Gallant Pig

The IGN made me think something, as a DVD fan I'm really spoiled with the abundance of quality DVD review sites out there (DVDTalk included). Most of the time, the reviewer uses quality equipment (like most of us have), gives us reviews weeks in advance, and we don't have to pay for them.

I'm not sure why the video game sites are so different, where we are lucky to get a review on the day a game launches, we have to pay at some places to read the reviews and news, and they don't use even DD 5.1 systems to test 5.1 games (how else can you explain Halo not winning best sound at Gamespot.com?).

If videos and bandwidth is a problem for cost, simply make less videos and pull them off after the first week, or create a rotation system. If time is the problem, why not have something like "5 hour reviews" (although I think most reviewers don't spend more than 5-10 hours on any game) and then later post more thorough game completed reviews. If neither of those are a problem, why can't we get a review early? Is it because the companies don't allow it?

Draven

I think it takes a lot more time and effort to review a video game than it does a DVD.

Off the top of my head, with no knowledge of the industry:

DVDs are shorter than almost any game. A couple hours for a movie, 10+ for most games.

DVDs work in all players, so anyone can easily review one. You would need all the consoles to play all the games.

I don't think games are sent out a whole lot earlier than they show up on store shelves. Most major game releases seem to be reviewed shortly after release.

I would guess there are FAR more DVDs released each week that are worthy of a review than games. That's just a guess though.

I agree about taking down videos. Screenshots are fine, but the amount of time it takes to download something, to watch it on a smaller screen, it just doesn't seem worth it.

Gallant Pig

Well it takes me very little time. You're in Burnsville? I think Qwest has DSL down there, or at least you could get ATT broadband.

Josh H

The problem with getting a game reviewed on time is that the reviewer might not get a "final" copy until the release date. Any respectable web site, or magazine, will wait until they have the final, finished U.S. version of the game before reviewing it, rather than reviewing the Japanese version, or an old build sent out in advance. EGM only reviews final versions, and as a result they sometimes end up reviewing a game in the magazine the month after the release. It sucks, but it's the developers fault for not sending out the final product to the media for reviews. It's also there loss as they lose out on pre-release publicity. This is sometimes the developers intent, as many (read most) of the game EGm ends up reviewing a month late sucked and get slammed. The develper intentionally ships it out late so the game is on the shelf for a while before the poor reviews come out.

So basically it isn't the fault of the gaming media, they are doing the right thing in waiting until they have the finished product before publishing a review. After all I want to hear their opinions on the exact product I'll be bringing home if I buy/rent the game. The blame for late reviews almost always lays solely on the develpers/publishers, they either neglect to send a final copy out early enough, or the intentionally withhold them to sell a few crappy games before the poor reviews begin flowing out. Just like many crappy movies don't give the critics advance screenings.

Draven

Sorry, this is an old thread but I had to address this.

Actually, no. At my address neither Qwest DSL or AT&T Broadband is available. :cries: