Games aren't supposed to be fun! (I did not know that!)

[Flojomojo]

This website cracks me up: http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath/mindbend.htm

There is trend of game reviewers and gamers giving bonus points to flawed games because they had fun with it. It is foolish thing to do and its not just affecting this game...Reviews such as these are unacceptable. Publishing in high circulation magazines and web pages that one game is perfect, based only on a reviewer's tastes of fun, or witty, and not on the gameplay compared to similar games at all, is wreckless and wrong. These sites and magazines determine what the public wants, and they are basing their decisions on their own enjoyment, rather than the technical aspects of the games they should be focusing on.

ROTFLMAO!

The instinct to imagine what you have is the best thing out there is not necessarily bad, however, if it is applied to the realm of console video gaming, the conclusion based on this instinct is simply incorrect. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses in hardware and software of each console can help you to know which console is likely to have more games that suit your tastes. Knowing that your tastes are not the end all, be all to what is and isn't a good game is a virtue. Recognizing a quality game, regardless of which console it was made for, and even if you don't necessarily enjoy playing it, is what Game Pilgrimage is all about.

The style is wonderfully, unintentionally hilarious. Anyone know how old this character is?

[+Random Terrain]

Didn't you know that? Games are supposed to be frustrating and free of any randomness. It also helps if the controls are hard to use and all text displayed on the screen should be so tiny and stylized that you can barely read it. Get with the program!

[SteveW]

Wow. It seems that even retarded (sorry, mentally handi-capable) people can create their own web sites. Good for them.

 

 

they are basing their decisions on their own enjoyment, rather than the technical aspects of the games they should be focusing on.

 

What? Is this jagoff really saying that you should only be looking at the graphics and physics engine, instead of figuring out if the game is fun? What an idiot.

 

 

Recognizing a quality game, regardless of which console it was made for, and even if you don't necessarily enjoy playing it, is what Game Pilgrimage is all about.

 

I love this line. Who cares if a game plays worth crap? Look how pretty the graphics are!

 

 

Am I the only one amazed that this mini-article, with so many ignorant ideas and concepts, doesn't have a dozen typos in each sentence? Usually, kids (and let's face it, the person writing this is a child) who think this way tend to be pretty much incapable of good grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

[AncillaryDrone]

"wreckless and wrong"

that's a good one!

[ClassicBoy]

What a relief!!

 

I was getting so tired of having fun. Gaming should be SO MUCH better without the added pressure of having fun.

 

Down with fun.

[maibock]

You're taking the first quote out of context. The point is being made that if you are reviewing a game for a magazine or a website, that you really shouldn't use your bias as what is fun for you personally, but rather what would be fun for the audience that you are catering to. And this can only be done in general terms

 

In fact that's my main problem with most game reviews. Instead of getting technical info on how to gauge whether the game is good enough to buy or not, you're getting someone else's opinion if it's fun or not. What's fun for the reviewer is most likely not fun for you or me. That's why it needs to be left out of the equation or rather not focused on so much for the majority of the game review.

 

Here's a recent example..

 

In the latest Electronic Gaming Monthly they reviewed Chris Sawyer's Locomotion, pretty much giving it a bad review. Basically the reviewer wasn't happy with the antiquated graphics(using the RCT2 engine) or the simplistic game premise. But if you enjoyed the RCT games and appreciated Transport Tycoon, this game is friggin' awesome! The reviewer also didn't include the price which I believe was 30 bucks and I thought it to be perfectly priced for this type of game. Was it state of the art graphics? no, not at all, but if it was, the game would have lost it's charm and "fun" factor for me. The reviewer totally blew the review since they didn't understand the game or it's roots and simply said it wasn't "fun".

[shep]

I can barely read any of the text on that turd of a site.

[crveatch]

As much as Flojomojo may be taking the kid out of context I think you're giving him a bit to much credit, maibok.

 

For example...

 

"Yuck. The graphics are OK, but the game is so sickeningly cute that it is virtually intolerable to play. There is voice, though."

 

As much as some gaming sites and magazines may be biased in their reviews at least they're informative and I don't have to turn my contrast up to read it.

[maibock]

Oh I agree, the site is brutal on the eyes, but it kind of struck a nerve with me on how most game reviewers rarely give me anything to work with. By telling me a game is "fun" for them, doesn't tell me a whole lot. I'm as jaded with movie reviews as well. Most reviewers are as useless as tits on a bull..

[Cootster]

Whoa, it's only the third-worst review site I've ever seen . . .

 

 

For RC Grand Prix (SMS):

 

"Racing with RC cars. Fast-paced and fun, you don't get time to ever set the controller down. The parts shop guy is the guy who wrote the game. I know because he told me. Recommended."

