The vent about Game Informer thread

[Dahveed]

Yeah, maybe this isn't a positive or productive thing to do, but I'm a little hacked off at Game Informer's review of the game. Not because they gave Radiant Mythology a low score, but because of their little jab at the series, saying something along the lines of "This is a Tales game through and through. That's not really a compliment anymore."

Okay Game Informer, name one Tales game that is really that bad. Maybe Legendia and Abyss aren't quite as good as Symphonia, but they are still pretty darn good games. Play a Tales game for more than 30 minutes. Enjoy the real time combat engine. Experiment with the many ways of stringing combos together. Play the games and find out why we have devoted a website and forum to the series. There are other good RPGs besides something with Final Fantasy slapped on it.

Not only that, but the review is extremely short and lacking depth. It's literally like one paragraph long. Not a good professional review at all.

It's okay to give one game a mediocre or even a low score, but to take a cheap shot at the series like that is extremely unprofessional in my book.

[Wilhelm]

I'll edit my post later to have my full view on this, but in essence, I agree with your points.

IMO, a reviewer should review a game based on considering the genre the game is in, and *then* look at the characteristics it has. Like compare RM to other games that are close to a "fan-service'ish, quest-doing" type (bad comparisons, but you get the idea).

Think how Famitsu reviews games normally. Like how Nintendogs got a perfect score from them (or near it, I forget). They almost always review it as "What games are like this, and how does it compare?", instead of the Gamespot/IGN/etc. view of "This is an RPG, how does it compare to a Final Fantasy, perhaps?" (replacing genre w/ another big game in that sect).

Hence why I don't take much value in publications reviews these days. Hell, I wouldn't have picked up a good number of the games I've found if I had listened to them (like Riviera, for example).

[Dahveed]

I used to write reviews for SNES and NES websites, and I never tried to compare and contrast the game in question to another game in the same genre.

I make it real simple: Is the game fun? Will the player enjoy the game? Is the play control spot on, or is it really glitchy and cumbersome?

If you take the cream of the crop of every genre and use that as your bar, then of course every other game is going to receive a low score.

[Wilhelm]

Yeah, if I had to do reviews, I do it in the view of "Will a fan of this type of game enjoy it?", which is pretty much what you were doing.

[Wilhelm]

http://totalplaystation.com/psp/Tales-of...views/7375

Sorry for the double posts, but don't the media outlets realize that RM isn't supposed to be like the main games in the series? It's a fanservice game that is made up of fetch quests, and they really should review it as that. >.>

[Kao Dragon]

I don't even bother listening to reviewers anymore unless they really know what they're talking about. Most only appeal to the masses and they think that whatever they like will be what everyone else likes. I hate that. I've bought plenty of games that people ask me "why the hell do you have that?". My answer? Because it was interesting to me.

I agree, RM is a fanservice game. It's not meant to be included in the main timeline. That's like trying to include FF Tactics into the regular series. To me...that was not a main game. But that's just my opinion.

And I've actually found myself drifting away from the FF series. I have played the majority of them but was always on the lookout for another great rpg game or series.

Like I have played or owned, Wild Arms, Legend of Legaia, Suikoden, Tales (of course) and many others. Heck I even tried Wild Arms 3 (which IMO is terrible).

But my main argument, is that what might suck for one gamer might be the favorite of another. Reviewers should be in multiples and have different views. But I think Dahveed's reviewing strategy is good. You think about the regular gamers. Not just what the masses want...and how most of them are just in it for an easy and really pretty (graphics-wise) game.

I just wanna' know why people feel the need to compare like that...especially if RM is not a main game...[/rant]

[Dahveed]

To be honest, I prefer easy games, even though I am a huge fan of the Fire Emblem series. I think Super Mario Bros. 2, Duck Tales, Darkwing Duck, Chip N' Dale Rescue Rangers 1 and 2, and Zelda: Wind Waker are all excellent games. Sure, they are all extremely easy, but loads of fun to play.

Now if a game is challenging in a good way, like Ninja Gaiden (the original, NES version, haven't played the remakes), then I like it too. Ninja Gaiden progresses in difficulty at a nice clip, and allows the player to romp through several levels before the difficulty really starts to ramp up.

Then there is the Fire Emblem series, which is challenging because you simply have to think about how you want to approach each chapter.

It all depends on how a game is difficult to me. If it's due to steady progression and strategy, then it's a good thing. If it's due to sloppy play control and poor level design, then that's a bad thing.

[sukotsuto]

I'm starting to think that they're more of journalists and less gamer. They get awesome stuff from big gaming companies and give a good review in exchange (such transactions are off-the-record of course). I'm also starting to think that with their deadline, they barely play the game they review and make up some typical BS in their list of bollocks game labelling if the game series isn't popular while looking up some minor info about it.

As for publications, the only gaming magazine I like is Play, and although it has its certain quirks and bias like rating all the games extremely higher than most others, maybe because they love games so much (thus the info on the games they play always consider the fans of such). I don't refer to the magazine as my rule-of-the-thumb for buying games, but it does give me an idea.

But yeah, the best way to know a game is good and you'll like it is through experience and probably instinct/intuition ro something

[Dahveed]

I agree. It seems like everything by Nintendo and Square automatically gets at least a 9, while everyone else gets average or subpar scores.