Slashdot Mirror
On Champions Of Norrath, Forgiving Game Reviewers?
Thanks to Curmudgeon Gamer for its article discussing technical problems with PS2 title Champions of Norrath: Realms of Everquest, and why official reviews of the game didn't seem to mention those problems. According to the writer, who had been "experiencing frustrating lock-ups and hangs which have caused the loss some of my progress through the game", it turns out that "two of the reviewers did see the game hang and didn't mention it in their reviews." However, he argues: "That's a judgment call, really, and since each saw the problem precisely once I can understand leaving it out of the review", and ends by suggesting that "the real burden rests not on the shoulders of the reviewers but on the creators of the game and, potentially, the console itself."
This has less to do with game reviews and more to do with journalistic integrity. If a reviewer comes across a serious bug in a game - especially a console game for which a patch is unfeasible - one would think that such a bug would get mentioned in the review.
Now the question is, was the bug not mentioned because the reviewer didn't consider it to be important, or forgot about it, etc. (e.g., just crappy reporting)? Or was the reviewer under pressure or edited by his superiors so as not to report bugs in the article, due to the financial pressures (no free copies, etc.) that a large console game company could potentially exert on a small online review site (e.g., complete lack of journalistic integrity)?
I think it was pressure on both the studio to get the game releases and pressure on the press by the publisher to ignore the bugs in the review.
The game has graphic bugs and freezes there is no one denying that. Supposedly they used some sort of modified DVD9 format which may be part of the problem. I'm not sure if the modded DVD9 format was used for software protection or just to cram more info on the disc. However these bugs are so big that both the studio and the publisher had to have known about them. So you have to point a finger at the studio and the publisher for releasing the game too soon. In this case Snowblind and Sony. Snowblind's last game (Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance) was rock solid on the Ps2. So I'm guessing it wasn't the incompetance of the studio but rather the Sony likely pushed them to make the release date. There were rumors floating around to that effect because supposedly snowblind wanted to optimize the online code to support modem connections, but Sony told them not to bother and make it broadband only. On top of that Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance 2 was relased about a week before this one. Sounds like Sony pushing to make sure Champions had a chance to snuff BGDA2.
As far as the reviewers go, well Sony is the biggest dog in the console arena. There may as well been some pressure to give it a good review. I'm sure they probably told the reviewers the version they had may have bugs because it's a beta, etc. etc. Now that the real version is out most reviewers with major sites probably don't have the time or inclination to question Sony. It will only help to ensure that you don't get the next exclusive preview of the next huge game Sony is releasing.
The saddest thing is this game is really great. I played though it once and I still want to play it again. My only real gripe is the freezing which has made me paranoid about saving. Otherwise this game rocks. The graphic glitches are annoying, but they go away in about a second. Sony should have let Snowblind do the job right. Perhaps with Champions 2 they'll let them do their job.
But a little bit farther back you have a real test of game reviewing. "Hidden & Dangerous" was widely reviewed as a great game. Maybe it was. No mere mortal ever managed to play it.
It had a gigantic number of game killing bugs. So many it would seem impossible that reviewers couldn't have noticed. So yes afterwards game reviewers admitted that yes they had encountered the bugs but had decided not to mention it since the game was so great.
Only by the time the sequel was being previewed did game rags start to really talk about the piece of crap the original was.
I said this before, "game reviews ain't worth the paper they are printed on wich is really bad news for online reviews". Until people start to realize that game reviewing includes product testing game reviews will continue to be little more then some idiot being paid to blub about games he liked or hated.
As for wich reviews are honest? Demos. Tells you 99% if what you need to know.
Most people I know treat game reviews as advertising. No different then an "making of" program on the latest movie. We use other gamers to review games.
Should the game industry care? Well yes, even better then demos is downloading the entire game. Perfect review. You can only sell crap so many times before I start thinking that stealing from lying scumbags isn't all that bad. You don't think I am going to pay for a single game ever from Illusion soft or take 2 again? Let them first patch the product they sold me.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Anyone remember the game Trespasser? Before it came out there were nothing but glowing reviews, talking about how the game was going to change the face of the industry, blah blah blah. When the game finally came out it didn't really play on any of the then current compute (unless you like slideshows) and it was buggy as hell.
Far be it from me to try to reduce anyone's cynicism with regard to the game press, but there's actually a reasonable explanation for this. Game previews are generally positive and non-judgemental, with good reason -- they're not looking at a final version. It would be wrong to taint readers' opinions on things that will eventually get fixed.
Reviews are what you want to read for an actual critical evaluation. Remember that when Trespasser shipped, the reviews were terrible.
Two minor features (I mean, if the replenishing shield and/or weapons limit were removed, would it be substantially a different game?) do not a game make, never mind a supposedly genre-shattering game. I'm really trying hard to see what makes this game revolutionary, and I honestly can't see it.
Huge environments? About as big as Unreal, a game which it much reminded me of. And even that 6 year old game had much more variety in its environments. And most importantly, atmosphere. I never got the impression with Halo I was in an alien world. The only unique touch (one I liked) were the whimsical chapter headings (any fans of Iain Banks among the Bungie crew, I wonder?). For huge environments, see the current Far Cry. Again, not a game I'm enamoured with (at least, with the demo), but it's taken the meaning of huge environments a whole quantum leap ahead, far bigger than any Halo made. I still wouldn't give it 10/10 for that. High-res textures? I really must be seeing a different game. I thought the models were nice, and Master Chief/vehicles had great shapes but the textures awfully bland looking. (On the other hand, I thought the aliens were naff.)
Auto-tracking? Oh god. I consider that a bug not a feature. It's up to console makers to provide a decent FPS peripheral rather than games makers to provide users with the equivalent of training wheels that they never have to take off ("Look at little Johnny! He can cycle!"). Anyway, auto-tracking was a feature 6 years ago - in Half-Life. I'm really trying hard not to be negative but.. well, as you can see, I am. Sorry.
As for Deus Ex, it shouldn't matter that the graphics don't hold up now - that's happens with PC games, such is the relentless drive for more and more graphical power. My PC, which was almost absolute-top- of-the-range two years, cannot play Deux Ex 2 at all. Games should be reviewed based on their era. Possibly it's unfair to hold up Halo to the current standard# of graphics, as the PC release was two years after the XBox, but even so, if they release a game now, they should be willing to be reviewed based on current criteria. The fact that the unique features of Deus Ex weren't taken up speaks for the conservatism of the games industry and, yes, players. Sadly, Deus Ex didn't sell that well, therefore no other companies out there thought that it was a winning formula to copy. Ironically, the creators themselves obviously thought this, hence the poor reviews of Deux Ex 2 due to the dumbing-down of the whole RPG aspect.