Big rant about game reviews!!

[Andy3536]

I really can't be asked to read the whole thread, but my 2 cents.

Low budget games are compared with larger budget ones simply as they are competing for the same market, it's nothing like comparing a Fiesta with a Porsche.
Example of corse would be to compare the likes of the History channels Battle for the Pacific with CoD World at war. One low budget and one high budget. They are both however going for exactly the same market, but you still have to say that Battle for the Pacific was a terrible game as the production values wern't there.
There are low budget games that are good though but the budget shouldn't be taken into account when reviewing a game, it's all about gameplay, re-play value, graphics and sound.
When games are released the lower budget games are nearly always the same price to pay for the end user so why should they be given more leeway?

My second point however is the simple fact that every body is different and if there's a game that's released that suits you but may not suit everybody you shouldn't take it as a personal insult that the game you like so much got a bad score. What you must instead to is concentrate of the text of the reviews to find out if YOU will like that game and not worry about the reviewers personal opinion as they will have there own tastes on the games the like.

[Deadlight]

Err...World of Goo. That's three people of noted and agree with the 2-man development team and good reviews. Cassie, what buck the trend here with this one? Good fun, that.

[alex98uk]

Err...World of Goo. That's three people of noted and agree with the 2-man development team and good reviews. Cassie, what buck the trend here with this one? Good fun, that.

Shame about the 95% piracy rate...

[kalniel]

Shame about the 95% piracy rate...

Somewhere in between the 99% and 90% that's experienced by other titles then.

[CaseyV9]

That's an unbelievable comment.

Not really. If I want that that kind of game then maybe XBox 360 arcade or an old console like a SNES would be better.
It comes down to opinion I guess. But PC and next Gen consioles are capable of doing so much more.

The thing that bugs me is you have broken down my comments and seperated them so you can answer them. I think that is out of context as put together it is gives the full message.

If a reviewer is dissmissing a game and ignoring the greatness of the gameplay based on it's inferiour appearance and polish then that is a bad reviewer. And there are a lot of good reviewers you are slagging off.

But you have to understand that games in the same genre are always going to be compared to the others. Nothing you can do about that.

I have to ask, are you a developer of some budget game that got a bad review?
I'm forgetting the arguement here. Could you some up what you are angry about short? For example:

I am angry games are dissmissed or given poor reviews for being made on a small budget by 3 people when they are often better or as good as a highly polished game once you get passed their less polished appearence?

[Virtual Monkey]

If a reviewer is dissmissing a game and ignoring the greatness of the gameplay based on it's inferiour appearance and polish then that is a bad reviewer. And there are a lot of good reviewers you are slagging off.

But you have to understand that games in the same genre are always going to be compared to the others. Nothing you can do about that.

This.

If you think that smart, original indy games are overlooked by most reviewers, then you need to find a new games magazine/website. The likes of Edge and Eurogamer.net generally give fair reviews, i feel.

Good reviewers will always spot games that are good, regardless of how much they cost to make. Recent successful indy games (that I can think of) like World of Goo, Braid, PuzzleQuest are doing very well and were critically acclaimed by a lot of reviewers. PopCap, the makers of Peggle and other "tiny 2d games" as the OP put it are raking in a HUUUUGE profit. In general it's a good time for indy games, with things like Steam and Live Arcade

What makes a good indy game is a unique idea.

If you're going to make a generic JRPG on a low budget with 3 people, it's not going to be as good as Final Fantasy 13. Ditto for a first person shooter. The OP says that reviewers should "concentrate on the overall game experience", but so much of the game experience IS DEPENDANT on things like graphics polish, voice acting and sound effects, especially in these sorts of games. Even Peggle has an astounding amount of polish: the sound effects are very clever indeed in that game

At the end of the day, the reviewer is telling you whether or not to exchange your hard earned cash for a certain game. And I bet that a lot of people would rather buy something like Fallout 3, or StarCraft 2 over a something like Wesnoth or anything else made by 3 people in a bedroom.

