Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


This game is eight percent worse than Twilight Princess!
November 18, 2011 9:54 AM   Subscribe

Modern Game Journalism: The Movie: The Trailer. (Alternate unofficial Youtube mirror.) For context, there was recently a large backlash by fans against reviewers that gave good but less than perfect scores for Uncharted 3. Or, even worse, a mixed review. Rock, Paper, Shotgun had a concise response.

Note that most of the comments were made before the game was released.

Of course, none of this is anything new (TVTropes warning). The trope namer would in fact later lose his job over a negative review. The issue is also related to the Four Point Scale, where 10 point scales are rarely fully utilized, and a 6/10 is probably pretty bad.

Mega64, previously.
posted by kmz (58 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite

 
Real journalism is supposed to have a firewall between the revenue department and the reporting department. The game review business is hopelessly corrupt. The video here is funny because it's poking at the pressure for reviewers to give perfect scores. But that's a mild form of bad journalism. Being entirely funded by the companies whose products you review is a much bigger problem. As is being wholly dependent on pre-release access to be able to write ad friendly hype articles.
posted by Nelson at 9:58 AM on November 18, 2011 [4 favorites]


How many of those fan comments were not from the game publisher's IP address?
posted by scruss at 10:00 AM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


I can't wait to get home and watch this. The Kane/Lynch thing was a low point in games journalism, superceded only by the recent refusal of gaming companies (company? I think it was EA) to put preview titles in reviewers' hands before the release date.

And I always assumed that the ten-point scores were like grades in school. At 6/10, you have failed at being so much as a satisfactory gaming experience, and everything lower than that was just subsequent kicks in the teeth. God knows that a 2/10 is probably worse than a 1/10 simply because the 2 means not only is it a shitty game, it also blew any potential it likely had, unlike the 1/10 game that was just a pile of crap from conception to release. Like that time Ms. Lynch gave me an F+ on an American History paper in high school.

...and on the other hand, there's New Games Journalism which thinks it is okay to write like the New Yorker without any of the skill to back up the verbosity.
posted by griphus at 10:01 AM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Unfashionable as it might be here in the blue, I read Penny Arcade - they pretty reliably call it as they see it and often make fairly nuanced observations that just seems more pertinent to the gamer in me.
posted by -harlequin- at 10:16 AM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Reading the avclub comments a lot of the criticism leveled at the review is just "learn 2 play n00b". The implication being you wouldn't trust an illiterate to review books yet we have video game reviewers who apparently have manual dexterity deficiencies.

I am fine with uncoordinated reviewers. In most games, my fights always end up with me somehow in a crouch wedged up against some hidden rock or ledge with people pounding on me. Considering how much time I put into games it is kinda sad how bad I suck.
posted by Ad hominem at 10:17 AM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


That RPS response makes no sense. If game companies go out of business, or start churning out the same thing everyone else is, because otherwise they can't compete with purchased game reviews, then hell yes I care.
posted by DU at 10:19 AM on November 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


I am fine with uncoordinated reviewers.

I prefer them. If I wanted to do gymnastics, I'd put down the controller and do them.
posted by DU at 10:20 AM on November 18, 2011


Penny Arcade is "unfashionable" to MeFi? News to me.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:20 AM on November 18, 2011


The comments on the avclub game reviews are always interesting. You can pretty much count on half the comments to be yelling at the reviewer for having a different perspective on the game than other review sites. It's strange, but it seems like there's a subset of video game fans who read multiple reviews with the expectation that all those reviews will say the same thing, and are outraged if they don't.
posted by Ragged Richard at 10:21 AM on November 18, 2011


A lot of this backlash came from neogaf, a game forum of considerable size, and considerable craziness at times.
posted by zabuni at 10:23 AM on November 18, 2011


>And I always assumed that the ten-point scores were like grades in school. At 6/10, you have failed at being so much as a satisfactory gaming experience, and everything lower than that was just subsequent kicks in the teeth.<

You can either look at it like that, "how good it as an experience", or rate every thing on a continuum, all games compared to each other. They both seem valid to me, as long as you can figure out which one it is. Most pro reviews are fairly transparent about this, and their 4 star system.

What drives me crazy are public reviews. On Goodreads there is a never ending debate about raising the system from 5 stars to 10 stars, to add more subtlety. This is always funny to me because it seems that a 2 or 3 star system would work for 95%+ of people. Most people seem to think 5 stars means "I liked it", 3 stars means "I didn’t like it" and 1 star reserved for the occasional "It had some political/moral point I disagree with" or "it hurt my fan feelings", but hardly ever about the quality.
posted by bongo_x at 10:23 AM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Penny Arcade is "unfashionable" to MeFi? News to me.

