Something Awful picks worst five game reviews
According to Something Awful, 2005 was not a
good year for gaming journalism. In fact, they reckon it was a terrible year, and they've picked the five
worst gaming articles to exemplify just how abysmal game journalism has become. Not limiting themselves to 2005, the
two worst articles in their lineup are both by the same author and neither is actually from 2005; in Something Awful's
words, the reviews are so "horrible that they have transcended the limitations of linear time".Among the lineup is Kieron Gillen, who's responded to the article on his own site. The traits identified by Something Awful that make these particular reviews so bad include, but are not limited to: rampant fanboyism, an awful sense of humour, pretentiousness, spending much of the review not talking about the actual game, spending the entire review failing to describe the game, and being Tim Rogers. A useful checklist of things to avoid when reviewing games.
[Thanks, anonymous]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
AJAX @ Jan 3rd 2006 1:43PM
Something Awful's hypocritical hatemongering bullshit is representative of everything I hate about the Internet. Worse are their readers, who (as indicated in the comments section of the blog linked above) swallow everything posted on SA's front page as gospel. Probably won't be long before that guy's phone number gets posted to SA's forums and everyone there is encouraged to call him at home and scream as many obscenities into the phone as possible; and/or a DDoS attack will be launched against his site.
ryan lukens @ Jan 3rd 2006 1:58PM
Interesting #1, you happen to represent everything that I hate about the internet.
KungFu-tse @ Jan 3rd 2006 2:25PM
Jeez, what a whiner. I don't understand his bashing on #4.
"Gamespot did it again even though the gaming media was made a laughingstock by their hilariously inaccurate reviews of the first game. Gamespot did it even though many of gaming sites had to issue retractions, apologies and re-reviews."
I don't know what the hell he's talking about since the first one is currently 90% at GameRankings and got a 94 from PC Gamer and 97 from IGN.
Obviously this Zack character doesn't understand that Previews and Reviews are two different things. I can give dozens of examples where a game looked good at E3 but ended up being a bomb when it was released. You can't judge a AAA title just by the previews.
And if anyone ought to be accused of oversensationalist in previews, it has to be Game Informer. The covers speak for themselves.
Dan @ Jan 3rd 2006 2:26PM
In response to comment number 1, the administrators of the Awful Forums never encourage illegal activity and will ban any member that they catch breaking actual laws. That includes posting someone's personal information on the forums and writing scripts to attack someone's website.
Hoystory @ Jan 3rd 2006 2:43PM
After having read the Something Awful article I would like to mention just one thing:
The battle of Gettysburg occurred in 1863, not 1865. It's easy enough to Google and Tim Rogers deserves a beating not just for his writing, but also for his unfamiliarity with American History.
Jeff @ Jan 3rd 2006 3:05PM
"I don't know what the hell he's talking about since the first one is currently 90% at GameRankings and got a 94 from PC Gamer and 97 from IGN."
You've apparently never played either B&W.
The whole point is that while they were both well-reviewed, almost every single person who's ever actually played them have called them a disappointment AT BEST.
It's just more gushing over Lionhead and that hack of a game designer Peter Molyneux, who's done exactly one great game in his life and that was about 15 years ago.
This is *why* game journalism sucks, and it's why it's totally appropriate for that Gamespot preview to be up there. Even GameSpot themselves eventually admitted the first game pretty much sucked, and their own "they say" column in their B&W2 review is at 7.6/10 right now, well below their "we say" 8.2 (which was already lower than the 9.3 they gave for the first game... despite their preview that called it "the game the first B&W should have been" - that's not inconsistent at the very least?).
You don't see the problem here?
retro @ Jan 3rd 2006 3:07PM
Man, this guy's harsh. Too harsh, it feels like the Tim Rogers guy murdered his parents, pet dog, and sister and then set fire to his house as a small child.