[TooNice]

Both professional reviewers, and user reviews, I feel that they are missing the point when it comes to this, and it's such a shame, because these people have such a huge amount of 'power' when it comes to steering people away from and towards certain games. These reviews can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a game. So it's a major issue when one or more of these reviewers give a review with a negative spin. They have great responsibility, but in some cases, are not using it responsibly.

Rewind. Does anyone buy that argument? I don't, though I doubt it can be proved either way. Surely most gamers would have realised by now that gaming experience is in a large part subjective, and to use a large sample of reviews if they want to make any sort of purchasing decisions based on it.

I don't remember the last time I've heard anyone say 'I won't buy X because Y magazine said it's crap'. Usually, I tend to hear 'I might/might not check it out since reviews are generally positive/negative'.

I am also sceptical that there are (m)any reviewers are out there intentionally bullying/putting a negative spin on titles from smaller developers just for kicks. So with that in mind, if most reviews suggest that a game is poor, then at the very least it would suggest that it's an acquired taste. 'Gameplay' is about as subjective as you get - but if stating that a game lacks polish will put off a gamer, then chances are, this gamer do consider 'polish' as an important aspect of gaming and should not be looking at this title if it lacks it. Saying that the game looks dated, then it will rightfully put off gamers who consider graphics important. And so on. Better this than the gamer buying the game expecting it to be something else.

As I have already said, we probably all have a personal list of 'most underrated games'. Some of those games were probably by small developers, games we'd love to see a sequel but probably never will. I'll name Scepterra Core as one of them. Charming as I found it, with some original ideas, I won't blame others else for not buying the game.. nor do I expect them to find the same enjoyment I did.

[CaseyV9]

Rewind. Does anyone buy that argument? I don't, though I doubt it can be proved either way. Surely most gamers would have realised by now that gaming experience is in a large part subjective, and to use a large sample of reviews if they want to make any sort of purchasing decisions based on it.

I don't remember the last time I've heard anyone say 'I won't buy X because Y magazine said it's crap'. Usually, I tend to hear 'I might/might not check it out since reviews are generally positive/negative'.

I am also sceptical that there are (m)any reviewers are out there intentionally bullying/putting a negative spin on titles from smaller developers just for kicks. So with that in mind, if most reviews suggest that a game is poor, then at the very least it would suggest that it's an acquired taste. 'Gameplay' is about as subjective as you get - but if stating that a game lacks polish will put off a gamer, then chances are, this gamer do consider 'polish' as an important aspect of gaming and should not be looking at this title if it lacks it. Saying that the game looks dated, then it will rightfully put off gamers who consider graphics important. And so on. Better this than the gamer buying the game expecting it to be something else.

As I have already said, we probably all have a personal list of 'most underrated games'. Some of those games were probably by small developers, games we'd love to see a sequel but probably never will. I'll name Scepterra Core as one of them. Charming as I found it, with some original ideas, I won't blame others else for not buying the game.. nor do I expect them to find the same enjoyment I did.

I do not understand the argument. EEEuuuuiiiieeekkkk

As these forum show with threads asking recommendations for games, If a game is good, gamers will hear about it from fellow gamers. Games reviewers do not have the power to send a good game to it's demise simply by giving it a bad review as reviews are only a rough guide anyway.
And as a few people have aready said, Indie and budget games do get good reviews.

But then this has already been said several times already in this in this thread. EEEuuuuiiiieeekkkk

[Noggin]

The size of the developement team should be completely irrelvent when reviewing a game unless the price is significantly different.

If your selling your game for £30-35 then it should be judged along side the big guns. If you are selling at £10 or 15 then you have a right to have the game judged differently.

Darkfall is just as expensive as the big mmo's and so should be judged in exactly the same way.

[Noggin]

In fact having thought about it for a few more mins, you can buy a year or two old games with a massive budget for £10-15 so really you need to be chargeing a fiver or so if you've made the game with just a few people and don't want your game to be compared against the big titles.

Bioshock for instance is £9.99

[twosheds]

I've stopped buying the magazines since PC Zone bit the dust.