CAGcast #71: Young Hero and Steed, Wombat 2000

Of all the things I have disagreed with Wombat about (which is pretty much everything), him not liking The Pick of Destiny is particularly inexcusable.
 
Why would anyone think Epic was lying about wanting the new Gears content to be free? They've put out free content for their PC games for years, it's not really far-fetched to think they'd want to do the same for a 360 game.
 
Someone may have already said this, but the ESRB does not play the games. They are provided clips of the "worst stuff" in the game. So basically if you are submitting a game you have to provide clips of this stuff to the ESRB. Basically GTA SA failed to show the sex mini-games.

I read this in an article about the ESRB once. If I can find it I will provide a link.
 
[quote name='Indiana']Someone may have already said this, but the ESRB does not play the games. They are provided clips of the "worst stuff" in the game. So basically if you are submitting a game you have to provide clips of this stuff to the ESRB. Basically GTA SA failed to show the sex mini-games.

I read this in an article about the ESRB once. If I can find it I will provide a link.[/quote]
That's because it wasn't part of the game. You had to hack it to get to the sex mini-games.
 
I normally enjoy the show as a whole and really enjoy it when you guys bring on special guests. However, it really annoys me when you guys bring up feedback and CAGbag questions such as this:

CAGmember: Why do you guys hate ?

Cheapy: We don't hate

It's honestly a waste of time, in fact don't even bring up this in the feedback. Just please, stop doing it.
 
[quote name='Lobsterjohnson']I normally enjoy the show as a whole and really enjoy it when you guys bring on special guests. However, it really annoys me when you guys bring up feedback and CAGbag questions such as this:

CAGmember: Why do you guys hate ?

Cheapy: We don't hate

It's honestly a waste of time, in fact don't even bring up this in the feedback. Just please, stop doing it.[/QUOTE]

What do you suggest instead?
 
[quote name='Chacrana']What do you suggest instead?[/quote]
I just think it would trim the show down a little bit and make the whole experience more enjoyable. It seems as if when they confront this feedback the show begins to drag. It's just unnecessary. Get to the sweet stuff and get out!
 
[quote name='Lobsterjohnson']I just think it would trim the show down a little bit and make the whole experience enjoyable. It seems as if when they confront this feedback the show begins to drag. It's just unnecessary. Get to the sweet stuff and get out![/QUOTE]

Ha! That question was a ploy! Now you have 667 posts instead of 666, you sadist fucking prick!

Err... and seriously, there's a lot of stuff that could be trimmed from the show... everything from some of the CAGBag questions to Wombat's chronic masturbation.
 
Great show guys! You should really say my name on the show next week ;)

Wombat!! Do that giggle again.

I hope I am becoming a great CAG.
 
[quote name='qbkorso']Great show guys! You should really say my name on the show next week ;)

Wombat!! Do that giggle again.

I hope I am becoming a great CAG.[/QUOTE]

You are in Naperville, and thus, the second CAG ever from that area... because I never see any CAGs here. So that makes you a great CAG.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']You are in Naperville, and thus, the second CAG ever from that area... because I never see any CAGs here. So that makes you a great CAG.[/quote]
Sweet another Napervillian. Anyways, I go to school here at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. When to high school at Bolingbrook High School. I just moved to Naperville after the graduation. Anyways, are you still in high school or in college somewhere or maybe even older? Maybe we should move this conversation over to a PM.

PS. Your the best CAGer ;) I should add you on Xbox Live as well.
 
Hi CheapyD, Hi Wombat

Love the show

On the topic of Game Publishers hiding explicit content from the ESRB: The way it actually works is that the ESRB does not actually play the game themselves. Publishers submit a Video to the ESRB that details the objectional content found in the title. Then after a selected pannel of judges views the video, they assign a ESRB rating. So the Judges do not have to reach a certain point or level in the game to find the content because it is presented to them. So this means that revealing any "Hidden" explicit content is fully the responsibliity of the Publisher.

