[geRV]

I never really thought of them as being of any real use aside form the fact some give you screenshots and videos of games for free, while others you have to pay for what essentially should be free media. oOo:

I remember years back buying video games magazines, n.m.s and mean machies in the uk wre among the best. In retrospect when you look at it all you;re really doing is trusting one persons opinion on a game and his opinion always boils down to if he likes it or not. If they like it theyre gonna find all the positive points and a negligable amount of negative points. On the flip side if they don;t like a game they'll bitch about everything they can and its usually stuff that would often not be mentioned if the game were getting a favourable review.

Gamespot seem to be big offenders as far as this is concerned, over the last year they have shown their heavy ps2 bias. And another thing they seem to do a lot is hype a game like mad giving it aton of coverage and previews then review the game and give it a crap score.

Mariokart double dash is one of the games gamespot have done this with, essentially the review bitched about the singleplayer mode being short while knowing full well that mariokart has ALWAYS been about the insane multiplayer component of the game. When it comes to that genre, nintendo defined it with mariokart, out came the clones such as streetracer and crash bandicoot racing ( oOo: ) but none could hold a candle to mariokart.

I have mariokart here and couldn;t be happier with it, ive also games like wwe raw 2 which gamespot gave a shitty review to (big suprise) and enjoy it no end.

I just think the whole idea of review sites is redundant and people take reviewers opinion like its the word of god. Its almost like theyre TELLING you what to like and if you don't buy the game thers something wrong with you.

So what do you think, reviewsites = pointless aside from the media or do people actually give 2 shits about 1 guys opinion?

[Zoner]

I usually make purchase decisions based on what my peers think of the game. You guys here, allaboutnothing.net, and "real life" friends...your opinions carry more water than some potzer at Gamespot.

[Bane]

You should never base your game buying decision on a single person except yourself.

In addition to reading the site's official review I also read the user reviews which tend to be a little more helpful. The best opinions are from your "real life" friends as Zoner said, though.

In my case, I usually only buy a game if I have no qualms on plunking down the $$ without even playing it first. Those games are the keepers. If you're reading reviews there is obviously some doubt in you that the game may not be as good as you would hope and you should rent it first. For example, my latest purchase was True Crime: Streets of LA. I bought it without playing it first, without reading any reviews and it fucking rocks! I've no regrets at all for buying it. Other's I've bought this way were Splinter Cell, GTAIII, GTA:VC, DOA3, KotOR, etc.

[Zoner]

Actually, I lied. I just ask Bane.

I do that for everything in life. "Bane, I can't seem to get my car started in the cold. What do you recommend?" or "Bane, I'm making Coq au Vin for the missus, should I use Merlot or a hefty Cabernet Sauvignon?"

biggrin:

[pest]

If I think I am interested in an upcoming game, i will read a number of reviews. There will be a trend of what items are truly good or bad about hte game and what is purely reviewer bias. Other items can be gleaned out of single reviews that are worthwhile, regardless of the reviewers feelings. Things like comparisions to other games, game types for more obscure games, features, bugginess, etc. I also will put more weight on certain reviewers opinions based on past history. The reviewer ivan at ign apparently had very similar tastes in games as me and his reviews we always pretty damn accurate. Even with that, second opinions are always a good idea.

[Pyro]

PS2 rules all thats why Gerard...duh!

[geRV]

Originally Posted by Pyro

PS2 rules all thats why Gerard...duh!

Ps2 = overhyped pos that was graphically outdated before it even hit the market. Tech wise the dreamcast is a better machine and as far as i know can create better visuals. Sony had so much faith in the ps2 they had to bullshit about a "supply shortage" on the american release to spark a buying frenzy amongst morons gullible enough to believe it.

ps2 = all hype, only a matter of time before people realise sonys a one trick pony and nintendo is where the innovation is at, nintendo practically created the gaming market with the success of the nes and snes no reason why their next console can't make them top dog again.

[pest]

Heh, n00b ^^^

Xbox owns nintendo, and you are showing your age with the nintendo creating the game market speech. Atari created the gaming market, nintendo is a late comer in this game. I owned at least a half dozen gaming consoles before nintendo was even heard of, but I do agree about the ps2.

[Eight Ace]

Originally Posted by Zoner

Actually, I lied. I just ask Bane.

I do that for everything in life. "Bane, I can't seem to get my car started in the cold. What do you recommend?" or
"Bane, I'm making Coq au Vin for the missus, should I use Merlot or a hefty Cabernet Sauvignon?"

...hmm, that's an unusual arrangement, and Bane is ok with that?
I mean, he doesn't find it intrusive or anything..?...

[geRV]

Originally Posted by pest

Heh, n00b ^^^

Xbox owns nintendo, and you are showing your age with the nintendo creating the game market speech. Atari created the gaming market, nintendo is a late comer in this game. I owned at least a half dozen gaming consoles before nintendo was even heard of, but I do agree about the ps2.

Atari might have started it but what happend then? Nintendo took over, innovated, brought out a more powerful machine called the N.E.S, what happened atari? they withered and died. Before the nes the gaming market was so small it was laughable, the N.E.S was the thing that started the boom in the gaming market virtually making it what it is today.