1300-comment thread about Penny Arcade, rape.
posted by griphus at 10:25 AM on November 18, 2011


This kind of stuff extends beyond videogames into pretty much all consumer electronics. How many times have you read a review of a new phone and the commenters (none of whom have actually owned said phone b/c it's not out yet) are all "great review!" or "this is totally biased!!" depending purely on whether the review was glowing or critical of a platform to which they feel they have some allegiance.

I will never, ever understand people who get riled up when others don't share their feelings towards a consumer device or game. It's mind boggling.
posted by modernnomad at 10:27 AM on November 18, 2011




1300-comment thread about Penny Arcade, rape.
posted by griphus at 10:25 AM on November 18 [+] [!]


To be fair to penny arcade, rape is pretty unpopular on the blue.
posted by Stagger Lee at 10:32 AM on November 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


As a professor, I can report that the same phenomenon occurs with grades. Anything less than 90% = fail in most student's eyes. (Anything less than 85% = you don't deserve to live.) I would be surprised if there isn't some deep feedback loop between the two domains of game scores and grades, esp considering the demographics are roughly similar.
posted by jmccw at 10:34 AM on November 18, 2011


From the TVTropes link:

"Literally, we've got a half dozen perfect scores and I've also gotten the lowest scores I've ever gotten on any game I've ever worked on. Of course you want everybody to think you made the best game ever, but if we were trending at something like an 8 out of 10? I'd probably have to kill myself."
— Warren Spector on Epic Mickey's reception


I think Warren Spector only played the version of Epic Mickey he had in his head. You know, the one we all wanted.

If he'd played the one we all got, he would've designed it so all the puzzles and enemies would appear directly in front of Mickey on the floor, the only place he was capable of shooting 90% of the time.

Man, I wanted that game to be so much better than it was.
posted by unsupervised at 10:37 AM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


jmccw: yes!

I was just trying to explain to my freshman comp class that a B was a good grade that they should feel good about. One of the students started crying.
posted by Ragged Richard at 10:39 AM on November 18, 2011


Am I the only one constantly amazed by Warren Spector's late-life career change and then remembering that I'm thinking of Phil Spector and then remembering he killed someone?
posted by griphus at 10:40 AM on November 18, 2011 [5 favorites]


I can't really link anything 'cause I'm just not that into it, but just recently Bethesda or whomever and Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica had/are having a spat over his poor review of RAGE. I think they refused to give him an advanced copy of Skyrim or something so he's not reviewing Skyrim. Not a fan of the guy, but he generally produces well-considered, in-depth reviews, though.
posted by Edogy at 10:41 AM on November 18, 2011


Another way of looking at that thread is that Penny Arcade is a common reference point for many MeFites, hence the extent of the controversy here.

I have not played Uncharted 3, because I have Uncharted 1 and that game is a nightmare to play. The controls are original-Prince-of-Persia-esque in their slipperiness and unresponsiveness, it takes like 10 bullets to kill some regular idiot on normal difficulty, and oh dear god jumping puzzles really? My roommate was watching me struggle through the first game, and after about an hour or so he turned to me and said, "dude, why are you doing this to yourself?" I hear frequently that Uncharted 2 has a fantastic story and characters, which would normally interest me, but there's little chance of me ever finding out.

I wanted one thing from an Uncharted 3 review: does it play the same as the first one or have they done better? The answer is pretty uniformly yes, it does play the same. Most of the praise for Uncharted is: if you get past the shoddy controls, there's a very rich story here. That's the kind of thing you can get away with in a turn-based RPG or strategy game; not so much in an action-adventure game. So, good, give them all 6s, I enjoy hearing the fanboys wail and gnash their teeth.
posted by Errant at 10:45 AM on November 18, 2011


Too low? That's refreshing. It's inflated reviews that worry me.