This was atleast how it was a year ago, and I dont think it has changed.

As I said, I love the Show and look foward to it every week. Keep up the Amazing work.
 
pretty hilarious, Cheapy and Wombat got some good deals.

Cheapy got free dinner (paid them back yet?) and Wombat got to see 300 free. best deals evar. :applause:
 
I just wanted to chime in with my opinion on the donkey humping mess that is gaming 'journalism'.


I'm a 28 year old father, and the current state of video game coverage baffles me. I paid for my first EGM subscription in 1993, and at that time the magazine was great. News, reviews, previews, industry commentary, it was a great magazine and the writing staff was informative and mature. I moved from magazines to web based coverage in the late 90's, and by 99 I noticed that gaming 'journalists' were beginning to write more immaturely. More and more grade school toilet humor, pissing fights, and childish rants started working their way into published work.


I reached my breaking point last year. I was listening to a popular video game podcast, and a well known editor in the industry was having a pissing fight with a peer and started screaming “ISN'T THAT NEXT GEN AS fuck?! ISN'T THAT NEXT GEN AS fuck?!” I immediately cut all the video game related pod casts from my download routine and stopped visiting their respective websites.


You guys are correct when you said that most of these people are video game critics, not journalists. However after reading, watching, and listening to their published content they all come off as pompous elitists that, in reality, do nothing more than regurgitate press releases and document a few hours spent with the latest elf simulator.


That brings me to CAG and the CAGCast. You and Wombat don't act like under appreciated scholars who are so wrapped up in your own sense of self worth that you're unable to see the forest from the trees. You are average guys with a normal gaming budget and a limited amount of time a day to play games. You don't insult my statistically average intelligence, and I don't feel embarrassed listening to your show.
 
First off, good podcast. A bit slow this time, but good parts.

I was running the cagcast on my 360, and since there's no fast-foward option on the 360 for MP3s I watched an episode of Seinfeld while leaving the cagcast going. When I flipped to my 360 input I hear cheapy say:

"I was in the bathroom playing the game, leveling up, about to drop of my kids. I was very close to leveling up, you know, so I just kept going until I leveled up."

If you have as nearly a sick a mind as I do, you can understand what I thought you were saying :D


Also, I don't think To Catch a Predator would work in Japan, considering the widespread abuse of teenage girls. It's a bit more common there from what I hear. And besides, you could always take a trip to Thai if you wanted some young goods legally.



Also Wombat, checking the 1up site and saying "all they have is previews" shows just how riddiculous your ignorance on the subject is. Please just shut up when you don't know what you're talking about. I like you Wombat, but you get pretty annoying now and again.

Not to say your points weren't valid or interesting. They were, and I'm glad you brought them up.
 
Very good podcast this week guys.

I tend to agree with Wombat's Burrow this week. I have a really issue with game "journalists" romantacizing their job. They are clearly just critics. There is very little journalism, if any, involved in what these guys do.

I think it boils down to the need of these game "journalists" to feel imporant. You write about games for a living! Your not curing cancer!

I love the gaming but I just hate when these people hold themselves up to a pedestal and swear what they are doing is journalism.

The community as a whole has this problem but I will cut some slack to 1up as they at the very least try to do some actual "journalism" when a story breaks and people want answers, i.e. GH2 downloadable songs and the GOW maps.

Cheapy-I don't know about you but if the most embarassing thing in your life was your parents saying "this isn't dining in" then you have lived a good life.

Next week you guys must adddress the GH2 microtransaction fiasco and Major Nelson's assanine comments about MS's rationale for the cost.
 
yes. your parents sound jewey. its ok, so do mine. Oh, and I think GOW2 feels easier for one reason because the game doesn't send wave after wave of bad guys at the player as much now.
 
In the most recent CAGCast, you talked about whether you could compare games from different platforms.