32_Footsteps @ Jan 3rd 2006 4:14PM
Now, I've never either played or reviewed either B&W game. So I don't really have an opinion on it one way or another. However, I have several friends who did enjoy the first, and who were eagerly awaiting the second. So I'd hardly say that the kindest thing anyone would say about it in retrospect was that it was a disappointment.
As for how Something Awful present Rogers... seems more like they present him as the most insufferable, long-winded, inane gasbag to write about video games out there. I personally can't find a reason to argue otherwise. I'm just glad they didn't decide to pick on me - I've been known to go on for a few thousand words myself.
LaughingMan @ Jan 3rd 2006 4:19PM
The article was funny in a "snarking" sort of way, but I couldn't help but notice the author bemoaning the standards of video game journalism on one hand, but then using the term "bitch slap" and "hit him in the face with a shovel" in his own writings. Funny, when I read critiques of writers and the essays they've written very few of them offer to "beat da writa with my sneak-ah" or something like that. Physician, heal thyself.
scott @ Jan 3rd 2006 5:12PM
Both SA's article and Gillen's articles are quite useless as far as gaming is concerned. They are both far more concerned with expressing their own egos on the screen.
Sang @ Jan 3rd 2006 5:34PM
Sure, the writer of the article itself didn't go about it in the most professional manner, but it is SA and that's not what they do. But this doesn't disprove the fact that, although I think Kieron Gillen a competent writer, that Darwinia review was pure drivel and, even more so than any Tim Rogers article, really did make me want to bitch slap him. As for the others, the articles do a good job pointing out the BS that is rampant in all of the writers/publications.
You may not agree with the way SA went about doing it, but their point you can't deny. These articles were awful.
KungFu-tse @ Jan 3rd 2006 5:49PM
I see what you're saying.
But the funny thing is that people usually accuse GS of underrating games and IGN of overscoring games. Even Tycho of Penny-Arcade said, "IGN tends to score games a little higher and Gamespot tends to score them a bit lower". I remember how the fanboys reacted when GS gave Half-Life 2 a 9.2, Halo 2 a 9.4, and MGS3 Snake Eater an 8.7, each of which is a little lower than everyone else.
GameSpot has been at the center of controversy surrounding their reviews scores before. One example was with Shenmue for the Dreamcast. Originally, they gave it a 6.8. But then everyone else starting giving it really high scores and sometimes pick for Game of the Year. That's when they rerated it as 7.8 and Joe Fielder had to write an explanation to the increase in score. (that explanation has since been removed).
And who could forget the Savage review for the PC. Originally, GS gave it a 6.7. But then the developer complained that the reviewer only logged less than 3 hours playing it online. That caused enough controversy for GS to rewrite and review, this time with Greg Kasavin writing the review.
Other gaming sites have had their share of contraversies too. Anyone remember when Penny-Arcade bashed IGN over their Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles review? The IGN boards went up in flames over that. Everyone knows that Penny-Arcade hates IGN.
Then there's also the Game Informer controversy over their Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door review. When Jeremy tried to explain his reason for the low score, he said the game was "kiddie" and that "we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them".
My point is that every critic is going to be criticized by fans, no matter who they are. And sometimes what the critics like doesn't necessary mean that everyone else likes it too.
Take the movie and music industry for example. Do you always agree with the choices they make at the Acadamy Awards and the Grammy's. I sure don't. You know that critics rate Citizen Kane as the greatest movie of all time. As a matter of fact, Roger Ebert says that if he were on an island and could have only one movie, Citizen Kane would be it. Yet, so many people find the movie boring as hell. I actually fell asleep the first time I watched Citizen Kane. Yes, it's #1 on AFI's list.
I have similar feelings about certain games. Planescape: Torment gets praised as one of the most underrated and greatest PC games of all time. Yet, I actually found the game to be very boring from the start. I just couldn't get into it. And don't get me wrong, I've actually played Baldur's Gate so I have no problem with AD&D games. Still, I don't see why the game is considered so great.
