The point is that if they consistently rate new Madden games and FF titles 9s which offer little more than new stats or in FF's case, new mini games and new FMV, then they are hypocrites.sethsez wrote:Aesthetics versus central gameplay mechanics. Not a valid comparison.Dylan1CC wrote:Oh well, I guess I could also say "Madden without 3D models and FF without choreographed FMV cut scenes...without 'em, who cares?"
Latest EGM slams three recent shooters
Madden is a simulation title. Nobody expects massive gameplay changes in a title that's trying to simulate a real-life activity. It's the same with flight sims, driving sims, etc. They're rated based not just on how fun they are, but on how accurate they are. When they compare two sports games that simulate the same sport, generally the higher rating goes to the more accurate one. Shmups don't simulate anything, so they're not judged on this criteria.
Final Fantasy games change quite a bit from one game to the other. In addition to having a new story and world each game (which is the main draw of the series, and thus the most important change), each game adds a myriad of new gimmicks and systems. FFX especially shook things up by removing the overworld, completely changing how leveling works, and altering the battle system to a pretty large degree (all for the worse, in my opinion). Dragon Quest would be a better example for you to use here, but we haven't really gotten enough of them to be able to track scores. Shmups ARE judged on this criteria, which is essentially "does it bring anything new to the table, or does it do what's already been done better than anyone else." In the case of, say, Nanostray, it doesn't bring anything new to the table, and there are plenty of better games in the genre. Thus, it's average and earned its score.
Final Fantasy games change quite a bit from one game to the other. In addition to having a new story and world each game (which is the main draw of the series, and thus the most important change), each game adds a myriad of new gimmicks and systems. FFX especially shook things up by removing the overworld, completely changing how leveling works, and altering the battle system to a pretty large degree (all for the worse, in my opinion). Dragon Quest would be a better example for you to use here, but we haven't really gotten enough of them to be able to track scores. Shmups ARE judged on this criteria, which is essentially "does it bring anything new to the table, or does it do what's already been done better than anyone else." In the case of, say, Nanostray, it doesn't bring anything new to the table, and there are plenty of better games in the genre. Thus, it's average and earned its score.
Oh please. Here we go with another of your long winded innovation angles which you are twisting to your own advantage as if I am trying to say Nanostray is a game which is a "genre breaker" (and I wouldn't be qualified since I don't own it yet even though it obviously doesn't look like one as fun as it appears to be so far).sethsez wrote:Madden is a simulation title. Nobody expects massive gameplay changes in a title that's trying to simulate a real-life activity. It's the same with flight sims, driving sims, etc. They're rated based not just on how fun they are, but on how accurate they are. When they compare two sports games that simulate the same sport, generally the higher rating goes to the more accurate one. Shmups don't simulate anything, so they're not judged on this criteria.
Final Fantasy games change quite a bit from one game to the other. In addition to having a new story and world each game (which is the main draw of the series, and thus the most important change), each game adds a myriad of new gimmicks and systems. FFX especially shook things up by removing the overworld, completely changing how leveling works, and altering the battle system to a pretty large degree (all for the worse, in my opinion). Dragon Quest would be a better example for you to use here, but we haven't really gotten enough of them to be able to track scores. Shmups ARE judged on this criteria, which is essentially "does it bring anything new to the table, or does it do what's already been done better than anyone else." In the case of, say, Nanostray, it doesn't bring anything new to the table, and there are plenty of better games in the genre. Thus, it's average and earned its score.
I'm not calling any game innovative right now. I am not reviewing a game. I am not reporting on the history of innovation in this reply. My point was, it is poor writing on Shoe's part to say shmups are just based on "gimmicks" just as you took issue with me for saying the same of Madden and FF. Again my point is that Shoe is a poor writer and it sounds like he is blanketing the games as a "gimmick genre." It is insulting and poor editorial composition which does no service to its readers. And assuming now you weren't talking about innovation either, the changes you mentioned regarding FF are not groundbreaking either. "Shook things up." Ha.