Here are some examples of what the gaming press failed to tell us about the blockbusters of recent years:

1. Mass Effect. Driving around an empty moon in a very slow moonbuggy until you find a three-room moon base with some baddies to kill isn't fun. The moon base has exactly the same layout as all the other ones it took you 20 minutes to find on all the other moons. Apart from the main quest, extremely tedious.
Metacritic average: 91

2. Bioshock. Yes it looks lovely, design, Ayn Rand blah blah, but it's an FPS in cramped interiors where the enemies run around idiotically. The magic spells don't make the running and gunning any more compelling. The world deserved exploratory/RPG or puzzle-solving elements
Metacritic average: 96

3. Assassin's Creed. Extremely tedious, repetitive gameplay.
Metacritic average: 81

4. LA Noire. See Assassin's Creed.
Metacritic average: 81

5. Modern Warfare 3. Exactly the same game as Modern Warfare 2. And Modern Warfare.
Metacritic avarage: 89

In my eyes, all of these games were fundamentally flawed. The first three all had great potential and indeed Mass Effect 2 and Assassin's Creed 2 went on to become near faultless games -- some of the very finest of the last decade. But the problem with these games getting such high scores is that it's hard for consumers to differentiate the genuinely excellent games that come along. The benchmark titles should be clocking in at 60-70 so games like Dead Space, Modern Warfare 1, Mass Effect 2 and Bayonetta can reap the 80s and 90s.

That is, more reviews should be like Eurogamer's Assassin's Creed: Revelations review.

Choice extract, for those that have played the previous games:

"Then there's Desmond, the "real-life" character who is living out the DNA-embedded memories of Ezio and Altair by way of the Animus machine. Compared to the spicy Ezio, Desmond is hopelessly bland, a tub of sugar-free plain vanilla ice cream, the generic kind. Yet he is given an even more prominent role in Revelations than in previous games (or at least a role that is harder to ignore).

Here is what I regard as an ideal level of Desmond: I want him to show up at the opening of the game and say, "Hello, folks, I'm Desmond Miles. I'm about to step into my magical history machine and pretend to be a fabulously fun and likeable Italian fellow from the Renaissance era. Won't you join me on this thrilling adventure?" Cue title screen, and Desmond goes away. I would also allow him to appear in the credits giving the thumbs-up sign with a word balloon that says, "Thanks for playing!""

posted by nthdegx at 10:50 AM on November 18, 2011 [4 favorites]


nthdegx, I actually love Bioshock, but I'm totally with you on Assasin's Creed. The decision to include the frame narrative is just baffling. Essentially, you start up your xbox, put in the game, and your first task is to run around the world of the game looking for an xbox so you can play the game you want to be playing.
posted by Ragged Richard at 10:55 AM on November 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


My roommate was watching me struggle through the first game, and after about an hour or so he turned to me and said, "dude, why are you doing this to yourself?" I hear frequently that Uncharted 2 has a fantastic story and characters, which would normally interest me, but there's little chance of me ever finding out.

Exactly the same story with me and Assassin's Creed. Which is why I have not yet touched AC2, nevermind 3.

posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:56 AM on November 18, 2011


And Kristen Bell is yelling at you. Ugh.
posted by yellowbinder at 10:57 AM on November 18, 2011


nthdegx, it'd be great if you "spoilered" that Assassin's Creed quote.
posted by rebent at 10:57 AM on November 18, 2011


The benchmark titles should be clocking in at 60-70 so games like Dead Space, Modern Warfare 1, Mass Effect 2 and Bayonetta can reap the 80s and 90s.

Wait.. what?
posted by absalom at 11:03 AM on November 18, 2011


Can you rephrase the question?
posted by nthdegx at 11:13 AM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can you rephrase the question?

I'm pretty sure absalom asking why you'd rate Bayonetta anywhere between 80 and 90 when, clearly, being the fun, utterly playable and replayable, near perfect video game it is, it should be well within the 90 to 100 range.
posted by eyeballkid at 11:20 AM on November 18, 2011 [3 favorites]


The benchmark titles should be clocking in at 60-70 so games like Dead Space, Modern Warfare 1, Mass Effect 2 and Bayonetta can reap the 80s and 90s.

You're assuming an objective measure of quality that simply does not exist. I thought Modern Warfare 1 was garbage, for example, and that Mass Effect was far superior to its dull sequel. The problem is that there are many, many ways to evaluate interactive entertainment, and there is no agreement whatsoever on which are most important.

Review scores are all in the 80s-90s for big-budget titles because the average video game player, i.e. the average reader of reviews, cares about exactly one thing: shiny graphics. Money spent more or less equals shiny graphics, so you'll rarely see a game on which a huge sum of money has been spent score a 7, or god help us a 6.
posted by IjonTichy at 11:31 AM on November 18, 2011


Exactly the same story with me and Assassin's Creed. Which is why I have not yet touched AC2, nevermind 3.

