Not really.
I said (I think I said, and if I didn’t say it it’s what I meant to say) that the price shouldn’t be part of the overall critique. Mentioning how much a game costs is one thing, (Dredmore is 5 bucks, Sengoku is only $20!) and I think fair game. Using price as a tool to evaluate a game is something I don’t agree with at all.
If a game sucks at $60 or $10 I don’t care. It’s a waste of my time. I can’t stand it when critics end reviews with “It’s worth a rental but not at full price.”
The Games Workshop reissue of Space Hulk is awesome, and when it was released it was $100+ which caught a lot of people off guard. That didn’t make it any less awesome. If $100 is out of your price range, I think you are perfectly capable of making that call because I know I’m not. I just see a great game. I’ll let you work out the financials.
On the podcast I mention Skyrim. What if Bethesda released that game and decided it was going to sell for $80, $90 or even $100. Should that affect how I review the game?
I say no.
Brandon and Danielle say yes. Todd came around to my side because I know where he lives.
It was a fun show, no doubt.
I’m with Bill (and Todd) on this one. Taking price into consideration isn’t practical because that stuff changes so quickly and the relative value of the money is so varied among people. Are you going to update a review every time a game goes on sale or becomes available used?
The price is just one factor in deciding if I buy a game, and it’s not one that I need a reviewer weighing in on. I just want them to give me the facts about the game and describe their experience with it. I can take that information and combine it with other information --price, DRM, system requirements, whatever-- and make my purchasing decision.
It might’ve been easier to discern had the initial reacsplosion not been quite so reacsplosive.
But please forgive me if I misrepresented your argument.
That all seems like good data to include in a review.
I don’t think you need to make the purchasing decision for the reader (any more than you actually could for any other individual aspect of a game), but not even addressing the price, realizing that people will be thrown by it, seems like it ignores one fundamental reality of the consumer.
A reviewer takes a personal stance on many points - one might take issue with vulgarity in the game, find the graphics lacking, wish it featured more ponies … It’s still up to the reader to make a final call. I don’t see why a reviewer should necessarily draw a line at editorializing about the price.
Surely there must be some upper limit at which a reviewer can be expected to WTF over an out-of-bounds price.
I don’t necessarily disagree that the price should sway your reflection on the quality of a game, but it can still bear a significance worth addressing within a review.
My for-instance: APB and CrimeCraft originally released with a ludicrous pay scheme inextricably entwined into the gameplay. How could that not have some sort of impact on the assessment of a game? A reviewer oblivious to costs would have no experience relatable to the average player.
No - no more than you are going to update a review to address any of the many other things that can affect a game post-review.
I agree that a game shouldn’t have some kind of price-tracking ticker to incrementally update the review based on fluctuations in the dollar and the price of tea …
I do not think it is out-of-line for a reviewer to editorialize on the price of an individual game in the market, if it seems like a significant element.
To point out that a game packs an amazing amount of content in a value-priced game, or that a phone game might have trouble proving itself at such a high cost in a market that expects dollar-shots does not seem unreasonable to me. The reader retains the capacity for decision-making.
It’s not exactly a foreign concept in reviews.
Otagan
4325
My reading of Bill’s comments doesn’t exclude the possibility of including the pricing information in the review. The way I see it, he’s arguing primarily that a reviewer should not dock Space Hulk 1 point out of 10 because he/she perceives it as overpriced. The product should be judged solely on its own merits, and the market should decide if the quality of the product is worth the price.
This is correct.
I clearly need a PR person.
Wait, are we still not talking about Gaming Podcasts in this thread?
Maybe this side conversation could be its own thread… :)
I always envisioned this thread as a place expressly for such “side conversations” that sprout from podcast discussions. So we’re still on track as far as I’m concerned.
Well, it is your thread! :) But every time I see it bumped I think I’ll be reading about some antics on a podcast, and then it’s just more discussion about game reviews and the like. No worries, I’ll shut up now!
Goddamnit, stop bumping, I’m waiting for Idle Thumbs to come back!
Speaking of podcasts, hearing Shane on the most recent Weekend Confirmed made me remember why I loved to hate the guy. His presence on a podcast is a good thing, at least when he’s not shilling his own games, but he fell into the same routine as always. That is, he was always ready with some one liner dig at whatever game the others brought up, even when it was clear that he himself hadn’t played the game and was just parroting the accepted view on it from NeoGAF. I always hated that about Shane. He could never just keep his mouth shut about a game he hadn’t played and moreover, seemed to derive pleasure from putting those games down even if others were expressing appreciation of them.
After all of the hubbub in this thread, I finally went and listened to the JTS episode in question. As you can expect, I’m on Team Bill but, rather than dredge up the whole discussion again, I’ll try to be brief with two comments:
-
Equating game reviews to travel reviews or food reviews or music reviews or any other kinds of reviews is a false equivalency, because those markets contain products that don’t dramatically shift in price in the same way that games often do, nor are the “products” in those mediums experienced in a similar way to games. Games are a completely unique medium and market – it’s not like there’s a new European country coming out next year with better looking scenery. Robert Christgau isn’t saying that the latest iTunes-only single is “pretty good for an mp3.”
-
Maybe I’m misinterpreting things, but I feel like some of the discussion in the podcast takes the idea of Subjectivity in Reviews a little too far in the other direction. I’ll admit that I’m probably harboring unfair expectations here, but I feel like a good review isn’t just an expression of your opinion of a particular game; it’s an intellectual analysis for a populist/consumer purpose, an objective or critical examination of a subjective experience. And, if the critique is done well and written well, then the reader should really have all the information that they need to make their own value judgments of a game, whatever their time/monetary constraints may be.
Another? : ) I never got too cool or bored with any of my pet projects. GFW came to an end when Jeff, Sean, and I left Ziff Davis. Recording Out of the Game was always a challenge with the lot of us in different time zones and very often facing scheduling conflicts, etc. I’m positive the other guys will vouch for me in saying that it was not because I was bored that that podcast fizzled out. As for Irrational Behavior, I became a level designer some time ago and have been very busy indeed. Nonetheless, we are currently editing a new episode for a new season. I do apologize for the massive hiatus.
If possible, you should bring Remo and Gaynor into the mix.
Remo’s all over it. We’ll get Gaynor in one day as well.
JonRowe
4338
I would like to repeat the sentiment above.
That sounds like magical ponies.
Am I the only one who is a little shocked that Shawn Elliott did a smiley at us?
