Support NeoGAF

[kaching]

The Killzone 2 trailer was, by far, the most circulated and shown video by the mainstream media. Other than the day after E3 in 2005, I don't recall seeing the Resistance video. I do, however, recall the BBC recently using the Heavenly Sword and Killzone videos as a video backdrop to the delay of the PS3 in Europe.

Which means what exactly, Denog? That Sony and Insomniac are at fault for the tendency of the Press to highlight only what grabs eyeballs? That the kind of consumer that would have the means to buy a $500-600 luxury product is somehow powerless to better inform themselves?

Insomniac has always been a business with integrity and I think you know very little about them to be so willing to rationalize the sullying of their reputation like this.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

With regards to the 1/3 comment, he may have also compared notes with a friend who played through the game entirely. I think some need to calm down. I think his response clarifies what some in this thread suspected that he did not play the game entirely. If Resistance is wonderful in the latter 2/3rds, he has definitely missed out. Which also illustrates that mainstream media articles should definitely be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[karasu]

How can you review a third of a game? I remember Eurogamer got multiple pages of crap for reviewing everything but the Multi player in GOW. Now people are saying a third is okay?:lol

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Which means what exactly, Denog? That Sony and Insomniac are at fault for the tendency of the Press to highlight only what grabs eyeballs? That the kind of consumer that would have the means to buy a $500-600 luxury product is somehow powerless to better inform themselves?

Insomniac has always been a business with integrity and I think you know very little about them to be so willing to rationalize the sullying of their reputation like this.

Sony set the bar when they showed that video. It is the most eye-catching video. Jack Tretton on G4-TV told Adam Sessler the following day that the Killzone 2 video was "in-game". Once that happened, many in the mainstream latched onto that video and used it to feature the promise of the PS3. What else were they to do? Despite efforts by Sony to later retract the "in-game" claims, the general perception by many was that the PS3 would deliver a game that looks like Killzone 2.

And who said I am rationalizing the sullying of their reputation? I sent an email to the author of the article and got proof confirming what you and others said. If you have a beef with anyone sullying Insomniac, it is with the author of this article and I suggest you turn your efforts away from me and towards him. You quickly forget, that I have been pretty much questioning the reason for his negative comments from the begining of the thread.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

How can you review a third of a game? I remember Eurogamer got multiple pages of crap for reviewing everything but the Multi player in GOW. Now people are saying a third is okay?:lol

The standard for articles critical to Sony platform games is much, much lower. They deserve it, after all.

 

[Aisenherz]

Uh, yes. They all just came out and they're all the current showcases for their respective systems. Do you have an actual reason not to compare them, or are you just pointing out that they are being compared?

Yes, I have a reason. Resistance has been developed FAST to meet the launch-date. Let us compare Resistance vs. Red Steel vs. Prefect Dark. Now this would make sense.
Or Killzone 2, Metroid 3 and Gears of War

Well, do what you want. I'm speechless ^^

 

[whatdidyousay]

The following is an email response I just received from the author of the NY Times article...

Reading the author's reply surprised me. Personally, I think if you haven't finished the game, you should STFU because you're not qualified to review it. How could he come to his conclusions about Resistance if he only played through a third of the game?? That would be like reviewing a film but only watching the first 40 minutes or so.

 

[Gantz]

Reading the author's reply surprised me. Personally, I think if you haven't finished the game, you should STFU because you're not qualified to review it. How could he come to his conclusions about Resistance if he only played through a third of the game?? That would be like reviewing a film but only watching the first 40 minutes or so.

Tell that to all game reviewers in the industry :lol

 

[ROFL]

For those who have never completed Rfom (let alone laid their hands on a PS3) here's a glimpse why the claim that it "fails to deliver" may be somewhat questionable:

http://www.globalstudio.com/ps3/

(Thanks to BruceLeeRoy from the official thread)

 

[LukeSmith]

Tell to all game reviewers in the industry :lol

All of them, eh?

