Hyper 194 Feedback Thread

[Darren]

Okay, this is a big one. Bigger than John Candy eating a dinosaur the size of Canada. Bigger than a showdown between Daniel Wilks and Debbie Schlussel. (Have you read her site? Daniel does. It angries his blood.) Bigger than a very big thing doing something epic to another very big thing. How big? Hyper big.

This issue we take Japan by storm as we report from the floor of the Tokyo Game Show. All the big ones are covered - Splinter Cell: Conviction, Alan Wake, Dead Rising, and even a hands-on (off?) session with Natal. Our extensive 13-page coverage also includes slices of our time in Tokyo, examining everything from the public transport system to the whiplash-inducing fashion trend that is knee-kigh socks and short skirts. The things we do for you, dear reader. The things we do.

Modern Warfare 2 hands-on? Sure - we take the multiplayer mode for a spin in California. Pointing out the mistakes made by dumb gaming trends? Yup - Dan Staines lays the hate down on urban games, FMV games and Shaq travelling between dimensions to fight a mummy. A one-on-one conversation with the supreme overlord of Ubisoft? You bet - CEO Yves Guillemot sits down with us and explains everything from the company's origins to the importance of a media-friendly philosophy.

Then there's the review section. Truly, this has been a bumper month, for no less than 25 games get the review treatment, including Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Brutal Legend, Tekken 6, Borderlands, Halo 3: ODST, Metroid Prime Trilogy, and our second Battle of the Bands (Electric Boogaloo, naturally) that pits The Beatles: Rock Band against Guitar Hero 5. We also throw in our first impressions of Aion and take another look at Champions Online.

The rest is all present and accounted for. Jickle, Barrel, a head-beating awful game. Mobile game reviews. You know the drill. We even throw in a beginner's guide to PC overclocking, a (cynical) preview of a well-loved franchise, and a picture of Courtney Love. You know, just 'cause.

So, that's Hyper 194, on sale Wednesday, October 28. And now, I'm off to get married. See you in two weeks!

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/3214/howlongismyarm2.jpg

[ShmickMofo]

Just read your Halo 3 ODST review. I agree with alot of what is written but I don't agree with 2 things listed in "The Bad" section for the game.
No Auto Save? When you exit the game it saves you at your last checkpoint unless you just quit to dashboard. If that's what you do then it's your own fault.
Checkpoint system carries over health? Now I just feel like your grasping at straws. That seems like a petty argument. If it restored your health upon continuing the game then everyone would complain that it is too easy.

Other than that, everything else I have read has been pretty spot on...Oh one other thing. In Borderlands you get your first skill point at level 5 not level 10 as you listed in the review.

[Lazlow]

No Auto Save? When you exit the game it saves you at your last checkpoint unless you just quit to dashboard. If that's what you do then it's your own fault.

I rarely if ever exit through the in game menu system. Usually I either quit to dashboard or shut down. So I understand their complaint that it is incongruous with how 99% of the games that feature auto save operate.

Its also possible these features may have been missing from the review code they received.

[Jickle]

I rarely if ever exit through the in game menu system. Usually I either quit to dashboard or shut down. So I understand their complaint that it is incongruous with how 99% of the games that feature auto save operate.

Its also possible these features may have been missing from the review code they received.

It was like that in the retail game too. I lost progress once or twice for assuming that the checkpoints were autosaving.

[Darren]

No Auto Save? When you exit the game it saves you at your last checkpoint unless you just quit to dashboard. If that's what you do then it's your own fault.
As Lazlow says, the way ODST operates goes entirely against the manner in which many modern games will automatically save your progress in the background. There's no good reason why the game doesn't auto save, either, and I'm baffled as to why I should be punished for using my console in the way I prefer, rather than the terms that the game's antiquated save system dictates.

Checkpoint system carries over health? Now I just feel like your grasping at straws. That seems like a petty argument.
Sorry, but I'd argue that it's a fairly fundamental aspect of the game, and a flawed one at that. The fact that health isn't replenished upon loading is no better than the erroneous quicksave that we've all no doubt made in the past -- you know, the one where you press F5 just as you're plunging down a ravine into certain doom. Doesn't that suck, having no say or power over your situation? That's how I felt with ODST's checkpoint/health system, and rather than enduring a single facepalm from one mindblank moment, the game does it for me every single time.

[Jay]

I rarely if ever exit through the in game menu system. Usually I either quit to dashboard or shut down. So I understand their complaint that it is incongruous with how 99% of the games that feature auto save operate.

Its also possible these features may have been missing from the review code they received.

This happened to me and now I have lost the will to get past the ****ing hard section I had completed beforehand. ****ing arse. :(

So I for one am glad the review mentions it as an issue because it is.

[BB2K]

Am I the only one wondering why Hyper is early?

[AranchineD]

Just the way of the world BB2K, as Hyper gets older it's only natural for it to come earlier and earlier.

[aubergine]

Darren's just excited about his wedding night. Look forward to the review in 196!

[aubergine]

Hey, issue 200 better be like 200 pages long and with all hyper forumers but mainly me on the cover.

[aubergine]

The cover story has to be "Atkinson (R)elents!"

get cracking.

[ShmickMofo]

As Lazlow says, the way ODST operates goes entirely against the manner in which many modern games will automatically save your progress in the background. There's no good reason why the game doesn't auto save, either, and I'm baffled as to why I should be punished for using my console in the way I prefer, rather than the terms that the game's antiquated save system dictates.



You make a really good point there and it should of been something that is fixed. I 100% agree with you that we shouldn't be punished for something like that.
I do hold my stance on the health system though. It is a very similar system to the one implemented in the first Halo game. As far as I recall it never replenished as you passed a checkpoint and it wasn't refilled upon recommencing you game (correct me if I am wrong with that please) so I don't see why it as such a problem. I never had a drama with it throughout the game and I played through it on Heroic for my first playthrough

[concrete donkey]

Just read your Halo 3 ODST review. I agree with alot of what is written but I don't agree with 2 things listed in "The Bad" section for the game.
No Auto Save? When you exit the game it saves you at your last checkpoint unless you just quit to dashboard. If that's what you do then it's your own fault.
Checkpoint system carries over health? Now I just feel like your grasping at straws. That seems like a petty argument. If it restored your health upon continuing the game then everyone would complain that it is too easy.

Other than that, everything else I have read has been pretty spot on...Oh one other thing. In Borderlands you get your first skill point at level 5 not level 10 as you listed in the review.

how did you read the reviews? the mag isnt out yet

[AranchineD]

He pirated the magazine.

[concrete donkey]

he pirated the magazine.

o.m.g

[fearofthesky]

Must subscibe and live in Sydney so he gets it earlier than release. Here in WA if you subscribe you get it later than the newsagents. :(

[aubergine]

They should call it WAh then.

[concrete donkey]

i think hyper should do an article on the guild. its an awesome show, it should be reviewed or something so people know about it

[Lazlow]

Thanks to neckbeards drowning themselves in bodily fluids over Felicia Day, who hasn't heard of The Guild?

[Allick]

Just realised that I've not re-subscribed yet...

Looks like I'll have to go out and buy it LIKE AN IDIOT

[aubergine]

Felicia Day is as hot as a nerdy-looking person is capable of looking. Which is hot enough! Her face can express personality and stuff, hotter girls don't always have that.

Hmm, need a shave...

[TAT]

Felicia Day can handle my joystick any time (1)

[sausage]

She's a bucktooth ginga.

[aubergine]

She didn't have buckteeth until after she met TAT.

[fearofthesky]

They should call it WAh then.
I see what you did there!

[ireadtabloids]

That cover looks awesome (and not just the artwork). Can't wait.

[Lazlow]

Felicia Day can handle my joystick any time (1)

I'd blow on her slot )h(

[AranchineD]

I'd convert her imported power brick voltage. :jimmysmits:

[aubergine]

I'd hang out with her and hopefully she'd be my girlfriend and we'd have babies.

FOUR

HUNDRED

BABIES

[Xanafalgue]

The cover story has to be "Atkinson (R)elents!"

get cracking.

Save it for "Atkinson <R>etires"!

[Lazlow]

or

"Atkinson <R>etired", with a picture of Deckard. :D

[scoz]

Wow. I haven't been here in a while...

I liked the issue as per usual, but the Kingdom Hearts review really ruffled my feathers. Not because of the score, I'm certainly no KH fanboy nor do I think that the game is perfect. Rather, I have a problem with the review content, largely the fact that it was hedonistic garbage. Yes, the Hyper humour is important, but when it comes over the top of providing informative, level headed reviews the question needs to be raised "Is this what Hyper is supposed to be about?". I'm a fan of piss takes as much as the next person, but that article read like amateurish tripe, making it as monotonous and self indulgent as the game it was supposedly critiquing. Please, leave the lols to jickle.

[Watchers]

Meh. I thought it was fine. Certainly more interesting that it would have been otherwise.

[Australian Ninja]

So I read the Hyper review for KH 358/2 last night and just sat there thinking - WTF?
If ever there was a biased and practically useless review, this would be the one. It's not the score that bothers me, so much as the review saying that it's basically trash - without any real justification.

Most of the comments seem to be the bias of the reviewer, and don't even highlight how having a mission based structure make the game more suitable for a handheld etc.

