The Hot Topic Returns

[regemond]

On 23/10/2022 at 09:31, Nag said:

Nag says... quick, easy question this week... what one game deserved a sequel but never actually got one?

 

God Hand. Look, the tone was dodgy even at the time (spanking people as part of a combo, anyone?) But if Lollipop Chainsaw can get a remaster, I think God Hand should get a look in at least.

 

On 30/10/2022 at 09:09, Nag said:

Readers discuss their favourite survival horror games, as well as the ones they’re looking forward to the most in the future.

 

With Halloween almost here, we wanted to know what you think is the best survival horror of the present day and what you think may be the best in the future, especially given the recent explosion in new titles and remakes.

 

We got a good mix of classics and future titles, with Dead Space getting more mentions than it has in previous years, thanks to the upcoming remake and spiritual sequel The Callisto Protocol.

 

Past - Silent Hill 2
Present - Alien Isolation, maybe Evil Within, but that turned into a damp squib by the end.

Future - Silent Hill 2. But there's also one I LOVE the look of that I can't remember the name of right now...

 

On 06/11/2022 at 09:49, Nag said:

The subject for this week’s Hot Topic was inspired by reader Rackam, who asked what’s the oldest piece of original hardware you still have in working order? How long have you had it for and is it still working as well now as it did originally?

 

I got a GBA SP recently and that works. DS, 3DS, PSP all still work, and work well. PS Vita still works, but I've lost the charger. I reckon if I had the right aerial cables, everything all the way back to my old, yellow SNES would work. The only console I'd be concerned about would be my PS2s.

 

I don't have boxes for stuff, but I've looked after it all, luckily.

 

On 13/11/2022 at 08:57, Nag said:

Readers discuss their favourite platform games, including Rayman Legend and Castle Of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse.

 

The subject for this week’s Hot Topic was inspired by the recent release of Sonic Frontiers and asked whether you have a favourite 2D and 3D game and which style you generally prefer. How much difference does the main character make and which is your favourite?

 

Given how old the genre is we had answers from across many generations, but beyond the numerous mentions of Mario and Sonic there was also a lot of love for Rayman and Mickey Mouse.

 

I don't think the main character makes a difference unless they're offensively bad... Gex could have been any character and the game would have still been exceedingly average. While Mario is an iconic character, I don't think the gameplay would have been worse if he was, I dunno, an alien ninja from the nth dimension. 

Speaking of, Zool was fucking awesome at the time.

 

A couple of favourites

DKC Trilogy

Conker's Bad Fur Day

Gex 3D (this was god awful, but 14 year old me loved it)

Mario Sunshine

 

I think my patience for this kind of game has run out though, tbh. I adore the concept of the newest Yooka-Laylee game, and I've played a few levels, but I just can't be bothered. Same with DKC returns, and even Mario Maker/New Super Mario Bros.

 

I used to love Rodland on Amiga. Hell, you could probably fill a list of obscure bangers with just Amiga stuff. The Last Ninja. Pretty sure there was an Elvira game. Some weird one where you played through different film sets. Fire and Ice. Rainbow Islands.

 

Sorry for the bumper answer, haven't been involved on here properly for a while!

[Nag]

 

Quote

Readers discuss how and when they use video game reviews and what they think of review scores and how accurately they’re used.

 

The subject for this week’s Hot Topic was inspired by reader Neil Down, and asked whether there are any particular sites, including this one, that you think could do things differently and what you think of those that don’t have a score at all.

 

Most people seemed to enjoy reviews, as both entertainment and advice, although most also admitted they use multiple sources to make their final decision, on whether to buy a game or not.

 

[shinymcshine]

The text part of reviews are generally fine, it's the scoring that's hugely skewed - where anything below 70% (or even for AAAs <90%) might be perceived by some as poor/not worth bothering with, which adversely affects sales - and this has somewhat affected whether devs will take a risk on putting out new IP or stick with releasing endless sequels.

 

Also, nowadays, with Day One patches, the reviewed content isn't always reflective of the actual retail experience.

[mfnick]

Back in the day I used to mostly rely on reviews for all games with odd word of mouth ones thrown in.
These days I use podcasts and quick looks/QL type videos for the majority of my decision making. Along with posts from you lovely people. 

