Review

Trials Of Mana Review - Trial And Error

  • First Released Apr 24, 2020
    released
  • NS

Trials of Mana adds modern hooks to an obscure classic JRPG, but fluid combat is held back by some frustrating choices.

Trials of Mana is not a bold reinvention. While it has been given a graphical overhaul and added systems that help flesh out and modernize the combat systems, this remake of a once-obscure RPG is very much rooted in its own history. And by some combination of that history and the modern enhancements, it has a bundle of great ideas that are often hampered by others that are obtuse or confusing.

From the start, Trials of Mana distinguishes itself from other traditional Japanese RPGs by presenting a pool of heroes. The very first thing you do is select three of the six characters to be your party--a swordsman, thief, healer, berserker, offensive magic user, and support/ranged magic user are available--and that decision will last throughout the game. You can swap between any of the characters in the heat of battle, while the other two will manage on their own with some simple preset behaviors, but your primary character is treated as the game's protagonist during major story moments.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Trials Of Mana Video Review

It's an inventive idea that adds a layer of personalization and a criss-crossing narrative. The stakes of the overall story remain the same, but by presenting you with a selection of six different prologues, you get to see the various motivations that led your custom-built party to be thrown into this grand adventure. The other characters that you left unchosen appear in brief cameos, and it's implied that their own quest is still happening just off-camera as they go it alone.

However, this quality cuts both ways. While many similarly styled JRPGs would present a set cast, or have you swap characters between a larger roster, Trials of Mana has you choose the three who will last you for the entire adventure before you know anything about them or how the game will proceed. While all team compositions are probably viable, some are more sensible than others, so it's entirely possible to get knee-deep before wishing you'd made different choices. I had chosen Reisz as my main character with the promise that she's a strong ranged fighter, with the brawler Kevin and healer Charlotte as my backup. I imagined hanging back and doing ranged damage while Kevin pulled aggro. Several hours in, I realized her ranged abilities are fairly limited. And as I was fighting up-close anyway I might as well be controlling Kevin instead, since his aggressive fighting style and powerful attacks were much more satisfying.

I also regretted choosing Charlotte, albeit for completely different reasons. Much of the English voice acting in Trials of Mana is hokey and stilted, but fine and functional enough. Charlotte's is obnoxious, in large part because the localization accents her youthfulness with a heavy speech impediment. In short, she tawks wike this, fow the whole thiwty houws! (It is actually spelled out that way in the subtitles, mind you.) If it was meant to be endearing, it failed. I had reservations the moment my characters met up with her, but by then I didn't want to turn back and repeat the beginning of the game. Plus, Charlotte is also the only dedicated healer, so just about any given team composition would likely need to include her.

The characters themselves are familiar fantasy tropes, but strangely, many of them share almost identical qualities too. All three of my characters were heirs to a noble family--two of them an actual prince and princess--chased out of their kingdom by family strife or tragedy. There's nothing necessarily wrong with leaning on these archetypes for a fantasy story, but it feels formulaic when seeing them back-to-back in three different prologues.

No Caption Provided

Most of the time in Trials of Mana is spent in combat, interspersed with simple pathfinding and occasional platforming. Waypoints dot the map, neatly pulling you from objective to objective, though you're rewarded for straying from the path. Sometimes waypoints simply bounce you back and forth between cutscenes, which can feel like busywork without combat sequences to break up the pace.

That's because the combat is surprisingly fluid, especially in the late-game when you've unlocked a wide array of moves and combos. The Mana series is known for being action-focused, and this remake lovingly captures that quality in its transition from 2D to 3D. Striking enemies swiftly or charging a heavier attack and then dodge-rolling away feels weighty, and the powerful Class Strike abilities grant the appropriate feeling of overwhelming your opponents. Upgrading your characters eventually leads to bigger combo chains, giving you more versatility in the heat of battle. By the end it feels so naturally like a character-action game that its RPG roots are just running under the hood.

Because of this fluid combat system, Trials of Mana is at its best when you've found your main and your backup characters can behave independently. I struggled to switch between characters during tense battles when Charlotte wasn't being generous enough with her healing, but after some tweaking of her passive settings it became largely unnecessary. These options are relatively simplistic with only a handful of toggles, but I found that focus helped keep them user-friendly.

