New Review Posted: Red Dead Revolver

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Brad Gallaway reviews Red Dead Revolver and says:

"It's been a long, hard road for Red Dead Revolver. Starting life as a game in Capcom's stables, it was headed for the glue factory before Rockstar came along and gave it a second chance. With all the ups and downs on its way to retail, it became a real underdog of the industry, with scores of people wanting to see it overcome the odds and succeed. I'm glad to say that the game's well-wishers should be pleased with the final product-in my opinion, Sam Houser's rescue efforts have paid off in spades."

You can read the rest here: http://www.gamecritics.com/review/reddead/main.php

[EnduroGamer]

I never touched the single player portion of the game, but I do have extensive experience with the Multiplayer mode (which can be played solo) side of the game and also with the Journal and I can't help but feel that failing to mention neither the multiplayer nor the enormous amount of unlockables was an unfortunate oversight.

Yes, it's a positive review of the game and while the 8.5 score may have taken these issues into account, the multiplayer aspect of the game is a significant aspect and should be mentioned in a review. Not to mention the tremendous amount of replay that is offered by the unlockable modes of play and by the offering of dozens and dozens of unlockables.

[Daniel Weissenberger]

You didn't happen to read the consumer advice, did you?

[EnduroGamer]

Yes, I did wiseass.

You didn't happen to play the game, did you?

One sentence tucked in the midst of a sidebar doesn't constitute covering a portion of the game that has nearly as many options and as much depth as the main single player mode. All I'm saying is that if you're going to "review" the game, then "review" the entire game. Or at least mention it.

[LemmyCaution]

I'm sorry, I'm still pondering Brad's "making love to an armadillo" exit line.

I just don't get invited to the fun parties, do I?

[GC_Thom]

Doesn't a single sentence count as 'mentioning it'?

And is the multi-player online? In that case, I could see why it wouldn't be included - hell, I've reviewed many a game where there was online play and I never mentioned it - mainly because I didn't have online access on my consoles until next week. Obviously I wouldn't review an online-oriented game, but RDR doesn't strike me as that kind of a title, where online is a requisite part of the experience.

In any case, it's probably not that hard to find a review that does concentrate on the multiplayer component. And if you're the defining body for what constitutes a review, can you set out some bullet-points for the more ill-informed of us?

[Brad Gallaway]

i hear where Enduro's coming from, and i think he's got a point given the hearty multi goodies. unfortunately, i just didn't have the room or opportunity to bring it up in depth with the focus of the piece. it's all a matter of priority, and i chose to pump the main game as the selling point. (not to mention my own prefs as a reviewer/player.) hopefully the 2nd op will cover the multi more.

[jvm]

Originally Posted by GC_Thom

Doesn't a single sentence count as 'mentioning it'?

(...snip...)

In any case, it's probably not that hard to find a review that does concentrate on the multiplayer component. And if you're the defining body for what constitutes a review, can you set out some bullet-points for the more ill-informed of us?

I believe that the point EnduroGamer wished to make was that the body of the review should have included some important points. An entire essay in a sidebar still wouldn't count as being in the body of the review, where every reader is practically guaranteed to see it.

While it might not be hard to find a review elsewhere that does discuss the multiplayer part of this game, your statement is nearly an admission that the review here is lacking material that was important enough to be in many reviews elsewhere.

I feel confident that EnduroGamer wasn't stepping forth as an authority on review standards, but rather to point out obvious deficiencies in the review under discussion. Seeing the latter but inferring the former seems logically faulty.

As for standards, perhaps the very mission statement of GameCritics would be useful here:

Provide consumers with insightful, useful, and entertaining content on videogames.

If the multiplayer aspect is really as important as EnduroGamer has said ("a portion of the game that has nearly as many options and as much depth as the main single player mode") then I'd say that this fails the "useful" criterion, from the perspective of a potential buyer. Then there is the motto on the front page:

Smart Reviews for Serious Gamers

Speaking as someone who, regrettably, considers himself a serious gamer, I'd want to know if a game had an extensive, entertaining multiplayer mode. And, to take the liberty of extending "smart" to "informed", I'd say that a review that doesn't cover an important feature in its main body fails to inform.

Interestingly, back when GameCritics posted a review of Manhunt, I had a brief exchange with EnduroGamer in which I informed him that you could use the headset to hear and say things in the game, a feature which I believe was not mentioned in the GameCritics review. Now, inadvertently, EnduroGamer has returned the favor by telling me some important information about Red Dead Revolver that wasn't in the GameCritics review of that game.

[Brad Gallaway]

While it might not be hard to find a review elsewhere that does discuss the multiplayer part of this game, your statement is nearly an admission that the review here is lacking material that was important enough to be in many reviews elsewhere.

good post, JVM.

i'm not speaking for Thom here, but i just wanted to point out that GameCritics is a bit of an unusual beast in that knowing each reviewer's taste and style goes a long way towards getting the most out of each review.

honestly, i think it's pretty rare that there's ever a review here that covers every single aspect of a game that every potential consumer might want to know about. for those kind of three-page nuts-and-bolts lists of features, you'd probably want to go to IGN or something similar.

in the published piece, i chose to spotlight the aspects of the experience which i personally found the most interesting and exciting. i knew this wouldn't be satisfactory for every single reader in the world, but we're not reviewing machines looking at every disc from a cold, detached perspective. we try to add a more personal touch, and as such, it's almost inevitable that some part of every game will get less face time than another. (which is exactly why we use the 1st/2nd opinion format.)

i think both you and Enduro have good, valid points, but at the same time, i think it might be that our perceived endpoints for reviews might be slightly different.

[GC_Thom]

Eh, I was pretty snarky there, wasn't I? I blame the 9 straight days of working nights and never seeing the sun.

I just question the concept that the multiplayer options is as integral to RDR as the single-player - sure, it has lots of 'features and options' but Tony Hawk 3 had loads of online features and options - does that mean that the multiplayer experience was a required part of reviewing the game? Equating numbers of features to actual importance in gameplay experience sounds like something that would come out of marketing rather than somebody who'd actually played the game.

But then, I haven't played the game yet, so I'll bow out now before I make a further ass of myself.

EDITED TO ADD: Although I wouldn't equate 'smart' with 'informed' - I'd have to say that when I review a game, giving an informed overview of the options of the game is not usually my goal - I'm much more interested in an analysis of the game-experience. The informational laundry-list approach is already too widespread and mined-out to be very interesting.

[Chi Kong Lui]

Originally Posted by jvm

Interestingly, back when GameCritics posted a review of Manhunt, I had a brief exchange with EnduroGamer in which I informed him that you could use the headset to hear and say things in the game, a feature which I believe was not mentioned in the GameCritics review. Now, inadvertently, EnduroGamer has returned the favor by telling me some important information about Red Dead Revolver that wasn't in the GameCritics review of that game.

"Thorough" isn't one of the qualities in the mission statement. Not that I'm against being thorough, accurate and informative. Its just that some of the qualities are often at odds with one another. If a critic choose to cover every aspect of the game and broke it down to graphics, sound, multiplayer, etc, the review wouldn't be enlightening and entertaining. I'd most likely be dull.

We don't do the laundry list style of review and that's what makes it tough. To write something in a more classic linear format requires a lot of fore thought into structure and flow. Somethings are omitted for the sake of clarity and efficiency. I think if a critic has made the reader interested in the title, then he or she has done their job even if the they missed what could be some major elements of the game.

Chi

[EnduroGamer]

Thank you for trying to explain where I was coming from JVM. Like Thom, I've been working night and day for what seems like eternity right now and I'm a little pissy. So excuse me if I sound like Thom's initial post did. I believe the word was "snarky".

No, the multiplayer part is not online. Did anybody ever say it was? I do believe I said it can be played solo though. Yep, I did. I also believe I said it was substantial in size. Listen, I'm not trying to say that it isn't a good review, of course it is, just that it's incomplete in my opinion. And while I could have bet a gazillion dollars that Brad's reply would blame this ommission on personal preferences (and I would have won), I don't think that's fair. Personal preferences would be fine for not liking the multiplayer or for not spending hours with it, but surely for the level of professionalism/respect you guys expect to receive on this site, not mentioning such a meaty part of the game just seems at odds with what you're trying to do here. It would have been so easy to throw it in the closing paragraph when you kind of wrap up what was so good about it. But alas, an armadillo-related witticism was more important.

