New Review Posted: King Arthur

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Mike Bracken takes the second hit from Konami this week, in the form of King Arthur. He finds the best way to deal with the pain is through comedy:

"Things I'd rather do than play King Arthur:

1. Jab myself in the eye with a dirty needle.
2. Wax Bea Arthur's "bikini area."
3. Go snorkeling in the sewer.
4. Punch myself repeatedly in the testicles.
5. Build a log cabin out of dog turds.
6. Roll through a briar patch naked, then take an alcohol shower.
7. Watch a 36-hour marathon of The View, followed by a Real World-esque experiment where I live with Star Jones for a year.
8. Listen to country music.
9. Model a pair of ass-less chaps for the general population of San Quentin.
10. Play Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis."

He goes on to describe the rest of the wholly unpleasant experience here.

[Jerm]

Uhm, hate to say it, but aren't there better games that you guys could be spending your time on? I doubt it's a shocking revelation that King Arthur sucks balls to anyone that frequents this site; or do you guys get some kind of sick satisfaction from reviewing the "straight to bargain bin" titles? Or maybe you simply rely on the free copies of games that you can get and then review only those?

I apologize for souding like a jerk, but if Game Critics wants to reach a wider audience, you should at least be looking at games people care about in a somewhat timely manner (Dawn of War is a good example; great game to critique, but it came out nearly 8 months ago). I've been lurking at this site for nearly four years now, and I think it's great (whenever I buy from Amazon I always link through here), but I don't see much of an attempt to bring in anyone else besides your established group of patrons. The choice of titles to review lately has been pretty strange and lackluster considering there have been some great/hyped games coming out this quarter. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest. No hard feelings, m'kay?

Maybe this post isn't necessarily in the best spot, so if a moderator wants to move it somewhere more appropriate, feel free

[Snack Eater]

Originally Posted by Jerm

Uhm, hate to say it, but aren't there better games that you guys could be spending your time on? I doubt it's a shocking revelation that King Arthur sucks balls to anyone that frequents this site; or do you guys get some kind of sick satisfaction from reviewing the "straight to bargain bin" titles? Or maybe you simply rely on the free copies of games that you can get and then review only those?

I apologize for souding like a jerk, but if Game Critics wants to reach a wider audience, you should at least be looking at games people care about in a somewhat timely manner (Dawn of War is a good example; great game to critique, but it came out nearly 8 months ago). I've been lurking at this site for nearly four years now, and I think it's great (whenever I buy from Amazon I always link through here), but I don't see much of an attempt to bring in anyone else besides your established group of patrons. The choice of titles to review lately has been pretty strange and lackluster considering there have been some great/hyped games coming out this quarter. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest. No hard feelings, m'kay?

Maybe this post isn't necessarily in the best spot, so if a moderator wants to move it somewhere more appropriate, feel free

I already expressed a similar sentiment with the Brackenbeard's ATV game review a few weeks ago. The truth is, many publishers will send games to be reviewed when there is absolutely nothing to say about them.

But fuck, man...Bea Arthur will forever haunt my dreams now. That is cruel and unusual game reviewing, man!

[Daniel Weissenberger]

You make a good point about the timeliness thing, but the thing about that is in order to get a really timely game review done, you've got to get the title well in advance - the lead time would be even more strenuous here, given the time the reviewers put into each review.

Besides that, and maybe I'm alone in this - one of my favorite things about videogames (as opposed to basically all other media) is that they're not going anywhere. I don't have to worry about catching a movie before it goes out of theatres, or watch a show at a certain time, or see a play before it finishes its run. If a game looks interesting, I can head out and pick it up at any time in the forseeable future - this is why I'm not as worried about the timeliness of reviews, since I generally don't buy anything until weeks or months after it's out. The biggest puzzler for me is the whole 'launch day' appeal. I know it's mostly something that marketing executives are trying to create, but I honestly don't understand the appeal of playing a game before someone else does. I mean, it's a game people. It's not like someone is going to ruin the twist ending.

[Hypatia93]

Feh. About them.

Anyway. Mike, that was one fuckin' hysterical review, man! I actually had to stop and get up and close my office door so folks wouldn't be wondering what I was reading.