A shmup without a gimmick and with mediocre design is utterly pointless. It offers nothing interesting, and there are so many games in the genre that it'd be pointless to play a crap one. I fully agree with shoe on this.
And I never said FFX was groundbreaking, I said the game shook things up within the series, which it did, much to the chagrin of some long-time fans. You said it was just some new FMVs, I said that was bullshit. Just like claiming DDP:DOJ did nothing different from DDP would be bullshit. DOJ isn't groundbreaking either, but it's different from DDP.
And incidentally, the review you're bitching about is about Nanostray. So yeah, I'd say its fair to bring that game up in the discussion.
Finally, if your only point is that EGM has bad writing, then I agree with you. That's not what I'm taking issue with.
And I never said FFX was groundbreaking, I said the game shook things up within the series, which it did, much to the chagrin of some long-time fans. You said it was just some new FMVs, I said that was bullshit. Just like claiming DDP:DOJ did nothing different from DDP would be bullshit. DOJ isn't groundbreaking either, but it's different from DDP.
And incidentally, the review you're bitching about is about Nanostray. So yeah, I'd say its fair to bring that game up in the discussion.
Finally, if your only point is that EGM has bad writing, then I agree with you. That's not what I'm taking issue with.
Last edited by sethsez on Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
dave4shmups
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:01 am
- Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
And I don't. The word gimmick is not a complimentary term at all. It is in effect a negative 'form" of the art of invention and a term someone uses to posit that a person is trumpeting "new" when they are actually using half-invention in an "underhanded" way. Since you are defending his review and by implication as you'd say also defending the way he wrote it, let's look at the definitions for the respective words and you tell me if it's a good thing Shoe said the options in R-TYPE are a gimmick (when they were very innovative for the shooter genre back in '87):sethsez wrote:A shmup without a gimmick and with mediocre design is utterly pointless. It offers nothing interesting, and there are so many games in the genre that it'd be pointless to play a crap one. I fully agree with shoe on this.
Gimmick: A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
A small object whose name does not come readily to mind.
tr.v. gim·micked, gim·mick·ing, gim·micks
To add gimmicks to; clutter with gadgets or attention-getting details. Often used with up.
To change or affect by means of a gimmick.
Innovative: adj 1: ahead of the times; "the advanced teaching methods"; "had advanced views on the subject"; "a forward-looking corporation"; "is British industry innovative enough?" [syn: advanced, forward-looking, modern] 2: being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before; "stylistically innovative works"; "innovative members of the artistic community"; "a mind so innovational, so original" [syn: innovational, groundbreaking]
So in short, if you use the word gimmick when describing the programming and development of an entire genre of games, you are being derisive of entire said genre which is exactly what it at least sounds like Shoe is doing. He is saying the folks who make shooters are gimmick salemen and the fans who play them buy into the "scheme."
Hey, here are two more definitions!
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1gim·mick
Pronunciation: 'gi-mik
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : GADGET
2 a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : CATCH b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle
And from Wikipedia:
A gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.
My standard dictionary also doesn't imply any negative connotations in about half of the definitions, though admittedly it's also a Webster's dictionary.
I guess where we disagree is in the context of the word. I think the polarity thing in Ikaruga is a gimmick, but I don't think it's a bad one.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1gim·mick
Pronunciation: 'gi-mik
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 a : a mechanical device for secretly and dishonestly controlling gambling apparatus b : an ingenious or novel mechanical device : GADGET
2 a : an important feature that is not immediately apparent : CATCH b : an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle
And from Wikipedia:
A gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.
My standard dictionary also doesn't imply any negative connotations in about half of the definitions, though admittedly it's also a Webster's dictionary.
I guess where we disagree is in the context of the word. I think the polarity thing in Ikaruga is a gimmick, but I don't think it's a bad one.
Ha. Right. "Novelty" and "scheme" are SO complimentary. "My son is good at scheming new stories. They're such wonderful novelties."
Who uses the word gimmick as a complimentary term? Almost NOBODY thinks "ingenuity" when they hear the word gimmick. Gimmick is a word that for most people spurs instant mind imagery of trickery, NOT earnest invention. Yeah, I'll agree with you though that a guy who runs a sideshow stand at a carnival shows a TYPE of "ingenuity." Ha.
