Why don't game reviews today tell you whether the game is fun or not. Instead they tell you about the games graphics engine and sound design. Why is that? Nintendo Gamer Thoughts takes a look.
Tim Bender, Hooded Horse CEO, has brought to light the discussion of price. With AAA projects such as Star Wars: Outlaws stirring controversy with its peak $130 price tag, gamers have come to expect the worst from new releases. Manor Lords, on the other hand, looks like it’s going to be an entirely different story.
A Helldivers 2 players shares an amusing story to warn players not to do this if they want to keep their Samples
WWE 2K24 developer has turned heel banning arguably the most popular community creator to the dismay of fans.
The awnser is: nerds
Hmmm. Remember when Greg Miller at IGN did his review for Dead Space 2 and everyone tore him to pieces because it was written too simplistic? I'd say that's the problem. It's not enough to simply have a lot of gaming experience and an open mind, now you need to be a pseudo-intellect and find deeper meaning in things that don't have a deeper meaning.
Well, different things are fun for different people. And you need to back up WHY it's fun. You also need to describe what separates it from other games, since some genres are so bloated. Just "fun" doesn't cut it anymore. People have specific tastes.
I can tell people all I want that The Darkness II is a "fun" shooter, but "shooter = CoD" for a lot of people. I have to explain how the mechanics allow and require a lot of creativity in shootouts, and how the story is well-paced and does a great job screwing with your head.
Because games are more complex, and developers are marketing their game differently than in the past. Like sports games nowadays can legitimately mimic their real-life counterparts because of current-gen hardware, compared to the Genesis and SNES days, where you couldn't legitimately mimic a sport on 16-bit system and just had to make it more fun and game-ish than realistic.
For example, the Madden. Saying it's fun isn't a enough for some NFL fans who are expecting a game that's "true to the NFL", yet still lacks basic things (momentum, proper acceleration and deceleration, all the penalties, good challenge system) that not only sports games made by the same company have, but also games made on the PS2 and Xbox had. This borrowed from a forum:
"Over 8 years I've watched as the same issues show up year in year out. The line play has been abysmal, player movement is laughable. Animations that were used in games 12 years ago are rampant in Madden. Penalties and the proper rules have yet to show up in Madden. Playoff seeding was incorrect. There are still no real time injuries. The injury system still doesn't even have the real NFL statuses such as doubtful, probable, etc. Online franchise mode (and offline now for that matter) is still riddled with bugs such as accelerated clock, non-working sliders, no transaction logs, inability to roll back games or assign a winner. The challenge system works only SOME of the time, with other times not even allowing you to challenge a challengeable play. The commentary is still very subpar with few player names used and constantly saying incorrect things like "it's man coverage" when you called zone. Ball physics are still horrendous. Referees don't throw the flags on the field. Sidelines are not interactive. The web site supplied with online CCMs don't even show standings and stats and don't even allow you to do basic things like set a depth chart or make team moves. Route based passing still does not exist and players will warp to the ball because they are tethered to it."
There's much more to a game than fun:
http://penny-arcade.com/pat...
Plus, just doing that would be way too simple.
If you've got an audience that craves that sort of review, then write that.
But different sites/magazines have different audiences who tend to like different things. I don't see the problem in writing for your demographic/audience's preferences.