No Caption Provided

As enjoyable as the combat is, though, some of the elements surrounding the battle system can be confusing or obtuse. You start earning elemental spirits, which grant magical abilities, long before you could reasonably have leveled up enough to gain access to those abilities. Tool tips kept telling me I could equip these spells in the Training menu, implying they were immediately available, and I spent too much time hunting for abilities that didn't yet exist. The third-tier Class upgrades, which are already gated behind a level requirement, are also gated behind special seeds, and the game isn't immediately clear about where to look for them. And once you find those seeds, the classes they grant are randomized between a handful of different sets, so you may not get the variant you wanted.

The elementals also contribute to a day-night and calendar cycle, a genuinely impressive idea that goes almost entirely wasted. The game will stop at regular intervals to let you know when a new day begins and what type of elemental attacks get a boost on that day. This could encourage experimentation and strategy, but elemental spells are so rare that lining them up with the day just doesn't seem worthwhile. I can't imagine waiting several in-game days just to hit a boss with some slightly buffed magic. The day-night cycle is much more impactful if you have Kevin in your party, because as a member of the Beastmen tribe he turns into a much more powerful werewolf form at night.

As enjoyable as the combat is, though, some of the elements surrounding the battle system can be confusing or obtuse.

The story meanders oddly, with the nemeses introduced in the various prologues coming and going without much rhyme or reason. This seems partly due to the non-linear nature of telling pieces of stories starring a DIY cast, but it also just doesn't have much substance. The plot runs out of steam about halfway through the main quest, first tasking you with a laundry list of remaining elemental spirits to gather up, and then facing a series of bosses. Tiny pieces of character development appear throughout these hours, but since you can do these segments in almost any order, the story pieces don't really relate to one another. It's instead a series of vignettes leading up to the reveal of the Big Bad and final confrontation.

Those staid elements are unfortunate, because the world of the Mana series is filled with joyful moments of whimsy and weirdness. This is a game in which you travel between villages by being shot out of a cannon built by a gnome named Von Boyage. Once you need to take to the sea, your method of conveyance becomes a giant turtle wearing snorkeling gear. Enemies have names like "Assassant" and "Captain Duck." It's just delightfully oddball and helps soften some of the more dire melodrama.

Trials of Mana stands on the strength of its combat, and the fact that it's how you spend the vast majority of your time. That easy recommendation comes qualified with several elements that don't work nearly as well, from dull and hodge-podge storytelling to bewildering progression systems. Seeing a historical curiosity through the lens of a mostly modernized action-RPG was enough to pull me through the experience despite my quibbles, though, so there's certainly still life in the world of Mana.

Back To Top

The Good

  • Strong, active combat system feels satisfying
  • Distinctive party-building system makes your team feel personalized
  • Oddball touches make the world feel unique

The Bad

  • Picking a party before you know anything about them means you may regret decisions
  • Story feels formulaic and doesn't build tension to the climax
  • Some progression systems are poorly explained or confusing

About the Author

Steve Watts played Trials of Mana for roughly 25 hours, and then spent another three hours finishing the post-game content. He still remembers being a (mostly useless) Sprite companion for his older brother in Secret of Mana. Review code was provided by the publisher.
113 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for reaperezekial
ReaperEzekial

226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Originally I was excited, the demo sort of cooled my excitement, now I’m tempted to wait for a significant price drop to check it out. Besides, I’ve now got the Collection of Mana translated 16 bit version.

Something maybe I missed in the review: is it as buggy as the Secret of Msna remake from a few years ago? Loved that game; did not love the constant crashing.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Maoxx
Maoxx

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@reaperezekial: I can speak for both the PS4 and PC versions that no it's not buggy in the slightest. And I've played it through twice. It's not perfect, but I still would say the pro's far outway the cons.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for syntaxkt
SyntaxKT

462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@reaperezekial: This is why most game developers don't want to make a demo. I have a feeling that it draws people away from potential sales than lead to them.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for moegabby
MoeGabby

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

The game is one of the better shot for shot remakes + added voice acting in recent times. The English voice acting is adequate enough. Very nice to see an old school action JRPG from the SNES era get a faithful remake. Seems to me the reviewer is not a fan for these types of games. This remake is big improvement after the very underwhelming Secret of Mana Remake. I hope it's a step in the right direction for potential remakes in TERRANIGMA, SECRET OF EVERMORE, and.... CHRONO TRIGGER.