Regardless of whether you think you should, or it's fair, ultimately you have to. Everyone's ability to game is either restricted by money or time. When I choose to play Crackdown or Gears on my 360, I'm choosing to play it instead of the games I have for other consoles. For those of us who don't have a huge backlog of games that haven't been played, you're still making that choice whenever you buy a new game.

Take God of War 2, Oblivion and Zelda: Twilight Princess. They're different, but not in completely different game spaces (like comparing shooters to racers). Given the choice, which one would you play? Which one would you recommend to someone else?

It's difficult, but ultimately necessary to be able to stack games from one system against those on another. While it runs the risk of upsetting fanboys to make those decisions publicly, those are ultimately the questions that we have to answer even time we drive to the store, or sit down for a gaming session.

-ReussDr
 
Wombat after listening to this cast I just wanted to say that yeh I agree paying for live for the PC really does suck. However its not like the consoles where the company has to be a part of it to put out a game. What Epic was saying is that they are not going to have live support in their games because they feel that stuff like online play and map downloads ect.. should be free. Its not like all PC games have to be Live compatable it just means that they can't go cross platform and no achevements and stuff like that. PC games have never needed stuff like that and the multi play has always been great.
 
[quote name='SScorpio']People sharing birthday's isn't really that amazing once you under stand the math. You only need a group of 23 people to have a 50% chance of a match and 30 people will make it increase to 70%. 57 people has a 99% chance of a match.

You can read about this at: http://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/10001.6.shtml[/quote]
This isn't the probablilty that two people share a specific birthday though. :) We should have more threads about statistics on CAG.
 
Can someone tell me the business ideas mentioned in the CAGCasts as referred to in episode 70?

Out of date question, but I just listened to 70 today.
 
[quote name='ElfAngel7']I was enjoying the show until I got to Wombat's ludicrous remarks about video game journalism. I strongly disagree with him and think he's being incredibly short sighted. While mags and websites do get some of their information from press releases and have to sign NDA's, don't blame the industry as a whole for a couple of lazy publications. It's up to the journlists themselves to give their views of what they saw and how it could effect the reader.

What about mags like Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly? When they go to a movie set and talk with the actors, are they not covering the progress of a work of entertainment to an audience that is willing to hear about it? It's the same as EGM going to Silicon Knights and talking to David Dydack (however you spell that) about the progess of Too Human. They ask the questions that their readers want to know and it's up to them to get interesting and informative information to print.[/quote]
ya see... this is where I totally agree with Wombat %110. A journalist definetly seeks out news items and doesn't wait for the story to come to them. What you're saying is not a journalist at all.
And I think he's talking about a journalist in the purest form.
In regards to your example of David going to Silicon Knights to get info about the 'too human' game. While he maybe asking questions and what not about the game, he did not find out about the game himself. They released information saying they're making this new game and probably invite these guys to ask questions about it.
If he had some inside info and released details about the game before the publisher even when public with it, now thats journalism.

Cheers
 
I think Wombat's view on video game critics was 100% correct. A perfect example of this is "previews." Why in the flying fuck is every single preview for a game positive? If there are flaws they should address them fully and then when a game is released review it honestly.
 
[quote name='maggoty']ya see... this is where I totally agree with Wombat %110. A journalist definetly seeks out news items and doesn't wait for the story to come to them. What you're saying is not a journalist at all.
And I think he's talking about a journalist in the purest form.
In regards to your example of David going to Silicon Knights to get info about the 'too human' game. While he maybe asking questions and what not about the game, he did not find out about the game himself. [/quote]A journalist doesn't have to be a person who seeks out news. A journalist is a person who collects or reports/writes the news. That's all it takes to be a journalist by defition of nearly any dictionary out there.

[quote name='maggoty']They released information saying they're making this new game and probably invite these guys to ask questions about it.
If he had some inside info and released details about the game before the publisher even when public with it, now thats journalism.

Cheers[/quote]And that does happen, but it's almost always presented as things we like to call "rumors." Are you forgetting Kotaku reporting "Home" as a rumor? Or maybe the Zephyr rumors? There are countless examples like these, but they're almost never reported on as anything more than a rumor until the audience can be convinced with an official announcement.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']I think Wombat's view on video game critics was 100% correct. A perfect example of this is "previews." Why in the flying fuck is every single preview for a game positive? If there are flaws they should address them fully and then when a game is released review it honestly.[/quote]
Because things can be fixed before release. Why be an asshole and not give the developers the benefit of the doubt? If they don't fix it, the review can rip them apart fair and square.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']I think Wombat's view on video game critics was 100% correct. A perfect example of this is "previews." Why in the flying fuck is every single preview for a game positive? If there are flaws they should address them fully and then when a game is released review it honestly.[/quote]

Negativity is saved for the actual review of the game, typically when game critics are previewing a game they are only seeing the game being played or getting their impressions from a video. Hell, sometimes it's not even the final version of the game.

Like Cheapy/Wombat, they hold their judgment until they can actually sit down and review it fairly.
 
What's fair to compare? It depends. Comparing any Wii game to that of the 360/PS3 from a graphical standpoint is a bit ridiculous.

Instead of comparing, lets say... the graphics of Halo 3 to that of Metroid Prime 3. A more fair comparison would be comparing the gameplay and controls instead. The 360/PS3 are always going to beat the Wii in graphics, sound, online play, physics, just about anything! The only thing the Wii has that's even remotely fair in comparing is in controls.

In the end: Don't compare Wii games to 360/PS3's games. The Wii is a severely underpowered console, it's main purpose is to give us a different way of controlling games and to be used as a testing ground for new and creative ideas from Nintendo (and third party developers once they stop being lazy.) Not as a main console to play everything else in a more traditional fashion.

You wouldn't compare the running speed of a cripple (Wii) to that of a Olympic athlete (360/PS3), would you?
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Because things can be fixed before release. Why be an asshole and not give the developers the benefit of the doubt? If they don't fix it, the review can rip them apart fair and square.[/QUOTE]



they shouldn't be showing off unfinished products then in the first place. There's been numerous occasions where the preview has been pretty much exactly the same as the final version. A good example of this was Driver 3. Countless previews blowing their load on how amazing this game will be and what not. I know I have a few EGMs and other mags previewing this game non-stop. And then when it was released, one of the shittiest games ever.

If there are flaws in the early builds, the "journalists" should bring it up, not mention it all. Under those circumstances at least we know what to look for to be fixed later on.
 
Completely agree with you Wombat, on the topic of video game journalism. Websites like Kotaku, Destructoid, and Joystiq are basically copy-pasting articles/previews/etc although there are some rare moments of occasional originality, and these websites tend to make news more convenient to find for gamers but the end result is a Diet Coke of journalism.
 
Wow...I'd be interested to hear what qualifies some of you to make pronouncements on what makes a journalist and what doesn't. Just because you saw "All the President's Men" doesn't mean you know how the job works. Investigative journalism is one thing, but frankly, the vast majority of working journalists depend upon press releases, PR contacts, and other traditional outlets to be alerted to news. It's not all Deep Throat and digging through the trash. Get a fucking grip.

That said, the game industry in particular seems to have a problem with just regurgitating what they're fed with very little analysis. But that's a problem in all circles. Hell, half the reason we ended up in Iraq is because the press became little more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration in the buildup to the war.
 
[quote name='yukine']What's fair to compare? It depends. Comparing any Wii game to that of the 360/PS3 from a graphical standpoint is a bit ridiculous.

Instead of comparing, lets say... the graphics of Halo 3 to that of Metroid Prime 3. A more fair comparison would be comparing the gameplay and controls instead. The 360/PS3 are always going to beat the Wii in graphics, sound, online play, physics, just about anything! The only thing the Wii has that's even remotely fair in comparing is in controls.

In the end: Don't compare Wii games to 360/PS3's games. The Wii is a severely underpowered console, it's main purpose is to give us a different way of controlling games and to be used as a testing ground for new and creative ideas from Nintendo (and third party developers once they stop being lazy.) Not as a main console to play everything else in a more traditional fashion.