The best part was the list -- that was the best "Top Ten" EVAR! (Yeah, about Bea Arthur.. *shudder* -- You, my friend, are INDEED the Horror Geek of All Geeks. Sheesh!)

I have to admit I had absolutely no interest in the title, 1) because I /knew/ the movie sucked (without ever seeing it), and 2) because it was a game based off a movie that sucked. But boy am I glad I read it; if I hadn't have done so, I would have missed out on one helluva grand belly-laugh.

Thanks!

[Chi Kong Lui]

Originally Posted by Jerm

Uhm, hate to say it, but aren't there better games that you guys could be spending your time on?

Start a new thread in the Ask GC forum and we'll see if we can get those games reviewed. Last time we did this, I think we got a quite a few of the requested titles covered.

Originally Posted by Jerm

The choice of titles to review lately has been pretty strange and lackluster considering there have been some great/hyped games coming out this quarter. Am I the only one who feels this way?

In the last three months, we reviewed 39 titles which included SC Chaos Theory, GTA San Andreas, God of War, MGS3, Tekken 5, Brothers in Arms. What other major titles did we miss beside Gran Turismo?

Chi

[EnduroGamer]

Originally Posted by GC_Chi

In the last three months, we reviewed 39 titles which included SC Chaos Theory, GTA San Andreas, God of War, MGS3, Tekken 5, Brothers in Arms. What other major titles did we miss beside Gran Turismo?

Chi

When asked about more timely reviews, it's probably not a good idea to cite that you reviewed MGS3 and San Andreas "in the last 3 months", as both of those titles came out last fall. To wait four or more months for a review of two of the most anticipated games of the year is a little... peculiar to say the least.

Originally Posted by GC_Danny

If a game looks interesting, I can head out and pick it up at any time in the forseeable future - this is why I'm not as worried about the timeliness of reviews, since I generally don't buy anything until weeks or months after it's out. The biggest puzzler for me is the whole 'launch day' appeal. I know it's mostly something that marketing executives are trying to create, but I honestly don't understand the appeal of playing a game before someone else does.

But this isn't really about you. Chi doesn't operate this site so Danny has someplace to post his reviews, but rather so thousands of people can come and get educated about games, and read well-written, well constructed reviews. I realize that this is voluntary and certainly you can't be expected to sacrifice time and money just to get a review posted a week or two sooner than you might otherwise, but the issue here is games that are reviewed months after their release.

Many of the visitors to this site in particular spend a lot of money on their hobby and have the means not to have to wait to buy a game. I would imagine I speak for a lot of people on here when I say that we don't buy games on launch day because we want to play a game before everyone else, but rather because we all are well-informed, know what we want, and feel that the 6 to 12 months (and often longer) we spend waiting for a title to release is plenty long enough.

For example, when Killer 7 finally releases, I'm not buying it that day because I want to play it before you, but rather because i've already spent over 12 months looking forward to it. People can diss on IGN and Gamespot and the others for their reviews and whathaveyou, but what's the alternative? Waiting 5 months to see if a more reputable site thinks San Andreas is any good?

[Daniel Weissenberger]

The kind of person who looks forward to games for months to years at a time often doesn't bother to read a review at all before buying - in many cases, those kinds of people read reviews after the fact, to compare other people's thoughts and feelings about the game to their own, and maybe look at the game from a new point of view. It seems like the only audience we're losing by not having reviews ready the day before the game comes out (or within a few days afterwards) is the audience looking to use reviews primarily as advice on whether to buy the game or not. While I give you that it isn't a small percentage of the people who read reviews, I don't believe it's the only target audience there is.

[Mike Doolittle]

Well, I think that we could definitely improve our timeliness with things. But, really, since no one's getting paid to do this, we're totally at the mercy of people volunteering their time. I've spent many a late night working on the main review for Doom 3 to get it done as soon as I can, but it's still about six weeks after the release of the game. But heck, we didn't even get the game until a few weeks after release.