And the review seemed to miss the point entirely that this game is a side-story. It's not Kingdom Hearts 3. 358/2 has a different cast etc borrowed from KH2, so complaining that it is "different" is like saying "give me a carbon copy of the previous games, but on DS". Granted some people would like that (probably me as well), but I'd rather see something that at least tries to do something different.

I did find the review amusing, and had a laugh - but honestly Hyper can do better.

*For anyone even mildy interested in getting Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days at least check out second opinions online before making any decision.

[Jay]

Who wrote it?

[DrAkyYyY]

wait.............Im such a noob but is this out yet. and dont give me all that shitty hay bullocks u give me like OMG ITS A SPAMMER coz i am not i just want my ****in question awnswered

[Jickle]

It's out tomorrow. Some subscribers have their copies already.

[Jay]

wait.............Im such a noob but is this out yet. and dont give me all that shitty hay bullocks u give me like OMG ITS A SPAMMER coz i am not i just want my ****in question awnswered

Welcome to our humble community. :p

What Jickle said. Was that awnswer you were after?

BTW, what's shitty hay bullocks? The Lakehouse? It was pretty bad.

[DrAkyYyY]

haha soz.........thanks I just wanted to no......lol

[Stevorooni]

It's out tomorrow. Some subscribers have their copies already.

My mailbox has been giving me false hope the past 2 days with magazine type things sitting there waiting for me.

Yesterday it was an RAA magazine
Today it was some crap from the bank

And now, I'm off to get married. See you in two weeks!

Kotaku has the photos (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/10/hyper-magazines-mario-wedding/)

Nice cake! and congrats!

[Watchers]

Congrats Darren. Hope Wilks sent you a shitload of crap games to take with you on your honeymoon. :p

http://media.kotaku.com.au/wp//2009/10/firstjam.jpg

Oh man. I dunno if this is ridiculously awesome or ridiculously weird.

[AranchineD]

Congrats Darren. Hope Wilks sent you a shitload of crap games to take with you on your honeymoon. :p

http://media.kotaku.com.au/wp//2009/10/firstjam.jpg

Oh man. I dunno if this is ridiculously awesome or ridiculously weird.

EIBACH DID IT FIRST

EIBACH DID IT FIRST


(It's ridiculously awesome, ftw :D)

[concrete donkey]

another great issue. Heaps of reviews!

[BB2K]

I thought BotB was of a fairly high standard, a whole lot better than last week's one which was IMO the best in a long time. Brutal Legend review was good too.
I haven't read much of the issue yet, but I can't wait to read the infamous Kingdom Hearts review.

[Meg]

Haven't had a proper read of this Hyper yet but enjoyed what I look at. Liked the 5 stupid game trends article

[Mr.Mew]

"INTERROGATE BLACK ARROW OFFICER"
'Let's just hope the Black Arrow officer doesn't see that sign.'

Best caption evar, that one kept me laughing for a while. Or better yet, find a picture without a sign and ask who shot the projector.

[Craig Davidson]

Did you see the consoles that the Metroid Prime Trilogy is going on in the review of said game. PS3 and Xbox 360?! Nintendo going on rival consoles?! Can the world get any more topsy turvy than that? I know it might be a typo, but if it really happened, whoa, it would be like world peace!

[Stevorooni]

The carrier pigeons that deliver the mail (strangely by riding on camels) in my area finally brought my magazine.

Wouldn't it be funny if Jickle was now his own grandfather thanks to his BotB review? Brilliant piece of work.

[Ryan Hayward]

Thanks Wilks & sidekick for the awful jetlag experience to bring us a great Tokyo feature! And right before the weekend and a week earlier too...

[REQUIEM]

Did you see the consoles that the Metroid Prime Trilogy is going on in the review of said game. PS3 and Xbox 360?! Nintendo going on rival consoles?! Can the world get any more topsy turvy than that? I know it might be a typo, but if it really happened, whoa, it would be like world peace!

Maybe Nintendo have realised the future ISNT theirs with the wii. Motion control isnt theirs alone.

[RunningMild]

In the BOTB entry for Mario's Time Machine, it said the game assumes you have prior knowledge of the historical figures. No, the game assumes that you'll actually talk to the NPCs and learn something from a learning game, because that's where you get the homework info from. :p

Also, one of the captions for Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 had the worst spelling errors this mag has ever seen. "Cottect onomatoeia"? OH SPEAK ENGLISH ALREADY! ;)

[Ryan Hayward]

I really loved how you went into the culture of Tokyo during the TGS Special.
It sure is one freakily wonderful sex obsessed city!

[Australian Ninja]

Haven't had a proper read of this Hyper yet but enjoyed what I look at. Liked the 5 stupid game trends article

It's all class! Enjoyed that one.

[oogi2000]

I agree wholeheartedly with what has been mentioned in this thread about the Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days review. Turning the page after the Borderlands review, I wondered how the hell did this crap get through.

In defense of the article, I giggled on the inside a little at I'm TVs David Boreanaz, and this game sucks. :D

[Lazlow]

Just had a quick flip though; a Pro Wrestling game should never be compared to a Mixed Martial Arts game. They are two entirely different beasts. It'd be like comparing Fight Night to Virtua Fighter.

edit:

Even though I'm not interested in the series, I just read the Kingdom Hearts review because of the complaints. You people are idiots. Heaven forbid someone attempts to deviate away from the typical review format and try something off-beat, whilst still being informative. I was still able to discern that the game;

- is numbingly repetitive
- has an empty pathetic protagonist
- needlessly complicated system
- looks nice for a DS game
- lacks any influence from Square Eenix's franchises
- has a dumb subtitle

Fair enough if you didn't find it entertaining to read, but the information was there in plain English.

Most of the comments seem to be the bias of the reviewer

You do realise that game reviewers are people and not objective automatons; every review is essentially subject to bias. I don't agree with every review written in Hyper (especially when it comes to racing sims >_>) but I respect that they will have differing opinions to mine. At the end of the day, if you enjoy the game, then why give a shit if others don't.

[Watchers]

Even though I'm not interested in the series, I just read the Kingdom Hearts review because of the complaints. You people are idiots. Heaven forbid someone attempts to deviate away from the typical review format and try something off-beat, whilst still being informative. I was still able to discern that the game;

- is numbingly repetitive
- has an empty pathetic protagonist
- needlessly complicated system
- looks nice for a DS game
- lacks any influence from Square Eenix's franchises
- has a dumb subtitle

Fair enough if you didn't find it entertaining to read, but the information was there in plain English.



Exactly.

[BB2K]

Yeah, I thought it was abit wanky, but it definately told you the game was bad and gave proper reasons, just in a different format. TBH, I'd like to see more reviews of bad games try stuff like that.

[/backslash]

Does this issue come with an old PCPP mag for free @ newsagents? I'm always tempted by extra reading material :)

[RunningMild]

Yeah, I was able to get the important info from the KH review but I think it was overshadowed by that whole gimmick which I didn't find funny or entertaining. Why David Boreanaz? It just seems so random. I would have preferred more focus on the game and less on the random stuff, but that's just my opinion.

Also, if you cut out the DB stuff and only had the review, it could have fit into one page, or possibly a 1/3rd page column. Seems like a waste of a double page really. ;)

[oogi2000]

.. but I think it was overshadowed by that whole gimmick which I didn't find funny or entertaining. Why David Boreanaz? It just seems so random. I would have preferred more focus on the game and less on the random stuff, but that's just my opinion.

I agree. Also, have we had a positive review presented in a similar vein recently?

I really would've like to known who actually wrote the article (other than David Boreanaz). Would it have hurt them so much to put their actual name to it?

[Lazlow]

Why David Boreanaz?

Because he was the voice in Kingdom Hearts, but never any of the sequels.

I would have preferred more focus on the game and less on the random stuff, but that's just my opinion.

That's that daft thing though, apart from "Boreanaz" self-referencing the vast majority of the article was about the game. It told you how it played, how it was structured, about the character you controlled, and the people you encounter.

Fact is if you are getting the required information, how is the style of the review overshadowing it?

I really would've like to known who actually wrote the article (other than David Boreanaz). Would it have hurt them so much to put their actual name to it?

And ruin the illusion?!? I THINK NOT!


I'd dare say this review was more informative than last month's DiRT 2 review where they spent the majority talking about how freaking awesome the graphics and menus are.

[punkgorilla]

That's that daft thing though, apart from "Boreanaz" self-referencing the vast majority of the article was about the game. It told you how it played, how it was structured, about the character you controlled, and the people you encounter.

Yeah, exactly. All the information was there in the review. It just wasn't presented in the typical 'list-of-features' style.


Also, if you cut out the DB stuff and only had the review, it could have fit into one page, or possibly a 1/3rd page column. Seems like a waste of a double page really.
It would've also been a lot more boring to read.

[oogi2000]

Because he was the voice in Kingdom Hearts, but never any of the sequels.

Didn't help that I completely bypassed the intention of first couple of paragraphs of the review. What can I say, I prefer cut and dry reviews. :p

And ruin the illusion?!? I THINK NOT!

What illusion, that a schmuck actor didn't get work in any of the sequels? :D

[oreo_777]

Mad mag this week guys. Just confused with some stuff like:
- Why at the hands-on of COD:MW2 why the platforms were only Xbox 360 and PC. Where is PS3?:(
- Is it true about the platforms of Metroid Prime Trilogy being on Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360?
-
Also, one of the captions for Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 had the worst spelling errors this mag has ever seen. "Cottect onomatoeia"? OH SPEAK ENGLISH ALREADY!

Keep up the errors guys.:D

[Jay]

MW2 isn't coming out on PS3.

[Jickle]

MW2 isn't coming out on PS3.

Yes it is? >_>

[Jay]

Shhh! I want Creedy to come in here and go nuts. It's my attempt at an Aran troll. I know, I should just leave it to the master.

[AranchineD]

They're only bringing the game out on consoles that people, you know, actually play.

Plus there's the fact that this way Infinity Ward can avoid people putting videos up about LOOK HOW TERRIBLE THE FRAMERATE AND GRAPHICS OF MODERN WARFARE 2 ARE, so it would mean more sales for them.


On a less silly note, I just read the Kingdom Hearts reviews, thought it was brilliant, and will now go back to the beginning of the mag to read it in my normal fashion. >_>

[BB2K]

I loved the Red Dwarf reference in the MHTri preview.

[Jay]

They're only bringing the game out on consoles that people, you know, actually play.

Plus there's the fact that this way Infinity Ward can avoid people putting videos up about LOOK HOW TERRIBLE THE FRAMERATE AND GRAPHICS OF MODERN WARFARE 2 ARE, so it would mean more sales for them.


On a less silly note, I just read the Kingdom Hearts reviews, thought it was brilliant, and will now go back to the beginning of the mag to read it in my normal fashion. >_>

See, he's so much better at it than I am.

[RunningMild]

See, he's so much better at it than I am.

Don't worry, you're still better at other things like lousy puns (which I always laugh at despite their lousiness). :p

[Jay]

It's true, I am a wacky punster. :p

[ireadtabloids]

I absolutely adored this issue. A ripping read from cover to cover. I was only disappointed to have gone through it so quickly.

BTW I may have quite harshly judged a Tracy Lien review of Pokemon Platinum a while back, so I'd like to even it up by saying that I quite enjoyed her review of Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. :)

[bulkerking]

So Metroid Trilogy is coming out on Xbox 360 and PS3 ?

BTW if it doesn't I EXPECT hyper to buy me a new wii so I can get it. K thanks bye ;)
________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[ireadtabloids]

I loved the Red Dwarf reference in the MHTri preview.

Ima gonna eat you little fishy! Heheheh... Hardly a week goes past where i don't find myself humming that one. :D

Loved that Kingdom Hearts review as well. A lot of effort must have gone into that one.

[AranchineD]

Okay, just read the preview for the new Zelda DS game, pretty much exactly how I feel about the it. I'm all Zelda'd out.

[RunningMild]

I re-read the KH review and I agree with Lazlow, the majority was still game discussion.

Also @ Australian Ninja, you say the reviewer only judged the game harshly because of their own personal bias? From what I could gather, the reviewer was actually a KH fan who was reviewing the game in relation to the others in the series. If there was any bias in that review, it would have been pro-KH. ;)

[ireadtabloids]

So Metroid Trilogy is coming out on Xbox 360 and PS3 ?

BTW if it doesn't I EXPECT hyper to buy me a new wii so I can get it. K thanks bye ;)

My stars! The boy is right!

[Australian Ninja]

Just had a quick flip though; a Pro Wrestling game should never be compared to a Mixed Martial Arts game. They are two entirely different beasts. It'd be like comparing Fight Night to Virtua Fighter.

edit:

Even though I'm not interested in the series, I just read the Kingdom Hearts review because of the complaints. You people are idiots. Heaven forbid someone attempts to deviate away from the typical review format and try something off-beat, whilst still being informative. I was still able to discern that the game;

- is numbingly repetitive
- has an empty pathetic protagonist
- needlessly complicated system
- looks nice for a DS game
- lacks any influence from Square Eenix's franchises
- has a dumb subtitle

Fair enough if you didn't find it entertaining to read, but the information was there in plain English.



You do realise that game reviewers are people and not objective automatons; every review is essentially subject to bias. I don't agree with every review written in Hyper (especially when it comes to racing sims >_>) but I respect that they will have differing opinions to mine. At the end of the day, if you enjoy the game, then why give a shit if others don't.


I don't give a shit who enjoys the game, that is their business. I do care about reading informative reviews that help in my decision to buy a game, and in this respect I found the KH 358/2 review to be lacking.

I don't read hyper to "enjoy" the reviews. If I want to be entertained by a review rather than informed I'd go watch some Yahtzee Croshaw web reviews or whatever.


I had a laugh at the "David Boreanaz" bit, and immediately got it because he was the voice of Squall from FFVIII in the two KH games on Playstation 2.

Personally I have nothing against the style of the review, or the reviewer, I simply found the review inadequate for this particular game but everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is good becuase I was able to read several different reviews online for this particular game and help me decide to buy it or not.

I decided that the good points outweighed the flaws, but having not received it in the mail yet, I may come to hate it after playing it, or be bothered by the controls or mission structure or whatever, but hopefully not.

But I stand by my previous comments anyhow. I do get a laugh when someone automatically defends something to do with hyper, especially seeing as it's usually me doing that sort of thing:D

[Mr.Mew]

Level 10 for class specific skill, Wilks? What? You totally get that on reaching level 5 in Borderlands. Misinformation indeed. But then another side of me assumes you did that deliberately so that when people reached level 5 they are all like "Omfg I thought it was level 10 you get class specific skill, AWSM!" at which point you vanish into the shadows, your voice echoing "My work is done,"

[Lazlow]

That or the review copy was different

[Lazlow]

I don't give a shit who enjoys the game, that is their business. I do care about reading informative reviews that help in my decision to buy a game, and in this respect I found the KH 358/2 review to be lacking.

I don't read hyper to "enjoy" the reviews. If I want to be entertained by a review rather than informed I'd go watch some Yahtzee Croshaw web reviews or whatever.


I had a laugh at the "David Boreanaz" bit, and immediately got it because he was the voice of Squall from FFVIII in the two KH games on Playstation 2.

Personally I have nothing against the style of the review, or the reviewer, I simply found the review inadequate for this particular game but everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is good becuase I was able to read several different reviews online for this particular game and help me decide to buy it or not.

I decided that the good points outweighed the flaws, but having not received it in the mail yet, I may come to hate it after playing it, or be bothered by the controls or mission structure or whatever, but hopefully not.

But I stand by my previous comments anyhow. I do get a laugh when someone automatically defends something to do with hyper, especially seeing as it's usually me doing that sort of thing:D

I'm only defending it because I don't agree with your assessment of it. You do come across as a disgruntled KH fan. Fact is not every review is going contain the same level of praise, due to the subjective nature of reviewing itself. I found it was both informative and entertaining, rather being either/or.

[Mr.Mew]

That or the review copy was different

No way man. No way! NEVER!

Okay, so maybe that's a good point.

[Australian Ninja]

I'm only defending it because I don't agree with your assessment of it. You do come across as a disgruntled KH fan. Fact is not every review is going contain the same level of praise, due to the subjective nature of reviewing itself. I found it was both informative and entertaining, rather being either/or.

I'm not a Kingdom Hearts "fan", I just have a good memory.

[BB2K]

You are a KH fan, get over it.

[aubergine]

I haven't had time to read this issue much yet, but did read the ODST review. I thought the review and score failed to address the entire package - no mention was made of the multiplayer disc and new game modes, it was all based on the campaign.

I'm all for Darren and his crazy ideas about games (remembering Dead Space) and the review, as he argues, is hardly likely to affect sales of ODST, but the review did seem to be below the minimum investigative effort allowable.

[RunningMild]

I found it was both informative and entertaining, rather being either/or.

Ironically enough, I found it informative but not entertaining. :p

[RunningMild]

Fact is if you are getting the required information, how is the style of the review overshadowing it?

After seeing another review for KH, I've realised that there is a legit answer to this.

In the space used to crap on about David Boreanaz, the reviewer could have mentioned things like:

- Multiplayer (had no idea the game had it, nor that it was a series-first)
- The real time menu/battle system and how it works (assumed knowledge? Say it ain't so!)
- And so on

And as such, the 'style' of the review was so costly (in terms of wordcount) that it forced the reviewer to exclude important GAMEPLAY elements, which means the review was indeed compromised by the stylistic choice. The reviewer could have really gone in-depth but chose not to in favour of a silly gimmick. I've never played a KH game before, but I definitely would have preferred to find out if the multiplayer enhanced the experience or how the battle system works/is different to KH2 than read a ton of lame, unfunny references to Buffy, Bones, and signing autographs on a yacht.

So yeah, I still don't think the review was 'biased' or anything, but I can see why people who've played the game were calling it 'unprofessional'. Who was the reviewer anyway?

I haven't had time to read this issue much yet, but did read the ODST review. I thought the review and score failed to address the entire package - no mention was made of the multiplayer disc and new game modes, it was all based on the campaign.

Ironic, no?

[Mr.Mew]

So everyone pretty much ruled out the possibility that David Boreanaz actually wrote that review, immediately? I was sold on the idea of a television celebrity throwing his thoughts of the recent KH to Hyper.

