[SoccerDude28]

I Hate video game magazines. I just picked up a copy of Gameinformer, and Still Life got a whooping 5.5. Here is the review:
"There are forces at work here that I cannot begin to understand. In a game where you spend all your time talking to people, solving puzzles, and interfacing with the environment, you would think that at least one of these elements wouldn't be laughably terrible. Well Still Life is here to say that the joke's on you, poindexter. The saddest thing is the fact that the game actually has a genuinely interesting forensic mystery connecting two generations, but it rarely shines through the obtuse and frustrating gameplay. Like a deep-fried supermodel, the scarred beauty of Still Life is sadly buried under inches of unpleasant greasy breeding." -JOE

Okay now I don't have a problem with giving Still Life 5.5 if it sucks, but based on Joe Schmoes retarted review, I have no clue what is bad with the game. He's bitching that solving puzzles and talking to people is terrible. Well what is so terrible about it? Is it the voice acting? The puzzles are too difficult? Or just the fact that he hates puzzles and talking to people? He says frustrating gameplay. WHAT IS SO FRUSTRATING ABOUT IT? I want to know what made him say that. And then he gives a metaphore which is so out of place, it has nothing to do with the whole review. What is this? kindergarten?

And look at the size of the review by the way. They had a review of god of war which was 2 pages long. This barely took a small column in a page, with a bunch of other games they claimed were crappy for as many reasons as this one. Game magazines suck.

[Legolas813]

Don't pay attention to magazine reviews because adventure games never get credit by the mainstream public.

[Wormsie]

Adventure game websites overappreciate.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

Adventure game websites overappreciate.

But the score is not my beef with the magazine. It's the article itself. It really doesn't say a single word about why the game is bad. It only uses adjectives like frustrating and terrible (which are very generic terms), and doesn't go in depth in explaining why.

Originally Posted by Legolas813

Don't pay attention to magazine reviews because adventure games never get credit by the mainstream public

I am buying the game regardless of their score. It's not me I'm concerned about, it's the person who doesn't know much about the game, and reads this magazine. There goes a potential customer.

[Legolas813]

Xbox Nation did the same thing with Syberia II (50%) and Still Life (54%). Both reviews were only a quarter of a page each.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Legolas813

Xbox Nation did the same thing with Syberia II (50%) and Still Life (54%). Both reviews were only a quarter of a page each.

And the Syberias didn't sell well on the XBOX. Could there be a correlation, even remotely?

[JoeX111]

I wouldn't trust a game magazine review to save my life.

First, most of them review early builds of a game simply because they need the lead time to get their magazine on the shelf the month of the game's release, if not sooner. And most of them wont pony up this fact when they do.

Second, half of the reviews they write are little more than a paragraph that can be formulated by looking on the back of the box. I quoted a great one on a thread somewhere here, but I can't find it now.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

And the Syberias didn't sell well on the XBOX. Could there be a correlation, even remotely?

Yeah I think the correlation is that a lot of gamers don't like games patterened 100% after a very slow moving design ethic from 1989, except with shinier graphics.

- Magazine editors probably shouldn't assign these people to review these games.

- Publishers probably shouldn't expect point and click adventures to do well on consoles.

Originally Posted by Wormsie

Adventure game websites overappreciate.

Originally Posted by Legolas

Don't pay attention to magazine reviews because adventure games never get credit by the mainstream public.

I think both of these things are true.

(Except the "don't pay attention to magazine reviews" part... adventure gamers already live enough in their own little bubble world. Seeing what the 'mainstream' is saying is just as important as any other criticism. It's too bad their criticism is often articulated so badly, but that's not a reason to ignore it)

[100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja]

Well, here in Croatia we have more at least 4 gaming mkagazines, if not more. Neither of them is any good. Every now and then you can actually read a GOOD review. It's just that, in my opinion, game reviewers aren't journalists, they're just people who play games (mainly). And, then again, when you're reviewing FPS' and action games all the time, you won't really have high opinions of adventures. Because there's no running/shooting/jumping going on.

The other problem is that magz often don't have reviewers specialized for one genre (strategy/action/RPG/adventure/sports), that way they would compare an adventure with other adventures, not other games. I guess it's hard to find a guy who'll only play adventures these days...

[Quadriflax]

Originally Posted by 100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja

I guess it's hard to find a guy who'll only play adventures these days...

I'll do it.

Anyway, I really hope these people have some writing/journalism school/experience. But even if they don't they should know they need to explain themselves.

Guy A: "I don't like this game."
Guy B: "Why?"
Guy A: "Because I don't."

What? Details, man, details. If there's a problem you can't quite put your finger on say so then TRY to describe it. Don't just flat out act like a douche because you don't want to do the leg work. That's why people buy these mags (or lack of is why I don't). Not that it always solves the problem, because in the end it's just someone's opinion. But if we can pick apart why someone has an opinion then we can better decide for ourselves what we might think of something.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jake

It's too bad their criticism is often articulated so badly, but that's not a reason to ignore it

More often than not the criticism is based on the fact that they don't like this kind of game. How exactly are we supposed to fight against that?