You wouldn't compare the running speed of a cripple (Wii) to that of a Olympic athlete (360/PS3), would you?[/QUOTE]

Graphics aren't the entire game, but they are part of the package, so they have to be included in the comparison.

You don't compare the running speed of a cripple against an Olympic athlete because they're not in the same race. Your analogy doesn't hold up because Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are all competing for your gaming dollar.

I own both a 360 and a Wii, and though I play the Wii on occassion, I play on my 360 a lot more. It's partially due to the fact that there aren't any games available on the Wii for less than $25 whereas the 360 has quite a few good games at that price point. That should change by the end of this year, when some of the launch titles are available as Player's Choice titles.

Regardless of the power of the base console, Nintendo's games will be selling for a similar price point to the 360 and PS3 games. Some people will buy games because they only have a Wii, but for multi-platform gamers they're going to have to make games that are good enough to compete against the best other platforms have to offer.

Whether you should or shouldn't compare is really a non-issue because at the end of the day you have to compare them in order to decide which games you'll buy and play.
 
[quote name='ReussDr']Graphics aren't the entire game, but they are part of the package, so they have to be included in the comparison.

You don't compare the running speed of a cripple against an Olympic athlete because they're not in the same race. Your analogy doesn't hold up because Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are all competing for your gaming dollar.

I own both a 360 and a Wii, and though I play the Wii on occassion, I play on my 360 a lot more. It's partially due to the fact that there aren't any games available on the Wii for less than $25 whereas the 360 has quite a few good games at that price point. That should change by the end of this year, when some of the launch titles are available as Player's Choice titles.

Regardless of the power of the base console, Nintendo's games will be selling for a similar price point to the 360 and PS3 games. Some people will buy games because they only have a Wii, but for multi-platform gamers they're going to have to make games that are good enough to compete against the best other platforms have to offer.

Whether you should or shouldn't compare is really a non-issue because at the end of the day you have to compare them in order to decide which games you'll buy and play.[/quote]
Precisely. They are not in the same race, and thus shouldn't be compared. From the very, very beginning Nintendo stated that the Wii isn't in direct competition against the 360/PS3. Now perhaps in some way they are, as they are taking money from costumers. But in terms of physical performance (my analogy) they are very different.

The cost of games is irrelevant, price isn't an indication of quality. All companies are out for your money, but they each have different strategies in obtaining it.

When buying your Wii games, I'd like to think that you didn't compare the graphics to Legend of Zelda to that of Oblivion? When you're buying a Wii game, it's all about if it's intriguing and if it uses the Wii controller in a very interesting and creative way. I don't think people go "Well... I can spend $10.00 dollars more and get a game with uber realistic graphics!" it's a minimal factor, if any.

Like I said, at least in terms of games that are exclusive to the Wii, comparing graphics isn't very fair at all. But whether it's fair or not, people are going to do it anyway as it's the first thing they see.


Points I'm trying to make:

Comparing multi-platform games on the Wii to the ones on 360/PS3, in the most part is fair. If anyone is buying a multi-platform game on the Wii, it's going to be for controls and not graphics anyway.

Comparing exclusive titles to the Wii in comparison to 360/PS3 games, isn't fair. However, I think some things are fair to compare... gameplay, story, and perhaps even control (if you think comparing the motion controls to the non motion controls of the 360 as fair.) I just think most things on the technical side (graphics, sound, what have you) isn't.

Of course, I'm not a definitive authority on any of this. People will judge and compare games (and other things) in whatever way they so please. I was merely answering Wombat's question, of what is fair and what isn't. And in my opinion, the above is what's fair.
 
[quote name='yukine']Precisely. They are not in the same race, and thus shouldn't be compared. From the very, very beginning Nintendo stated that the Wii isn't in direct competition against the 360/PS3. Now perhaps in some way they are, as they are taking money from costumers. But in terms of physical performance (my analogy) they are very different.

