I have to disagree with you on that. I think a game should be rated based on the game itself. Unlike a DVD where you can have separate reviews for the movie as well as the quality/value of the DVD itself, there is no separation for a game.

I don't think they really need to include in the score if they played it on an HDTV or not. I think the game will play the same. A good reviewer will be able to tell if it was because of the display they were using. Basically it should not affect the score. If they feel like the experience would be enhanced on a different display then they can state that in the review.

Basically these issues should be addressed in the review and should NOT affect the score.

A good example is when they ported the resident evil series to the GC. A lot of people bashed it because Capcom wanted to charge $40 for exact games that were released years ago in a previous generation. But most still gave them a good score because they are still good games regardless of value.

These games should be reviewed on HDTVs. Based on some of the "sweet setups" posted at places like Joystiq, I now realize just how jank most of these people's setups are.

If these aren't being reviewed on CRT or flat panel HDTVs, their reviews shouldn't be considered, and they really should be reviewed with a proper DD 5.1 setup, not some HTiB or Creative 5.1 $199 speaker system.

I guess we will just have to live with what rigs these guys have, though.

Guess whatever sight I read that on had it mixed up.

Sorry for the bad info.

I really don't see why it matters. Whether they say the game is fun to play is the only point that should determine purchase.

They should note whether they played on HD or not when talking about the graphics, but that's just a secondary point. If the game has good graphics, it will look great on your HDTV.

I guess this is just going to be a disturbing continuing trend of more gamers leaning even more toward putting first emphasis on graphics with gameplay being a secondary concern.

Part of me agrees with you, but part of me wants to respond "if you don't care about graphics then why don't you pick up a used SNES " Seriously though, the significant upgrade from the last gen is graphics oriented. Obviously that matters...otherwise they wouldn't have put out a new itteration. No one is saying that video quality is the only thing that should be reviewed, but it should definitely been an aspect of the review.

I agree graphics are part of a review, and I think they should play on an HDTV and SDTV and mention both.

I just don't agree that it's the key point of the review.

As for the other comment, the GBA and DS are by far my most played consoles this gen (and I have a GC, PS2 and X-box) and if I buy a next gen system at all it will be the Revolution because of the ability to download all those SNES and NES games.

Gamespot and ign have been telling those how it looks on a SDTV and on a HDTV. Gamespot even did a little comparision between all the hookups. It is not the greatest .. but it works visually.

That's all I'm looking for. I definitely want the focus of a review to center on the gameplay, but more information only makes the review stronger.

I'm not saying that there have to be separate reviews (?), but value should absolutely be taken into account, and it often seems to be in the video game reviews I read.

I've seen plenty of reviews, for instance, where the writer will say that they had fun playing a particular title, but it's so short that they'd recommend waiting until the sticker price dropped. Reviews of budget titles nearly always point out the price. Likewise for more-expensive-than-usual titles like Steel Battalion.

It's baffling to me that people are standing behind companies who are taking games developed for the PS2 as a starting point, making little-to-no changes, pricing them $10 higher, and passing them off as next-gen games. If you find this an exciting, thrilling concept, then more power to you. I'll save $10 and buy Xbox games for my Xbox, and I'll buy Xbox 360 games for my Xbox 360.

I'm not standing behind the companies at all, but a good game is a good game no matter what kind of TV it's played on and no matter how much it costs.

My DVD analogy is to point out that no matter how bad the transfer is or the specials the movie can still stand on its own. Seven Samurai doesn't really have the best DVD release out there but it still doesn't discredit the movie. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have the best transfer or is expensive it is still a good movie.

Besides my point is that they should mention these things in reviews but they should not play into what overall score the game gets.

If I had my way, reviews wouldn't have scores, which are mostly arbitrary and meaningless. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If a score has to be given, I think it should reflect the reviewer's overall opinion, and that includes more than just the core gameplay.

I also prefer reviews to not count graphics as well. Only exceptions being graphical problems that affect gameplay like slowdown and what not.

I think the best way to do it is to have seperate scores for categories (like gameplay, graphics, replay, etc.). Then everyone can just look at the ones they give a shit about.

Those are strong words coming from someone who reviews dvds.

I feel the same way there too, to be honest. If I wasn't required to assign numeric ratings, I wouldn't. The first version of www.videogametalk.com I put together didn't have star ratings, but I was told to add those in because readers expect them.

Yep, people gotta have something to condense the whole review down to. Blame thumbs.

Condemmed just got reviewed by IGN. Good score, 8.7 I think, but a 10hr game! Looks like a rental for me.

The point is I don't think we'll see what either console can do until a year or two down the road.

That's always the case with new consoles, and a big reason I try to wait.

You buy at launch your paying top dollar for the console, and there's generally only 1 or 2 absolute must play games out in the first 6 months or so.

I prefer to wait at least until some games start dropping in price, and preferably for the console to drop in price as well.

Okay, enough with the boring graphics discussion. Here's a question for you guys: what do we do about the short games? Condemned, Gun, Kameo, and possibly King Kong are supposed to be short, as in around 10 hours. What to do? Buy them? Rent them? Blockbuster is charging $8(!) for a 5 day rental on these games.

I was even thinking of signing up for Gamefly just to rent those games with no Xbox Live functionality.

What do you guys think?

Gamefly'll work. I'm definitely using it for some launch titles I'm unsure of. But I don't think a 10 hour game is a giant ripoff. I generally don't sit down with one game and play it non-stop on the easiest setting until I beat it. I pick it up and play it now and then when I'm in the mood.

Any King Kong reviews yet? I'm on the fence about it. Not too crazy about playing as a human most of the time.

Yeah, after thinking about it I deceided to use Gamefly for a couple months just to get through the holidays. Added Kameo, King Kong, Condemned, and Gun. That will save me about $80 in Blockbuster credit over a period of a couple months.

I think this is an absolute must for any reviewer. Even though reviews are opinion, a writer still needs to take in account the audience. Gamers definately take price into account when purchsing a game. A reviewer should use this and even if they love the game, at least mention that there may not be enough value for some people. For example, some people do not replay games. I myself do, so a short game is not as big an issue for me. But, someone paying $50 for a game might reconsider if they know it's over in the same time they could watch a few movies.

Part of this is also that people don't always want to click through four pages on the internet or read a couple pages in a magazine. Sometimes this length is necessary to review an epic game. Other times it is the lack of ability of a reviewer to condense their thoughts (and lack of a good editor). I wouldn't mind ratings being dropped either, but I would want to see some quality condensed sentences with the main points so I don't need to sift through several rambling reviews to find the meat of the opinion.

This would probably be your best bet. If I'm able to snag a 360, I will definately choose rentals for most of the games first, even though I tend not to rent. The launch of the system just seems like a necessary time to really screen the games you purchase, and with the new rising prices, even moreso this time around.

I'm splitting Kameo with 3 friends(passing it around) and asking for Condemned for Christmas. 2 Games for $20.

I agree with that, and I like the way DVD Talk/Video Game Talk have those descriptive textual ratings ("Skip It"/"Rent It"/"Recommended"/etc.) along with a few sentences of summary. I know you could take that scale and translate it to numbers, but something like "Highly Recommended" sounds so much more meaningful than "8.2". And someone who picks "Highly Recommended" means it, whereas 8.2...I mean, what distinguishes an 8.2 game from an 8.4 game? I don't like arbitrary numeric ratings, but it's especially silly when you get that granular.

My ideal review site would have:

1) No decimals or percentages or stars or GamePro-smiley-faces associated with their reviews.

2) A small team of reviewers with a bio somewhere listing what types of games they like and what some of their favorite titles are. Y'know, because I'd more strongly consider the opinions of someone who has similar tastes. The advantage of a smaller team is familiarity, but don't let it be so small that the writers are overburdened and rushing through their reviews.

3) Reviewers who can describe the game, describe the game play, say what they liked and why, and what they didn't and why, and can do so in a reasonable amount of space. 4 paragraphs aren't enough. 6 pages on IGN.com are overkill. There really is a happy medium in between.