pizzamousechips

I see both side's points. Like Liver&Onions said, a lot of Flay's reviews are for games that he paid for. We're all grateful. But Flay covers a certain category of game, specifically 360. He covers PC too, but nothing for other systems as far as I can tell. Technically that's okay, since we have other people covering other systems (as it should be). But is the same formula being implemented there as well? Does Robinson pay for most of those UMD movies? Does Ratzloff pay for most of those GBA or GC titles?

I wish I could give the benefit of the doubt, but like others pointed out, who'd personally pay for the new Shrek or Herbie: Fully Loaded game?

I love this site, but to be honest, I have to agree with Corvin and especially with what chess said here:

He also first stated that there are no Marios, Zeldas, Metroids of any kind. I bet one reviewer owns some of those games. And if there are reviewers that own the big name DS titles, it's discouraging not seeing them reviewed. It makes me think that there won't be Wii reviews around launch, since they probably won't be sent free. Or if there are Wii reviews, they'll be for Dragonball Z and SpongeBob SquarePants.

Of course, now that I said that, I don't know what to expect.

kakihara1

He's not talking about Geoff he's talking about Jeff (the reviewer) L&O

Outlaw

Actually this shouldn't be a factor whether you want to play the game or not because it automatically biases the review and is the reason I never want to be a reviewer for anything I like. I remember reading something with someone from 1UP and they said that if you like playing games, then don't become a reviewer or you'll end up hating games. Its nice as a consumer you can buy whatever you want, but if you're a reviewer you'll be forced to play through something you don't like, and if you don't like it then it becomes a job, and not fun anymore.

kakihara1

So you'll review things you don't like? I should think that would bias your reviews a bit

Outlaw

, wouldn't that be something

Deftones

Oh, ok. My bad.

kakihara1

Well I could certainly see some comedy out of it. say you're a driver for Automobile magazine but you only drive cars you hate you can basically have a 2-3 page long rant about how big of POS you think the new "insert car name here" is. Instead of giving stars on a 1-5 scale you could do a negative scale etc. etc.

Liver&Onions

And that's why I keep games I WANT to play (and purchase) off my reviewing queue. I want to sit back and enjoy them, not analyze them.

People DO write reviews for things they own, and had I bought a GC game near its release lately, perhaps I would have reviewed it. But alas, I haven't. I picked up RE4 1 year later, Killer 7 and Paper Mario ditto. Zelda though? I'd be willing to bet that at least one of us will be picking that up. And if timing is right (no backlog of titles to review) a review will probably be written.

chess

I have no problem whatsoever with the objectivity of a "fan" reviewing games that they like and purchase themselves. What I do have a problem with is coming the the gaming forum, and the "game review" link at the top of the page being for "Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi The Genie and the Amp" for the DS or "Hello Kitty Roller Rescue" for the GCN. It practically amounts to console bashing!

If somebody had thrown together a 5 word review (something like "Amazing in every conceivable way!") for RE4, Metroid Prime, or NSMB, it would have been appreciated...at least by me...even if it were posted a month after the game came out.

Liver&Onions

lol. more like Game bashing, not console. But remember...all games have a target market. Just because we all hate them doesn't mean everyone does

See, with this comment it directly contradicts some complaints from a thread I started a while back about the reviews. People were concerned about the timing of reviews saying that a month late is too late.

well, how about this...once I finish up the 4 titles in my queue (or here's a quick synopsis of two I'm working on - FlatOut2 flat out sucks, and NCAA 07 is decent...for a football game.) that I haven't finished, and then do up a Time Pilot one (my own points FYI), I throw together a NSMB one? Sound OK? :P

chess

Allow me to expand on that...

I'm saying that anybody should hyperanalyze a game that they bought with their own money while they are playing it. By all means, take your time...enjoy it. But when you're done, you MUST have a few thoughts about it. Right?

Well, if so, just post em...take a few minutes to reflect...if for no other reason than to reduce the chances of that link to Puffy Ami Yumi showing up again.

pinata242

I think chess was alluding to the perpretation of the Nintendo is "kiddie" by showcasing things like PAY, Hello Kitty, Spongebob, etc. Having those reviews show up all the time can be determined as commentary on the systems themselves. But I don't want to put words in his mouth. And it could all be a coincidence that those are the few Nintendo games reviewed, but it does seem to imply that's all there is.

chess

I just meant that when the only games that get review for a system are bad games...it gives the impression that all the system has are bad games.

I remember that thread, but I think you'd be surprised how many people wait months or even years to buy their games. If nothing else, they make up a fair portion of your audience.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on a GOOD DS game!

chess

precisely.

Josh H

IMO, the site has to at least get reviews of all games of this caliber up if it's to gain any credibility.

I see no point in reviewing crap games that few, if any, readers have any intentions of buying, and not reviewing the huge franchises like Zelda. It would be like skipping Halo 3 when it comes out.

Liver&Onions

Then you don't know how PR folks handle things PR firms handle both shitty games and good games. To be sent the good ones, you need to review the shit and prove yourself to them. Hence all the sub-par titles.

Flay

That's exactly what I was going to say.

Reviewing a crappy game like Tao's Adventure for the DS builds a relationship with Konami which may lead to a cool game like Elebits for the Wii.

Liver&Onions

For every 5 hi hi puffy ami yumi's there should be one Red Steel

Actually, yeah. Thanks to the grunt work we've done with Konami, we get almost ALL of their titles without needing to request them anymore. Dues need to be paid.

chess

Cool...ask them for all the handheld Castlevanias.

Liver&Onions

We will when new ones come out. They only stock a the new releases and once it passes a certain date after a release, they don't have them anymore for reviewers.

Michael Corvin

I don't remember my response to that thread, and don't have time to look it up right now, but timing is no issue to me. Honestly, if it is a big game I've had my eye on and want on release day, I think I'm going to get it regardless of what a reviewer says.

If it is something I'm on the fence about, I might pick it up down the line, so a late review is of no consequence. At least there would be one to reference 6 months after release when the game starts going on sale or gets a price drop. And let's be honest, I know I can't afford to buy every single new release, so half my purchases will be months after release where that review would come in handy.

devilshalo

Well, for someone that doesn't care about release dates and waits for games to price drop or some deal or sale, I appreciate any game reviews. I was actually surprised by the number (or lack of) reviews that I had to go elsewhere for certain titles which are new(er) to me, but old school for others.

Josh H

I know you have to review the shitty games. I'm just saying the top tier games MUST be reviewed (even if they have to be personally bought) if you want people to actually read the reviews here versus (or even in addition to) the gaming sites/mags.

GatorDeb

Well how about this: Maybe DVDTalk could get an email address where members send reviews, and if it's a good review it gets added to the site

maxfisher

I was going to say something along this line too. What if we allowed something like 'deputy reviewers' to write reviews of games they've bought and, if the quality of the reviews is up to par, post them on the site? Seems like that'd be a quick way to build a pretty good library of reviews, assuming everyone discouraged by missing titles put their money where their mouths are. I know I'd be happy to write up a review from time to time when I pick up a new game, especially if helped the site out.