Developers Hate Video Game Reviewers?

[sladesurfer]

:p http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13224


Developers spend months and even years creating games, and nothing quite makes them angrier than realizing a reviewer only played their game for a couple hours before dismissing it. Online reviewers, according to developers I know, are the prime culprits here

[Kunaak]

tip for developers.

make better games.
90% of games suck or only have very short term appeal.
very few are outstanding...
with a flood of 1000 games a year, it's easy to dismiss a game.

doesn't matter how long it took you to make.
if it doesnt stand out...

it's forgettable.

Hence... Make better games.

[Ominous Gamer]

Well, since this place likes to steal [H] news links, I'll steal the [H] commentary.

I don't blame the developers. Games are supposed to be an in depth, prolonged experienced. If I spent years and an ass load on money to build that into a game only to have it pissed on because the "reviewer" was to stupid to appreciate or understand the first hour, or even 10 minutes...I'd be pissed at them too.

Of course, some developers use this kindergarten attention span of the reviewer to their advantage, Doom 3 for example. Great reviews from the idiots who spent a complete 5 minutes playing (99.9% of all magazine reviews). The people who actual put some time aside for it came away with a much different feeling, (boring, repetitive, lacking story).

[OmegaMerc]

Very, very, few games a year make you want to say :slobber: .

Even fewer then that are original games ie. not a sequel to an older game, not based on some stupid movie spin off.

Developers pour (IMO) too much time into making their games pretty, instead of making it work/making it fun.

Most game developers pour their times into games, not their money.

If your in the game of buisness, you can't whine about criticism in whichever way it comes. "any advertisement is good advertisement".

[Judaeus Apella]

I've actually been involved in the makings of a retail game. The common mistake I see, is that most games don't have any depth. They don't get the player personally involved with the story or game play. If you can achieve this, players will play your game through all hours of the night, with their eyes glued to the screen. The best way I've seen is giving the player the feeling that they have at least some control over the direction of the story or environment within the game, or even offend the player so they hate the enemy and WANT to kill them all off. Human beings have free will, and need to feel that they have control over their environment. Without this, many players don't stay interested in a game, especially if the game play becomes predictable over time.

The second biggest flaw in games I see is the interface. How many of you have played a game that had such a horrible interface that you felt like throwing your controller through your screen? I've experienced this many times, and it happens when the game designer puts too much focus into the game, its graphics, story, and/or audio effects, or how cutting edge it is, and not enough into how the player actually interacts with it.

Also, a lot of game designers suck... lol. I don't really give a a sh*t if they're angry cause they got a bad review. Most of them have no business making games in the first place.

[Der_KHAN]

Human beings have free will, and need to feel that they have control over their environment. Without this, many players don't stay interested in a game, especially if the game play becomes predictable over time.amen to that!

i hate it the most when im trapped in some illogical riddle and dont know how the game goes on. then i have to think "ok, what does the developer want me to do..."

[K404]

Thats why games like Half Life and Deus Ex were so popular...and I guess a lot of RTS games... the player has CHOICES and what they do has a serious affect on the gameplay.

A good game doesnt even need brilliant graphics :S

[Tulatin]

Well hey, what do they expect?

If i have a review to write, i'm not going to spend months playing the game if the first impression i get from the training menu is "What a piece of :banana::banana::banana::banana:". The easiest way to hook a gamer, and more specifically, a reviewer, is to have one hell of a cool introduction, and by making them think "this is gonna rock!".

Start the game from there with a fast pace, and let the gamer control where things go, but still make it so that we can pick our way through the story. I mean, how many of you HATED the start of Doom 3 - where it took 20 minutes to get a gun. How many of you blew away the first scientist you saw, just to kill something?

They fixed that in RoE - you started off in the middle of nowhere, with a pissant pistol, and a LOT of enemies. That was fun. So the moral of this story? Developers need to do what their job implies - stop pissing and moaning about us reviewers, and make a game that we're going to fall in love with, and that we can reach into, that we get SO immersed with, that we talk with friends about it as if it is real...

[einCe]

Well hey, what do they expect?

If i have a review to write, i'm not going to spend months playing the game if the first impression i get from the training menu is "What a piece of :banana::banana::banana::banana:". The easiest way to hook a gamer, and more specifically, a reviewer, is to have one hell of a cool introduction, and by making them think "this is gonna rock!".

Start the game from there with a fast pace, and let the gamer control where things go, but still make it so that we can pick our way through the story. I mean, how many of you HATED the start of Doom 3 - where it took 20 minutes to get a gun. How many of you blew away the first scientist you saw, just to kill something?

They fixed that in RoE - you started off in the middle of nowhere, with a pissant pistol, and a LOT of enemies. That was fun. So the moral of this story? Developers need to do what their job implies - stop pissing and moaning about us reviewers, and make a game that we're going to fall in love with, and that we can reach into, that we get SO immersed with, that we talk with friends about it as if it is real...
i blew the poor guy away too

[perkam]

Well, since this place likes to steal [H] news links, I'll steal the [H] commentary.The last time news got made at [H] was right before the 9800 pro was released, I believe, or was it someone who got lucky with a radeon 8500 maybe ??

Anyone can report news, XS most of the time makes the news, and our news sources are close to 150. Gamedaily's the one that is reporting it, not [H]. [H] has better things to do, like fight with other review sites over their testing methodology.

Perkam

[Kunaak]

I mean, how many of you HATED the start of Doom 3 - where it took 20 minutes to get a gun. How many of you blew away the first scientist you saw, just to kill something?

They fixed that in RoE - you started off in the middle of nowhere, with a pissant pistol, and a LOT of enemies. That was fun.