 

I still like the whole score thing though to have a quick scan on how a game has been received - depending on which I could be made to check out a game sooner, play a game I’d normally not be interested or put one off that I was interested in. As shiny points out though, the scoring systems are a bit fucked though. 

[one-armed dwarf]

The text part of reviews are fine, but imo review aggregates are harmful for the industry. It punishes creative risk, eg games which might be polarising to broader audiences. Rotten tomatoes doesn't really have the same impact with films imo, cause films aren't the same money and time investment.

 

On the other hand word of mouth can be flawed too, I don't think it's good that online publishing is falling to the wayside and people are for some reason more confident in trusting a twitch streamer, who's whole job is basically to sell how hyped they are to get more subs. I find weird reddits like /r/patientgamers an interesting resource these days, to find out what people think about games after the hype cycle dies down.

 

Sites which don't have a score is an interesting approach, forces you to actually read what has been said (Eurogamer, Kotaku, Polygon). These are also the sites which generally I find have more interesting writeups as well. I definitely find scores pretty meaningless now, I cannot figure out the scores for Elden Ring, or even GoW ragnarok. Maybe BOTW is the only time I've felt that kinda score being justified.

 

Podcasts are also good

[Nag]

Not answering the question directly but it's a thing that's been bugging me for a while now and that's previews... the amount of glowing previews on websites that those same websites then go on to give fairly mediocre scores to at the time of the games review. Surely the game can't change that much in the time frame that's given, I can maybe see if they're doing a hands off preview but still, it seems to be happening more and more.

 

As for the reviews themselves I think certain games get certain things overlooked... you have Elden Rings performance issues that, while they were mentioned, weren't reflected in the scores and that seems to happen quite a bit for certain publishers for whatever reason. 

 

Scores themselves don't overly bother me (apart from the whole Fantasy Critic thing we have going here.😂)

[DANGERMAN]

as others have said, I think seeing the games being played helps more than reviews nowadays. There are times where a wealth of positive reviews can get my attention, or loads of negative ones (when does that ever happen though, maybe Saints Row?). It's usually indie games or smaller games where positive reviews might be enough to talk me in to something, partly because of the cost I suppose, but they're also less of a known quantity.

 

Like, Elden Ring is one of the best reviewed games ever, it doesn't matter, it's not for me. Breath of the Wild, it's not for me, it doesn't matter who or how many love it. Marsupilami though, if something like that starts getting 8s then I'm more likely to pay attention.

 

Which I think is part of the crux of it. It's not that reviewers are paid off, I think some publications, whether they're forced to or not, toe the line, and will give a positive score for an exclusive or whatever. Again, Saints Row had a review score that was significantly higher than everyone else, and can't have possibly missed the issues with that game. I think a few publications do tend to play it safe with scores. To some point I suppose your average reviewer is going to think mostly the same as other average reviewers, but there's definitely a sense of smooth edges, with big games rarely getting hammered and not too many outliers 

[Sly Reflex]

Used to treat them like gospel. Now realise they aren't that important. Aside from flagging super awful games I see no reason for the initial review to be really a huge thing anymore.

 

However

 

The the landscape has changed and games often change from their launch state because of their ongoing nature as "services" and I think a quick state of running down what altered and whether it was good or bad for the health of the game. Stuff like weapons or character rebalances can seriously effect the health of a game, as can many iterations of paid/free DLC fuck up or improve a game.

Look at something like No Mans Sky. Or to a lesser point, Sea of Thieves. Both massively improved over time.

 

Conversely you have things like Overwatch or WoW that change shit and fuck the delicate balance up that make the game zero fun to play. It only takes a few bad decisions shifting numbers about and you've fucked a game, or at least fucked a subset of your audience off that will churn and never come back.

 

I've mentioned a few times over the course of being on forums that Planet Sound had the right idea when it came to reviewing music and that should be applied to games. It's all too easy to get swept up in the hype of a game coming out and giving it a high review, but, nothing there got higher than a 9 on release which could be either lowered or increased to a 10 six months down the line once it'd really settled in.

 

I think an evolution of this thought process should follow a game throughout it's iterations, not only to keep things current, but also catalogue good and bad times for those wanting to look back and learn from past mistakes.

