Ozymandias

This article validates why I never look at one review for any game I'm interested in.  Bias is inherent in everything we do and as such, we should not take wholeheartedly the opinion of one person.  I wouldn't look at one consumer report to purchase a tv or car anymore than would look at one review in purchasing a game.  And by the way, an 8.8 is still a solid score a 6.8 might warrant some fuss...

I would agree with this to a point, however, what we're doing right now is comparing reviews (of consoles and games) to determine what we should buy, not how well we should feel about what we've already bought.  I have some very real concerns about both systems.  For instance: the baseline 360 not having an HDD, the 360 not having a next-gen optical media drive built-in, the 360 not having as much graphical power and HDMI support (if HDTV is the future, so is HDMI), the PS3 not having rumble, the PS3 being so expensive, and the PS3 not having yet unleashed a strong competitor to Xbox Live.  Both consoles deserve criticism, but in your last post you unleashed nothing but hatred for the PS3 and its incredible looking games.  In the past you've said things like "I'm concerned about this aspect of the PS3" but now it seems as though you're just pulling the most negative articles you can find for an all-out PS3-bash.  There are a lot of very positive things out there being said about the PS3 and its launch titles.  Even if the cross platform games do look better on the 360, the observation is useless.  Clearly many of the games were developed for the 360 and then ported, and all of them are what they are simply because they're launch titles.  It makes no sense to compare ports and launch titles to the games of a year-old console.  

Also, why are you so critical of the launch?  Sure, they cut numbers at the last minute, they didn't do a worldwide launch, and they didn't have enough consoles to meet demand on day one.  The Xbox 360 certainly didn't meet demand either.  If people weren't camping out to get one it should say more about the devotion to the console than it does about the manufacturer.  Microsoft did a worldwide launch, but there was no competition at the time that would force them to focus on their biggest markets.  Now that the PS3 is directly competing with the Xbox 360 it only makes sense to put all their units in these two markets.  If you think leaving Europe out until 2007 is bad for gamers in general, well, you'd have to assign a serious chunk of blame to Microsoft for launching before the PS3.

One of the big reasons I'm hesitant to buy a new console is that I'm not willing to tie myself to $60 games.  At the end of the PS1's lifecycle there were new games coming out at $39.99.  All of a sudden we had to pay $49.99 for games on the PS2 and Xbox.  I've firmly believed for the last 4 years that $50 is too much to pay for at least 80% of the games out there.  Now all of a sudden we're expected to dish out $60 per game?  Now there's something we can blame both Microsoft and Sony for!  You can blame production costs, but could you possibly tell me why PC games that look just as good are still coming out at $50?  If anything, PC's should be more difficult to develop for because of varying hardware configurations.  At the end of the day I'm just not willing to plop down $60 for anything but the very best of the best.  Unfortunately Gears of War, Halo, Resistance, and MGS don't come around very often.  You’re obviously sold on the 360 as it is now, but I like your wait strategy for BOTH consoles.  In a year or two we’ll have more games, cheaper games, cheaper hardware, more gamers to play with, and a clearly dominant platform.

Hey Kyp. Care to put a cap on the verbal diahorrea and just comment on the subject matter of the post.

I think someone referred to this phenonmenon as "confirmation bias".  I remember encountering it as "cognitive dissonance" at college.  Basically people look for assurance that the purchase they have made is a good one.  That's why advertisers have one eye on people who have already bought in.  You have to care for your early adopters because they, supposedly, evanglise, the product.

With videogames I think "confirmation bias" is possibly a much better term.  There's something about the industry that makes even grown men behave like idiots.  At the end of the day you're going to see good games on whatever system you buy.

I do hope that Microsoft do well but only to provide some much needed competition.  

I wouldn't worry about it Ozy, its a BLOG! Who said its supposed to be unbiased? (although I don't think you are unfair, you said you wanted to buy one eventually)

Off topic but on dudes reply about the 360 lacking a "next gen" drive...

Dude, Oblivion fits on ONE disk... I'm not sure you need more memory than that for a game currently. And seriously are we THAT lazy as a people that the idea of actually having to swap a disk out after 10 hours of play is "too much work"?

Ålso, think about it, you may need blue ray disks and HDMI but how many gamers do you think are rocking the top end system? I am, but no one else I know is.  My friend bought the 360 just BECAUSE he didn't want to pay 200 extra bucks for a Blue Ray DVD player.... he doesn't need one, nor does he need HDMI on his regular TV.  Believe it or not theres a larger number of gamers fitting that catagory right now. At least the 360 offers a choice.

But on a HDMI note... look at gears of war running 1080i on a nice big screen HD tv over component and honestly tell me HDMI makes that big a difference.

I'm just pissed that I can't upscale my old DVDs with the 360 cause of the whole digital rights, must have HDMI to upscale thing.  But that's not Microsoft's problem.  I expect an HDMI cord soon anyway and funny part is I probably won't get it cause my satellite is using my HDMI port and, like previously mentioned, Component looks just dandy to me.

@Kypdurron5

I'm using a new VGA cable to connect my 360 to my Samsung 50" DLP.  Looks pretty hot I must say.  DVD Movies are now also upscaled to 720p.  Even with this NEW TV, I don't need anything better that what I have.  If I bought the PS3, it'd connect the same way as the 360.  No win there.