3 • 
Avatar image for syysteezy
SyySteezy

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

You sound like someone who isn’t good at video games. The game is so easy on normal you can pick any of the 6 characters and it’s still a walk through.

Way to give one of the best games of the year a 6 out of 10 because you lack IQ and would rather play Warzone

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Abdulrahman1981
Abdulrahman1981

529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Abdulrahman1981

I played this game for 1 hour and can tell you if you liked Ni no Kuni II: Revenant Kingdom, you’ll like this game, they are similar and my rating is 8, 6 is too low.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@Abdulrahman1981: No, they're not. There seems to be a bit of a hitch in NnK2's combat, but it's otherwise smooth and fluid and the menus and overall feel of the game is far better designed and polished.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for einlanzer0
einlanzer0

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By einlanzer0

I cannot believe I just rushed to buy this game only to then read they removed the multiplayer - the main thing that made the originals so good.

What a massive fucking letdown.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@einlanzer0: Key point. This is why I don't get why people are gushing over the story but completely forgetting the gameplay.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for norrinrad
NorrinRad

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

This is a faithful remake of a game that is by far and away one of the absolute best RPGs ever made. This review is literally one of the worst reviews that has ever been written. Especially since the reviewer is primarily disappointed because he did not know how to use one of the best parties in the game. This is one of those times where someone who actually knows shat they are talking about should write a second opinion review.

4 • 
Avatar image for aross2004
aross2004

7618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@norrinrad: It's not a faithful remake with no multiplayer.

Good single player remake though.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hahamanin
hahamanin

676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Game is garbage.. just because its a traditional japanese role playing game doesnt mean it has to be reviewed 9/10

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@hahamanin: Well, geez, it's not that bad. It's only held back by a few clunky design elements. If you could somehow ignore those for the whole game, what you'd then have would actually be very good.

3 • 
Avatar image for aross2004
aross2004

7618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By aross2004

@hahamanin: Except they reviewed it at a 6, not a 9.

And the game isn't even close to being garbage. Try harder.

4 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@aross2004: You misunderstood.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aross2004
aross2004

7618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Edited By aross2004

@Barighm: Wouldn't be the first time. Kindly explain :)

Edit: I see what they were trying to say now. <derp>

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thesingerofstar
Thesingerofstar

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Garbage take of a review. :>

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Crazy_sahara
Crazy_sahara

1720

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Dam shame it's switch only

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aross2004
aross2004

7618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@Crazy_sahara: ????

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@aross2004: It's Sahara.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Barighm: I take it that he's usually saying stuff like that?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for originleon
OriginLeon

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Crazy_sahara: It's not man. Its also out for PC and PS4.

3 • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jarrkha

I am not sure if I can respect when a video's script is simply an almost verbatim recounting of the written review.

May 4, 2020 edits:

A lack of respect does not indicate disrespect, by the way.

Snippets from below:

- It would be better if it were an abridgement or adaptation of the text, but it isn't. It's verbatim, and the video itself isn't embraced as a medium; just there for distraction whilst we listen. (If you use a medium, play to its strengths -- maybe not like how Angry Joe does it, or how other YouTube reviewers just sit at a desk and talk at/to you, but at least they do something embracing the format).

- This has less to do with variety of personal preferences in a diverse target demographic, and more to the way it comes across as being almost perfunctory on the part of the proprietor. Relatively; esp. when compared to the their potential and that of the medium.

- The review thing as a whole, for this industry, has a lot of unaddressed things hodge-podged together, like most of our economy and social practices; I am not one to believe in "take it or leave it."

- Video showing gameplay etc. to explain the reviewer's thoughts? Except they don't do that often enough for quite a few reasons. A lot of their clips aren't as in-depth or breadth-focused as other people's (though it is hard to do provide such without spoiling games), and sometimes they can only show so much because of agreements with publishers. [Furthermore, the clips sometimes don't reflect what is being talked about specifically, but I don't hold that against them because it may not be helped].

TLDR:

This isn't a subreddit hive mind. I don't have to agree with a particular level of quality in their methodology or implementation of it. I encourage people to NOT do that for public platforms.