[Lazlow]

After seeing another review for KH, I've realised that there is a legit answer to this.

In the space used to crap on about David Boreanaz, the reviewer could have mentioned things like:

- Multiplayer (had no idea the game had it, nor that it was a series-first)
- The real time menu/battle system and how it works (assumed knowledge? Say it ain't so!)
- And so on

And as such, the 'style' of the review was so costly (in terms of wordcount) that it forced the reviewer to exclude important GAMEPLAY elements, which means the review was indeed compromised by the stylistic choice. The reviewer could have really gone in-depth but chose not to in favour of a silly gimmick. I've never played a KH game before, but I definitely would have preferred to find out if the multiplayer enhanced the experience or how the battle system works/is different to KH2 than read a ton of lame, unfunny references to Buffy, Bones, and signing autographs on a yacht.

So yeah, I still don't think the review was 'biased' or anything, but I can see why people who've played the game were calling it 'unprofessional'. Who was the reviewer anyway?

It might be surprising but not every review covers every single aspect of a game. In fact you'd be lucky to find a review that comprehensively explains in great detail how every aspect of a game plays. The reviewer clearly felt it was shit game and it wasn't worth dedicating space to what they perceive as superfluous or routine features.

If you disagree with that, well... you've already exercised the ability to source a second opinion. ;)

And for what it's worth, what the hell is "and so on" alluding to? That your argument ran out of steam? :/

And for both the KH and Halo ODST review, I may be speculating, but it could be possible that the fact they are reviewing pre-release copies might be preventing them from exploring the multiplayer aspect of both games - given that they may have only received a single copy of each, and that there are f*** all people online when the game isn't out.

[RunningMild]

It might be surprising but not every review covers every single aspect of a game. In fact you'd be lucky to find a review that comprehensively explains in great detail how every aspect of a game plays.

True, but I think core gameplay mechanics should be the first priority of any review, especially when certain things have been changed since the last game in the franchise (because it's information that newbies and longtime fans would find equally useful). It's certainly more important than a lame gimmick that isn't funny, don't you agree? :p

The reviewer clearly felt it was shit game and it wasn't worth dedicating space to what they perceive as superfluous or routine features.

Any journalist who thinks the quality of a game has an influence over the quality of the review should be sacked on the spot (that includes you, Bajo!). ;)

Maybe it's just me, but if I feel that a game is shit and not worth my time, I'm still going to explain the core gameplay in detail. Part of the reason for this is that opinions differ and what isn't fun for you may be fun for others, so IMO it's important to describe the gameplay in enough detail so that the reader can figure out for themselves whether or not it's their kind of game.

Before anyone even mentions 'word count' and 'page limits' and whatever- that's my point. If you cut out all the DB stuff, there would have been room to discuss gameplay elements that I wasn't even aware of (especially after reading Hyper's review) and may have influenced my opinion on the game.

If you disagree with that, well... you've already exercised the ability to source a second opinion. ;)

The fact that I can (and do) check multiple review sources to get an impression of a game I'm interested in is no excuse for subpar journalism.

And for what it's worth, what the hell is "and so on" alluding to? That your argument ran out of steam? :/

It's alluding to any other important gameplay elements that may or may not have been left out. ;)

[Lazlow]

Reviews aren't fact sheets, they aren't there to explain every facet of a game. Its an opinion piece. Yes opinions do differ, but to the reviewer the only opinion that matters is their own, as that is what they are getting paid to express.

The fact there are are multiple sources of information mean reviewers don't have to retread the same ground others have covered if they feel its not worth writing about; more so considering the negative tone of the review.

In a world with a metric shitload of information available prior to a game's release, with 7 day return policies and rental outlets... hell even p2p networks, reviews (especially printed reviews) are no longer bound by the notion they must adhere to some archaic format whereby they have to spoon feed the reader with every aspect of a game, in case the implementation of some turn based roulette system might overcome an overwhelmingly abhorrent experience.

Sometimes when a game is shit, they just want to say its shit and move on.

Sure more courtesy could be extended to a title they like, but that's possibly because with wish to promote quality titles; separate the wheat from the chaff, etc.

If you feel this KH game is in fact a positive experience, then that's essentially a case of... *gasp* difference of opinion.

[punkgorilla]

The fact that I can (and do) check multiple review sources to get an impression of a game I'm interested in is no excuse for subpar journalism.

Yeah, a review shouldn't require, or even encourage, people to read other reviews from outside sources.

Speaking personally, I found the review to have enough of a mix of humour and fact to satisfy me. But then I have no interest in the game anyway.

Who was the reviewer anyway?
I'm putting my money on Dan Staines.

[ThePhotoshop]

Sometimes when a game is shit, they just want to say its shit and move on.
The review still needs to adequately express why it's shit, though.

[Lazlow]

I feel they covered it pretty well, as I said

I was still able to discern that the game;

- is numbingly repetitive
- has an empty pathetic protagonist
- needlessly complicated system
- looks nice for a DS game
- lacks any influence from Square Eenix's franchises
- has a dumb subtitle

Fair enough if you didn't find it entertaining to read, but the information was there in plain English.

I'll use Edge as an example of a publication that doesn't reel off a list of features; their verdict on Saints Row 2. Their criticisms weren't based on how it played or its visual finesse. They found fault with the nature of the game, the over the top misogyny, racism and blatantly immature subject matter, that only gives "moral campaigners" more ammunition against video gamers and further damages attempts to have it seen as a progressive mature form of entertainment.

They didn't conform to checklist analysis that pro'ed/con'ed different gameplay elements, they looked deeper. Whilst you can't say the same about the KH review it still highlights how demanding an explicit outline of features is no longer necessary.

Yeah, a review shouldn't require, or even encourage, people to read other reviews from outside sources.

You can either underestimate your readership and assume that they're using your publication as their only source of information, or you can accept that with the prevalence of IGN/Gamespot/Eurogamer/etc, hell even throwaway aggregate sites like Metacritic/Gamerankings, that they have already formed their own opinion on the game by the time your publication has hit the stands.

A review is essentially one person's opinion on whether a game is enjoyable or not; I still maintain the KH review served that purpose. It's up to the reader to determine if they wish to trust their judgment. As stated a review can't encompass everything - the NFS: Shift review didn't even make mention of the Drift mode (or how shit it is) - so they'll cover what they feel is pertinent.

[punkgorilla]

I'll use Edge as an example of a publication that doesn't reel off a list of features; their verdict on Saints Row 2. Their criticisms weren't based on how it played or its visual finesse. They found fault with the nature of the game, the over the top misogyny, racism and blatantly immature subject matter, that only gives "moral campaigners" more ammunition against video gamers and further damages attempts to have it seen as a progressive mature form of entertainment.

The trouble is that the vast majority of games (particularly in the mainstream) are full of fuel for parent groups, conservatives and the like, so all this review has done is tell you that Saints Row 2 is a mainstream video game. That's completely worthless. That gives the reader no information and no entertainment, just a lot of unnecessary over-analysis. Heh, that actually pretty much sums up Edge as a whole.

Now don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and I agree with you in regards to the 'list of features' review style. I just wish you'd choose a good example when trying to back up your argument.


You can either underestimate your readership and assume that they're using your publication as their only source of information, or you can accept that with the prevalence of IGN/Gamespot/Eurogamer/etc, hell even throwaway aggregate sites like Metacritic/Gamerankings, that they have already formed their own opinion on the game by the time your publication has hit the stands.

Where does that put those people that don't have the internet? Where does that put people like me who don't like those sites? Let's say we go with your line of thinking, then we'd have to question whether Hyper should even have any reviews.

[Lazlow]

then we'd have to question whether Hyper should even have any reviews.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem if they didn't.

The trouble is that the vast majority of games (particularly in the mainstream) are full of fuel for parent groups, conservatives and the like, so all this review has done is tell you that Saints Row 2 is a mainstream video game. That's completely worthless. That gives the reader no information and no entertainment, just a lot of unnecessary over-analysis. Heh, that actually pretty much sums up Edge as a whole.

Now don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and I agree with you in regards to the 'list of features' review style. I just wish you'd choose a good example when trying to back up your argument.

I'd say your assumption is possibly a little cynical, and possibly short sighted. That and my summary a little brief. I get the impression they felt SR2 was a good opportunity for biting satire, but what they got was quite the opposite, and goes to some lengths to be a puerile as possible.

[RunningMild]

I'll use Edge as an example of a publication that doesn't reel off a list of features; their verdict on Saints Row 2. Their criticisms weren't based on how it played or its visual finesse. They found fault with the nature of the game, the over the top misogyny, racism and blatantly immature subject matter, that only gives "moral campaigners" more ammunition against video gamers and further damages attempts to have it seen as a progressive mature form of entertainment.

But all reports say that the gameplay in Saints Row 2 is fantastic, and in the end isn't that the most important factor when judging a game? So what if it's misogynistic, racist and blatantly immature? So is most of the stuff I studied in English Literature, film theory, etc, yet that's considered to be sophisticated, mature and intelligent art. All forms of art are going to try to break conventions, be controversial for the sake of it, challenge people's boundaries and expectations and so forth, and using that as a criticism is pretty ridiculous.