I loved the begining of doom 3.
it really set the pace for the game, and was really immersive.
I think the basic problem with doom 3, was no one really wanted to play a survival horror game...
they wanted serious sam... without sam.

the whole time I played that game, I nearly pooped my pants a few times, from my damn surround sound, and it really got my heart beating, and there was a few times, where I really had to stop, get up and go do something else, cause it was trippin me out.
that was a brilliant game, that seems to have either been a love it or hate it kinda game.

personally, I loved it.

had it just been another shoot everything and do nothing game... it probably would have just been another forgetable game to me.

I personally am glad they took the time to set up the story, build the ambiance, set the tone, and let you really get into it, before just handing you a gun and tell you to go from point A to point B.

[Judaeus Apella]

Um, me and everyone I know would disagree. Doom 3 was not only slow, but lead you through a story that had little depth. It was creative... but didn't have much depth. You also had no control over you're environment, you were never given any choices, or forced to make a moral decision. The entire game from beginning to end, felt like I was jumping through hoops for who ever developed it. It was also extremely predictible. I always knew when a monster was about to appear, ALWAYS. That game was incredibly lame. It was mostly all graphics. In other words, all bark and no bite.

[[XC] leviathan18]

im with you apella really i felt the same, thats why love zelda games and FF games they have a plot a nice elaborated plot and you really like your party and character... most games lacks this

[Ominous Gamer]

I loved the begining of doom 3.
it really set the pace for the game,


Yeah; slow, boring, and pointless.;)

[Kunaak]

Yeah; slow, boring, and pointless.;)

I bet I would say the same about some of the games you like...

it's all just opinion.

[Ominous Gamer]

I bet I would say the same about some of the games you like...

it's all just opinion.

Maybe, but 90% of the gamer population wouldn't;)

[Kunaak]

are you trying to pick a fight, or just working your way up to it?

look, you don't like the game... fine.
leave me alone.

dont try to make me feel bad cause I dont agree with you.

[Judaeus Apella]

Yeah, I love the Thief series myself, and the DeusEX series. The HL series is pretty fun as well. I also really like the Splinter Cell series.

I finally got my hands on Thief: Deadly Shadows. I've been playing it for several weeks, and I love it.... although I really do miss the rooftops from Thief II. I also got a copy of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Rainbow Six 3: Athena Sword & Raven Shield. I haven't had a chance to install or play them, but I will when I'm finished with Thief III.

I also just got the Battlefield 1942: The Complete Collection, and I really enjoy it. I've gotten pretty damn good with the tanks... mostly because I'm a vet in Battlezone and Battlezone II, which are both my all time favorite games. I've never seen such a perfect blend of Arcade First Person Shooter and Strategy (Base Building and Resource Management). The interface in BZ2 is much better, the vehicles have different classes of armor, and every weapon has an assault and combat version, depending on what class vehicle it is or what morphing stage its in (alien ships). I've actually been involved with a mod for BZ2 for a while, called Nomad.

Far Cry was great, though... it would have been nice to have more control over the environment and maybe a tank thrown in for good measure. :D Also, its popularity died quickly because it was a b*tch and a half to mod.

Edit:


are you trying to pick a fight, or just working your way up to it?

look, you don't like the game... fine.
leave me alone.

dont try to make me feel bad cause I dont agree with you.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or make you feel bad... though I do personally feel that the more people there are who like games like D3, the less of a demand there are for really good ground breaking games. Wouldn't you rather play a game with depth that makes you think, consider the consequences of you're actions, forces you to make choices, and adapts and changes depending on the way you play, so the game is different every single time you play it and is more enjoyable? Or would you rather play a game where you just brainlessly run around shooting things though endless levels that don't look very different from the last, jump through hoops and run through mazes, never have to think very much, and have to put up with triggers that spawn monsters every time you grab a power up? Good games have enemies that grow in intelligence and become more difficult to challenge as a result, and react to sight, sound, smell, and/or touch. In a bad game, you can walk right up behind an enemy and reload all you're weapons and organize you're inventory, before he notices you. I've found that most of the people I've run into who love D3, have never played games that use these kind of features.

Have you ever played anything from the DeusEX series or Thief series? System Shock 2 was good as well, but wasn't as good as the first two. Bioshock is comming out in the last quarter or later, and its being made by the same guys who made those three games. They want it so perfect, they've started the project over several times. If you want to try a good game with good graphics and with a lot of depth, then you should definetely keep you're eye out for this game. Check it out at www.sshock2.com/bioshock/ (http://www.sshock2.com/bioshock/) Be sure to check out the screenshots HERE! (http://www.sshock2.com/bioshock/screenshots/)

[[XC] leviathan18]

judaus that is directly pointed to ominious gamer... he doesnt meassure his words really :S

[Judaeus Apella]

Who's "celeron gamer"?

[mursaat]

Kunaak talks to Ominous Gamer IMO :p:
If you want to try a good game with good graphics and with a lot of depth, then you should definetely keep you're eye out for this game. Check it out at www.sshock2.com/bioshock/ (http://www.sshock2.com/bioshock/) Be sure to check out the screenshots HERE! (http://www.sshock2.com/bioshock/screenshots/)How in earth could I've missed that game until now? That's incredible! :toast: A shame it's stated for 2007...

[clayton]

Soul Calibur Series is addicting! Still playing around with SC3 character creation.
________
Gm Atlas Engine History (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/GM_Atlas_engine)

[Celeron Gamer]

Who's "celeron gamer"?


whatcha called me for?

btw, I am a member of the XS forum, if that's what you wanted to kow