All writers aim to set out a convey something to the reader. Wether it be a story, an article about modern life or telling people about a piece of upcoming entertainment, all writers face issues. Reviewers
tend to come under alot of pressure from many sources. Firstly there are the people who make the games will always push onto the reviewers to
have them write good reviews on their game. In this case they may be paid off like many of the
specialist magazines. I'm pretty sure Official Nintendo Magazine get some money to say good things about first party titles. Just reading one magazine
will show that the third party developers will get worse reviews compared to the likes of Mario. In
one of the links I read, the company flew a developer across the atlantic to make the reviewer see
that their game was 90% worthy rather than 80% worthy. You also want to keep a developer happy
so that they keep sending you games to review otherwise part of your business will be gone or theyll
tell other companies about your magazine. (OK thats just a guess but it may happen like that).
Reviewers also need to score games and maybe even add a little list of pros and cons. It can be hard
to pick out two things that you really enjoy out of a whole game and two things you don't like. This
rating could also make and break games. If a con is written that someone doesnt like, they will
avoid the game entirely. A score is required too. As Mike says 97% of what? He is right, there is
no full 100% of anything, it's just a number . We can assume that 100% is a perfect game and the higher this number is the better a game it is. However this is just in the reviewers opinion. I found Sonic and the Secret Rings deserving of a higher score than it got and Nintendogs a
lower one. So it is entirely the reviewers idea of how a game is and that is where bias is introduced.
So that is the games review business. New games journalism is about games but using them as a subject rather than a reivew about them then placing a score on the end. An interesting piece I read from edge was how Prince of Persia is a completely new style of game. The entire game is a story being told by the main character and the events have already happened. But at the same time, this story hasnt even happened. It was completely prevented
before the game began. The piece went on to say how games need to go in this direction, a fresh
direction to what we have seen and played time and time again. Another piece, which I remember reading years back and refreshed my memory of today,
is of the game Rez which comes with a vibrator. The game itself isnt reviewed part from the fact
that it is loud and is like a long acid trip but it talks about the very random periphiral that it comes packed with.
These new game journalism pieces are mainly written in a subjective view that fully expresses the writers opinions on a matter, much like other journalism. In a very professional standing, it would be difficult to write about a vibrating game in
an objective point of view. You could only really say; "It shakes with the music" and thatd be the end of. Subjective is a lot more fun to read as it can give you a link with the writer and also make you want to return to any of their future works.
will show that the third party developers will get worse reviews compared to the likes of Mario. In
one of the links I read, the company flew a developer across the atlantic to make the reviewer see
that their game was 90% worthy rather than 80% worthy. You also want to keep a developer happy
so that they keep sending you games to review otherwise part of your business will be gone or theyll
tell other companies about your magazine. (OK thats just a guess but it may happen like that).
Reviewers also need to score games and maybe even add a little list of pros and cons. It can be hard
to pick out two things that you really enjoy out of a whole game and two things you don't like. This
rating could also make and break games. If a con is written that someone doesnt like, they will
avoid the game entirely. A score is required too. As Mike says 97% of what? He is right, there is
no full 100% of anything, it's just a number . We can assume that 100% is a perfect game and the higher this number is the better a game it is. However this is just in the reviewers opinion. I found Sonic and the Secret Rings deserving of a higher score than it got and Nintendogs a
lower one. So it is entirely the reviewers idea of how a game is and that is where bias is introduced.
So that is the games review business. New games journalism is about games but using them as a subject rather than a reivew about them then placing a score on the end. An interesting piece I read from edge was how Prince of Persia is a completely new style of game. The entire game is a story being told by the main character and the events have already happened. But at the same time, this story hasnt even happened. It was completely prevented
before the game began. The piece went on to say how games need to go in this direction, a fresh
direction to what we have seen and played time and time again. Another piece, which I remember reading years back and refreshed my memory of today,
is of the game Rez which comes with a vibrator. The game itself isnt reviewed part from the fact
that it is loud and is like a long acid trip but it talks about the very random periphiral that it comes packed with.
These new game journalism pieces are mainly written in a subjective view that fully expresses the writers opinions on a matter, much like other journalism. In a very professional standing, it would be difficult to write about a vibrating game in
an objective point of view. You could only really say; "It shakes with the music" and thatd be the end of. Subjective is a lot more fun to read as it can give you a link with the writer and also make you want to return to any of their future works.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment