and yeah, pissing off game publishers with honest ratings is a really bad idea in a business that mostly depends on hyping up "exclusive" previews to lure customers.
Giving a crappy game high ratings to appease the publisher hurts your reputation among gamers. That means less visitors, ad clicks, presence, and relevancy. Game reviewers exist to provide a service to gamers interested in purchasing games, not publishers wishing to sell them.
reviews can only really be reliable if they are either from a noncommercial source (but beware of fanboyism) or if they are from a more general source that does not primarily focus on games.
The Associated Press runs game reviews occasionally, and they are absolutely worthless. When the reviewer isn't familiar with the genre and doesn't play games regularly they have no idea what to look for to discern quality from crap. A simplistic game with flashy graphics can be the best game ever to them; while the same game with significant development of character skills and stats will seem confusing and tedious.
Yeah, game reviews are quickly becoming irrelevant to quality. It's to the point where most gamers consider an aggregate score lower than 8/10 to be a "bad game." In their defense, it seems most reviews consider 5/10 to be their minimum score. So a 7/10 is only average, which (like other mass media) is pretty much crap.
I'd be interested in a website with reviews that only focus on the bad parts of the game. Advertisers, demos, and promotions be damned: list off the major problems, along with the little annoying things that can detract from enjoying the game fully, and I'll have a much better idea whether I should bother to play it. The good stuff is covered by pretty much every other site, so tell me about the lack of control, horrible camera, unintuitive menu, or repetitive gameplay so I don't waste my money/time playing it if any of those problems are dealbreakers for me.
They know when to stop and how to manage themselves.
That's not an addict as it doesn't involve compulsion. It's habitual only because making money is habitual (you make it to spend it).
As for South Korea, consider the flipside of their "addiction." People who have convinced themselves that playing a game for 20+ hours straight, in the same position, without eating or sleeping much at all, will not cause them harm. There's a word for that, and it is "stupid." The term "addiction" has been spread so thin it can now apply to any and every activity one can engage in, making it meaningless. Then again, all addictions begin with a conscious decision, so it's your own damn fault no matter how you slice it.
You don't have to play the game like that. In fact, it's often more enjoyable and challenging to try to speed through the game, with minimal "grinding." Most of the FF games don't require you to be anywhere near max level to beat the final boss. Side quests and optional bosses, though, are another story.
I agree with everything you said, and I also think the Mature ESRB rating should be 18+ so this wouldn't be an issue. But, it bugs me that adults can buy GTA:SA, where the graphic that surrounds the ESRB rating is of a multi-gangmember driveby in action, and then have the nerve to get worked up by a dryhumping minigame that was never meant to see the light of day.
There are many other clues on the box that suggest this game is not suitable for kids, and then there's the "Strong Sexual Content" declaration on the back. It sits among "Blood and Gore," "Intense Violence," and "Use of Drugs."
I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in our culture's misguided morals ("Sex is much worse than intense violence") or the general idiocy of the people that purchase this game for their kids and get offended by the Hot Coffee mod.
I know this has been discussed a million times before already, but it just amazes me that such a seemingly mild thing as a fully-clothed sex minigame can cause such an uproar when included in a game that allows such wanton violence. Without the mod, it's hard to call the sexual content in the game "Strong," anyway. There's a car rocking and an outside shot of a house with a girl moaning. If you think that's "strong sexual content" you obviously haven't spent much time on the internet.
"Fully disclosing hidden content accessible as Easter eggs and via cheat codes..."
Too bad the dry humping minigame in GTA:SA is not available via easter egg or cheat code. If you only have the console and the game, there is no way to access that content. I'm not saying it's acceptable to have the code left in the game to be easily unlocked (using alternative means), but I just find it funny that their "cracking down" on games doesn't include the sole game that started this whole controversy.
Slashdot Mirror
and yeah, pissing off game publishers with honest ratings is a really bad idea in a business that mostly depends on hyping up "exclusive" previews to lure customers.