Why do they list the dishonest descriptives first and not the complimentary ones like "ingenuity afterwards?" Again, because in society it is widely used as a term related to tricking people or using an at least slightly underhanded process to gain something. Tell me how many award winning scientists and inventors who have designed things crucial to human life would like their inventions referred to as gimmicks? Nobody. Same for artists and game programmers. I'd like to see Shoe sit down and interview Hideo Kojima pointing out all of MGS's "gimmicks" and expect a positive reaction after using that word.
But hey, keep on defending poor writing and biased game editors, buddy.
Who uses the word gimmick as a complimentary term? Almost NOBODY thinks "ingenuity" when they hear the word gimmick. Gimmick is a word that for most people spurs instant mind imagery of trickery, NOT earnest invention. Yeah, I'll agree with you though that a guy who runs a sideshow stand at a carnival shows a TYPE of "ingenuity." Ha.
Why do they list the dishonest descriptives first and not the complimentary ones like "ingenuity afterwards?" Again, because in society it is widely used as a term related to tricking people or using an at least slightly underhanded process to gain something. Tell me how many award winning scientists and inventors who have designed things crucial to human life would like their inventions referred to as gimmicks? Nobody. Same for artists and game programmers. I'd like to see Shoe sit down and interview Hideo Kojima pointing out all of MGS's "gimmicks" and expect a positive reaction after using that word.
But hey, keep on defending poor writing and biased game editors, buddy.
This is almost as stupid as your argument against evolution in a thread about a penguin movie.
I ALREADY SAID I THINK EGM HAS BAD WRITING. So if you're going to talk about reading comprehension, go back and read that again. Maybe I'll state it again here.
I THINK EGM HAS BAD WRITING.
I'm talking about the usage of "gimmick," nothing more. And I maintain that you're being way too sensitive over its use here.
I ALREADY SAID I THINK EGM HAS BAD WRITING. So if you're going to talk about reading comprehension, go back and read that again. Maybe I'll state it again here.
I THINK EGM HAS BAD WRITING.
I'm talking about the usage of "gimmick," nothing more. And I maintain that you're being way too sensitive over its use here.
What? That thread where I simply said I think penguins show evidence of intelligent design because of how the blood in their feet preheats itself? An example of something in nature I don't think is possible to come about by chance no more than rats coming out of a pile of rags as Louis Pasteur proved? Then outta nowhere you come in and slight me saying I am ignorant just because you and I have a different view of where the universe came from. So then I decided to have a go at debating it with you a bit and you got ticked off.sethsez wrote:This is almost as stupid as your argument against evolution in a thread about a penguin movie.
I ALREADY SAID I THINK EGM HAS BAD WRITING. So if you're going to talk about reading comprehension, go back and read that again. Maybe I'll state it again here.
I THINK EGM HAS BAD WRITING.
I'm talking about the usage of "gimmick," nothing more. And I maintain that you're being way too sensitive over its use here.
You think the universe came out of nothing, I think it was created.
You think the word gimmick is OK as a complimentary term, I don't.
The only reason you are PO'ed right now is because you are smug, you are arrogant and you are not used to someone going toe to toe with you in a debate beyond a few replies. I'm posting a lot of replies. Cry me a river.
I have even CONCEEDED with you on things such as: the mistake I made in TNL board of terming SMB as "still" being innovative which lead to some confusion which I apoligized for. I also conceeded with you on your point that the Madden games are simulations and maybe they oughta be graded a little differently.
The only reason you are in here now is because you are trying to "prove" that to you the shmups forum AS A WHOLE is "unreasonable" by your own definition in TNL forum which you are entitled to, but you are now going overboard. Maybe you are the one who needs to calm down?
Maybe you have just as much of a problem accepting someone else's viewpoint in a discussion as you say I do? Hmmmm.