I had much the same problem with Assassin's Creed, also. However, reviews and word of mouth convinced me that AC2 had resolved many of the problems I had with the first one, so I bought it, and it was one of the best games of the year for me. I'd say it's worth a rental, because AC2 improves on AC1 in virtually every arena and strips out a lot of the stupid shit that bugged me in the first one.
posted by Errant at 11:31 AM on November 18, 2011


ljonTichy, we can agree to disagree, but my main point is that critics need to mark the run of the mill down, so the games they really want us to care about can stand out.
posted by nthdegx at 11:32 AM on November 18, 2011


This gets to the point that the number on the review is basically pointless. Ebert has said this in the past. The point of the review is to see what the reviewer experienced, what they liked and what they disliked and compare that to what you liked and disliked. A 10 star FPS isn't going to be any better than a 7 star FPS for someone who can't handle those sorts of games.
posted by garlic at 11:44 AM on November 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


ljonTichy, we can agree to disagree, but my main point is that critics need to mark the run of the mill down, so the games they really want us to care about can stand out.

Well, but typically each publication/website has many reviewers working for them, each of which cares more about particular genres, and each of which has (presumably) wildly different ideas of how games should be evaluated. This isn't as much of an issue with movies, because reviewers can simply watch most or all of the worthwhile movies currently in theatres, but this is impossible with video games because of what ridiculous time sinks they are.

For me, the solution is to get rid of the numbers entirely, which is why RockPaperShotgun's reviews are the only ones I read these days.
posted by IjonTichy at 11:48 AM on November 18, 2011


This gets to the point that the number on the review is basically pointless.

This doesn't get said enough, and it's hard to remember sometimes when you have sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I recall getting in a bit of a dust-up last year in the Kanye West thread when his album got a perfect score like everywhere, because you can't help but start comparing it to other, better hip hop albums that are bona-fide classics and didn't get perfect scores. What gets lost is that they might all be pretty good for different reasons, and it's not a contest.
posted by Hoopo at 12:01 PM on November 18, 2011


the recent refusal of gaming companies (company? I think it was EA) to put preview titles in reviewers' hands before the release date

Here's the real problem. Game companies have no incentive to hand out free preview copies unless they expect they'll get good reviews.

Penny Arcade is notable in that they refuse preview copies. They buy their games retail and give opinions based on the same experience a consumer will have when they buy the game.

As long as the gaming press is addicted to free preview copies and gamers insist on buying games the day they come out, before they can get any reliable information about whether the game is any good, inflated reviews will be a problem.
posted by straight at 12:14 PM on November 18, 2011


On the other hand, the 4-point scale makes more sense if you are including every game for sale at Gamespot / Best Buy / Wal-Mart / the Internet. There's plenty of games for sale that are so bad you'd give Duke Nukem Forever a 6 or 7 just so you could still have a 2 or 3 available for them. But they generally don't merit any review at all in the gaming press.
posted by straight at 12:17 PM on November 18, 2011


You know, I don't even play serious console games, but hearing about the uncharted kerffuffle in the av club podcast led me to look at the review, which led me to read the comment 'splosion, which somehow led to me watching a bunch of Zero Punction game reviews on the Escapsist, which I am now mildly addicted to for their purely vocal viciousness. But yeah, I am confused about why Yahtzee is allowed to be the only games reviewer who rips pretty much everything he sees a new asshole. He seems too popular to be considered a rarified and elite taste, but the again I don't follow mainstream gaming reviews.

Also, he was a bit "meh" on uncharted as well.
posted by Diablevert at 12:32 PM on November 18, 2011


I wanted one thing from an Uncharted 3 review: does it play the same as the first one or have they done better? The answer is pretty uniformly yes, it does play the same.

Uncharted 2 controls better than Uncharted. Absolutely play Uncharted 2. The third game is a step back from the second in many areas. Least forgivably, it has less wit and charm, which are critical things because the Uncharted games are all pretty shallow in the gameplay department. Uncharted 2 overcomes the limitations of its form and does something pretty special. I recommend it in a "you-may-not-like-this-kind-of-game-but-I-bet-you'll-like-this" kind of way.
posted by fleacircus at 12:43 PM on November 18, 2011


I had much the same problem with Assassin's Creed, also. However, reviews and word of mouth convinced me that AC2 had resolved many of the problems I had with the first one, so I bought it, and it was one of the best games of the year for me.