Nintendo is a late comer in this game? Funny theyre the only ones left out of the original 3 (sega nintendo and atari) that are still producing a console, seems the "latecomer" kicked some ass back then. Id say the nintendo strategy is quality before quantity. Sony boasts this big games library...pity 90% of the games are "knocked together in an afternoon" pieces of shit that shouldn't even have got past quality control.

As for microsoft...you may as well own a pc with the amount of port overs the xbox has (and yes i own an xbox). They talk about xbox live like its some kind of innovation, funny how so few people know that the original nes had a kind of "online" play that was only released in japan.

As for xbox owns nintendo, how about no? For the amount of money microshaft have pumped into the xbox its not nearly as successful as it should have been. Remember microsoft won't make anything back on xbox for around 5 years after its release. Its MS losing money and not nintendo.


My opinion on the consoles as a whole.

Nintendo = Innovation and quality.

Sony = The odd good game that ultimately gets drowned in a mass of crap games. But owning a ps2 is the "cool" thing to do so the fact that the majority is crap gets conveniently overlooked all the time.

MS = Mainly pc port overs.

[pest]

pc>xbox>any other console

The xbox has some really cool aftermarket "alterations" that negate anything else you can say about it. Atari's not dead, they just dont make game systems anymore.

[Bane]

[quote="Eight Ace":d7151]

Originally Posted by Zoner

Actually, I lied. I just ask Bane.

I do that for everything in life. "Bane, I can't seem to get my car started in the cold. What do you recommend?" or
"Bane, I'm making Coq au Vin for the missus, should I use Merlot or a hefty Cabernet Sauvignon?"

...hmm, that's an unusual arrangement, and Bane is ok with that?
I mean, he doesn't find it intrusive or anything..?...[/quote:d7151]
LOL - Naw... I'm fine with it. I charge him $5.00 a question! Oh, and Zoner, you need a battery with more cold cranking amps and definately use the Cabernet Sauvignon. wink:


I'm not as hip to the console market as I used to be, but the reason I don't pay a whole lot of attention to Nintendo anymore is the age bracket they seem to target. A lot of their games are aimed towards the kiddies. Maybe this has changed... dunno. Besides, the GC controller sucks.

You're right, a lot of PS2 games are total crap, but their are some gems in there too. Have you tried Manhunt? Pretty cool concept, gruesome as hell, lots of swearing... definately NOT for the kids. Anyway, if you take the total number of PS2 games, subtract the garbage, you still end up with a larger number than the XBox's entire collection... including the crap.

My PS2 has been collecting dust since I picked up an XBox. It just kicks the shit out of the PS2 as far as graphics and sound are concerned. I mean, Splinter Cell is fucking beautiful. The PS2 version looks like shite in comparison. Not to mention automatic Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound. The PS2 still has the Dualshock2 controller though dammit. That thing is still the best out there.

[geRV]

Originally Posted by pest

pc>xbox>any other console

The xbox has some really cool aftermarket "alterations" that negate anything else you can say about it.

They don't come as standard so the alterations don't really count as not everyone will have access to them. Burning games adding bigger hard drives..sounds more like a glorified pc. Xbox fanatics go out of their way to point out its not a pc but these "additions" make it even more pc like.

[geRV]

[quote=Bane]

Originally Posted by "Eight Ace":1b3c7

...hmm, that's an unusual arrangement, and Bane is ok with that?
I mean, he doesn't find it intrusive or anything..?...

I'm not as hip to the console market as I used to be, but the reason I don't pay a whole lot of attention to Nintendo anymore is the age bracket they seem to target. A lot of their games are aimed towards the kiddies. Maybe this has changed... dunno. Besides, the GC controller sucks.

You're right, a lot of PS2 games are total crap, but their are some gems in there too. Have you tried Manhunt? Pretty cool concept, gruesome as hell, lots of swearing... definately NOT for the kids. Anyway, if you take the total number of PS2 games, subtract the garbage, you still end up with a larger number than the XBox's entire collection... including the crap.

My PS2 has been collecting dust since I picked up an XBox. It just kicks the shit out of the PS2 as far as graphics and sound are concerned. I mean, Splinter Cell is fucking beautiful. The PS2 version looks like shite in comparison. Not to mention automatic Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound. The PS2 still has the Dualshock2 controller though dammit. That thing is still the best out there.[/quote:1b3c7]


Define a "kiddie game". Something like parrapa the rapper i can understand as being kiddie because noone over the age of 10 would like that kind of crap...( i hope). People class games as being kiddie because they have cartoonish graphics, that doesn;t really mean anything imo. You could have the most cartooney game in the world with a rockhard difficulty that wold challenge anyone, would it really be targeted to 10 year olds then if 20 year olds can;t beat it? Probably not.

People seem to think games with blood ass and tits are for "adults" whereas anything lacking these traits is destined for the "kiddie label". If peoples idea of fun is needing to have a ton of blood squiriting about the screen constantly then they don't have the slightest idea of what makes a game "fun" in the first place.

As for sonys dualshock controller, its not really an innovation in any sense, basically a ripoff of the snes controller with some additions and thats it.

[Bane]

The term kiddie game is subjective of course. IMO it has to do more with the story than anything else. I'm done rescuing princess' and shit like that... it doesn't interest me anymore. I like a game with a little more depth... something a kid may not be old enough to understand.