EDIT: Oh yeah, not to mention the fact that in TNL you kept saying I called the entire genre of shmups "innovative" just because I said I thought Mushihime was more advanced in some ways than older shooters? Reading comprehension indeed. Ha.
Last edited by Dylan1CC on Sat Aug 06, 2005 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think the shmups.com forum is unreasonable when it comes to outside analysis on their favorite genre, yes, and I've never really tried to hide that. For the same reason I think adventuregamers.com is unreasonable, interactive fiction (text adventures) forums are unreasonable, traditional wargame forums are unreasonable, and really just about every niche gaming forum is unreasonable. There's a riduculous amount of "us versus them" sentiment, to the point where every statement is interpreted in the worst possible way and any legitimate criticism of a game is immediately dismissed because it doesn't come from "one of us." It's the kind of thinking that leads to an insular, bitter community, and this thread is just another example of it.
EGM has horrible writers and I don't think anybody would deny that. But all this outrage is about more than the use of the word "gimmick."
EGM has horrible writers and I don't think anybody would deny that. But all this outrage is about more than the use of the word "gimmick."
You just addressed this in your post. That was a misunderstanding regarding the SMB statement. Mushihimesama had nothing to do with it, and once that was cleared up it was dropped.Dylan1CC wrote:EDIT: Oh yeah, not to mention the fact that in TNL you kept saying I called the entire genre of shmups "innovative" just because I said I thought Mushihime was more advanced in some ways than older shooters? Reading comprehension indeed. Ha.
Nobody here has played it, so we're not in a position to bitch about EGM's review blurb yet. 
But my guess is that if EGM is complaining a shmup is too easy, when they normally think all of them are too hard... well, that says something. And the videos don't do much to say otherwise. So until someone who's played it says otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's a fun but easy game.
But my guess is that if EGM is complaining a shmup is too easy, when they normally think all of them are too hard... well, that says something. And the videos don't do much to say otherwise. So until someone who's played it says otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's a fun but easy game.
Wrong?sethsez wrote:EGM has horrible writers and I don't think anybody would deny that. But all this outrage is about more than the use of the word "gimmick."
Dodonpachi's gimmick is the combo system.
Ikaruga's is the chain system.
Shikigami's is the bullet scraping.
Vasara's the sword powering.
I could go on, and on, and on, really. But without a "gimmick" or something that doesn't turn a shmup into a plain, drab regular shmup, it won't just get the word "gimmick" thrown at it, trust me.
I haven't actively browsed/used this forum in many years and it's no longer an accurate representation of me.
I have retired from genre-specific content creation after 13 years, but I'll always love this little genre in my own personal way.
I have retired from genre-specific content creation after 13 years, but I'll always love this little genre in my own personal way.
Why the fuck are you arguing over what gimmick means? We all know what it means, moron. Sometimes it is used to describe an original gameplay mechanic in a positive way, regardless of what Merriam-Webster says. And people actually understand that, isn't that amazing? That's what we humans call "comprehension". Do you understand what people mean when they use the word 'gimmcik' in that context? Then shut the fuck up.
*sigh*
Whoever you're replying to, though I have a feeling it's me, I don't even care about the use of the word here. I got dragged into that stupid argument because of Dylan who seemed to base his entire complaint on "wah, he called it a gimmick instead of an innovative feature." I was trying to talk about other things, like the rest of what EGM said, before that stupid fucking tangent happened.
In any case, I don't care about the word gimmick (it's a stupid argument), I don't care about how bad EGM's writing is (everyone knows it is), I don't care about any of that. I just don't get why them calling a boring game boring (Nanostray), a stupid idea stupid (adventure game based on a shooter with a lame plot), and a game none of us have played "good, but easy" is so terrible.
Whoever you're replying to, though I have a feeling it's me, I don't even care about the use of the word here. I got dragged into that stupid argument because of Dylan who seemed to base his entire complaint on "wah, he called it a gimmick instead of an innovative feature." I was trying to talk about other things, like the rest of what EGM said, before that stupid fucking tangent happened.