Also regarding price of games...  The PS1 was a LONG time ago...even the END of it's life was a long time ago.  Who would pay $50 for a last gen game back then?  Time moves on, consoles become more expensive to code for.  Gamers demand more quality and substance in their games.  Development budgets are HUGE.  Is that Microsoft or Sony's fault?  Blame nVidia and ATI too if you want.  Somebody's gotta pay for the millions of lines of code, and 1000's of man hours put into art and design.  So, the costs per game go up a bit.  

If you don't like the retail price; trade, rent, buy used from a store or look for deals on eBay.  I haven't paid full retail for a game since the launch of the Xbox 1.  Even if you do pay full price, you can always trade it in for some residual value.  Thus you're never out the full amount unless you hang onto it.

Ozy, I appreciate your comments on YOUR blog and I like how you support your points of view as best as possible.  

;)

Kyp I understand your concerns about being fair and just in comparisons across the board. This is unfortunately is not going to happen, please refer to the topic of the blog. I think the reasoning behind the Sony bashing at the moment has a lot to do with the fact that the machine has just been launched. This coupled with Sony's strong claims of being able to out do the xbox launch.

 Claims like having 10 million units at launch, world wide launch without shortages, better games, only one system, superior online system, and superior graphics.

 Things like this sort of make Sony a prime target for criticism at the moment since they haven't been able to really "deliver" just yet. These issues will eventually be worked out like the over heating 360's.

 All and all, the three systems should do well, and the competition will really help the market grow and benefit the consumer.

Ok, now that the various fanboys are done pissing and moaning about everything, let's go back to the subject of todays blog entry.  (and Blog - geeezus, the only people I know that still use the term are on TV, a sure sign that it is passe).

Anyway, I read reviews.  I use each next-gen console (PS2,XBox, and Cube), and I have 2 of the 3 next-next-gen consoles (360 and Wii), not to mention the PSP and DS. And for me, I want to make sure I'm getting the best game available at the time.  Because my gaming time is valuable (to me) I use every resource I can to make sure I'm not getting an "Import Tuner" instead of PGR3.  I really liked IGN's head-to-head reviews, when a game release on multiple platforms, they'd compare several major categories (controls, graphics, load times) and make a recommendation as to what console to buy the game for.

And yes, $60/game is to much (LMAO, Madden 07), so I don't buy games, I use a popular online game rental franchise to keep costs low and gaming dollars/per hour cost effective (that was sarcasm).

"People read game review sites, not because they want to hear somebody's opinion on a game to make up their own mind, but because they want to hear somebody agree with them on a game."

I read game reviews to see whether I should invest my money in game X. Whether feature Y that it has is fun enough to get me to buy it. I only read IGN for that (even with all the ads), simply because they tell me whether something is a gimick or not. And in many years of reviews they have never been wrong.

It helps to be able to read the review in such a way that you don't just blindly read what they say. You need to be able to abstract what they are really saying.

The other main tool is of course screenshots. Ordinary ones, not the ones from the game's website. They'll show you what it looks like and most often how the game plays. This is enough information for me to decide on a game.

Yeah, I'm not sure there are any great insights into the world of game reviewing other than this: fanboys exist, and they are going to take you to task whenever your review disagrees with their opinion, regardless of whether or not they are living in a fact-based world.

I somewhat resent the huge generalization that people read game reviews to massage their egos and confirm their own internally held opinions. I read reviews to get insights into what a game will be like and to make purchasing decisions. A single review generally isn't enough, because any number of factors could influence how the person feels about the game. Aggregation sites can usually give a good idea of how multiple reviewers feel about a game, and can give you an idea if a review is an "outlier" or not. Overall, this seems to give a pretty good picture of the general impressions of the game, and individual reviews can highlight particularly good or bad points.

But pointing out that there are jerks on the Internet that will argue with your opinion seems kind of like pointing out that the sun is hot. People argued over Gerstmann's 8.8, and people argued over 1up's 10.0. Color me not surprised when argumentation is the default mode of the Internet, and I'm well aware of the irony when I'm making this post, arguing about arguing.

The guy makes a good point, there are certainly some people that do do that kind of thmg (I admit to having done it myself0 but generally, like the guys said above, people read the reviews to determine the games that they want to invest in. I try never to rely on any single review, instead I go to sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings and read as many reviews as I can stand. Then I decide if I want to buy the game.

I do agree up to a certain point. Furthermore, I try to find reviewers that agree with my own oppinion myself. However, I do not do it just because I like people agreeing with me, I do it because I think that if one of those reviewers find a game I haven't played interesting then there is a higher chance that I like that game as well than if those reviewers which I disagree with qualify the game as good. After all, if we seem to agree on several games then probably I also like one of the games the guy has reviewed as good lately.

The dumbest thing Gamespot did was have a publicized response to the criticisms on the net. The game got a fricking 88/100, nothing to *** about. Nintendo didn't exactly reinvent the wheel or anything; it's tried and true, and 88 is netspeak for "relatively awesome". Gamespot should've kept their mouths shut on the whole matter, as the response only serves to validate the complaints, be they retarded or not.

you know what irks me in game reviews, when they actually spoil the plot, right in the review.

So there i am reading a review, because I want to know if a game I'm interested in is any good, then suddenly, the massive plot twist is revealed to me. Great. Not much point playing the damned thing now.

film reviewers are just as bad at it.

Imagine my dismay, when a film review stated that the ship sinks at the end of titanic. (<--tongue in cheek!)