Side note:

And whilst I don't mind being challenged, I do mind being "almost insulted" (let alone outright). I wasn't originally being an ass; please consider that before responding. You all may not have been intending insults or feeling insulted by me (or on behalf of GameSpot), but that impression is still somewhat there.

+10 points to y'all for not sounding like people on Steam forums; they go straight for the name-calling and belittling.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mathandr
Mathandr

195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Jarrkha: that's entirely on purpose for accessibility. Some people prefer to read, some prefer to watch/listen, some need both. The world is bigger than you.

2 • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jarrkha

@mathandr:

This has less to do with variety of personal preferences in a diverse target demographic, and speaks more to the way the system comes across as being almost perfunctory on the part of its proprietor; Gamespot in this case. Defending the status quo doesn't change that, and attacking it (like I have) has nothing to do with denigrating the personal preferences of other people or merely not allowing for said preferences to exist.

I am simply saying for GameSpot that I'd respect [their video work] more if they put more effort in. That should have been obvious, especially when taking the whole comment chain put together.

This is the key part to take away: they being the ones on a platform, claiming to represent us, must be up to all sorts of criticism. You probably know that our community currently has an abundance of fanatics and downright sycophants who prop up every Tom, Dick and Harry; going so far as to call them "gods" and "kings", if they don't already put those words in their own gamertags. We don't need any level of that stuff aimed towards official institutions.

It is our duty as arbitrary public members to make sure they're up to snuff; even when they are, work can always be improved. Anything can; did you not know humanity has no intellectual limits (ideally), and also no ability to truly be satisfied?

It's a moral obligation we place upon ourselves to strive for higher levels; the only question we'd ever need to ask ourselves is if we have the time to do it. Is it actually unreasonable to ask Gamespot to play to the video medium's strengths more than they've already done? I actually want them to be the ones to improve and show the others how it is done, particularly IGN.

Maybe I could've been nicer with my OP, but I wasn't mean about it either.

As for that last bit, since that was almost a nonessential jibe you made: The world's also bigger than you as well, yes? Saying something like that doesn't help one's case.

I don't really need to be reminded of it, especially due to how I process or forge a belief and my personal circumstances as a minority everywhere in the world (I've traveled enough to realize that). Though it does help from time to time to be reminded. But alas that trite advice may not be enough in a world that suffers the Is-OughtProblem of philosophy.

Saying all of this reminds me of why YouTuber "TheQuartering" paints his channel as "anti-hype" content, but goddamn is that guy implicitly nasty. We need more criticism out there.

2 • 
Avatar image for mathandr
Mathandr

195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Mathandr

@Jarrkha: First of all let me say that I have criticized gamespot a lot myself for things like reviews that seem paid for, or made by people who don't get it. I'm writing another comment right now to criticize their review of CrossCode.

But! Gamespot is not going to start writing articles and producing videos that potentially say different things on one page, and as someone who currently works in non-subscription, ad revenue based multimedia (radio) I doubt they have the manpower to devote to essentially 2 different takes. Especially right now.

You are asking them to write two reviews per game. Business models that rely solely on ad revenue haven't been good at paying a living wages to employees for years. And in my experience employees who don't make what their work is worth (whether or not they are good at critique or are just insulting) don't produce extra content.

I understand your arguments, they are valiant, and intelligent thoughtful critique is what we all want from reviewers. Accessibility is so much more important than your desire for content producers to produce content the way you want them to, however.

I also worked as a care giver for a couple of years in my 20s. I never thought about accessibility much before that, I promise you there is an entire universe of considerations you never have to think about that millions of people have to wrestle with daily. Closed captions are a thing for a reason. People rely on being able to read along with the video. If the text and the video say different things, MANY people will be unable to follow along. This is just one example.

I apologize for my negative tone, but I find discussions on tone to generally be a deflection. The meat of my replies have not been insults.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jarrkha

@mathandr said:

@Jarrkha: First of all let me say that I have criticized gamespot a lot myself for things like reviews that seem paid for, or made by people who don't get it. I'm writing another comment right now to criticize their review of CrossCode.

But! Gamespot is not going to start writing articles and producing videos that potentially say different things on one page, and as someone who currently works in non-subscription, ad revenue based multimedia (radio) I doubt they have the manpower to devote to essentially 2 different takes. Especially right now.

