I-Ninja still isn't complete. Sam & Max: Season One is still languishing. I haven't read anything mind blowing in the media lately. But I still want to blog, just to let you know I still care (and because anything I don't make a habit of I forget completely).
I'm more than halfway through I-Ninja. Things would be going much faster if I wasn't such a completist. But I have to get every badge. I've got something like 42 out of 64, and I'm not really jazzed to pick up the rest, but I've come too far to stop now. Additionally, I can smell the Ape Escape "You must collect every monkey to get to the final battle" message coming. As kiddie as the game looks, it's not really very forgiving. But I'll write that review when I come to it.
I've been ill and sleeping irregularly, so I've been playing some WoW at odd hours. Odd hours are great for mining. I'm level 68 and only halfway to having the money for my epic flyer. I'm trying to get most of my XP through grinding so the quest XP will turn to much needed gold when I hit 70. Of course, now that I'm recovering, who knows if I'll play enough for it to matter. Besides, what do I need an epic flyer for? More farming? Zzzzz.
As for Sam & Max, they're still funny and the puzzles work, but I don't miss them when they're gone, which brings up an interesting (to me) question.
Do people really play games like reviewers do? Reviewers are usually under schedule pressure and tend to play games straight through. I was reading an article on GameSetWatch about SteamBot Chronicles. The author said that the game was very wide. There were lots of crafting activities, side missions, and even stocks to invest in (which your game actions could influence. Apparently the SteamBot world has a lax SEC (without boats even)). There were musicians you could travel around with, playing mini-games and other activities besides. But reviewers overlooked all of that stuff and gave it "good, not great" scores because they hadn't spent much time beyond the ten or so hours it takes to finish the central plot.
Additionally, I've found that there are a number of games that I can play for a few hours at a time, and no more. I still wonder if I would have finished FF6 if I'd played it in shorter installments instead of getting so burned out that I just quit after Kefka destroyed the world. Would some games get better scores if the reviewer hadn't been forced to play them straight through for a review deadline? Do most normal people play games straight through? If memory serves, many people don't even finish most of the games they buy. I don't have the answers to these questions, but it's worth considering the next time you read a review. Did the reviewer really explore the game? Are there complaints about pacing problems that may have more to do with the reviewer's deadline than the game's quality? This may be one area where print media has an advantage.
In online media, you get a game (especially an eagerly anticipated one) and there are other sites who you know will have reviews out the next day. Hell, some disreputable sites have posted full reviews of Team Fortress 2 the day after the beta went live. I don't care how good the game is, trying to play through it and write up a review in one day is going to result in shoddy work. In most cases this isn't an issue as well known review outlets get final builds before the general public so that they do get time. But with online games, those reviews are still very preliminary as there aren't enough people to give a real feel for how the game will play and perform when fully inhabited.
Ah well. Long story short, subjective reviewing is always difficult to separate from the circumstances under which the review is done.
No comments:
Post a Comment