In any case, I don't care about the word gimmick (it's a stupid argument), I don't care about how bad EGM's writing is (everyone knows it is), I don't care about any of that. I just don't get why them calling a boring game boring (Nanostray), a stupid idea stupid (adventure game based on a shooter with a lame plot), and a game none of us have played "good, but easy" is so terrible.
-
Thunder Force
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:21 am
- Location: research and development facility for Vasteel Technology.
Refer to the Forum Rules and don't post personal attacks of this intensity.Dandy J wrote:We all know what it means, moron. Sometimes it is used to describe an original gameplay mechanic in a positive way, regardless of what Merriam-Webster says. And people actually understand that, isn't that amazing? That's what we humans call "comprehension". Do you understand what people mean when they use the word 'gimmcik' in that context? Then shut the fuck up.
"Thunder Force VI does not suck, shut your fucking mouth." ~ Shane Bettenhausen
The funny thing is that people read magazines and are obsessed by the votes and thus the recognition about the game they buy, play once and put on the shelf.
I don't expect to find in-depth reviews of a shmup aside "experts of the field", as it takes some preliminary knowledge that comes from a good grasp on how the genre evolved, not to mention the specific aspects of the game. Dismissing a game just because it lacks gorgeous FMVs or omg the 2Ds graphicx00rs (or just because it's not Radiant Silvergun or Ikaruga) is easy. Shmups are right now mostly about gameplay or gimmicks, if you prefer. Some (like sethsez) hate gimmicks and would like Gradius 56 as a valid alternative to Madden 823, others evaluate them and enjoy the games if there's a different comma in the game mechanics (like me).
OF course, i should lay a crusade and "exterminate anyone who disagrees with me, convert them (wtf?They're supposed to be dead...) and rape their women" ! *
*I happen to remember thaat Ann Coulter said something like this, but i really don't care about these aspects of USA, honestly.
I don't expect to find in-depth reviews of a shmup aside "experts of the field", as it takes some preliminary knowledge that comes from a good grasp on how the genre evolved, not to mention the specific aspects of the game. Dismissing a game just because it lacks gorgeous FMVs or omg the 2Ds graphicx00rs (or just because it's not Radiant Silvergun or Ikaruga) is easy. Shmups are right now mostly about gameplay or gimmicks, if you prefer. Some (like sethsez) hate gimmicks and would like Gradius 56 as a valid alternative to Madden 823, others evaluate them and enjoy the games if there's a different comma in the game mechanics (like me).
OF course, i should lay a crusade and "exterminate anyone who disagrees with me, convert them (wtf?They're supposed to be dead...) and rape their women" ! *
*I happen to remember thaat Ann Coulter said something like this, but i really don't care about these aspects of USA, honestly.
Chomsky, Buckminster Fuller, Yunus and Glass would have played Battle Garegga, for sure.
Actually, I like some gimmicks. Shiki II is one of my favorite games this gen, and that thing is practically nothing but gimmicks. My dislike of Gradius V and Ikaruga is more due to my general dislike of Treasure (though I admire the craftsmanship that went into them). Gradius 56 made by Konami does sound appealing, though...
In any case, Gradius V, Ikaruga and R-Type Final all got good scores. Nanostray and Silpheed II didn't. They didn't consider the Mobile Light Force games worth a mention. For the DC, they gave Mars Matrix the fourth highest score on Gamerankings, though they hated the Giga Wing games (still rated those above the GR averages). They didn't like Gunbird 2, which I disagree with (Psikyo's finest, IMO), but meh. Overall I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment of the state of the genre in America despite the Giga Wing and Gunbird ratings, wouldn't you? I guess if they reviewed a fantastic Cave game and called it crap, the "they hate shmups" thing would make more sense to me, but as it is, the games they've shat on are by and large the same games we've shat on, and the games they've enjoyed are by and large the games we've enjoyed.
And yeah, Coulter did say something similar to that. Sadly enough, it's absolutely standard for her.