Would you say that Heart of Darkness is a terrible book because it uses the N-word liberally? Would you say that American History X is a shithouse film purely because of the extreme racism? Would you say that Shakespeare's work suffered due to the rampant misogyny? Hell, you seem to think that I Get Wet by Andrew WK is a fantastic album, despite being one of the most immature albums of the decade. It's a pathetic argument IMO.

Also, moral campaigners can/will find ammunition in anything, so that's a completely redundant point.

They didn't conform to checklist analysis that pro'ed/con'ed different gameplay elements...

Well maybe they should have, because based on what you've said it would have resulted in a better review (which proves my point). I mean, there's a difference between 'trying something a little different' and 'completely missing the point of what you're doing'. If you write a game review that does something other than inform readers about the game, which is what they're buying the magazine for anyway, then you've essentially failed.

Now don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying... I just wish you'd choose a good example when trying to back up your argument.

What he said.

That's completely worthless. That gives the reader no information and no entertainment, just a lot of unnecessary over-analysis. Heh, that actually pretty much sums up Edge as a whole.

Remind me why everyone's always raving about how great Edge is? From what I've heard (not just here, but elsewhere too) it sounds ****ing terrible.

That and my summary a little brief.

I hope so, for their sake. :p

I get the impression they felt SR2 was a good opportunity for biting satire, but what they got was quite the opposite, and goes to some lengths to be a puerile as possible.

Games should be judged on what they are, not what you wanted/expected them to be (like when Bajo marked down Supercar Challenge because it was too realistic, or marked down Brutal Legend because it was a different style of game to what he was expecting). Are you telling me that in one single review, Edge have committed two cardinal sins (IMO) by not judging a game predominantly on it's gameplay and not judging a game on it's own merits? If so, facepalm.

[punkgorilla]

Remind me why everyone's always raving about how great Edge is? From what I've heard (not just here, but elsewhere too) it sounds ****ing terrible.


I'll admit that they aren't as bad as I often make them out to be. I actually used to buy it semi-regularly. It usually has some interesting opinion columns, they usually don't get too carried away with hype (certainly not to the extent that the internet does, at least.) They also get some good exclusives sometimes. Also some people confuse over-analysis with intelligence.

[Lazlow]

But all reports say that the gameplay in Saints Row 2 is fantastic, and in the end isn't that the most important factor when judging a game? So what if it's misogynistic, racist and blatantly immature? So is most of the stuff I studied in English Literature, film theory, etc, yet that's considered to be sophisticated, mature and intelligent art. All forms of art are going to try to break conventions, be controversial for the sake of it, challenge people's boundaries and expectations and so forth, and using that as a criticism is pretty ridiculous.

Would you say that Heart of Darkness is a terrible book because it uses the N-word liberally? Would you say that American History X is a shithouse film purely because of the extreme racism? Would you say that Shakespeare's work suffered due to the rampant misogyny? Hell, you seem to think that I Get Wet by Andrew WK is a fantastic album, despite being one of the most immature albums of the decade. It's a pathetic argument IMO.

Also, moral campaigners can/will find ammunition in anything, so that's a completely redundant point.

Context? You don't seem able to grasp such a concept. The rampant misogyny in Shakespeare's work, and the racial slurs used in Heart of Darkness are indicative of the period in time in which they were created. The portrayal of militant racism in American History X was essential due to the point the film was trying to make.

In their opinion Saint Row 2's use of racial stereotypes and misogyny had no contextual purpose, and for this they perceive the game to be immature. For this reason they believe that the moral campaigners are justified in the their complaints because, as you say, the game is "controversial for the sake of it".

Controversy for the sake of being controversial is neither progressive nor mature. You aren't pushing boundaries, you're being a dick.

Games should be judged on what they are, not what you wanted/expected them to be

Heaven forbid a human being has expectations that aren't met, or wishes he was playing something different. As I said above they felt it could have been the video gaming equivalent of Chappelle's Show or South Park, but instead were treated to what they saw as puerile trash.

But all reports say that the gameplay in Saints Row 2 is fantastic, and in the end isn't that the most important factor when judging a game?

Unless something extraneous to the game detracts from the experience. For example Space Channel 5: Part 2 for all intents and purposes is a fine rhythm action game, but the entire aesthetic and delivery annoyed the shit out of me.

To judge a game purely of the strength of its gameplay is horribly one dimensional.

Bajo is well within his right to criticise a racer for being too realistic if this was the reason he found it unenjoyable. An intelligent person with a penchant for racing sims will simply disregard Bajo's opinion because obviously the game wasn't for him.

This is where being too focused on scores, and not what the reviewer is actually saying is the viewer's/reader's fault.

If you write a game review that does something other than inform readers about the game, which is what they're buying the magazine for anyway, then you've essentially failed.

And I've pointed out twice now the KH review does a fine job of informing the gamer. I've stated my reasoning why, so I feel this is a point we'll never agree on.

Remind me why everyone's always raving about how great Edge is? From what I've heard (not just here, but elsewhere too) it sounds ****ing terrible.

Personally I find Edge to a fine publication. Unlike the vast majority of reviewers they tend to not judge games based entirely on a Fun/Not Fun check list. They analyse the intention of the game, whether it pushes any boundaries be it technically or creatively, if it features inspired design or is simply rehashing last years model, and if it can elevate itself above the crowded pack as something on par with heralded examples in other creative mediums.

The magazine is a fine counterpoint to most other publications following the same routines. Again, personal preference.

[RunningMild]

Context? You don't seem able to grasp such a concept. The rampant misogyny in Shakespeare's work, and the racial slurs used in Heart of Darkness are indicative of the period in time in which they were created.

I'm pretty sure all art is indicative of the time period in which it was created, and that includes Saint's Row 2. The stuff in that game wouldn't have been invented out of thin air, it would have been influenced by some elements of our society and culture. If it's racist, misogynistic and immature, that may be because it's a reflection of that whole gangsta/hip hop culture that is so prevalent nowadays, and as a gangsta/hip hop themed game that stuff would actually be contextually appropriate because it's supposedly part of that whole culture/image.

Heaven forbid a human being has expectations that aren't met, or wishes he was playing something different.

Of course a human being can have certain expectations or a desire to play something different, but IMO those things are absolutely not relevant to a review and should be set aside in order to make a fair and balanced judgment of the thing being reviewed (particularly the bit about 'wishing he was playing something different', which IMO is a pretty ridiculous argument that has no relevance to the reviewing process whatsoever. A review deals specifically with what you're playing, not what you'd rather be playing).

I mean, so what if you want to play something different? You're being paid to review a certain game, so play that game and suck it up. And having certain expectations is one thing, but to mark down a game purely because you were expecting a different stylistic direction (Edge, SR2) or genre (Bajo, Brutal Legend) than what the game actually was? Forget what you were expecting and just judge what you've been given in it's own right.

By your logic (unless I misunderstood you), you could say that Metallica's Load albums were crap because you were expecting thrash instead of hard rock. That may be an almost valid reason for disliking the album, but if you're a reviewer you can't just spend a whole review saying 'I wanted thrash, got something different, therefore it's crap, 0 stars'. Sure it's not what you were hoping for or expecting, but what was it exactly? Is it good in it's own right? Is it good if you let go of your expectations and judge it purely based on what it is?

Actually, based on what you said in the above quotation, you could rate a Metallica album 0/5 because you'd rather be listeining to a country album. I don't understand this kind of reasoning, and I thought the whole point of a review was to review the thing in question, not complain that it's different to something else you were expecting/would rather be doing. To me, saying that "we hate this game because we thought it would be like South Park or Chappelle's Show but it wasn't" doesn't make sense and is pretty much a massive cop-out.

To judge a game purely of the strength of its gameplay is horribly one dimensional.

Maybe not 'purely on the strength of gameplay', but I do think gameplay needs to be the priority.

Bajo is well within his right to criticise a racer for being too realistic if this was the reason he found it unenjoyable.

Really? Whenever Hyper does it, you're the first one in here complaining and saying that the games should have been reviewed by someone with driving game experience/knowledge. :p

This is where being too focused on scores, and not what the reviewer is actually saying is the viewer's/reader's fault.

To be fair, the issue I had with the Bajo example was to do with what he was saying, not the score. I felt it was a really poor review. He was actually saying stuff like 'how can anyone find this fun?', so not only did he fail to effectively review the game, he managed to be extremely condescending to the target market.

And I've pointed out twice now the KH review does a fine job of informing the gamer. I've stated my reasoning why, so I feel this is a point we'll never agree on.

That bit you quoted was more a reply to that SR2 thing. As you've mentioned, the KH review does inform readers about the game to some extent, but I still feel it could have been done better. Just opinion I guess.

Personally I find Edge to a fine publication. Unlike the vast majority of reviewers they tend to not judge games based entirely on a Fun/Not Fun check list. They analyse the intention of the game, whether it pushes any boundaries be it technically or creatively, if it features inspired design or is simply rehashing last years model, and if it can elevate itself above the crowded pack as something on par with heralded examples in other creative mediums.

I don't know why you'd bother putting a major focus on whether a game pushes boundaries technically or creatively. Sometimes, adhering to old standards can work in your favour. Hell, three of the best games I've played this year (Trials HD, Shadow Complex, 'Splosion Man) were simply re-hashing old ideas, but guess what- it worked. The games were fun, challenging, deep and addictive. Not every game has to be a re-invention of the wheel which, judging by the Edge reviews that appear on Metacritic, is the necessary criteria to score any higher than 70%. ;)


Seriously, I have no idea where this conversation is going but it's damn good fun. :p

[ThePhotoshop]

They also don't use the 7-9 scale (unless the game is from a Euro developer) ;)

[Hemish71]

Good edition, finally got me to subscribe

[Australian Ninja]

I was expecting to find more posts on country music in this forum. 0/5 for you Hyper.

[Lazlow]

I'm pretty sure all art is indicative of the time period in which it was created, and that includes Saint's Row 2. The stuff in that game wouldn't have been invented out of thin air, it would have been influenced by some elements of our society and culture. If it's racist, misogynistic and immature, that may be because it's a reflection of that whole gangsta/hip hop culture that is so prevalent nowadays, and as a gangsta/hip hop themed game that stuff would actually be contextually appropriate because it's supposedly part of that whole culture/image.

ITT: Mr_M condones misogyny and racial stereotyping because "that's how we roll".

Of course a human being can have certain expectations or a desire to play something different, but IMO those things are absolutely not relevant to a review and should be set aside in order to make a fair and balanced judgment of the thing being reviewed (particularly the bit about 'wishing he was playing something different', which IMO is a pretty ridiculous argument that has no relevance to the reviewing process whatsoever. A review deals specifically with what you're playing, not what you'd rather be playing).

So essentially you're saying reviewers should be hive mind automatons, who have no prejudices of their own and should cast aside their own ideas that may have had a positive influence on the game.

By "wishing they were playing something different" I don't mean wanting chalk and getting cheese. I mean wishing that some aspects of the game were different which they see would have made it more enjoyable. For instance those who wished Mirror's Edge didn't force you into combat situations or featured multiple divergent routes. Different doesn't mean polar opposite.

Forget what you were expecting and just judge what you've been given in it's own right.

Publisher promotional machines can be their own worst enemy when they promise the world and fail to deliver. The true test is whether the game can still entertain, despite turning out differently that you expected.

but if you're a reviewer you can't just spend a whole review saying 'I wanted thrash, got something different, therefore it's crap, 0 stars'.

Kindly keep the hyperbole to yourself.

To me, saying that "we hate this game because we thought it would be like South Park or Chappelle's Show but it wasn't" doesn't make sense and is pretty much a massive cop-out.

You seem unable to understand that some people prefer biting satire/social commentary to the next Epic/Date/Teen Movie. It's not a cop out, it's a sound reason for seeing something as a missed opportunity.

Maybe not 'purely on the strength of gameplay', but I do think gameplay needs to be the priority.

And I believe sometimes games can be examined beyond the simple fun/not fun litmus test

Really? Whenever Hyper does it, you're the first one in here complaining and saying that the games should have been reviewed by someone with driving game experience/knowledge.

And I still will. I'm not refusing their right to criticise the game based on their own personal preferences - many people here state that racing sims are crap because they're too stuffy and no fun - merely stating that having it reviewed by someone for whom the game is geared towards will read truer for me personally a sim racing nut. Having it reviewed by the average gamer with read truer to the average gamer, who may not quite be as nutty as I.

I don't know why you'd bother putting a major focus on whether a game pushes boundaries technically or creatively.

Without pushing creative and technical boundaries you don't progress. Bioshock, Call of Duty, Ico, Okami, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Mass Effect... these games didn't receive plaudits merely for tight gameplay.

[punkgorilla]

You seem unable to understand that some people prefer biting satire/social commentary to the next Epic/Date/Teen Movie. It's not a cop out, it's a sound reason for seeing something as a missed opportunity.
But for that to be the basis of an entire review? That's stupid. Actually come to think of it, why would they expect clever satire anyway? Didn't Edge ever play, or at least hear about the first Saints Row? Have they never played a video game before, for that matter?

Heaven forbid a human being has expectations that aren't met, or wishes he was playing something different. Weren't you the guy bitching about Hyper having expectations for the latest King of Fighters game?

[Lazlow]

Weren't you the guy bitching about Hyper having expectations for the latest King of Fighters game?

True; but there's expectations and then there's asking the impossible. The online mode is shit. Expecting a 30-40 strong roster of redrawn characters is stupid. As I said, the test is if the game can still stand on its own right despite not meeting expectations, and the poor online mode severely damages the game's longevity. I'll admit, I haven't played it as much as SF4. It was too much to expect a functional online mode, that I won't disagree with.

But for that to be the basis of an entire review? That's stupid. Actually come to think of it, why would they expect clever satire anyway? Didn't Edge ever play, or at least hear about the first Saints Row?

I didn't say that was the basis of their entire review, they were also critical of how uninspired it was; instead of bettering GTA it merely aped it.

Of course they reviewed SR1, and were equally critical of it.

Have they never played a video game before, for that matter?

What are you trying to say? That games shouldn't attempt to appeal on a more intellectual level? That they can't deviate from their precursor and better themselves? That existing immature and puerile games simply excuse the creation of more in the same vein?

The argument I'm making here is simply that reviews are a reflection of an individual's opinion; you can choose to either accept it or reject it for whatever reasons you see fit (ie I'd instantly reject Bajo's condescending attitude towards a racing sim, or the notion a 2D hand drawn fighter should feature the same number of characters as its predecessor which reuses sprites decades old). Whilst I may reject their view, I at least understand how they reached that conclusion before doing so.

But because people started disagreeing with how a review was conducted, they began drawing up rules for how a review is written. I agree it does need to be somewhat informative, I've never said it shouldn't, but it doesn't need to be a in-depth exposition. There has to be room for the writer's own opinion, beyond the simple analysis of how successful the gameplay mechanics are. And there needs to be room for their own personal touch with how it is written.

Fair enough you may not agree with what they have written, but don't be so obnoxious as to tell them how to do their job.

[jawsy]

I'm not sure why people think reviewers are obligated to do anything in particular beyond discuss their experiences with something (in this case, a game), in whatever manner the reviewer sees fit (in this case, in character).

[punkgorilla]

Of course they reviewed SR1, and were equally critical of it.

Ha, it was a rhetorical question.


What are you trying to say? That games shouldn't attempt to appeal on a more intellectual level? That they can't deviate from their precursor and better themselves? That existing immature and puerile games simply excuse the creation of more in the same vein?
You know we're talking about reviewing games, not actually making them? Either way you missed what I was getting at. Let me remind you that I was talking about expectations. My point is that people shouldn't expect that every videogame should be more than a videogame, especially one that has a history of fitting perfectly to convention. Yes, a sequel to a juvenile cookie-cutter game can potentially better itself to a point where it furthers the medium, but you have to be pretty naive (to say the least), if you actually expect it from anything, let alone a videogame. A reasonable person wouldn't expect a new Rambo (or any other big dumb action movie) to be the next Schindlers List. Hell, even Edge don't do this for every game, see their review of Halo 3 for proof. Now, I can understand that people would want the gaming equivalent of something like South Park, but to expect that from any game, least of Saints Row, is only ensuring disappointment. It hasn't happened yet, so why assume that Saints Row 2 would be the one to do it? The unreasonable expectations were only placed upon it by Edges pretentious attitude.

At the very least, surely you can see how it makes sense to expect that a videogame would be like a videogame.

Fair enough you may not agree with what they have written, but don't be so obnoxious as to tell them how to do their job.
Yes, how dare all of you insolent brats discuss what you like to read! Shame on all of you!

[Lazlow]

I'm not sure why people think reviewers are obligated to do anything in particular beyond discuss their experiences with something (in this case, a game), in whatever manner the reviewer sees fit (in this case, in character).

Much like my line of work it seems everyone's an expert.

Yes, how dare all of you insolent brats discuss what you like to read! Shame on all of you!

There's a distinct difference between discussing what you like to read, and telling people the way they write is wrong.

You know we're talking about reviewing games, not actually making them? Either way you missed what I was getting at. Let me remind you that I was talking about expectations. My point is that people shouldn't expect that every videogame should be more than a videogame, especially one that has a history of fitting perfectly to convention. Yes, a sequel to a juvenile cookie-cutter game can potentially better itself to a point where it furthers the medium, but you have to be pretty naive (to say the least), if you actually expect it from anything, let alone a videogame. A reasonable person wouldn't expect a new Rambo (or any other big dumb action movie) to be the next Schindlers List. Hell, even Edge don't do this for every game, see their review of Halo 3 for proof. Now, I can understand that people would want the gaming equivalent of something like South Park, but to expect that from any game, least of Saints Row, is only ensuring disappointment. It hasn't happened yet, so why assume that Saints Row 2 would be the one to do it? The unreasonable expectations were only placed upon it by Edges pretentious attitude.

At the very least, surely you can see how it makes sense to expect that a videogame would be like a videogame.


Looking back I don't even think I said they expected it to be any different from its predecessor. And it certainly shows in the similar judgements for both games.

[punkgorilla]

Who here said that someones review was written wrong? Some said they liked it, some said they didn't. Some said what they prefer to read/write. But I don't recall anyone saying that any review was written wrongly. People here have only discussed what they want in a review. Don't put words in mouths or try to make this something that it isn't.

[Lazlow]

Mr_M has been essentially describing what should be in a review and how it should be prioritised. The implication being that to do it otherwise would be wrong.

Even you yourself said to write in a certain way would be "stupid";

But for that to be the basis of an entire review? That's stupid.

[punkgorilla]

Cool, I'll make sure to put "In my opinion" in front of every sentence and "as far as I'm concerned" at the end in order to avoid confusion in future.

[Lazlow]

Still wouldn't change the fact you are making a judgement on how something has been written, as opposed to what you prefer to read and how you like to write. Saying its stupid implies you believe the author doesn't know what they are doing.

[punkgorilla]

Still wouldn't change the fact you are making a judgement on how something has been written, as opposed to what you prefer to read and how you like to write.
How something has been written and what I prefer to read and write are not mutually exclusive. Don't pretend that they are.

Now take a look at what I've bolded in your post. I am making a judgement. A personal statement of the way I feel. I'm not making a finite quantitative statement. Don't pretend that I ever was.

Saying its stupid implies you believe the author doesn't know what they are doing.
No. It means that I don't like and disagree with the way it has been written. It means I think it's stupid - nothing more, nothing less. Don't read implications when there are words that spell it out for you.

[Lazlow]

So you're telling them what they have written is wrong. Cool, we agree on something.

[BB2K]

If you disagree with something, it doesn't necessarily mean you think it's wrong.

[punkgorilla]

So you're telling them what they have written is wrong. Cool, we agree on something.

Sure, who needs to actually read or *gasp* comprehend what people say, when you can just put your fingers in your ears.

[sausage]

Been following this all day and I have to say I've gotten a little more "mentally challenged" because of it.

[Lazlow]

Then my work here is done :cool:

[Mr.Mew]

So this is finished? I was worried it'd carry over into the next Issue.

[Lazlow]

I was hoping it could go around in circles a few more times before then.

[AranchineD]

Actually I was hoping we could go back to discussing how shit that new Kingdom Hearts DS game is.

[faceless]

the things i could do with Mr_M's false sense of self-grandeur.

[BB2K]

Even though alot of his points fell flat, I agree with Laz, though I thought punkgorilla made some good points, but Mr_M pretty much ****ed up his side of the argument.

[RunningMild]

I was going to let this go because it had become nothing more than an argument over personal opinions which had run it's course, but Laz, you said something in your reply that genuinely offended me. So, here's a reply from me.

ITT: Mr_M condones misogyny and racial stereotyping because "that's how we roll".

I'm just baffled as to why you would make that kind of allegation, and tbqh I find it offensive.

I never said that I condoned those things, in fact I don't think I've ever condoned such things in all the time I've been on this forum. All I was saying in the bit you quoted is that all art is a reflection of society. If SR2 contains racist and misogynistic elements, it's only because those elements already exist in society. The kind of 'Moral Campaigners' that Edge sound like they're referring to are the kind who like to scapegoat and blame all of society's problems on things such as games. Games do not cause society's problems, those problems were there from the start and games and other artistic mediums are merely a reflection of that. If SR2 is racist and misogynistic, it's because those things exist in society.

You said that SR2 is not 'indicative of the period in time in which it was created'. I disagree. You said that SR2 had no context. I disagree with that too. But I never, ever condoned those sorts of things. I merely argued that they do exist in society, and marking down a game for no other reason other than the fact that it is reflecting society, aka: doing that thing that all art does, seems a bit petty.

So just to reiterate, this particular argument revolved around whether those things were indicative of the time period in which they were written, not whether they were good things or not. Your comment did not address that argument, it missed the point of what I was saying, and in the end you just conjured up a pretty insulting and illogical conclusion out of thin air. I don't mind debating stuff with you, but if you want to insult me because you can't think of an actual reply, then forget it.

So essentially you're saying reviewers should be hive mind automatons, who have no prejudices of their own and should cast aside their own ideas that may have had a positive influence on the game.

Nope.

By "wishing they were playing something different" I don't mean wanting chalk and getting cheese. I mean wishing that some aspects of the game were different which they see would have made it more enjoyable. For instance those who wished Mirror's Edge didn't force you into combat situations or featured multiple divergent routes. Different doesn't mean polar opposite.

Now that you've cleared that up, I understand what you mean. I did think you meant the first one (which is what I was arguing against), but the second one makes sense and I actually agree with it.

Publisher promotional machines can be their own worst enemy when they promise the world and fail to deliver. The true test is whether the game can still entertain, despite turning out differently that you expected.

I'm pretty sure that's what I was arguing all along.

Kindly keep the hyperbole to yourself.

What hyperbole? I have seen Bajo review games and spend the whole time bitching that it's different to what he wanted. Also, when I made that comment I was still under the impressions that Edge's entire SR2 review was bitching about the fact that it wasn't the satire they wanted (but you've since cleared that up).

You seem unable to understand that some people prefer biting satire/social commentary to the next Epic/Date/Teen Movie.

That's not true, and this has nothing to do with anything I was arguing.

It's not a cop out, it's a sound reason for seeing something as a missed opportunity.

But by that same measure you could argue that ANYTHING IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD is a missed opportunity for a South Park/Chappelle's Show satire. I do not understand why Edge singled out this one game and made an example of it. Maybe they didn't, but based on what you've said it sure sounds like it, and it seems completely random and irrelevant- I mean, why not mark down Gears of War for not being similar to South Park/Chappelle's Show? And just so we're clear, I haven't actually read the review and am only addressing what you have said, so if I'm missing the point of that particular review it's only because you presented it in a certain way.

And I believe sometimes games can be examined beyond the simple fun/not fun litmus test

Of course they can, but only if it's relevant IMO. From the very beginning (when we were still discussing the KH review), I'm pretty sure my whole argument was that relevant information (ie. regarding the game) should not be dropped in favour of stuff which I feel is irrelevant (ie. David Boreanaz). Of course, that's just how I feel and my opinion will not be shared by everybody, but that won't stop me from sharing it.

Without pushing creative and technical boundaries you don't progress. Bioshock, Call of Duty, Ico, Okami, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Mass Effect... these games didn't receive plaudits merely for tight gameplay.

Okay, you've misunderstood me again. I didn't say that no game is ever allowed to push creative and technical boundaries, I just said that not every single game NEEDS to do so. I agree that progress needs to be made, but subscribing to established conventions, when done properly, can still result in an excellent game. If you say that 'not pushing boundaries automatically = shit', then 'Splosion Man, Geometry Wars, Shadow Complex etc. are all shit. As you touched on earlier, Edge seems to think that every single game ever made needs to reinvent the wheel, which simply isn't true IMO. There's a place for games that are extremely well-made but not revolutionary.

I didn't say that was the basis of their entire review, they were also critical of how uninspired it was; instead of bettering GTA it merely aped it.

Yeah, like PG I was under the impression that that was the basis of the entire review. Thanks for clearing that up.

There has to be room for the writer's own opinion, beyond the simple analysis of how successful the gameplay mechanics are. And there needs to be room for their own personal touch with how it is written.

I don't think I ever argued that. I'd be pretty hypocritical if I said that reviewers were not allowed to put any personality or opinion into their reviews.

Fair enough you may not agree with what they have written, but don't be so obnoxious as to tell them how to do their job.

Constructive criticism?

I'm not sure why people think reviewers are obligated to do anything in particular beyond discuss their experiences with something (in this case, a game), in whatever manner the reviewer sees fit (in this case, in character).

Review:


A second or subsequent (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subsequent) reading (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reading) of a text or artifact.
An account (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/account) intended as a critical evaluation (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evaluation) of a text or a piece of work.

'Critical evaluation' suggests that the thing in question must be critically evaluated in some way. A 'reading' in this instance would suggest an analysis of the techniques employed, the way the text is constructed, and such.

This is the opinion I've held all along. I have no issues against personality in reviews, I just think that a critical evaluation should involve some critical evaluation.

Hating a game purely because it's a different genre or style to what you wanted/expected is not critical evaluation.

Hating one single piece of art purely because of something that all art throughout history is guilty of is not critical evaluation.

And as for the KH review which I originally criticised, I felt that the critical evaluation was slightly lacking, but that's just my opinion and people are free to disagree if they wish. Really, I don't think I can explain my viewpoint any clearer than that.

Much like my line of work it seems everyone's an expert.

So no-one's allowed to have an opinion on something unless they're getting paid to do it?

Mr_M has been essentially describing what should be in a review and how it should be prioritised. The implication being that to do it otherwise would be wrong.

I think PG put it best:

Cool, I'll make sure to put "In my opinion" in front of every sentence and "as far as I'm concerned" at the end in order to avoid confusion in future.

I thought it was clear that anything I said about 'how reviews should be written' was my opinion. Anything directly addressing the KH review or any other review was merely constructive criticism. My opinions on how reviews 'should' be written are simply my opinions on what would make the reviews in question better (better IMO of course), and the examples that have been brought up throughout this discussion have pretty much confirmed my original opinions. But they are just that- my opinions- and even if you disagree with them I still have a right to voice them.

[RunningMild]

I am making a judgement. A personal statement of the way I feel. I'm not making a finite quantitative statement. Don't pretend that I ever was.

I echo these sentiments...