 

I think as well, reviews tend to be very tribalistic. It doesn't help that a game on one platform that runs great can run like dogshite elsewhere (hello Bayonetta), to fuel those zealots that stan for whatever company they chose to raise the flag for. When you look at when a game comes out it can be utterly fucked one one place and still receive high praises elsewhere, like Skyrim on the 360/PS3 generation. Ran fine on one, as well as any Bethesda game is going to run anyway, but was a bit of a mess on the other. The parity is just not there, it reminds me a lot when you'd buy games on cassette back in the day on the C64 and the quote from the review on the box would be of the Amiga version. 

 

I'm starting to meander now, but the main crux is that reviews should no longer be a static thing, but also in the same vein we should realise that that evolving review is one persons thought and you can only glean from it what they think of it, and at the end of it all it's really up to you to decide what a game is like by playing it yourself.

[Sly Reflex]

55 minutes ago, DANGERMAN said:

Again, Saints Row had a review score that was significantly higher than everyone else,

 

I think some people just really gel with certain types of games. I think everyone here can list an objectively bad game they've really enjoyed. It's just an opinion so it doesn't really matter.

 

Contradictory we've all played games that are held up as the best of the best by pretty much everyone and come under fire for it for pointing out bad parts of an experience. 

[OCH]

Reviews used to matter to me. Used to comb through Gamers Republic, CVG, GTM etc religiously. With the limited funds/options of a kid, we had to be choosy. In retrospect, we dodged a lot of stinkers like Rise of the Robots, due to our diligence.

These days, I'll only look into one if it's for a new IP that I like the look of. Even that I won't treat as gospel. Just looking to the overall vibe being positive, neutral or negative.

I no longer expect an objective review of an established IP. 

[DANGERMAN]

33 minutes ago, Sly Reflex said:

 

I think some people just really gel with certain types of games. I think everyone here can list an objectively bad game they've really enjoyed. It's just an opinion so it doesn't really matter.

 

Contradictory we've all played games that are held up as the best of the best by pretty much everyone and come under fire for it for pointing out bad parts of an experience. 

Yeah but this wasn't just a divisive game, or even a good one with some slight performance issues (someone mentioned Elden Ring, but Sonic Frontiers with its draw distance is another example), the game was broken at release, crashing all over the place. Ignoring the critical faults with the game, because yeah, something can just click, I don't believe they got through the game pre-launch without experiencing those issues

[Nag]

Most of the time now it's too late for me if reviews come out and completely trash a game as if it's a game I think I'm gonna like I'll already have it pre-ordered.

 

There aren't too many times from recent memory that game reviews drop a week or so before anymore.

[HandsomeDead]

Now, and for quite a while, I just haven't really read reviews.  I'm confident enough with my own experience with games to know what I like and don't from early footage.  It does mean I could miss out on something I'd like but ce la vie, I'll maybe get around to it eventually (RE7 comes to mind). 

 

Of course I used to read tons of reviews, even of games I didn't intend to get in the magazine days but thinking about it it's only because this was the main format games were talked about then.  If you wanted to read about games actually out and not speculation it was most likely through a review.  I suppose it's good now that's not as much the case.  Podcasts and video creators often frame the way they talk about them as just that, just saying what they think without some quantitative aspect, and I generally prefer that.  It's such a common thing in any media but I'm of the opinion that applying an objective measure to a subjective experience is just silly.  I guess it simplifies things for everyone just looking for a quick judgement but I feel like it has affected the conversation in how games are talked about even in spaces that want to look more deeply in a negative way.

 

So yeah, overall I don't like them conversations around games, media or art even more broadly is so often talked about in a quantitative way or ranked against each other and I put that down to the early days of mostly consuming games with reviews.  It's a mindset I try to get away from.

[spatular]

yeah i don't read reviews much at all these days, i used to read them but not any more. don't watch videos much either, i guess i get most of my games info from forums these days.

[radiofloyd]

I still read reviews all the time, especially for indie games. I don’t have any issue with scores either, I don’t think the websites that dropped them gained anything by dropping them. But I love numbers and lists and ranking things.

 

Personally I find my taste aligns more with reviewers than (shock horror), the members of this forum, for example. Of course, it’s not always the case but I find that highly praised games generally deserve it.

 

I pay attention to user reviews on Steam too, especially if a game has Overwhelming Positive reviews.

[shinymcshine]

It annoys me that most reviews don't mention anything about accessibility options or screen text size adjustments.

 

I've bought a number of console games that are really difficult to play as text size/ on screen icons are too small (probably due to being PC conversions).

 

Likewise NS reviews still seldom mention any differences between playing on different NS versions/ configurations (OLED v Standard v Lite or handheld v docked).

[one-armed dwarf]

I think awareness of that has improved a bit tbh, lots of reviews mention the major strides in accessibility in Sony AAA studios, which seem to be where a lot of that push is happening in the mainstream (ms have their accessibility controller but that's separate from the reviews stuff).

 

I think it's a harder skill to develop than people might think tho, the 'soft' skill of explaining why you personally think a game is great at doing things a certain way. I think a lot of the more mainstream press like gamespot, ign, even giantbomb to a point veer into the product review side of it. Over at waypoint they try and talk about things a bit more holistically rather than just being another joint going 'is the gameplay good and framerate high'. Tho they also tend to hyperfixate on looking at it with certain critical lens that a lot of games don't really have the juice for. 

 

Mostly tho I think the discourse is a bit too hype driven, and games treated as being too disposable. Not every new release is a Citizen Kain level masterpiece, but the gushing that goes in in some media circles may convince you it is. 

 

I think my favourite talker about why video game good is hbomberguy, tho it frustrates me just a tad that more people have maybe watched his Pathologic video than actually played it. Least it put that game back on the map for certain audiences tho, even as a weird curiosity of how games can be designed (and I'm reminded that Fallout new Vegas is still on my classic RPG list to play through)

[regemond]

I really enjoy reading reviews for the entertainment aspect of things. For a critical view that might sway me one way or the other, not so much.

 

Reading reviews of whatever I'm playing at the time has always been a habit of mine, and I've found myself enjoying retrospective reviews recently (ie [insert game] 10 years later). None of these impacts my thoughts on specific games, although in the case of something like BOTW - a game I personally didn't enjoy - it's good to see WHY people rave about it so much.

 

I used to take GTM's opinion as gospel. I think theirs was one of the fairest systems out there, and it was rare it got things wrong (although one suspect 4/10 for 'something' sticks in my brain at the minute).

 

For the most part, I think people know whether they're going to buy a game before it comes out, and whether they get bad reviews or not, I don't think that would sway most people.

 

One area reviews can affect my purchasing decisions isn't actually in reading them, though. I haven't read a single review of Pentiment. But I've heard the reputation it's building and now really want to try it. I've seen the scores. I've seen how people are into it. And I'll be honest, the hype is swaying me. To me, that's one reason (and I hate to say it) review scores SHOULD stick around. Pentiment would never have gotten my attention any other way. Maybe for AAA releases they're pointless, but for that B-Tier/Indie area they're a good thing, and can bring attention to something that wouldn't normally be noticed.

 

On 20/11/2022 at 13:26, Nag said:

Not answering the question directly but it's a thing that's been bugging me for a while now and that's previews... the amount of glowing previews on websites that those same websites then go on to give fairly mediocre scores to at the time of the games review.

 

I'm gonna use such a pretentious term here, but 'vertical slices' of a game. Just a couple of hours where everything is honed to a tee and showcases all the best bits of a game can seem awesome. But when you get to the full game there could be tons of grindwork. Tons of pointless battles. Difficult navigation. Whatever you want to pick, it could all bring the final score down.

 

Remember PS1 demos? You could go into Croc and enjoy the couple of levels they gave you, but the final game was a little bit mediocre. Same with MediEvil. 

 

I don't think it's massively hard to believe that the preview slices devs give to sites aren't necessarily representative of the whole game. Which sucks, obviously. Because it can hype the masses up for something super disappointing.

[OCH]

4 hours ago, regemond said:

(although one suspect 4/10 for 'something' sticks in my brain at the minute)

Assassins Creed 1😄 

I still recall that, even with my worthless memory (also the 10/10 they gave Demon's Souls).

[HandsomeDead]

With hindsight, and I don't even like Assassin's Creed, 4/10 is pretty harsh.  There's real venom in that 😆 

 

I tried to find it to remember why they found it such an affront but it's like it has been scrubbed from the internet