The multiplayer mode has 3 different gameplay modes, roughly 40 different characters to unlock (each with their own weapons and Dead Eye attack) and has a dozen or so maps. It can be played against bots or with a multi-tap for up to 4 players. In addition, it has tons of settings and you can incorporate two different styles of poker into the multiplayer so that you pick up cards from dead bodies to complete your hand and win the pot. It's all quite fun.

[EnduroGamer]

Originally Posted by GC_Chi

We don't do the laundry list style of review and that's what makes it tough. To write something in a more classic linear format requires a lot of fore thought into structure and flow. Somethings are omitted for the sake of clarity and efficiency. I think if a critic has made the reader interested in the title, then he or she has done their job even if the they missed what could be some major elements of the game.
Chi

This is the biggest f'ing cop-out in the world Chi. This whole "oh we're too artistic for that" is such a bullshit excuse. Yes, you guys do write in a much more scholarly style, but you nevertheless provide information. Don't blame the "style" on what is ultimately one person's choosing of what to include and what not to include. Hell, I don't care if you write all of your reviews in Haiku, it doesn't mean you can't mention significant portions of the game.

And once again I must ask for you not to put words in my mouth--nobody was asking for bullet points or lists or anything else. Brad had no problem mentioning character names and the game's graphics did he? Did he need a list to do it? No. But wouldn't graphics, like multiplayer, be a part of some bulletpoint review formula like at IGN? Yes.

If anybody who has actually played the freaking game would care to comment, I'd love to hear it.

[Jason Karney]

I've only had a handful of published reviews here so far (I'm working on another!), but I've always had to leave something out in order to (a) keep the piece short enough for the style guide, and (b) fit in with the rest of the reviews.

For example, I think I had to really cut a lot (all?) of my minigames discussion out of my Xenosaga 2nd op. I chopped that out of FFX-2 main as well, and at the time I hoped that the other writer would cover it. I think a lot of players of JRPGs want to know about minigames, but it really lengthens the review to add that kind of detail.

So, those are things I would like to have covered, but it doesn't fit with the general review style for gc.com, where the two pieces are expected to complement each other.

I certainly understand where you guys are coming from with your complaints about the omission from this review, as both a consumer and as a writer. (I always like to go into low-level details, because I like to read about them, but I can't for gc.com reviews.) And I sympathize but I guess that's why we also have IGN and other sites. Gamecritics.com reviews seem to be focusing more and more on capturing the flavor or essence of the game.

My only complaint is the unique angle we have to come up with, to open each review.

(Doug -- maybe you could submit a public op about the multiplayer, if you are so familiar with it?)

--Jason

[Chi Kong Lui]

Originally Posted by EnduroGamer

This is the biggest f'ing cop-out in the world Chi. This whole "oh we're too artistic for that" is such a bullshit excuse.

Now who is putting words in who's mouth?

Originally Posted by EnduroGamer

And once again I must ask for you not to put words in my mouth--nobody was asking for bullet points or lists or anything else. Brad had no problem mentioning character names and the game's graphics did he? Did he need a list to do it? No. But wouldn't graphics, like multiplayer, be a part of some bulletpoint review formula like at IGN? Yes.

Honestly wasn't trying to be defensive, although it was probably impossible to avoid. I was just trying to explain the dynamic of what goes on in a critics' head. I'm not saying what Brad did was justified because of it. Some people clearly think it wasn't.

I can recall two games where I felt like I had to cover the multiplayer features: Winback and Perfect Dark. With the Perfect Dark review, it got so out of hand, it felt like I was writing an entirely different review for the multiplayer feature. Not my favorite review because it was so long, but I felt it was important given how much effort was put into it. The same for Winback. I felt it was far more than an after-thought and it was a shame that other reviews didn't praise it.

Chi