You are asking them to write two reviews per game. Business models that rely solely on ad revenue haven't been good at paying a living wages to employees for years. And in my experience employees who don't make what their work is worth (whether or not they are good at critique or are just insulting) don't produce extra content.

I understand your arguments, they are valiant, and intelligent thoughtful critique is what we all want from reviewers. Accessibility is so much more important than your desire for content producers to produce content the way you want them to, however.

I also worked as a care giver for a couple of years in my 20s. I never thought about accessibility much before that, I promise you there is an entire universe of considerations you never have to think about that millions of people have to wrestle with daily. Closed captions are a thing for a reason. People rely on being able to read along with the video. If the text and the video say different things, MANY people will be unable to follow along. This is just one example.

I apologize for my negative tone, but I find discussions on tone to generally be a deflection. The meat of my replies have not been insults.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

A bit of a preamble here:
Thanks for the well-written reply. I am also sorry for biting back (in more than one place it seems), but tbf to you I don't think you were being insulting... there were other people who almost came across as such, or, they didn't take me seriously. This is also not the first time I've written at length and having had to idealistically defend my stance on this subject against a horde.

All in all, I don't appreciate lazy responses from detractors or challengers, or people dismissing me as if I haven't considered anything at all: be it any caveats, or alternative perspectives; that I am only considering my POV as the only valid one; that I dismiss something simply bc I disagree with it (that's hypocritical considering many people do that in all the forum discussions I've read). My previous experience in these arguments directly influenced the tone with which I wrote my response to you, and the heavy addenda edit I made to my OP (which I assume you read, hence your appreciated-but-unnecessary apology).

I appreciate that you've not done all that. You've also written to me as if you get what I'm talking about, and that I appreciate as well.

Re: Asking for 2 reviews:

Some places actually have multiple people do reviews for larger game releases, so it isn't out of the ordinary to ask that. As for whether I am asking for that -- I am not, per se. Staff may have enough time to re-word (simplify), edit in/out things that play to a medium's strength. Using the written review as a baseline to be modified for whatever format - be it article or video or whatever else - is already part of the process anyway. It should be easier to cut out snippets in a written review to make it sound "less wordy" for the video format, anyway.

It's really all about logistically optimizing your work flow to include "parallel processes" or cut out the fat, as need be. The concept of "time-compounding" is often taken for granted in the workplace. I started doing six-sigma style analysis as part of my work, btw, so I am influenced otherwise, in this regard.

On that note... some more red meat on my view:

Again, it is all about style and the medium's strength. Tim Rogers is a talky guy with deeper insights, but his video lengths/styles/content permit and synergize his idiosyncrasies very well. AngryJoe has a unique style, and his videos do exactly what they need to do: show reactions to specific sections of gameplay that triggered or formed his opinions.

I'm not asking for a reinvention of the wheel or for them to adopt a completely new methodology. I'd just think that they would be more accessible, respectable and efficient if their was harmony/resonance/synergy between simpler & more direct speech in their videos (as if they were having a conversation with you, the viewer) and what the video actually shows, in terms of content... rather than just generic gameplay loops and supercut footage. They've more or less already tacked on recording footage as part of the review process, so why not record specific footage that exemplifies their praises or criticisms? They're already devoting specific team members who edit these videos all day, so why not edit them in a more specific way that plays to the video format's strength?

Employee Value for Time

You do have a very valid point about employees doing what they think their work is work. I won't contest that, except to say that that is a crux of MANY workplace conflict problems: what they think the work is worth, or even what their work purview is, versus what others think (in particular, bosses). Come to think of it, I don't consider reviews as the red meat of games journalism; more of the peas & carrots. In fact, Alanah Pearce, in her commentary on the state of TLOU2 reviews and how IGN works, recently divulged that reviews actually don't heavily impact sales (and she's by far not the first to say this). So from that POV, yes, I guess you're right.

Perhaps that is also why nobody within the industry has bothered to address the other big "problems" with reviews: scoring systems & external score aggregators; lack of standardization and industry formats, the current models being fuzzy and non-concrete structures; review bombing, "political content" hypocrisy, and whether the reviewer will face harassment from readers simply because they're going against the grain.