That's why it's exactly the same situation. I understand that AC2 is great. It's the reason, in fact, that I picked up AC1, so I could fully appreciate the sequel. Only to get bogged down in what's required to actually finish the original title.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:50 PM on November 18, 2011


A lot of this backlash came from neogaf, a game forum of considerable size, and considerable craziness at times.

I wanted to highlight NeoGAF a bit, but they've locked that thread to members-only, it looks like, and the only other source I could find for them was a gaming site I'm loathe to link.

I am confused about why Yahtzee is allowed to be the only games reviewer who rips pretty much everything he sees a new asshole.

Is Yahtzee really taken seriously as a reviewer? I thought most people watch his videos for comedic value rather than actually criticism. Plus, he doesn't give scores and therefore doesn't contribute to the almighty Metacritic that some fans place way way way too much stock in.

And I believe there actually has been wank about Zero Punctuation before. Aha, found a couple. Though really only the Halo 3 one is about a game review.
posted by kmz at 12:50 PM on November 18, 2011


Apparently Skyrim is entirely broken on PS3. Game gets corrupted and unplayable after 25 hours. For a game whose primary appeal is that you play it for 50+ hours meandering around a beautiful world, that seems like an important flaw. Skyrim on PS3 has a 95 on Metacritic, making it the third best rated game ever on that platform.

FWIW, Skyrim is truly amazing on Xbox. It's very good on PC, at least once you tweak your system sound so it works and you overlook the crappy UI.
posted by Nelson at 12:59 PM on November 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


Wow. I've been hearing about all the bugs, but playing Skyrim on the 360, have encountered *none*. I remember how buggy Morrowind was on PC and so was grateful that the console version was spared, but... apparently that's just xbox.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:09 PM on November 18, 2011


The decision to include the frame narrative is just baffling. Essentially, you start up your xbox, put in the game, and your first task is to run around the world of the game looking for an xbox so you can play the game you want to be playing.

The frame narrative bits are easily the weakest and most confusing parts of the AC games (in both a gameplay and narrative sense), but the one at the end of Brotherhood came close to justifying their existence. That wasn't because it was super fun (it wasn't), but many, many game designers have a strong urge to make the end game a fundamentally different experience than the rest of the game. Most of the games I love turn completely bonkers at the end, and usually in a not particularly fun way (i.e. Xen in Half-Life and pretty much anything with a final boss). I completely understand that they want the endgame to feel different and exciting, but anyone who makes it that far presumably got there by practicing game skills and enjoying the regular gameplay. The endgame of AC:B manages to fulfill the urge to have an endgame that's different while still retaining the core gameplay elements.

I'm just hoping that's what they were building towards with the Desmond segments and it's not that they want us all to care about whatever idiotic nonsense the meta-plot is up to.
posted by Copronymus at 1:14 PM on November 18, 2011


Essentially, you start up your xbox, put in the game, and your first task is to run around the world of the game looking for an xbox so you can play the game you want to be playing.

And... I have my new indie game premise. You start out working your 9-5 so you can afford the xbox (in-game), and you're so close, but then the air conditioning breaks and the summer is absolutely sweltering and rent is due, so... a bit more grinding before you can afford the game inside the game. Then you lose your job and...
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:18 PM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Durn Bronzefist, if you can forgive Ubi for AC1. AC2 and AC:B are pretty solid. I think I liked 2 better, but I haven't touched Brotherhood's Multiplayer yet.

In general, I think review would be better if either A) The site didn't use scores at all or B) The site uses a non-numeric scale or a non decimal scale. 10 and 100 pts just has too many expectations from other usage cases.
posted by JauntyFedora at 1:26 PM on November 18, 2011


Minecraft review: 10/10.

Also, I think the Desmond / modern scenes in Assassin's Creed are altogether essential, interesting, and an admirable narrative gamble. They exist to put your gameplay as Ezio in contrast, to highlight the fabulous synthetic world you mostly play in against the drab modern world. If you're just looking to have fun playing the game I can see why they annoy you, but if you are willing to go along with the crazy story that the game developers are pursuing they fit in perfectly. (Not sure yet about AssRev, my copy sits unopened underneath the fold-out map for Skyrim :-P)
posted by Nelson at 1:39 PM on November 18, 2011


Halliwell's 0-4 star system for film reviews was terrific.