Giving a crappy game high ratings to appease the publisher hurts your reputation among gamers. That means less visitors, ad clicks, presence, and relevancy. Game reviewers exist to provide a service to gamers interested in purchasing games, not publishers wishing to sell them.
reviews can only really be reliable if they are either from a noncommercial source (but beware of fanboyism) or if they are from a more general source that does not primarily focus on games.
The Associated Press runs game reviews occasionally, and they are absolutely worthless. When the reviewer isn't familiar with the genre and doesn't play games regularly they have no idea what to look for to discern quality from crap. A simplistic game with flashy graphics can be the best game ever to them; while the same game with significant development of character skills and stats will seem confusing and tedious.
Yeah, game reviews are quickly becoming irrelevant to quality. It's to the point where most gamers consider an aggregate score lower than 8/10 to be a "bad game." In their defense, it seems most reviews consider 5/10 to be their minimum score. So a 7/10 is only average, which (like other mass media) is pretty much crap.
I'd be interested in a website with reviews that only focus on the bad parts of the game. Advertisers, demos, and promotions be damned: list off the major problems, along with the little annoying things that can detract from enjoying the game fully, and I'll have a much better idea whether I should bother to play it. The good stuff is covered by pretty much every other site, so tell me about the lack of control, horrible camera, unintuitive menu, or repetitive gameplay so I don't waste my money/time playing it if any of those problems are dealbreakers for me.
I wonder how the Catholic League would respond to a South Park episode that reenacts the unsavory bits of the Bible.
Am I the only one who thinks this is utterly ridiculous?
Aside from the first 300+ comments? Then, yes.
And thanks for not spelling it "rediculous."
They know when to stop and how to manage themselves.
That's not an addict as it doesn't involve compulsion. It's habitual only because making money is habitual (you make it to spend it).
As for South Korea, consider the flipside of their "addiction." People who have convinced themselves that playing a game for 20+ hours straight, in the same position, without eating or sleeping much at all, will not cause them harm. There's a word for that, and it is "stupid." The term "addiction" has been spread so thin it can now apply to any and every activity one can engage in, making it meaningless. Then again, all addictions begin with a conscious decision, so it's your own damn fault no matter how you slice it.
Because we have a surplus, obviously.
You don't have to play the game like that. In fact, it's often more enjoyable and challenging to try to speed through the game, with minimal "grinding." Most of the FF games don't require you to be anywhere near max level to beat the final boss. Side quests and optional bosses, though, are another story.
Well, you spelled my name wrong and ignored my reply admitting the error, so I guess I'm not the only one who can't read, Coward.
There are many other clues on the box that suggest this game is not suitable for kids, and then there's the "Strong Sexual Content" declaration on the back. It sits among "Blood and Gore," "Intense Violence," and "Use of Drugs."
I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in our culture's misguided morals ("Sex is much worse than intense violence") or the general idiocy of the people that purchase this game for their kids and get offended by the Hot Coffee mod.
I know this has been discussed a million times before already, but it just amazes me that such a seemingly mild thing as a fully-clothed sex minigame can cause such an uproar when included in a game that allows such wanton violence. Without the mod, it's hard to call the sexual content in the game "Strong," anyway. There's a car rocking and an outside shot of a house with a girl moaning. If you think that's "strong sexual content" you obviously haven't spent much time on the internet.
Ah, yes. Got ahead of myself and must've missed the last line there. Thanks for the freakin' clarification, man.
"Fully disclosing hidden content accessible as Easter eggs and via cheat codes..."
Too bad the dry humping minigame in GTA:SA is not available via easter egg or cheat code. If you only have the console and the game, there is no way to access that content. I'm not saying it's acceptable to have the code left in the game to be easily unlocked (using alternative means), but I just find it funny that their "cracking down" on games doesn't include the sole game that started this whole controversy.