The cost of games is irrelevant, price isn't an indication of quality. All companies are out for your money, but they each have different strategies in obtaining it.

When buying your Wii games, I'd like to think that you didn't compare the graphics to Legend of Zelda to that of Oblivion? When you're buying a Wii game, it's all about if it's intriguing and if it uses the Wii controller in a very interesting and creative way. I don't think people go "Well... I can spend $10.00 dollars more and get a game with uber realistic graphics!" it's a minimal factor, if any.

Like I said, at least in terms of games that are exclusive to the Wii, comparing graphics isn't very fair at all. But whether it's fair or not, people are going to do it anyway as it's the first thing they see.


Points I'm trying to make:

Comparing multi-platform games on the Wii to the ones on 360/PS3, in the most part is fair. If anyone is buying a multi-platform game on the Wii, it's going to be for controls and not graphics anyway.

Comparing exclusive titles to the Wii in comparison to 360/PS3 games, isn't fair. However, I think some things are fair to compare... gameplay, story, and perhaps even control (if you think comparing the motion controls to the non motion controls of the 360 as fair.) I just think most things on the technical side (graphics, sound, what have you) isn't.

Of course, I'm not a definitive authority on any of this. People will judge and compare games (and other things) in whatever way they so please. I was merely answering Wombat's question, of what is fair and what isn't. And in my opinion, the above is what's fair.[/QUOTE]

See, it's because of the fact that you have to regularly compare the titles that you should. It's not optional, and just something that you must do.

If a friend of yours has a PS3, 360 and Wii, which one would you recommend him to buy, and on which platform? The answer may vary from person to person, but you ultimately have to answer that question. Or alternately if they have neither a 360, PS3 nor a Wii, which would you recommend to them? Won't your answer primarily be a reflection of the first party games available on the platform compared to the other?

I get that you can't boil down every single game to a simple numerical value and the higher numbered game isn't always better for all people, but if you're trying to decide between Oblivion, God of War 2, and Zelda: TP you need to be receiving recommendations from people that are capable of comparing them. You may recommend a different game to me than someone else, but ultimately you're comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each game.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']they shouldn't be showing off unfinished products then in the first place. There's been numerous occasions where the preview has been pretty much exactly the same as the final version. A good example of this was Driver 3. Countless previews blowing their load on how amazing this game will be and what not. I know I have a few EGMs and other mags previewing this game non-stop. And then when it was released, one of the shittiest games ever.

If there are flaws in the early builds, the "journalists" should bring it up, not mention it all. Under those circumstances at least we know what to look for to be fixed later on.[/quote]
It depends on the type of preview. Some are just informative previews that reveal details and don't really slam games for being rough around the edges, which tends to be the early previews that you're probably referring to. Others are more of impressions that tend to appear as the game nears it's release date and the detrimental flaws can be written about more critically and then expanded upon in the review. I don't recall saying that flaws shouldn't be mentioned at all, but the importance of mentioning them depends on where the game's at in the development cycle. Right now, Lair's nearing release in about 2 months and the shaky framerate is being mentioned a bit, but that's not something that's a big deal just yet as that's something that gets taken care of at the end of the development cycle.

Sometimes developers don't have that much say in when they show off their games, like Too Human for example. Microsoft wanted a demo for E3 and as the SK guys added one last feature, it broke the demo and wasn't able to be fixed in time. Dennis Dyack took the critical bashings a little too personal and is now calling for the end of previews of unfinished games, which is quite the extreme position to take.

Driv3r is more of an anomaly more than anything else. It had good will from the press due to the first two games being really good, so they gave it the benefit of the doubt at first. The delays piled up and the game became a sinkhole ($60 million in development and marketing cost) and was universally panned. I've read a few previews (from GS) for it and they mention some rough spots about six months before release while the pre-release previews were very shaky about it by saying that your hopes shouldn't be too high (like comparing it to GTAIII). As a result, Parallel Lines got very little coverage and slipped through the cracks despite being a pretty good game and now Ubisoft owns the series.
 