0 was piss poor right through to average. Stars after that were degrees of quality, with 4 being an all-time great. It was effectively logarithmic which, given the sheer quantity of films, is incredibly useful to the filmgoer. He also modified scores over editions of his book, if he thought it necessary. They've ruined it in recent years by reappraising all of Halliwell's old reviews and scores for people that didn't get the old way.

By the time of his death, 130 films retained four star reviews. For films up to 1989, Halliwell's film guide is my bible.
posted by nthdegx at 1:39 PM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


FWIW, Skyrim is truly amazing on Xbox.

There is actually a pretty big bug with the XBox version as well, where if you have the game installed to your hard drive (to lessen DVD drive wear and noise, speed up load times, etc), the game doesn't stream high res textures in some circumstances. Bethesda is working on a patch.
posted by kmz at 1:44 PM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the Desmond/Lucy bits in Brotherhood were the best part.
posted by Justinian at 2:22 PM on November 18, 2011


Thanks, kmz. Did not know about that (and of course I have it installed to my hard drive).
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 2:25 PM on November 18, 2011


I think there's space for disagreement on whether Bioshock was the game of the century or a mediocre rail shooter with trumped up philosophical ambitions (guess which side I fall on), and this debate is healthy and worthwhile, but when people play through the game and no reviewers give it a mediocre or bad score... isn't there something wrong with that? This video points out the pressure on one side, where people take their consumer culture products very, very seriously. I would say that for any number of reasons people are even more slavish to their pet videogames than they are to movies, or books, or whatever else. On the other side you have a corrupt and amoral videogame industry which blatantly pays off reviewers for good scores and funds the very review sites that should be critiquing their games.

With so many options out there for players, I don't see how exclusivity is still such a big deal, and I think there might be room for an honest review site... like a Grantland for games.
posted by codacorolla at 2:41 PM on November 18, 2011


Apparently Skyrim is entirely broken on PS3.

Ugh, I just bought Skyrim for PS3 yesterday because it's all they had in stock. Fortunately other things came up, so I haven't opened it yet. Time for the exchange program.

I recommend it in a "you-may-not-like-this-kind-of-game-but-I-bet-you'll-like-this" kind of way.

The funny thing is that I do like that kind of game. I'll take my own advice and try out a rental copy.
posted by Errant at 2:58 PM on November 18, 2011


Some game genres have gotten so specialized that you really need to take a collection of opinions before buying. If you're not a big shooter fan, Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 probably look identical, but if you are, they're very very different.

The point system has gotten completely, insanely out of hand, and I find most of the big gaming sites to be completely useless when it comes to reviews. If I had to pick a "best," I guess I'd say... Ars Technica, maybe? They're well written, but I usually disagree with their findings. I probably get the best game buying advice from the Gamers With Jobs podcast. They're very good at expressing the sometimes intangible things that make or break a game, and they'll often highlight smaller games you might have missed that are worth exploring.
posted by Sibrax at 3:54 PM on November 18, 2011


Minecraft reviewed (it gets a "10").
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:03 PM on November 18, 2011


I really do like Eurogamer. Their reviews are typically thoughtful and nuanced, and they often raise issues I hadn't considered and attempt to locate games in a general structure of critique. Sure, there's a review score on the end, but that's super easy to ignore. And, of course, the hallmark of any reviewer one recommends: I tend to agree with them most of the time.
posted by Errant at 4:16 PM on November 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


>And... I have my new indie game premise. You start out working your 9-5 so you can afford the xbox (in-game), and you're so close, but then the air conditioning breaks and the summer is absolutely sweltering and rent is due, so... a bit more grinding before you can afford the game inside the game. Then you lose your job and…<

I’ve played Shenmue. (I kid, I actually liked that game).
posted by bongo_x at 9:27 PM on November 18, 2011


"Apparently Skyrim is entirely broken on PS3. Game gets corrupted and unplayable after 25 hours."

My wife and I each are more than 40 hours into our games of Skyrim on the PS3 with no significant bugs so far. I've got my fingers crossed that the problem doesn't end up being as widespread as that story makes it out to be.
posted by tdismukes at 10:02 AM on November 19, 2011 [1 favorite]


Update to my previous comment - at almost 50 hours in, I'm seeing noticeable frame rate drops and stutters. It's not bad enough to make the game unplayable, but I am hoping that Bethesda gets it fixed in the upcoming patch which is supposedly coming out after Thanksgiving.
posted by tdismukes at 7:30 AM on November 20, 2011


« Older "By putting an [unelected] senior adviser at Goldm...  |  American colleges find the Chi... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments