Gully State said:
I'd say it depends on the type of game. Framerate is important for a twitchy shooter but significantly less so for a turn based strategy. I'd say that there should be room for technical analysis on a game by game basis so long as it's warranted.
I pretty much agree but in general my response would be that reviews should focus on what the impact of something is rather than the cause.
For example reviews often tell me a game has framerate issues but rarely do they tell me what the impact of that is (or why I should care). Saying the framerate drops takes no intelligence at all, expressing how those framerate drops affected your experience and how it made you approach the game differently takes thought. If you can't do that just leave it out.
Of course I understand how framerate effects a twitch based FPS for me, what I don't know is how it affected the reviewer.
That said my bottom line opinion on reviews is that there are so many sites and individuals providing them its silly to complain about how one site does theirs. I like shacknew's approach if only because it seems to differentiate themselves from everyone else
Gully State said:
Slightly off topic here, but on the subject of game reviews...have reviewers ever kicked around the idea of writing spoiler filled critiques (separate from the main review of course)? Given that you guys have just finished off a game, I'm certain that there are just some things that one would specifically like to address but can't in the current review format.
I read more wikipedia articles about games then I do reviews simply because I love the spoilers wikipedia provides
I've lobbied for Weekend Confirmed to start doing spoiler sections but Garnett and Jeff don't care
Gomu Gomu said:
This is kinda random, but I miss Bleahy
.
I'd love a guest spot for one week to get his E3 reactions
So Brian, how about that Wii U...