I do think that we should spend less time on straight-to-bargain-bin titles that came out months ago and more time trying to cover the most popular games and the interesting niche titles, but even with the improved staff numbers we have, it's tough. Right now we have both Forza and GT4 waiting to be reviewed, but surprisingly our critics aren't snatching them up. Heck, I'm not a huge racing fan, but I'd review one of them just to have a valuable game to trade in! So, again, we're at the mercy of people being willing to volunteer their time. All the more reason to help out if you fancy yourself a good writer.

[EnduroGamer]

Originally Posted by GC_Danny

The kind of person who looks forward to games for months to years at a time often doesn't bother to read a review at all before buying - in many cases, those kinds of people read reviews after the fact, to compare other people's thoughts and feelings about the game to their own, and maybe look at the game from a new point of view.

True and since you said "often" I won't jump down your throat about overly generalizing.

But many people still read reviews for games they've been looking forward to for a long time. Not all the time, mind you, but there's definitely been times when an anticipated game gets scorched in the reviews and I suddenly change my thoughts from "must buy" to "wait and see".

Take Fable for example. There were plenty of people on this very forum who were leaning towards a launch day purpose and backed away from it because of the reviews.

Well... perhaps just Hypatia, but she counts right? LOL!

[Chi Kong Lui]

Originally Posted by EnduroGamer

For example, when Killer 7 finally releases, I'm not buying it that day because I want to play it before you, but rather because i've already spent over 12 months looking forward to it. People can diss on IGN and Gamespot and the others for their reviews and whathaveyou, but what's the alternative? Waiting 5 months to see if a more reputable site thinks San Andreas is any good?

The reality is that there are no easy answers. We took two months to publish a review of San Andreas after it was released. Take off two weeks for the writing, proofing and HTML production of the review page. That means that Scott played the game for roughly a month and a half. Do you think that's enough time to play through the game and really get the complete experience? You would think that would be the minimum amount of time someone would have to play the game to be able to write a informed review.

With all the content in San Andreas, you'd think it would be strange that IGN and GameSpot were able to put out reviews on release day even if they were playing beta test versions. And I know that "professional" reviewers cut corners and play it safe to make their deadline. So let's not forget to factor into the equation.

On a side note, I found it amazing how well organized the media blitz was for Jade Empire when IGN gave it a 9.9. Ordinarily, when a game gets a high rating from IGN, its not really a big deal. For Jade Empire, it was splashed across many news pages. I wasn't surprised to visit IGN and notice all the big ads for Jade Empire at the same time.

Chi

[Hypatia93]

Originally Posted by EnduroGamer

True and since you said "often" I won't jump down your throat about overly generalizing.

But many people still read reviews for games they've been looking forward to for a long time. Not all the time, mind you, but there's definitely been times when an anticipated game gets scorched in the reviews and I suddenly change my thoughts from "must buy" to "wait and see".

Take Fable for example. There were plenty of people on this very forum who were leaning towards a launch day purpose and backed away from it because of the reviews.

Well... perhaps just Hypatia, but she counts right? LOL!

Hell yeah I count!

Unfortunately, your analogy was wrong, however. It wasn't the reviews that changed my mind, b/c the reviews (everywhere else but here, as there were no timely ones here) were glowing.

BUT! I am one of those who do wait months or years on end for games and then because of reviews (not from this site) do not purchase them at launch. But again, if later someone on this board -- a reviewer or another trusted individual like yourself, Doug -- put out the good word for it, I'll change my mind again, and pick it up, either eventually or sooner. I'm just like that; it's a woman's perogative, after all.

Otoh, I'm partly one of those kind of readers of the reviews Danny means in his posts -- for the titles I've already picked-up, that is. But I do peruse the site for older titles I've heard of, or ones I've not heard of, looking for games I may be interested in to see if there's anything I should get.

So.. Yes, it would be swell if y'alls reviews were more timely and pertinent. But it's also understandible why they're not. So I deal, b/c I love you guys. End of mushy story.

EDIT: Chi, how is it that those "other" guys get all those reviews (especially for the really /long/ games) out so quickly? Also, I /really/ like Jade Empire, but it is NOT a 9.9; it's more of an 8.5 (to me).