[quote name='ReussDr']See, it's because of the fact that you have to regularly compare the titles that you should. It's not optional, and just something that you must do.

If a friend of yours has a PS3, 360 and Wii, which one would you recommend him to buy, and on which platform? The answer may vary from person to person, but you ultimately have to answer that question. Or alternately if they have neither a 360, PS3 nor a Wii, which would you recommend to them? Won't your answer primarily be a reflection of the first party games available on the platform compared to the other?

I get that you can't boil down every single game to a simple numerical value and the higher numbered game isn't always better for all people, but if you're trying to decide between Oblivion, God of War 2, and Zelda: TP you need to be receiving recommendations from people that are capable of comparing them. You may recommend a different game to me than someone else, but ultimately you're comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each game.[/quote]
I understand that you have to make comparisons on exclusive games sometimes, especially on this site, since we don't have an unlimited amount of cash to spend on every game. But graphics (my main gripe) isn't the first thing that comes to mind if I was to compare those three games, it would be gameplay more than anything. This is where a lot of people differ, some are going to compare the graphics first whether it's a fair thing to do or not. Others will compare gameplay, some will compare absolutely everything to a fine detail.
 
Cheapy and Wombat

I write in defense of cut scenes in response to Wombat's statement that if a game uses cut scenes, the game isn't doing its job in telling the story.

I just finished God of War, yes the first one, over the weekend. I put it at the top of the list of games that have beautiful cut scenes (rendered in this case) and are truly integral to advancing the story. I can't imagine the story of Kratos being told any other way. Does anyone really think that story colud of have told any other way? The approach also added the cinematic feel the developers wanted to boot.

Sure that's one example, but I know you like short messages anyway. In short, the in-game cinematics should be judged like graphics, gameplay, multi-player implementation, etc.; judged on how they add or detract from the enjoyment of the game. It is that simple.

Wombat should loosen up on this one.

Dr. Strangepork
 
[quote name='yukine']I understand that you have to make comparisons on exclusive games sometimes, especially on this site, since we don't have an unlimited amount of cash to spend on every game. But graphics (my main gripe) isn't the first thing that comes to mind if I was to compare those three games, it would be gameplay more than anything. This is where a lot of people differ, some are going to compare the graphics first whether it's a fair thing to do or not. Others will compare gameplay, some will compare absolutely everything to a fine detail.[/QUOTE]

Eh... I'm fine with comparing graphics. I'm a gameplay person myself, but I know quite a few people that focus on graphics. If you value graphics highly, then that comparison will mean a lot to you, and the comparisons will be helpful to driving their decision. I wouldn't like to see every game on the Wii completely dismissed for graphical reasons, but they wouldn't like to see some of the more graphic intensive games completely dismissed by me because I focus on gameplay.

People know what they're getting with the Wii, and most graphics oriented people simply don't by one as a result. Between the Wii, GameCube, DS and GBA, Nintendo has set a pretty constant trend of focusing on gameplay over graphics, and it's easy for people that are very excited about graphics to just ignore their products.

To tie in another topic, perhaps this is exactly where the "journalists" in the Video Game Industry can earn their keep, by focusing their reviews on different systems to make good recommendations for what type of people they recommend each game for and why.
 
More about gaming "Journalism". My favorite is when a website/magazine gives a game a reletivily high score, then the EXACT SAME MEDIA OUTLET later chastises the game, calling it "fucking Terrible" Two examples of this are Jak II and Test Drive: Unlimited. Again, this is one of the reasons why I don't bother with 1up, gamespot, gamespy, or any magazine anymore.
 
[quote name='ReussDr']Eh... I'm fine with comparing graphics. I'm a gameplay person myself, but I know quite a few people that focus on graphics. If you value graphics highly, then that comparison will mean a lot to you, and the comparisons will be helpful to driving their decision. I wouldn't like to see every game on the Wii completely dismissed for graphical reasons, but they wouldn't like to see some of the more graphic intensive games completely dismissed by me because I focus on gameplay.