Shiki II is one of my favorite games this gen, and that thing is practically nothing but gimmicks. My dislike of Gradius V and Ikaruga is more due to my general dislike of Treasure (though I admire the craftsmanship that went into them). Gradius 56 made by Konami does sound appealing, though...In any case, Gradius V, Ikaruga and R-Type Final all got good scores. Nanostray and Silpheed II didn't. They didn't consider the Mobile Light Force games worth a mention. For the DC, they gave Mars Matrix the fourth highest score on Gamerankings, though they hated the Giga Wing games (still rated those above the GR averages). They didn't like Gunbird 2, which I disagree with (Psikyo's finest, IMO), but meh. Overall I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment of the state of the genre in America despite the Giga Wing and Gunbird ratings, wouldn't you? I guess if they reviewed a fantastic Cave game and called it crap, the "they hate shmups" thing would make more sense to me, but as it is, the games they've shat on are by and large the same games we've shat on, and the games they've enjoyed are by and large the games we've enjoyed.
And yeah, Coulter did say something similar to that. Sadly enough, it's absolutely standard for her.
Last edited by sethsez on Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
Actually come to think of it.
I hate every single (English/Us/Dutch) gaming magazine out there.
Those mags are made up of journalists. That's your problem right there.
They do not like games. They are influenced by marketing and the general thoughts on games and genres.
Gaming mags used to be great. But now we got something much better, internet. True reading a mag is much more satisfying, but with a month old news and opinions of idiots, who needs it.
I don't know about jap mags, I'd think they are much better.
Arcadia probably rules
I think the shmups community is a great communty and for me replaces every magazine out there
Can I donate?
I hate every single (English/Us/Dutch) gaming magazine out there.
Those mags are made up of journalists. That's your problem right there.
They do not like games. They are influenced by marketing and the general thoughts on games and genres.
Gaming mags used to be great. But now we got something much better, internet. True reading a mag is much more satisfying, but with a month old news and opinions of idiots, who needs it.
I don't know about jap mags, I'd think they are much better.
Arcadia probably rules
I think the shmups community is a great communty and for me replaces every magazine out there
Can I donate?
I disagree. I actually think the opposite... they're made of gamers who wanted to work in the industry in some capacity, and as a result we get magazines written at a level that would embarrass a real journalist.D wrote:Those mags are made up of journalists. That's your problem right there.
They do not like games. They are influenced by marketing and the general thoughts on games and genres.
They're still shite either way, of course.
Famitsu is... well, awful. I don't have any experience with Arcadia, but if you run EGM through Babelfish, that's Famitsu. The fact that people still take their scores seriously boggles the mind.I don't know about jap mags, I'd think they are much better.
Just wait a few hundred years, if they did Gradius V out of name loyalty...sethsez wrote:Actually, I like some gimmicks.
My dislike of Gradius V and Ikaruga is more due to my general dislike of Treasure (though I admire the craftsmanship that went into them). Gradius 56 made by Konami does sound appealing, though...
No.In any case, Gradius V, Ikaruga and R-Type Final all got good scores. Nanostray and Silpheed II didn't. They didn't consider the Mobile Light Force games worth a mention. Overall I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment of the state of the genre in America, wouldn't you?
Gradius and R-Type are brands from the glorious past, Ikaruga was followed by a TITANIC mass of raw, untamed hype, to the point that everyone worshipped it because omg it's the greatest shmupz00rz everz0rs: i've read people dissing the whole post-megadrive shmup production and then worshipping Ikaruga, without realizing that its engine is exactly what they irrationally hate about modern shmups.Then again, it's gorgeous, and 98% of "game" discussions are about graphics.
"We"? Dissing a game because it has obvious faults is objective ( i mean, bugs, bad controls, etc), but i can't see how a normal reviewer wouldn't demolish DOJ. To be honest, i can't see how a normal reviewers wouln't do some exercise and see what has changed and proposed in a shmup, doing the same operation that he probably does in reviewing Madden 823 or Final Fantasy 666. One simple example: i know of a guy who's an expert of fighters and a master of KOF titles, but he had the courage to say that DP and Guwange, after all, play the same.Now, KOF, since '94, is about changing roosters and small aspects of mechanics.That's enough to have a different title every year, but how can he be such biased etc etc?I guess if they reviewed a fantastic Cave game and called it crap, the "they hate shmups" thing would make more sense to me, but as it is, the games they've shat on are by and large the same games we've shat on, and the games they've enjoyed are by and large the games we've enjoyed.