Speaking of which, re: accessibility:

I think we need to give ourselves more credit... and this is coming from me, the misanthrope. I assume you mean that people would rather have 2-5 minute reviews that basically say the exact same thing as what they just read in an article (if they even read the article at all). Look at how popular the 10-30 minute video reviews are, e.g. Tim Rogers on kotaku, AngryJoe, other more "esoteric" channels; or how Redditors, and other gaming communities, often come across as pedants and armchair developers. There's enough out there to generalize us as being too smart for our own good, even when gamers still have the negative stereotype as coming as across as petulant.

For a more red meat response on my part:

In terms of other forms of accessibility, for people who have short attention spans as an example, they can put up TLDR sections within the video, with timestamps, and ask YouTube to put ads in the most popular portions of their videos, i.e. said TLDR & Abstract sections, if possible (IIRC, as a general rule-of-thumb, some big channels avoid time stamps, even for news recaps or reviews, so that viewers are incentivized to watch the entire video and maximize its profitability; putting ads into specific sections of the video could help mitigate the loss a channel would get from doing timestamps).

Overall, you do rightly mention "accessibility", and I don't disagree overall. However, I, for one, have a hard time focusing on people talking too much. I need direct, to-the-point speech (my own speech patterns are reticent and taciturn). My brain goes off on tangents on almost every clause/sentence/phrase a person may say, regardless of whether I am a SME (subject-matter expert) or not. It is ironic, considering I can read and write at length, but not speak and listen at length.

Yes, I concur that proper accessibility doesn't necessarily trade the experience of the few for the needs of the many; look at TLOU2, which has virtually every base covered in some form of exemplary fashion. But you are advocating and defending for a style that validates certain groups' preferences over mine -- so I can also lay claim to exactly what you rebutted with.

More on your example:

I really don't think anyone should be reading a review and watching it at the same time; most of gamespot's viewers are perhaps now on the youtube channel, rather than this here website, so they ostensibly wouldn't be doing that anyway. Moreover, the fastest speed-readers will be nonplussed by the plodding speed of the video's speaker/reviewer; similarly, the slowest readers would be "pressured" by the video's pace. What would they do anyway? Duplicate the web page, and snap the article to one half of the screen and the video portion of the page to the other? Read along whilst listening to the speaker, neglecting to actually lay eyes on the video's visual content -- if "many" people do that, why would Gamespot even bother with visual content in the first place? Perhaps so that no criticisms of them not keeping up with the times could ever be laid against them? So that their website doesn't come across as a RSS-style podcast with a transcript? What about my criticism, that they're doing a video (i.e. putting in actual visual content) for the sake of doing it -- being perfunctory? As one of the big fish in the business, AFAIK existing well before I started reading their website in 1998-99, the word "perfunctory" must never be associated with their style.

Concluding Remarks:

I think that though you present valid points, I suspect that the more fundamental reason Gamespot hasn't changed - besides the ones already mentioned - is that their reader base doesn't challenge them. And why is that people don't seem to notice, or care? Because they accept things the way they are. I do not, being an idealist, futurist and progressivist (in some respects) with tons of time on my hands (I was out of work before COVID hit; when I was working, I wasn't dating, married with kids or otherwise involved with activities outside of my 9-5 jobs).

As they say, if a picture is worth one thousand words, then what is a video worth?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Apologize for the formatting btw, the browser was being too finnicky here.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Dilandau88
Dilandau88

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Jarrkha: you must be new here

2 • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jarrkha

@Dilandau88: Please check my profile. I understand you're possibly being humorous, but it doesn't add anything of value right now.

Obviously you wouldn't know that I've been saying the same stuff to IGN and Gamespot in a myriad of comments video review pages on their YouTube channels for years, but I've been lurking on Gamespot's website since ~2000; reading their mags before then.

But in any case: why are YOU ok with it? Things aren't just to be taken "as is" or forgotten; they can be tweaked, within reason.

The review thing as a whole, for this industry, has a lot of unaddressed things hodge-podged together, like most of our economy and social practices. Only reason I'm here at all is to say stuff like that, and to read reviews for games I'll never play, just so I can acquire more knowledge of the whole community.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Dilandau88
Dilandau88

938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Jarrkha: I'm sorry the free service they provide isn't living up to your expectations. Perhaps you should take your entitlement and start your own review site? ;)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Dilandau88: Maybe I already work for one and this account is a sock I use to unleash the beast.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Jarrkha: Are you new to Gamespot? That’s how video reviews have been done for some time: an abridgment of the written text.