 

[whatdidyousay]

Tell to all game reviewers in the industry :lol

I always assumed game reviewers would finish the games before reviewing them. That's just so...wrong. I don't see how you could pass judgment on something when you haven't experienced the complete product.

 

[Gantz]

All of them, eh?

Yes.

 

[Maridia]

I always assumed game reviewers would finish the games before reviewing them. That's just so...wrong. I don't see how you could pass judgment on something when you haven't experienced the complete product.

This isn't a review.

 

[X26]

"pedestrian"

*gags*

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

This isn't a review.

So he can make all the wrong statements he wants abotu it, even (literally) ridiculous ones like saysing Resistance has graphics no better than an Xbox (and emphasize that the Zbox is 5-year-old hardware).

Okay! Cool. You expect that level of accuracy in what you read. Let me try a couple:

"Zelda, which looks like is could run on a DS (tech similr in power to the 10-year old N64) is pretty boring plus expect your arms to get tired, making it even more tedious."

"Gears of War's graphical effects, while pretty, aren't any better than what was already done on Microsoft's previous system. ALl you do is shoot things, which doesn't make for a very good game."

How's that?

 

[Hero]

Man, Nintendo has gotten such good mainstream media press lately.

 

[jaypah]

So he can make all the wrong statements he wants abotu it, even (literally) ridiculous ones like saysing Resistance has graphics no better than an Xbox (and emphasize that the Zbox is 5-year-old hardware).

Okay! Cool. You expect that level of accuracy in what you read. Let me try a couple:

"Zelda, which looks like is could run on a DS (tech similr in power to the 10-year old N64) is pretty boring plus expect your arms to get tired, making it even more tedious."

"Gears of War's graphical effects, while pretty, aren't any better than what was already done on Microsoft's previous system. ALl you do is shoot things, which doesn't make for a very good game."

How's that?

just as lame? well...a little lamer. he got paid.

 

[Maridia]

So he can make all the wrong statements he wants abotu it, even (literally) ridiculous ones like saysing Resistance has graphics no better than an Xbox (and emphasize that the Zbox is 5-year-old hardware).

Okay! Cool. You expect that level of accuracy in what you read. Let me try a couple:

"Zelda, which looks like is could run on a DS (tech similr in power to the 10-year old N64) is pretty boring plus expect your arms to get tired, making it even more tedious."

"Gears of War's graphical effects, while pretty, aren't any better than what was already done on Microsoft's previous system. ALl you do is shoot things, which doesn't make for a very good game."

How's that?

I doubt the NYT would print that, and the Zelda comment has more or less been done elsewhere. I feel that if a publication sees fit to run something, short of libel, they can run it. The people will decide if that publication is reputable or not. If you feel that this is bad reporting, perhaps you should reconsider reading the New York Times in the future. On top of that, this wasn't written for you or me. It's written for a casual audience, which is why it includes descriptions of the consoles, and is written in a comparative format for easy holiday shopping reference.

To a casual audience, the author does not believe that Resistance, currently regarded as the best game on the platform, carries with it the proper marginal utility to justify the PS3's higher pricetag. I'm aware that you probably don't "buy a system for one game." However, when writing for the mass market, it's probably best to make recommendations based on what's currently available. Why? Because if the writer of this article portrays an early purchase of the PS3 as a good investment, and his primarily casual readers follow his advice and are dissatisfied with "paying for potential," which, if my experience in retail taught me anything, they probably will be, it all goes back to where we started: they will deem the NYT an unworthy source of purchasing advice. Given the choice, I'm sure the writer and the editorial staff value their credibility with the mainstream, more than credibility with established proponents of the Sony brand, even if the one in question happens to be the last sane one.

 

[Guileless]

Frequently, when I'm reading an article written for the general reader on a subject I have specialized knowledge in (or at least like to think so), I recognize inaccuracies or outright mistakes. This makes me wonder about all of the other articles I read in publications like Newsweek about subjects on which I am uninformed. Do the experts in those fields identify mistakes with the same frequency I do on subjects like videogames and Ole Miss athletics? If so, that's very disquieting.

 

[Dragmire]

I hate when people expect someone to play through more than half of a game before they even comment on it. It was hardly a review, and who other than a reviewer plays through games that they aren't interested in? Some of the things he said about it are questionable, but I can understand someone passing on Resistance as it's a very crowded genre, and the most significant contribution is its weapons (and possibly level design). That doesn't mean it's not good, but don't expect everyone to want to play through it.

One third is better than the fifteen minutes that most people wrote off Excite Truck. I'm not saying they're wrong, but that's a very common opinion based on only minutes of the game.

 

[J-Rzez]

The reason this thread is still going is there's people draggin' it on and on, especially after they get answers that this guy is full of it... and full of it is an understatement...

A game that could be done on the 5-year old xbox is a clear indicator the utter nonsense this toolbelt is...

Without a doubt, Resistance set a new bar for FPS... not that it was entirely innovative, but it's overall production quality throughout the game... the way it builds momentum as you go through it in the end makes you want to finish the game even more, play through it to the end... The AI is Halo quality, minus the personality, but retains the ferocity and tactics... Like others said, never the same experience twice... And, hark? what's this? A story? and it takes longer than 6-or so hours to play through?! Incredible...

Once again... Halo 3 should target Resistance, after R:FOM took a chunck of that Halo "magic" and put some of it's own icing on it... Bungie should leave Gears alone to the Graphics = more than gameplay people, the wierd framerate drops, and most certainly ignore the piss-poor online experience it provided as well... but adopt the co-op feature... It's the simple fact that Resistance does everything so great, so fun to play as the gameplay is perfect (while not 60fps, at 30FPS not once does it fall on it's face with the incredible amounts of chaos), plus the online experience has yet to be matched this gen, that makes it the my CO-winner of GOTY along with Zelda...

Can't wait to hear the wonderful comments about Motorstorm and Heavenly Sword next...

 

[Bert]

Frequently, when I'm reading an article written for the general reader on a subject I have specialized knowledge in (or at least like to think so), I recognize inaccuracies or outright mistakes. This makes me wonder about all of the other articles I read in publications like Newsweek about subjects on which I am uninformed. Do the experts in those fields identify mistakes with the same frequency I do on subjects like videogames and Ole Miss athletics? If so, that's very disquieting.

I wonder this as well. I do a similar thing with films, where I'm always getting annoyed at computer type things (GTA being played with a SNES pad or something). But I think the difference is that guys like this are supposed to know more about their specialist subject (I assume he's their games reviewer or whatever, rather than just the guy who happens to own a PS3).

Anyway, it's just a guys opinion, Rfom doesn't interest me as it's yet another FPS. I'm playing GoW this weekend so I'll hold off judgement for that, but it looks like yet another alien shooter thing (this time with pretty graphics!). BUt that's my opinion, I like sports games but I don't expect everyone to like them. Sometimes I think reviews of music, games or films are a waste of time unless you know for sure that person has the exact same tastes as you.

 

[Zaptruder]

Blood in the water.

I think... the review speaks more about the journalistic standards of the paper then it does about the game to people who know whats up. If they're this inaccurate about a simple review... how accurate are they about things outside of our field of interests? It's worrying.

 

[LJ11]

Blood in the water.

That's what the private equity firms smell when they hear NYT. Don't be surprised if they're bought out very very soon.

 

[mrklaw]

It's pretty much one of the best looking FPS titles ever released on any platform, you know.

If anyone played Resistance and stopped before they got to Manchester, you can understand how they might think its run of the mill and not that great looking.


Its almost like Insomniac cobbled together some simple corridor levels because they had no time left, and could only manage to do half of the game gorgeously

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

How can you review a third of a game? I remember Eurogamer got multiple pages of crap for reviewing everything but the Multi player in GOW. Now people are saying a third is okay?:lol

Who here is saying it's ok? The guy has been pretty lambasted in this thread for not finishing it. Personally, anyone who attempts to review any game (or book/movie/etc.) without getting to the end, and checking out the other options, such as multiplayer, doesn't deserve to have their opinion respected.

 

[karasu]

Who here is saying it's ok? The guy has been pretty lambasted in this thread for not finishing it. Personally, anyone who attempts to review any game (or book/movie/etc.) without getting to the end, and checking out the other options, such as multiplayer, doesn't deserve to have their opinion respected.

Anyone who said things like "It's just his opinion man, get over it.".

 

[Musashi Wins!]

It didn't sound so much like a full-review as, "I'm bored with this game I no longer want to play it."

I feel sure he's wrong, but let's not Kirby Air Ride it.

 

[chespace]

Blood in the water.

I think... the review speaks more about the journalistic standards of the paper then it does about the game to people who know whats up. If they're this inaccurate about a simple review... how accurate are they about things outside of our field of interests? It's worrying.

Jesus Christ, man. It didn't read like a review. It read like an overview for the mass market on what they can expect from this holiday's big 3 in terms of games.

You guys overreact much?

 

[karasu]

Jesus Christ, man. It didn't read like a review. It read like an overview for the mass market on what they can expect from this holiday's big 3 in terms of games.

You guys overreact much?

somehow it made it to Metacritic. :/

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resistancefallofman

 

[kaching]

Sony set the bar when they showed that video.

Sony set the bar when they dedicated almost the entirety of the 1.5hr E3 05 conference to PS3 of which maybe 5 minutes was the KZ video. If you're going to ignore a good chunk of what Sony presented just because of what the press decided to run with, you're in no position to bitch about unrealistic expectations.

And who said I am rationalizing the sullying of their reputation?

Why, I did, of course. You're saying it's OK that someone might substitute the KZ target render as their expectation for Resistance when Insomniac never promised, demonstrated or hyped anything of the sort, just because the KZ render was shown. That's absurd.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

somehow it made it to Metacritic. :/

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resistancefallofman

That's ****ing lame.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Man gives opinion people disagree with. Multiple pages ensue. Story at 11. PEACE.

 

[Safe Bet]

somehow it made it to Metacritic. :/

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resistancefallofman

Well I guess that's that for the "...but its not a review!" argument.

 

[Chris Remo]

Blood in the water.

I think... the review speaks more about the journalistic standards of the paper then it does about the game to people who know whats up. If they're this inaccurate about a simple review... how accurate are they about things outside of our field of interests? It's worrying.

???? Reviews are matter of opinion.

 

[Pimpwerx]

???? Reviews are matter of opinion.

But they're meant to be objective, no? Not that I care, I don't read reviews. I just like reading threads where people do nothing but bitch about the opinions of others. This is probably why I don't read reviews in the first place. PEACE.

EDIT: Reviews wouldn't have lead me to buy Beyond Good and Evil, or even the original Gran Turismo. It was online impressions from regular gamers that tipped me off to these games.

 

[Mrbob]

I dunno, if he is going to blast Resistance in a mainstream publication, the least he can do if finish the game before doing so. Not play "1/3" of it.

 

[Chris Remo]

But they're meant to be objective, no? Not that I care, I don't read reviews. I just like reading threads where people do nothing but bitch about the opinions of others. This is probably why I don't read reviews in the first place. PEACE.

EDIT: Reviews wouldn't have lead me to buy Beyond Good and Evil, or even the original Gran Turismo. It was online impressions from regular gamers that tipped me off to these games.

I don't think reviews can be objective, and should not purport to be. The business of "scoring games" on 100-point scales is ridiculous to me.

I dunno, if he is going to blast Resistance in a mainstream publication, the least he can do if finish the game before doing so. Not play "1/3" of it.

Why? What if he didn't enjoy the game enough to do so? It's not exactly a glowing endorsement to say you had to play through hours and hours and hours of something to get to the part that really impressed you. Plus, game writers at mainstream publications already have enough trouble getting their editors to allocate space to ANYTHING, I'm sure the guy was playing these games completely on his own time and did the best he could to get the article out in a relatively timely manner. It's not like these are short games.

 

[Speevy]

Publications not specific to gaming have been giving people the wrong impression of games and systems since...games have existed.

 

[Chris Remo]

Publications not specific to gaming have been giving people the wrong impression of games and systems since...games have existed.

Sadly, publications specific to games have been doing the same for a long time too, frequently turning them into soulless technical products to be measured and rated on minute criteria with impossibly fine-toothed and nondescriptive scales. The worst part is that they've trained their readers to believe that's some kind of useful way of judging a game's merit.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Anyone who said things like "It's just his opinion man, get over it.".

Yep, I said it's his opinion, and that that opinion may be that he doesn't like the game, while plenty of others do. That doesn't equate to "He only played 1/3 of the game, but that's enough to give a review!"

Lots of people form an OPINION with the first hour or two of a game, that doesn't mean they should write a review of it at that point. Big difference there.

 

[Anamoly]

I'm surprised with how civil things have been in this thread so far +1 GAF. I've damn near finished both games now and i can somewhat agree with the guys opinion on certain things. I'll even go one step further and say, while i think both Gears and Resistance are wonderful games neither is truly that great. I'm not confident enough to say either one is really better than the other, but, in the end both do what they do quite well. Gears should and does look phenomenal by anyone's standards though.

Really, everyone should play more R6:Vegas, you'll be to busy having fun to care about this guys opinion.

 

[Grecco]

So is this guy officially Sony bots Jeff Gertsman?

 

[HokieJoe]

you just need polish and solidarity.

"polish and solidarity"

That's a great way of describing what so many games lack.

 

[kaching]

I dunno, if he is going to blast Resistance in a mainstream publication, the least he can do if finish the game before doing so. Not play "1/3" of it.

I'd settle for just acknowledging that in the text.

 

[HokieJoe]

I know Resistance is supposed to be the best launch game, but what about Motorstorm? The game looks fun and the graphics look pretty hot to me.

 

[CrapSandwich]

Frequently, when I'm reading an article written for the general reader on a subject I have specialized knowledge in (or at least like to think so), I recognize inaccuracies or outright mistakes. This makes me wonder about all of the other articles I read in publications like Newsweek about subjects on which I am uninformed. Do the experts in those fields identify mistakes with the same frequency I do on subjects like videogames and Ole Miss athletics? If so, that's very disquieting.

I think you're getting at the point here. Mainstream media, be it print or television, doesn't get paid to know what they're talking about. Their job is to give the illusion that they know what they're talking about. Given the quantity of subjects that any newspaper, magazine, or television network reports on, there isn't much room for actual expertise.

So while the people who are riled up about this NY Times piece have a perfectly valid point, to expect more is kind of ridiculous. A thing is what it is. For example, it would be great if I could discuss evolutionary psychology with my dog, but it's just not going to happen.

 

[Dahbomb]

Wait hold up.... did NY Times just "review" a game? :lol :lol :lol

When did they start doing that?

 

[Zaptruder]

Frequently, when I'm reading an article written for the general reader on a subject I have specialized knowledge in (or at least like to think so), I recognize inaccuracies or outright mistakes. This makes me wonder about all of the other articles I read in publications like Newsweek about subjects on which I am uninformed. Do the experts in those fields identify mistakes with the same frequency I do on subjects like videogames and Ole Miss athletics? If so, that's very disquieting.

... I swear I didn't see this.

 

[Zaptruder]

Frequently, when I'm reading an article written for the general reader on a subject I have specialized knowledge in (or at least like to think so), I recognize inaccuracies or outright mistakes. This makes me wonder about all of the other articles I read in publications like Newsweek about subjects on which I am uninformed. Do the experts in those fields identify mistakes with the same frequency I do on subjects like videogames and Ole Miss athletics? If so, that's very disquieting.

... I swear I didn't see this.

---

You see this GAF. This is you ****ing up. I can't even post 2 messages in less than a minute, but there it is, with time stamp and all, honest to goodness proof that DPs are GAF's fault!