Are we only reviewing good games?

Stan

myGamer Slave
Staff member
Registered
Jun 22, 2005
791
4
18
www.mygamer.com
Converting over the reviews ive noticed that 99% of our reviews have a score of 85 or better. Whats that mean? No one wants to play bad game, which makes our site look very unprofessional. Do we really want to showcase only good games? I might have wanted to purchase Strike Force Bowling but looking for a review on myGamer would not happen, because we only have good games and forget the bad ones.

Let's try to spread the reviews for both good and bad and not pick the games you would most certainly like.

Thanks guys..
 
I'd even go so far as to suggest that, in future (and where possible) those writer's who're absolutley gagging to review a particular title should perhaps not receive it.

For example, surely someone who's a mad FF, or Metal Gear fan is going to be slightly biased before they play the latest incarnation?

A reviewer with a relative none-plus opinion of a game, or genre, would garner a more even perspective and evaluation, no?
 
but at the same time the majority of people who are going to be reading a review are going to know something of that game. just as an example someone who has played almost every hockey game released on console for the last 5 years is going to be able to tell you what makes it a better or worse game in the long run. A good review writer should be unbiased no matter how much they enjoy the game and should point out all the drawbacks of a game no matter how much they love it.
 
Couldn't have said it better. One of the things that irks me about half of the reviews nowadays anyway is the people writing them don't know what they're talking about half of the time, and are just doing it to meet a deadline or get something in (I've seen this everywhere, not just here), and it comes off in the final review and true gamers see it. Part of the requirement coming in was to be unbiased, so this shouldn't even have to be a topic of discussion. Writers should care enough about the gaming industry period to do the proper reasearch on a game's review/preview and do it in an objective manner.
 
I think there is a difference between liking a game and being a rabid fanboy/girl. I know for example that I literally have to take a step back and let someone else read my reviews of any Legacy of Kain games, because I adore the series. Likewise I know that I cannot review a Final Fantasy or Castlevania without serious doubts as to my objectivity.

The bottom line is that we all have certain games that we have an unfair bias towards. If you can recognize it and take a step back, then it's fine. Otherwise... well not every game can be a 90% plus, keep that in mind.

I know that this is a volunteer site, and it sucks to not be paid to play some of these games, but the only way we're going to beef up our credibility and get the support of more developers and publishers it to take a look at all types and levels of games. This is not to say we should suck up to vendors, just that we should give them a fair chance and look at what they have. You never know when something might surprise you...
 
I know I didn't like RPGs before Final Fantasy VII, but now I've opened up to them considerably. Does that make me biased towards FF or RPGs? Certainly not. Xenogears, another Square gem, still sits on my shelf unfinished after five years. Would have made a great book, but as a game, it's become a snooze-fest for me. Literally. Any time I have trouble sleeping, I pop Xenogears in for a few minutes and out go my lights.

I've also taken a number of chances and had as many ups as downs. Roll Away on the PS1 was a surprise hit, as was The Adventures of Cookie and Cream. I might not have picked them up were it not for open-mindedness on my part (and a nagging girlfriend thought they were cute). On the other hand, I've played some demos and rented a few games that were just horrid, but based on a license or genre, I thought they'd be great.

Just keep an open mind. We're here to try stuff before everyone ELSE buys it.
 
I see what Stan is talking about. I think there is some confusion as to the point he is trying to make versus some of the replies here. The problem is not that reviewers want to review big name games. The problem is that 75% of low budget or poorly promoted games are being completely avoided.

A reviewers primary job is to let consumers know what games to buy, rent, or avoid at all costs. For the most part, all I have seen on the site is games you need to buy.

I would recommend to any writer here, new or veteran, to make a point to review a game you already figure will be horrible. We need bad reviews on this site! If it wasn't for EGM, every super hero fan and gamer, would have a copy of Super Man N64.

Keep in mind that we are not selling anything here. To make a name for ourselves, we have to establish MyGamer as being a harcore source of reviews. Our 1st goal should be to establish a big enough name that we are feared by big video game companies. That is the only way to get peoples attention. If you want large companies to send us free demos, you can't be known as the company with an average score of 8 - 10.
 
Another thought...

Is it also possible that we're being too generous in our reviews? True, we're reviewing mostly good games (which is a problem), but how often is a game REALLY worth a 9 or a 10? I reviewed Freedom Fighters for the PS2, and despite being one of the better games I've played on that system, it scored an 8.4 overall. Unless a game achieves something truly unique, innovative, or exceptional, I don't see how it should score a 9 or 10. On a real scale of 1 to 10, 5 is average.