 

"Dr. Luveno" must have been playing RC Pro-Am on the NES instead . . . Never get to set the controller down? Well, OK, maybe it's true because you'll be throwing it. The controls are so loose on that game you're lucky if you can keep going the right direction for 5 seconds. And recommending a game because "The parts shop guy is the guy who wrote the game"??? WTF?

[PaulEMoz]

A reviewer should always, always review a game based on how the game was for them, not how it would be for someone else. The reason for this is that everybody will have a different opinion of a game. The trick for the reader is to find a reviewer or publication that is closest to the mark for them personally, something they can relate to. If a reviewer starts pandering to perceived audiences, the reviews will not be based on honest opinion and will suffer accordingly.

 

Of course, a reviewer should point out whether certain games may appeal to certain people, may not appeal to others or may be best suited for fans of that genre, but as far as I'm concerned, a review is only worth reading if it is based on that reviewer's personal opinion and experience of the game.

[SteveW]

I want a reviewer to inject his personality into what he's writing. I like a bit of attitude in editorials and reviews. I used to like buying imported British Commodore Amiga magazines, because they had so much more personality than American magazines had. To this day, I'd rather read Games™ magazine imported from the UK than read US mags like Gamepro or EGM.

[crveatch]

Exactly, I have my video game and movie critics who I know I tend to agree with and stick with them. Pandering to the lowest common denomonator isn't the answer. You just try to look for the critic with the most similar tastes and that you find enjoyable to read.

[Inky]

I played the best game! It was boring, had horrible graphics, and no sound! It was a blast!

[+kisrael]

Hint for viewing pages with as poorly selected colors for text as that: hit ctrl-A to select all the content on the page, it puts it in a safe black on white text.

 

Anyway, one thing is true: you should be able to recognize or at least accept a good game even in a genre that does nothing for you. I have very little instinct for why people enjoy Tony Hawk Skater games, but I suspect THUG is a great game for what it is. Same w/ turn based RPGs...I'll never ever play through a Final Fantasy, but I don't think they're all bad games.

[JB]

I want a reviewer to inject his personality into what he's writing. I like a bit of attitude in editorials and reviews. I used to like buying imported British Commodore Amiga magazines, because they had so much more personality than American magazines had. To this day, I'd rather read Games™ magazine imported from the UK than read US mags like Gamepro or EGM.

I don't read american mags because, well, the reviews read like ads.

 

I've also seen games where they can't find one good thing to say, then give it 8s and 9s. IT's like "This game sucks, but we were paid to give it good #s."

[Bruce Tomlin]

It seems like what we have here is your government issue Sega Fanboy with symptoms of Sony Envy. What a waste of flesh.

[pmpddytim]

I like how the reviews in the back of Nintendo power are set up. 4 or five people give it a rating and there is a brief description of the game. Then at the end of the review section it gives a profile of the what games the reviewers prefer. It lists what are thier favorite genres from most prefered to least. So atleast you know where the player is coming from when they say they hated it or loved it. And then you can judge for yourself if you want to do further research on it.

 

I don't know about you guys but I don't take just one reviews word for it. I like to search the web and see what other people think about it. Even come here and search through threads to see what other people say about it. Yes I want to know if its easy to control, the graphics are good or not, and the quality of the sound, music etc. But mostly I want to know did the reviewer have fun. And if he did are his tastes close to mine or not. Thus I believe the reviewer should always give some background from where they are coming from. Like: "I really don't enjoy RPGs" When a reviewer says somthing like that I can adjust my opinion of the review.

[+kisrael]

I don't read american mags because, well, the reviews read like ads.  

 

I've also seen games where they can't find one good thing to say, then give it 8s and 9s. IT's like "This game sucks, but we were paid to give it good #s."

Suddenly I'm all nostalgic for ZZAP!64. Some how the little portraits to show the relative excitement was more honest and useful than today's scale of 1-10.

[PaulEMoz]

ZZAP! 64 is still my favourite magazine ever (read any of the reviews on my old website and you'd figure that out!).

 

If you're feeling nostalgic you can download several issues at The Def Guide to ZZAP! 64.

[Flojomojo]

It seems like what we have here is your government issue Sega Fanboy with symptoms of Sony Envy.  What a waste of flesh.

Bingo. Why else would anyone spend pages upon pages trying to explain how the masses got it wrong and the Sega Saturn and Sega Dreamcast are so much better than the Sony Playstation and Playstation 2, respectively? Why bother with such masturbation? It's over, get used to it, and besides, they're just toys. "Game Pilgrimage," indeed.

[shep]

I played the best game!  It was boring, had horrible graphics, and no sound!  It was a blast!  

 

hmmm, an Atari title with no sound...hmmm