It means that I don't like and disagree with the way it has been written. It means I think it's stupid - nothing more, nothing less. Don't read implications when there are words that spell it out for you.

... and these ones...

Sure, who needs to actually read or *gasp* comprehend what people say, when you can just put your fingers in your ears.

... and after reading the reply to my last post, these ones too.

the things i could do with Mr_M's false sense of self-grandeur.

lol, forgive me for actually being passionate about something. :p

Anyway, this is my final word on this whole debate. Like I said, I wouldn't have even posted a reply if you (Laz) didn't offend me with that first ridiculous assumption and then spend about two pages trying to shove words into my mouth (and PGs for that matter). But I've said everything I wanted to say, and explained myself in the plainest of plain english so I shouldn't need to explain myself any further. Besides, it looks like you and I actually agree on most of the points we've been debating anyway.

[Lazlow]

You said that SR2 is not 'indicative of the period in time in which it was created'

No I said...

The rampant misogyny in Shakespeare's work, and the racial slurs used in Heart of Darkness are indicative of the period in time in which they were created. The portrayal of militant racism in American History X was essential due to the point the film was trying to make.

The problem with comparing something made in the 1900s and something made in the 2000s, is you ignore the 100 year paradigm shift in society's attitudes towards such behaviour. In this day and age racism and misogyny are not acceptable.

Just because it exists doesn't absolve you from perpetuating stereotypes and reinforcing negative attitudes towards women. Its like saying its okay to dance around in blackface in the city centre because there are racists in the world. It doesn't make such behaviour right.

American History X portrayed militant racism in a negative light, they didn't reinforce it, they didn't heroise it. The whole message of that film was summed up in one line;

"Life's too short to be pissed off all the time. It's just not worth it"

This is why I said what I did. You may not be a proactive misogynist or racist, but by accepting, overlooking and allowing the misogyny and racism in Saints Row 2 - whether its a part of Hip Hop culture or not (which is a cop out) - you are still condoning it.



Not bothering with the rest. That argument died with Jawsy's succinct post, and everything since has been me amusing myself during a slow day at work.

[Jickle]

For the record Saints Row 2 is, essentially, a parody, just a very poorly presented and constructed one. It plays up its own excessiveness and is seemingly aware of its inherient ridiculousness (there's a set of sub-missions that involve spraying shit on things), yet plays its plot and characterisation far too straight. The whole 'urban' element in the game is ridiculous, and your character is the biggest arsehole of all time, yet it never quite emerges as the comedy it seems to want to be.

Fun game, though.

[Ryan Hayward]

Dear Wilks,
Please review Torchlight.

Love, RH.

[tommy]

Long time reader of hyper here since the begining, infact long time user of this site too think I joined 4-5 years ago.

Id like to say having an official feed back thread for each issue is a great idea love it.

Iv been buying Hyper on and off for the past few years. Iv eased back alot on the latest games and that. Anyhow so I notice no more individual scores in the reviews, just a "pro", a "con", and then an overall rating. Well sorry I think this sucks. Sometimes I just want to view a quick evaluation of a certain aspect of the game, or ofcourse even having read the review thoroughly I want to see the final evaluation in a rating format. Sometimes I think media (not just your magazine) think they have to "progress", however print is not technology its ink on paper there is no where to progress to, it should stay how it was it was correct in the first place. Its a magazine not a Playstation.

[Lazlow]

Personally I believe magazines shouldn't hold back progress in the technologies available to them. For instance they should use light sensitive inks so gamers are required to go outdoors to see their beloved scores. This adds to the level of interaction a gamer has with their magazine, much like a playstation. It makes them feel involved and loved.

[ElPresidente]

Long time reader of hyper here since the begining, infact long time user of this site too think I joined 4-5 years ago.

Id like to say having an official feed back thread for each issue is a great idea love it.

Iv been buying Hyper on and off for the past few years. Iv eased back alot on the latest games and that. Anyhow so I notice no more individual scores in the reviews, just a "pro", a "con", and then an overall rating. Well sorry I think this sucks. Sometimes I just want to view a quick evaluation of a certain aspect of the game, or ofcourse even having read the review thoroughly I want to see the final evaluation in a rating format. Sometimes I think media (not just your magazine) think they have to "progress", however print is not technology its ink on paper there is no where to progress to, it should stay how it was it was correct in the first place. Its a magazine not a Playstation.

If arguments relating to scores in critical games media are deemed chestnuts then this is one of the oldest you will find.

Before I speak about the notion of scores I do have to disagree most strongly with your notion that print has nowhere to go to. Just as games are still in their infancy as a form of media the industry of critique that has grown up around it is just as young.

As games industry commentators we're constantly learning the most appropriate way to structure said commentary. It may be cliche to raise Ian Shanahan AKA: Always Black's now famous Bow ****** but it is appropriate. When this article (http://www.alwaysblack.com/blackbox/bownigger.html) was introduced to the greater gaming public by PC Gamer UK it caused a storm of discussion amongst game critics. Here was a piece about gaming that was unique in the landscape yet was able to draw the reader in more than the accepted standard.

The discussion was furthered when Kieron Gillen (then editor of PC Gamer UK) followed up with this quasi-manifesto The New Games Journalism (http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/?page_id=3) which used Bow ****** as the poster boy for the discussion.

Obviously a piece like Bow ****** is not always going to be appropriate when there is a significant portion of the readership who buy mags or peruse websites that use these publications as buyers guides. The challenge now is how to utilise highly emotive and engaging commentary in a landscape where people read as much for information as they do for entertainment. But the discussion alone has shown there is somewhere for print to go. Of course there is, everything can be improved.

On the subject of scoring this is quite an old chestnut. It may seem perfectly logical to have individual elements scored but it ignores that the ultimate worth of a game is not the simple addition of individual elements. That would be like reviewing a slice of chocolate cake with an individual review score for eggs, flour, sugar, milk and cocoa.

Graphics, sound, gameplay... they are all a part of an inseparable mix. To judge a game by one element over an other is incongruous.

To be honest I find the whole notion of scoring in the first place to be utter bollocks. It is an attempt to objectify the subjective. A score provides no value beyond 'did the reviewer like it' and I can guarantee that you will find an infinitely more informative summation in the final paragraph of any game review out there. Your average reviewer will summarise the good points, the bad points, who would like this game and how much would they like it in this final paragraph and you can scan that information in not much more time than it takes to contemplate a final score.

[aubergine]

I tend to only read the last paragraph in online reviews these days, and am find that I'm still buying Hyper but not actually reading it.

When I wrote reviews I tried to achieve a balance between whether the game objectively succeeds at being what it is and then, separately, whether I happen to like that thing that it is. What makes it hard for me to even WANT to work as a games reviewer is that 99% of all games are, to me, an eye-gougingly boring waste of time, and that applies almost as equally to Modern Warfare as to Barbie Horse Adventures - games are a yes or no proposition with me, not a score. Providing the objective review that I myself would want to read involved playing a game for 10+hours, every second of which I could feel the limited minutes of my life dripping out like precious, precious blood. Unfortunately, the only way to get to only review games you want to play is to be the editor, or to provide free reviews to Kotaku.

[tommy]

Some good points have been raised but nonetheless I still prefer the individual ratings system.

ElPresidente, its not a matter of judging a game by one element over another, not sure I get your meaning on that point. I agree ofcourse that a game is often more (or less) than the some of its parts, but thats why there is an overall score and ofcourse as you say the final paragraph is more often than not an overall summary.

Unfortunatly I think with this move Hyper has taken thier own ideology to extremes without asking what the readers want.

The other changes were different because they where small changes for one thing, and they where changes which where pretty rational (in the view of most readers), for example losing the "longetivity" rating as it was a bit redundant alongside "gameplay", and chaing the scoring system to 0 - 10. This however is too much and I do feel im amongst the majority when I say its not my preference.

[Lazlow]

I feel I'm amongst the majority when I say get rid of scores altogether and focus on the content of the review.

[ElPresidente]

Bless you Lazlow. Bless you. :)

[Mr.Mew]

What makes it hard for me to even WANT to work as a games reviewer is that 99% of all games are, to me, an eye-gougingly boring waste of time, and that applies almost as equally to Modern Warfare as to Barbie Horse Adventures - games are a yes or no proposition with me, not a score.

Dylan Burns brought up a similar issue in the Passion of the Gamer. Effectively the amount of bad games stack up against the enjoyable units that you have to put up with, and you become quite analytical. Shows how passionate you need to be.

Not that anybody here isn't insanely passionate about video games.

[tommy]

The scores are (or were) part of the content of the review.

[BB2K]

Not really.

[Darren]

Well, at least we've established that Hyper is a magazine and not a PlayStation.

[BB2K]

Says the deputy editor of said PlayStation.

[Australian Ninja]

Well, at least we've established that Hyper is a magazine and not a PlayStation.

My mate used to spend a lot time in an independant game store years ago called "game station" When he left the house his mother would say "Luke, when will you be back from the Playstation"

She would always mix up "playstation" (which he played a lot of) with the "game station" store. It always made us laugh.

On that note, can Hyper be a Gizmondo, please, with 50 extra buttons and atomic powered interactive demos and a gazillion pages of content festooned with rabid squirrels?

[Lazlow]

"Hyper: Now with 68% more totaled sports cars"