3 • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jarrkha

@zmanbarzel:

I've been leveling that criticism against GS and IGN for an average of five years, and will continue to do so. Most of it was directed through YouTube, though.

It [would be] better if it were an abridgement or adaptation of the text, but it isn't. It's verbatim, and the video itself isn't embraced as a medium; just there for distraction whilst we listen. (If you use a medium, play to its strengths -- maybe not like how Angry Joe does it, or how other YouTube reviewers just sit at a desk and talk at/to you, but at least they do something embracing the format).

The other thing of it is that, once you start hearing their writing out loud, it can come across as snooty. I don't come here for the tonality employed by Ph.D-holding film critics, do you?

Oh, and I have some things to say about YouTubers themselves, but that's another time and place. (Nobody [in the public eye] is safe from "operational [logistical] scrutiny").

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aross2004
aross2004

7618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@Jarrkha: "the video itself isn't embraced as a medium; just there for distraction whilst we listen".

Speak for yourself.

Saying a video is just a distraction makes no sense at all. The video is there to show actual gameplay, and to show visual examples of the reviewer's claims/thoughts etc.

Interesting that you claim that it can come across as snooty when that's exactly what you're coming across as right now.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jarrkha

@aross2004: Except they don't do that often enough for quite a few reasons. A lot of their clips aren't as in-depth or breadth-focused as other people's (though it is hard to do provide such without spoiling games), and sometimes they can only show so much because of agreements with publishers. Sometimes I see some portions on repeat (I think). So it does makes sense, at all.

Think about portions of "random gameplay" near the beginning, that might pop-up in different segments throughout the middle, and how these videos end; compare them to someone that does a breakdown analysis. That's the kinda stuff you're alluding to.

I know you didn't mean that last bit as an insult. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter. That kind of hypocrisy is irrelevant when I'm not one of those people publishing reviews or someone with power over the system. And I'm not coming across as snooty; prior to tonight I haven't said a lot of pedantic stuff that'd automatically do that -- but I do admit to a tone that's rather prickly.

Lastly, when people write "we" or use those types of group pronouns, they're actually doing that to remain civil. Once we start employing "I" vs. "You" talk, the language comes across as a FIGHT.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jogadorraiz
JogadorRaiz

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

I don't know if it's because I just finished Persoan 5 Royal, and the comparison is a bit unfair, but the voice acting for this game is terrible. To do such a mediocre job should just leave the audio in Japanese. It is clear that the focus of Square was all on the location of FF7.

2 • 
Avatar image for rosen22
rosen22

154

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

Embarrassing, reviewer clearly didnt have the patience for more than one play through. I hate how much those sycophantic hipsters hold so much clout with whether a game is successful of not. 6/10 feels harsh. FF7 remake scored 10 and they ignored all its flaws (camera, ai, graphical errors and pop up) because of the hype. What happened to this site?

2 • 
Avatar image for uchihasilver
uchihasilver

856

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rosen22: while I think 7 remake deserves its score this game should probably be much higher havent played it but heard so much praise for it

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bassam
Bassam

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

You can't give a game 6 unless it's a joke ..

and it's not

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jarrkha
Jarrkha

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jarrkha

@bassam: 3, 4 and 5 are a joke. 1 and 2 mean the game wasn't nearly finished and/or probably an insulting waste of time (or just insulting). I played a trucking game like that back in 2006-2009 or so; back then it was considered the worst game ever made.

6-7.5 is what most would call "mediocre"; rather, I think of it as the bell curved grades for a university/college exam.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ninja_cat11
Ninja_cat11

9

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

I played the demo. It was pretty fun, but I am not paying full price for something with mid level production values. The game seems like a $30 purchase at best. There are better games with the same level of production that cost less. I still have my save from the demo, so I already have things started.

4 • 
Avatar image for systemoverload
SystemOverload

1193

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nintendo Switch has frame drop issues...

2 • 
Avatar image for so_hai
so_hai

4385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 89

User Lists: 0

This is why the Mana series has never really reached Final Fantasy status, it's always been a bit obtuse.

Doesn't bother me though.

Upvote •