People know what they're getting with the Wii, and most graphics oriented people simply don't by one as a result. Between the Wii, GameCube, DS and GBA, Nintendo has set a pretty constant trend of focusing on gameplay over graphics, and it's easy for people that are very excited about graphics to just ignore their products.

To tie in another topic, perhaps this is exactly where the "journalists" in the Video Game Industry can earn their keep, by focusing their reviews on different systems to make good recommendations for what type of people they recommend each game for and why.[/quote]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If graphics are so damn important, why aren't the vast majority of gamers just watching tech demo's?
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It depends on the type of preview. Some are just informative previews that reveal details and don't really slam games for being rough around the edges, which tends to be the early previews that you're probably referring to. Others are more of impressions that tend to appear as the game nears it's release date and the detrimental flaws can be written about more critically and then expanded upon in the review. I don't recall saying that flaws shouldn't be mentioned at all, but the importance of mentioning them depends on where the game's at in the development cycle. Right now, Lair's nearing release in about 2 months and the shaky framerate is being mentioned a bit, but that's not something that's a big deal just yet as that's something that gets taken care of at the end of the development cycle.

Sometimes developers don't have that much say in when they show off their games, like Too Human for example. Microsoft wanted a demo for E3 and as the SK guys added one last feature, it broke the demo and wasn't able to be fixed in time. Dennis Dyack took the critical bashings a little too personal and is now calling for the end of previews of unfinished games, which is quite the extreme position to take.

Driv3r is more of an anomaly more than anything else. It had good will from the press due to the first two games being really good, so they gave it the benefit of the doubt at first. The delays piled up and the game became a sinkhole ($60 million in development and marketing cost) and was universally panned. I've read a few previews (from GS) for it and they mention some rough spots about six months before release while the pre-release previews were very shaky about it by saying that your hopes shouldn't be too high (like comparing it to GTAIII). As a result, Parallel Lines got very little coverage and slipped through the cracks despite being a pretty good game and now Ubisoft owns the series.[/quote]


I lost all faith in previews back in 1993, when EGM spent two months talking up the Sega CD game Silpheed before it was released. They went on and on with their 'Star Fox Killer' banter, throwing around things like 'revolutionary' 'amazing' and 'possible game of the year'. When the game comes out, it gets a 6, and was never spoken of again. They did the same thing with the crappy Strider sequel. After that, I just assume every game is garbage until I actually play it.
 
[quote name='G-Dog']I lost all faith in previews back in 1993, when EGM spent two months talking up the Sega CD game Silpheed before it was released. They went on and on with their 'Star Fox Killer' banter, throwing around things like 'revolutionary' 'amazing' and 'possible game of the year'. When the game comes out, it gets a 6, and was never spoken of again. They did the same thing with the crappy Strider sequel. After that, I just assume every game is garbage until I actually play it.[/quote]:applause:Brilliant logic there, champ. So you found a couple of previews you disagreed with so they must ALL be wrong now, huh? Let me guess, editors at websites/magazines are robots who can never possibly make a mistake once in a while? I didn't realize perfection came along with being an editor.

[quote name='G-Dog'] More about gaming "Journalism". My favorite is when a website/magazine gives a game a reletivily high score, then the EXACT SAME MEDIA OUTLET later chastises the game, calling it "fucking Terrible" Two examples of this are Jak II and Test Drive: Unlimited. Again, this is one of the reasons why I don't bother with 1up, gamespot, gamespy, or any magazine anymore.[/quote]Tell me, how many people work for any given news outlet? Are you, for some strange reason, assuming the answer is...one? Or do you think "Editor A" must agree with "Editor B" on everything? Because, after all, they work at the same place, so they. must see eye to eye on everything, right? Right? I didn't realize Wombat was just hiding his love for Railfan, how very stupid of me to think he had the nerve to disagree with CheapyD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top