-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Player One Podcast - Episode 97 - Pax Attack
- Thread starter TheExodu5
- Start date
Whimsical Phil
Ninja School will help you
Good lord, I forgot I even did that column.Scarecrow said:
LiquidSwords
Member
BEST thing out of PAX? maybe. great job, guys
forget about Nick Sutter's kids table - the GameNow of podcasts step in to save the day at the unlistenable 1up yours
forget about Nick Sutter's kids table - the GameNow of podcasts step in to save the day at the unlistenable 1up yours
Flakster99
Member
stewy said:
Well deserved.
TheGreatDave
Banned
Started listening to it today, it's very good.
I realised I've been imagining Greg looking like a slightly altered version of Greg Ford. I can't cope with people sharing names I guess.
I realised I've been imagining Greg looking like a slightly altered version of Greg Ford. I can't cope with people sharing names I guess.
Aruarian Reflection
Chauffeur de la gdlk
Scarecrow said:I always pictured Phil as his old GMR article picture.
For some reason, it never registered that "Theobald" was how you spelled it.
Monsterland
Member
Listened and it was great, thanks!
SuperPac
Member
farnham said:
Hey I still like the Wii (even though I haven't been using it a whole lot outside of playing a few VC games). And we laid off PS3 because I think all of us are using that system more recently...for Blu-ray, definitely, but also because there are quite a few games coming up that we're looking forward to. LBP, R2, Wipeout HD, etc.
I completely disagreed with just about everything said during the review discussion with Patrick Klepek. You all seemed to be taking the very short-sighted view of reviews as "product recommendation".
I bought a PS2 late in its cycle (2006). One thing I did was go to review sites that sort by score to see what great games i missed. Well, it turns out that the "product recommendation" approach is basically worthless once a game drops in price. A short game like ICO often received middling scores because of it's length. That's not much of a criticism now when the game can be found for <$20.
It sounds like this is the point that sparked the discussion in the first place, but you guys rejected it out of hand.
In my opinion, games are art and should be judged artistically. For outlets who feel their role is the Consumer Reports of videogames, put a small "Value Judgment (tm)" section at the end to discuss these issues without affecting the artistic score. Give the reader the facts and let him decide if he can afford it.
Not all consumers are living paycheck to paycheck.
I bought a PS2 late in its cycle (2006). One thing I did was go to review sites that sort by score to see what great games i missed. Well, it turns out that the "product recommendation" approach is basically worthless once a game drops in price. A short game like ICO often received middling scores because of it's length. That's not much of a criticism now when the game can be found for <$20.
It sounds like this is the point that sparked the discussion in the first place, but you guys rejected it out of hand.
In my opinion, games are art and should be judged artistically. For outlets who feel their role is the Consumer Reports of videogames, put a small "Value Judgment (tm)" section at the end to discuss these issues without affecting the artistic score. Give the reader the facts and let him decide if he can afford it.
Not all consumers are living paycheck to paycheck.
theBishop said:
I don't see how you can call what they say short sighted when you're looking at reviews retrospectively... that'd make it forward looking. What they're talking about is the reviews/commentary they have to make in the here and now. And that was the context of their discussion.
Games are not art. Games are interactive entertainment.
:lol
mik said:
If you think games are a "product" in that sense, yeah. But art doesn't necessarily depreciate like a TV or car or house. They do get "replaced" in the sense that something bigger and better follows, but a strong creative work is potentially timeless.
You never read a movie review that says "Movie-X is a little short, wait for it to come to the cheap theater... 8.5".
It's kind of sad that even videogame enthusiasts don't treat it as a legitimate art form.
theBishop said:
First off, games are entertainment and should be judged on whether or not they're fun.
Second, price certainly comes into effect. Geometry Wars certainly wouldn't be as highly recommended as it is if it was $60.
theBishop said:
It's hardly a just comparison, as movies are generally equivalent in length. Also, there is no replayability factor in movies, whereas the replayability of a game greatly affects it's esteemed value. No one could say $15/mo for WoW isn't worth it if it brings someone over a hundred hours of gaming in that amount of time.
TheExodu5 said:
You're making a lot of assertions that are little more than your opinion.
The medium has reached an interesting period where "games" aren't necessarily intended to be "fun". There is a far wider range of emotions that games can (and do) explore. If all you want out of games is "fun", great. I think the medium has a lot more potential than that.
Neither can you put a price on something based on the sheer number of hours you can get out of it. I'm sure plenty of gaffers have gotten 40+ hours out of Geometry Wars, and maybe only 10 from Gears of War. How can you say one is worth $60 and one is only worth $10 based on hours of play alone?
There's absolutely a "replayability factor" if films (music, paintings, etc) if the film reveals deeper meaning after repeat viewings. However, I don't think "replayability" is a matter of "value", rather it is a matter of artistic merit. If a work of art compels you to come back to it, that's generally the sign of something special.
theBishop said:
Sure you do. "Rent it" or "Wait for it to come on TV...at 3:00 in the morning" are both statements you can find in various movie reviews. Like movies, I think video games can be art. But we're talking about <10% of games even aspiring to that--let alone attaining it.
SuperPac
Member
There's audio of the Game Criticism panel we were talking about during that segment with Patrick so now you can listen to it.
But all games can be judged upon how fun they are to play or how much entertainment you get out of them -- it's a common thread no matter if you're playing Mario Kart, Madden, GTA or Shadow of the Colossus. You cannot review all games solely on artistic merit unless you are to ignore 80% or more of the products released in a year that aren't striving to be art.
(BTW theBishop Ico did not get "middling scores because of its length." It has a 90 on Metacritic..."universal acclaim.")
Some reviewers see their opinions being lumped in with everyone on metacritic as somehow devaluing their work. I think that's making yourself sound extremely self-important. More opinions on a product is a good thing. If no one's clicking-to/reading/fawning-over your text then maybe you're not a very interesting writer. But even if all anyone looks at is the score, that's still another opinion that gets read and weighed by a reader into the decision of whether or not they will buy--or play--a particular game. People compared different game reviews way before Metacritic or Gamerankings were around, those sites just made it easier to do so at a quick glance.
Anyway, game reviews are product reviews. Because at the end of the day your reader has to spend money to play said game. You have to tell them whether or not it's worth it.
theBishop said:
But all games can be judged upon how fun they are to play or how much entertainment you get out of them -- it's a common thread no matter if you're playing Mario Kart, Madden, GTA or Shadow of the Colossus. You cannot review all games solely on artistic merit unless you are to ignore 80% or more of the products released in a year that aren't striving to be art.
(BTW theBishop Ico did not get "middling scores because of its length." It has a 90 on Metacritic..."universal acclaim.")
Some reviewers see their opinions being lumped in with everyone on metacritic as somehow devaluing their work. I think that's making yourself sound extremely self-important. More opinions on a product is a good thing. If no one's clicking-to/reading/fawning-over your text then maybe you're not a very interesting writer. But even if all anyone looks at is the score, that's still another opinion that gets read and weighed by a reader into the decision of whether or not they will buy--or play--a particular game. People compared different game reviews way before Metacritic or Gamerankings were around, those sites just made it easier to do so at a quick glance.
Anyway, game reviews are product reviews. Because at the end of the day your reader has to spend money to play said game. You have to tell them whether or not it's worth it.
Great podcast guys, finally got around to listening to it all.
I happen to be friends with both the guy who walked up to Bryan Inthihar (sp?) and told him the 7.5 was perfect for his game (Strikers), and also the guy who got Shane to sign his MGS2 so it was amusing to hear those stories pop up :lol
(I would have had Shane sign my Patapon)
I may have to attend this next time.
I happen to be friends with both the guy who walked up to Bryan Inthihar (sp?) and told him the 7.5 was perfect for his game (Strikers), and also the guy who got Shane to sign his MGS2 so it was amusing to hear those stories pop up :lol
(I would have had Shane sign my Patapon)
I may have to attend this next time.
omgimaninja
Member
Great show! Made work go by alot better today.
SuperPac said:
yes. agreed.
I don't think of METACRITIC the same way that some panelists seem to take issues with it - if anything - I've only ever looked at it twice and that's only because its not blocked at worked while anything "game" tagged is blocked by the firewall. (no neogaf/gamespot/ign..etc). As for the aggregating of reviews, I really don't see a problem with it - metacritic does link to all the other reviews that it sources the score from so it's really not that hard to make a click to read a review. Plus if you made your way there, you'll just as easily make it elsewhere for more info on whatever you're looking at. Rottentomatoes does the same thing for movies and I have not read any comments complaining about this. Differing standards?
Especially from the standpoint of a game consumer - you're not going to look at a score and decide whether or not to buy a game - you will click through and decidedly read the text to decide if its for you or not. I did that for Heavenly Sword, and a bunch of other titles I wasn't too sure about.
I personally don't have an issue with metacritic.
and onto the wired game commentary thing. Klepex nailed it when he kept emphaising the bit about the 60 DOLLARS. He kept saying it and I was really amused. NAILED IT. Especially against the opinion of the earlier guy who says price does not matter.
Aruarian Reflection
Chauffeur de la gdlk
As a former game reviewer, I have to agree with the stance that getting games for free completely screws up how you value games. I've experienced the polar extremes: when I was a kid, I got one game a year at Christmas that was treasured. As a reviewer, I was getting multiple games a week for free that ended up literally stacked on the floor in giant piles. You lose touch with the average gamer who has to spend $60 + tax + gas money on every game when you're getting more free games than you know what to do with delivered to your mailbox. Games lose their original worth and become just another addition to toss onto the mountain of games. At least that was how I felt.
Getting completely saturated with games also kills your enjoyment of games imo, which is why it's so easy to be jaded as a reviewer. Because I'm so busy these days, I really only can immerse myself with games during Christmas break and sometimes in the summer. So basically I get to really play games twice a year. I actually prefer it that way now, it makes the times I spend with games more fun and exciting. Looking forward to playing GTA4 and Geometry Wars 2 in December
Getting completely saturated with games also kills your enjoyment of games imo, which is why it's so easy to be jaded as a reviewer. Because I'm so busy these days, I really only can immerse myself with games during Christmas break and sometimes in the summer. So basically I get to really play games twice a year. I actually prefer it that way now, it makes the times I spend with games more fun and exciting. Looking forward to playing GTA4 and Geometry Wars 2 in December
SuperPac
Member
SnowWolf said:
This is so true, especially when you're a reviewer that becomes pigeonholed into writing about games of a particular genre. I don't understand how someone can stand to be the "sports guy," "shooter guy" or the "RPG guy" (or girl!) for very long because at a certain point you no longer see the forest for the trees, so to speak. You begin reviewing off a checklist of features instead of seeing the game for what it is and offers.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Going to finish this up tonight. Fantastic interviews.
dead souls
Member
This is a kind of a tangential point, but I've always thought that gaming reviews need to be product reviews because unlike other media, games sometimes get released in a broken/borderline unplayable state.
I mean, I've never purchased a CD or DVD that wouldn't work as intended, but I've bought my share of games that wouldn't play on my PC or console games that were so horribly buggy that I'm surprised they were shipped in such a state.
Back on topic: Great podcast so far guys (still have about an hour to listen to and Itunes just downloaded the retronauts dreamcast ep.) Too many great podcasts this week.
I mean, I've never purchased a CD or DVD that wouldn't work as intended, but I've bought my share of games that wouldn't play on my PC or console games that were so horribly buggy that I'm surprised they were shipped in such a state.
Back on topic: Great podcast so far guys (still have about an hour to listen to and Itunes just downloaded the retronauts dreamcast ep.) Too many great podcasts this week.
SnowWolf said:As a former game reviewer, I have to agree with the stance that getting games for free completely screws up how you value games. I've experienced the polar extremes: when I was a kid, I got one game a year at Christmas that was treasured. As a reviewer, I was getting multiple games a week for free that ended up literally stacked on the floor in giant piles. You lose touch with the average gamer who has to spend $60 + tax + gas money on every game when you're getting more free games than you know what to do with delivered to your mailbox. Games lose their original worth and become just another addition to toss onto the mountain of games. At least that was how I felt.
Getting completely saturated with games also kills your enjoyment of games imo, which is why it's so easy to be jaded as a reviewer. Because I'm so busy these days, I really only can immerse myself with games during Christmas break and sometimes in the summer. So basically I get to really play games twice a year. I actually prefer it that way now, it makes the times I spend with games more fun and exciting. Looking forward to playing GTA4 and Geometry Wars 2 in December
Absolutely. And that's exactly the stance I was coming from when I said that. When I was paying my hard-earned cash for every game I owned (before it was a job), I made damn sure I got my money's worth out of each and every game. And if it wasn't great (or even good) it got resold while the value was still high.
Now I've got a huge game collection, most of which I haven't played more than enough to have a general idea of what the game is all about. I think that is the opposite of normal for most consumers out there.
As for the games as art/game reviews should be art bullshit...well, lemme just say I was so proud of my little Patrick when he brought that up at the panel. At the end of the day, your job is to say whether something is worth your readers' time and/or money.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
No doubt about it; Player One had the best podcast of PAX. This completely made up for Episode 92.
TheGreatDave
Banned
Your show was phenomenal. Thanks to everybody involved, it was a great listen. HERE'S TO EPISODE 100, WHOOOO
SuperPac said:
GHWT had all the new GH instruments, and had 4 set ups on the show floor.
Rock Band 2 only had one setup on the main floor (with the new instruments, as seen here), but Rock Band 1 was set up in console free play with about 5 stations total, all of which had the new instruments. I got to try both the new RB2 drums and guitar. I actually didn't even see any RB1 instruments anywhere.
Here's a pic of one of the Rock Band 1 set ups, where you can clearly see the new guitar being used.