And I guess I'm in the minority when I say I actually played and liked the first Black & White (that is, at first). Yes, I know a lot of people hate it. But I thought it was a very unique game, having played Molyneux's previous games. I actually got up to Land 5 until I quit. The game got quite long and repetitive and I had other things to do. It's one of those rare situations where you loved the game at first but hated it and didn't want to finish it in the end. The way Zack writes it, he makes it sound like he hated it from the start. For me, it was a love/hate relationship with the game.
Back to my original point that Previews and Reviews are two different things. Yes, it does seem inconsistent that GS praise the game in the preview, yet gave it a lower score than the first. But GS does that with most of their previews, give good preview but give it a fair or harsh final score. But the thing is, you can't judge a game just by trailers, screenshots, and early gameplay demos.
I was at QuakeCon 2005 when they have Quake 4 multiplayer demo available. They also showed exclusive footage of the game during a conference. My initial reaction was that it was a definite A- or B+ game. To my amazement, PC Gamer, CGW, and CGM bashed the game with a 70%. I gave the game another shot at CPL Winter Championships in Dallas last month. That's I realized that my initial impression was wrong. The game was indeed a rehash of Quake 2 & 3. Nothing new or groundbreaking here. Even though I played an early demo of Q4 at QuakeCon and got a good impression, that doesn't necessary mean it represents the final game.
So yeah, it does seem hypocritical for GS to praise B&W2 so much in the preview. But what they played was the "preview" version, says so on page 2 of the preview. Not the full version. You can't judge a game from just a preview.
Azrael @ Jan 3rd 2006 5:56PM
I think you guys are being Harsh on the article itself, It's supposed to be funny, remember? not necesarily realistic. Besides you have to admit some of the articles mentioned in the list are just laughing out loud bad.
Actually if you look around Zacks articles theres an article bashing the best games ever made, including Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Final Fantasy, the sims etc. and yes they ALL get rated as "crap" (to use the mild 4 letter sinonym) and somehow It's hysterical.
KingBigos @ Jan 3rd 2006 6:42PM
WTF?
This isnt even a list. I don't see #1 even. God this guy is a stupid wanker.
Jay @ Jan 4th 2006 2:03AM
Azrael has it right. To those who are bemoaning the comments regarding SA...guys...lighten up. It's a HUMOR site. It's not supposed to be read as serious gospel or anything. I disagree with many of the opinions some of the writers of SA have or purport to have in their writings, but that's not the point...it's entertainment, more than anything, intended to be funny. Don't take it so seriously and have a laugh.
I agree that the Darwinia review was pretty pretentious, however :D :D
txa1265 @ Jan 4th 2006 9:13AM
While I know the article is supposed to be funny, #5 on the list highlights something I have a problem with in terms of game journalism - it focuses too much on 'being kewl'.
While I agree with his supposition that PlanetGameCube is a 'fanboy' site, and that the review is rediculous to the extreme, he makes points based on anti-Nintendo statements that are pretty baseless and show a personal bias that undermine his credibility ... had he just said "read the review ... need I say more (*cough* fanboi alert *cough*)?" I would have had a good chuckle - but he had to malign the GBA in general because he has never found any of the games interesting enough (which says something about *him*, not the GBA), he maligns Mario as a character - which I don't disagree with, but I'd buy 'Barney Racer' if it played like Mario DS, and finally he slaps a general 'kiddie' label on Nintendo games that shows he is lacking in either intelligence or self-confidence, as it seems he needs 'more mature' games to feel like a man. Gameplay should be what matters, not jigglies, gangsta, or bloodspray ... but that is endemic in the gaming journalism world run by 20-something males.
Mike
smedrick @ Jan 4th 2006 1:37PM
I read Kieron Gillen's Darwinia review after reading the SA article and concluded pretty much the same thing. While there were bits of a decent review in there somewhere, the pretentious overtone turned me off.
And I agree with SA's take on the B&W review, as well. The second one is the same fucking game as the first one...in every aspect. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy either game, though.