[Jake]

I didn't say you were supposed to fight against it, or at least that's not what I was trying to imply. I want to know why they don't like it. And I don't think, in the case of magazine reviewers, that it's always as simple as "I can't shoot everything." Even if that's what they say - there is often a very huge difference between what people say they want, and what they actually want.

Just because someone says "it needs more action and explosions," doesn't actually mean that adding action and explosions would make them happy -- odds are it would have the opposite effect, who knows. Maybe that's just the best way they can articulate that the game made them feel bored or just didn't draw them in for some reason? Who knows. Not us, but we like to assume they're all assholes apparently.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Wormsie

Adventure game websites overappreciate.

Some do, maybe, but to be honest, I don't think AG does. Doesn't mean it can't happen on occasion, but that can be true of any review of any game.

There's a big difference between "liking" and "appreciating", by the way. You can review games in a genre you don't personally like, but not if you can't appreciate what it offers.

It's too bad there are mainstream reviews that DO reflect nothing but personal bias, because that undermines everything. Adventure apologists just get defensive about ALL mainstream reviews, and there definitely is something to be gained from listening to the balanced mainstream critiques. And in the case of these Still Life examples, there's so little, it's impossible to tell which is which.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jake

I didn't say you were supposed to fight against it, or at least that's not what I was trying to imply. I want to know why they don't like it. And I don't think, in the case of magazine reviewers, that it's always as simple as "I can't shoot everything." Even if that's what they say - there is often a very huge difference between what people say they want, and what they actually want.

Just because someone says "it needs more action and explosions," doesn't actually mean that adding action and explosions would make them happy -- odds are it would have the opposite effect, who knows. Maybe that's just the best way they can articulate that the game made them feel bored or just didn't draw them in for some reason? Who knows. Not us, but we like to assume they're all assholes apparently.

If what you said is true, and they can't make the difference between not liking to have a quiet gameplay and being bored by a specific game, they really are stupid.

[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Jackal

It's too bad there are mainstream reviews that DO reflect nothing but personal bias, because that undermines everything. Adventure apologists just get defensive about ALL mainstream reviews, and there definitely is something to be gained from listening to the balanced mainstream critiques. And in the case of these Still Life examples, there's so little, it's impossible to tell which is which.

That's why I prefer reviews written online. These kind of reviewers can't argue things like lack of publishing space, so they typically have to be thorough. And because of that, you can usually tell if there is a bias or not. www.ign.com is a pretty decent site to read Adventure game reviews on. There is no Adventure Game bias for or against, just a flat out level playing of the game, which I definitely appreciate.

And anything's better than reviews on JustAdventure.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Adventure apologists just get defensive about ALL mainstream reviews, and there definitely is something to be gained from listening to the balanced mainstream critiques. And in the case of these Still Life examples, there's so little, it's impossible to tell which is which.

In the case of Still Life, I find it mesmerizing that the magazine I read would review it in one small page (half of which is humorous rambling about one puzzle) and give is a 7 (out of 10, and it's a good grade for them), when they review other games on 3 or 4 pages and give them worse grades.
And this happens a lot... If it's good, then tell it to the world, and if it's not, then don't give it a good grade. Else you're not making sense.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by Jake

Just because someone says "it needs more action and explosions," doesn't actually mean that adding action and explosions would make them happy -- odds are it would have the opposite effect, who knows. Maybe that's just the best way they can articulate that the game made them feel bored or just didn't draw them in for some reason?

Do I detect the looming of Interaction Density again?

It could be that they are simply making a connection to the games where they have a constant stream of things to do without having to think about why they are doing it. It's often much easier to say why you like something than why you don't, particularly if many aspects of a game have been done with considerable quality.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Ninth

In the case of Still Life, I find it mesmerizing that the magazine I read would review it in one small page (half of which is humorous rambling about one puzzle) and give is a 7 (out of 10, and it's a good grade for them), when they review other games on 3 or 4 pages and give them worse grades.
And this happens a lot... If it's good, then tell it to the world, and if it's not, then don't give it a good grade. Else you're not making sense.

It's probably more the case that big-name games and amusing reviews of bad games are what shift magazines. Sadly.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ninth

In the case of Still Life, I find it mesmerizing that the magazine I read would review it in one small page (half of which is humorous rambling about one puzzle) and give is a 7 (out of 10, and it's a good grade for them), when they review other games on 3 or 4 pages and give them worse grades.
And this happens a lot... If it's good, then tell it to the world, and if it's not, then don't give it a good grade. Else you're not making sense.

Though Robert's right, I sure can't argue that it's completely worthless approach. If you're gonna do something, do it right. That's hardly a novel philosophy.

Although it is fun to bash crummy games at length.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by RLacey

It's probably more the case that big-name games and amusing reviews of bad games are what shift magazines. Sadly.

In their case, humour is a trademark, so even the bigger reviews are humourous, and they don't say that Still Life is bad, far from it. The guy says that there are some very though puzzles at the end, and one stupid one, but that the rest is more than good enough to compensate (or something like that).