashioned action movie or chick flick can be wholly satisfying, if the stars are charming, the action is fun and fluid, and so on and so forth.
In the end, when I am on the fence about a score, I pretend it's two years later and that I am looking into the past. If it's two years later, will I even remember this game, let alone remember it as one of the greats? Is it special enough that I will forget the flaws and treasure its high points? Would you wax nostalgic for the good old days, and use the game as an example of what made games so great back in those good old days?
That's what's always separated the 9's from the rest for me. In a decade, when I look back at 2008, I will remember Crisis Core, Okami, and No More Heroes as games that define what it meant to be a gamer this year (and I hope there are others). You can quantify standards in many ways, but that gets you only so far. The rest of the craft is relying on your intuition to determine if the game transcends a list of bullet points to become truly memorable in a way only the finest games can. And while I haven't played The World Ends with You yet, all indications are that it is, indeed, a game that many will list when they sit in their rocking chairs in 50 years and talk about gaming's good old days. You know, back in the 2000's.
I am so off topic. But it was good to write this out, anyway. G'nigh. *snore*
Hey I have no problem with it. Even though there has been a plethora of good games and juicy controversy in the gaming industry lately, the forums here have been lacking in good gaming discussion.
Anyway, WoW and NMH both fit those different approaches to games. WoW is basically the definition of polishing out a formula to the nth degree, and NMH is certainly strives for something new and for the most part excels at it. I think NMH may not be the best example because its hard for some people to appreciate that brilliant design when there are some graphical deficiencies, framerate issues, and uninspired overworld. I know listing it like that, makes it sound terrible but NMH really was awsome just hard for some to understand. If NMH2 comes out I would fully expect the same crazy unique design but also tighten the screws and smooth out the rough edges.
Both type of games pretty much HAVE to coexist. There is reputable markets for both.
I was not not assuming that about your reviews though. I was just talking about it as a problem from the development side. An example of you guys reviewing it correctly I see Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 as a case where it basically copied what you happened in the first one, but the first one was so good and polished it wasnt really a problem and the review was appropriately scored to that a little lower than the first. Maybe not at GS(possibly though) there are reviewers who do not like change at all and score with that in mind.
I think a reason why many, esp diehard fans, scorn and shun innovation is that, as you said, innovation alone is not the key to a good game. So some games are innovative but everything else sucks so that innovation doesnt follow through.
As for games that you will remember years down the road, those are the games that really count. Obviously CoD4 will sit up there and so will SMG.
Log in to comment