Point is, when there will be a review in which the author can grant a good vote to a game like, say, DOJ because he clearly understands that there are some small but consistent changes, and thus he's able to apply the same method as to all other genres (Mainstream or whatever), he will be more or less reliable.
Chomsky, Buckminster Fuller, Yunus and Glass would have played Battle Garegga, for sure.
I edited my post to also point out that they gave Mars Matrix an 85% (which is an average of, at the time, four reviews, so they were probably 8,8,9,9). And that game can be really, really difficult.
I think EGM sucks, but I also don't think they're any more biased against shmups than anything else. They're inept in general, not just when it comes to this. And you're never going to get an in-depth shmup review from them because they don't do in-depth reviews outside of a game or two an issue. The rest are all shitty little blurbs. Even if they were to comment on the scoring system, they barely have the space for anything beyond "the scoring is good."
I think EGM sucks, but I also don't think they're any more biased against shmups than anything else. They're inept in general, not just when it comes to this. And you're never going to get an in-depth shmup review from them because they don't do in-depth reviews outside of a game or two an issue. The rest are all shitty little blurbs. Even if they were to comment on the scoring system, they barely have the space for anything beyond "the scoring is good."
OK, from now on I will take the famitsu scores less serious.sethsez wrote:I disagree. I actually think the opposite... they're made of gamers who wanted to work in the industry in some capacity, and as a result we get magazines written at a level that would embarrass a real journalist.D wrote:Those mags are made up of journalists. That's your problem right there.
They do not like games. They are influenced by marketing and the general thoughts on games and genres.
They're still shite either way, of course.
Famitsu is... well, awful. I don't have any experience with Arcadia, but if you run EGM through Babelfish, that's Famitsu. The fact that people still take their scores seriously boggles the mind.I don't know about jap mags, I'd think they are much better.
*takes deep breath*
What I meant by journalists is that they reallyfocus on marketing and have irrelevant opinions.
Games should be rated by
arcade perfectness (if it's an arcade) framrate, etc.
And games should be rated by people who like and know the genre.
Do not let me rate Doom 3.
Don't let a fps enthousiast rate Ibara.
Do you see what I mean.
Every magazine should have an author for every genre or they should divide the genres between them so they can weigh the games to others in that genre and if that person really likes the genre he can say things like, I like Battle Garegga better or Ibara is better than al that has come before.
There is also little focus on Japanese games and when they do they write about the really stupid obviously annoying badly themed Japanese games.
Nobody ever writtes about the 100 racing games for the PS2 that never see the day of light outside of japan.
And allways the games with big licences get reviewed which are ALLWAYS bad (yeah I said it, there are probably exceptions which have been pointed out by others.
I still think that alot of stuff that is discussed on this forum should be gathered collected and put on a site. Like reviews, tips, (PAL/US/JAP) released lists etc. They are lost every time the board crashes.
Something like this could save alot of searching and could prevent duplicate posts. You see sometimes I have a question that has been discussed before and I use the search option but sometimes items are discussed in a topic about something else.
No? Bad idea? OK sorry then, my bad.
I have accepted the fact that reviewers hate the games I like. Therefore when I flip through a magazine, I search for the games with low scores because those are propably the ones I will like . That strategy often works for finding hidden gems like the "slow and boring" ICO, the "ugly graphics" Rez, the "too short" Panzer Dragoon, the "too little action" Shenmue etc..
Hearing peoples opinions on a particular gaming genres forums is usually the only half reliable way to find out if a game is really worth playing.
. That strategy often works for finding hidden gems like the "slow and boring" ICO, the "ugly graphics" Rez, the "too short" Panzer Dragoon, the "too little action" Shenmue etc.. Hearing peoples opinions on a particular gaming genres forums is usually the only half reliable way to find out if a game is really worth playing.