Home
CHRIS CESARANO
XBL -NONE-
PSN -NONE-
WII
-NONE-
STEAM -NONE-
CHRIS CESARANO'S SPONSOR
POST BY THIS AUTHOR (0)
COMMENTS BY THIS AUTHOR (10)
"first problem is a lot of games journalists haven't even looked at an AP Style Guide before, let alone own one. They aren't writers first, they are gamers first, and that's a worrisome line.
The other issue is it's nothing but journalists. People that can report the news and give you information, but there are few people with such an insight that actual games analysis and criticism is left to the dogs. It's like how "critics" are panning Darksiders for being too "derivative" and ripping from games like Zelda while so many other successful rips go with praise (Shadow Complex, while great, has had no criticism like Darksiders).
The people that are reviewing games really shouldn't be. There's no one like, say, Roger Ebert to be reviewing games that not only has a knowledge of the industry and its workings, but an analytical mind that can say "this works and this doesn't". It's all just a bunch of people that love games that ONLY know what they like and don't like, not what is good or bad design regardless of your personal feelings (otherwise GTA would be given a Hell of a lot more harsh criticism that it dese"
Monday, January 11, 2010
"ook at achievements like experience points. Being a player of D&D, each time I reach a new big number I feel like I've gained a level. When I surpassed 30,000 gamerscore this week I felt like a king, and now I've achieved 31,000. But the next big number will probably be 35,000.
Now that I've been able to play more games again I'm also competing with a friend that has 33,000 right now. Previously I was always roughly 1,000 behind, and it was fun fighting to keep up. However, that died for a while and I wasn't able to keep up with him. I'm slowly catching up, though. So while it's not so much bragging rights, it's a friendly competition that creates a goal for each of us.
Most of all, achievements simply give me extra play value. Not everyone is going to get it, but it helped me get my money's worth out of Dead Space (as well as proving to me that, after playing through three times in a row and still having a blast, it was my favorite game of last year).
I could care less about how large the gamerscore is compared to my other friends. I have one friend who is around 80,000+ and I'll never catch up to, while most of my other friends are slightly above or below 10,000. All it shows is that I play a shit ton of games. But I still like looking at it as experience p"
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
"ellent post. I'm not ashamed to admit being a 24 year old that's still afraid of the dark. In my college apartment if the basement door was left open and I wanted to get a drink at night, whether the basement light was on or off I had to close the door. I had visions of crazy four-legged beasts from a world of unspeakable truths and horrors leaping up the steps to devour my gooey insides.
THEN I started to read H.P. Lovecraft and it all got worse.
But you're right. That fear gives a sense of life, and thus"
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"Jon Cole - It's as much horror as Resident Evil ever was. It gives enough jumps certainly, but I think of it more action and suspense than horror. But it's still a great game.
As for the videos, I always wondered if I missed out on part of the Dead Space experience by not dying enough. Now I"
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"hink the problem with trying to label a "Citizen Kane of gaming" is that video games have a much wider array of possibilities than film. We have simple puzzle games, to full on Hollywood-style shooter and action games, to explorational titles and then small independent efforts as Passage.
Oddly enough, the first truly deep emotional impact I've gotten from a game yet was in Call of Duty 4, where you play the last moments of a character staring into a mushroom cloud. For half of this game I played as him, I JUST got done saving someone and was thrilled, and then...it all came to an end. Strongest emotional impact ever.
Yet the game in its entirety wouldn't be considered as artistic as passage by many Ivory-Tower style thinkers.
Where video games are now, we have a lot of people trying to push the medium, but they can't do it in a major fashion that Orson Welles did. Welles was able to use every shot to convey a meaning, the lighting to portray something unspoken, and while to this day people shout "It was a friggin' SLED?! How retarded!" the point is missed. The entire purpose of the sled was to say "this is where things went wrong for Kane". It was symbolic.
But when making a film, the viewer will only see what you want them to see. Games...well, first, what kind of game do you even want to make?
We're never going to have a "Citizen Kane" of video games. You may have one for a certain genre, such as what Half-Life did for FPS games, but you're never going to have one for all of video games because it is simply too varied and limitless a medium.
To me, however, that's its greatest str"
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"ave long had the sentiment that Goldeneye 64 was a shit game and everyone was free to be wrong about it. Glad to see I'm not alone.
I see people flip-flop on whether Mario 3 or World was better.
As for QTE's, I have a whole article on that myself so I'm not going to spend time listing that entire debate"
Monday, October 12, 2009
"website, somethinginthesea.com, has actually developed a character on its own that has intrigued me greatly. When I last checked out a lot of the new information on there, my heart began to sink because it presented a much more interesting purpose to return to Rapture. A man has been struggling to find his daughter and is looking for Rapture. Beginning the game as such a character with such a purpose is much more interesting than being "The FIRST Big Daddy!".
Gameplay-wise, it looks fun. However, Bioshock needed no sequel and honestly should never have gotten one. I'm hoping the sequel doesn't sell so well just so we can stop tacking a number two or three onto any game franchise that sells a ton of c"
Friday, September 25, 2009
"se a simple system for my reviews.
"Excellent", "Good", "Rental", "Poor", "Atrocious".
I have yet to give an atrocious because I've never been exposed to a game that is genuinely that bad. Typically I run into Good games or Rentals, rarely hitting Poor (maybe some good ideas but so much poor execution that it's passable) and Excellent (near perfection).
I hate perfect 10's because to me it suggests the game did nothing wrong. Which is bullshit.
The biggest issue with bias is there are some reviewers that try and stand on the sidelines, saying "if you like x type of game you'll dig this, but otherwise you may wanna stay away". Then there are reviewers that say "I loved this, so everyone will!" or "I hated this, so it sucks". Granted they do it in a more eloquent manner (giving the benefit of the doubt here), but the way I see it a games journalist and reviewer should be have enough understanding of the art of design that they can sit back, take all of the game's elements and say "ok, there's an audience for this, even if I'm not part of it".
Granted, sometimes a reviewer should know that from the start. I appreciate strategy games, but I suck at them. Having me review them would be pointless because I cannot provide a perspective that can understand that of strategy lovers. However, in terms of RPG's, shooters, platformers, puzzle games and several other genres, I can take an unbiased perspective and make a proper judgment (or so I like to think).
This is one of those things that I don't think enough reviewers out there can do, and one of the reasons some games have such erratic scores.
I will admit, though, that I will just never see why everyone loves GTA so much. I get the five minutes of crazy fun, but otherwise...man, I hate those"
Thursday, September 17, 2009
"the contrary, Scott, I think the current review system has a lot of issues, partly because a lot of the reviewers out there aren't able to take a step back and consider how a game should appeal to a wide audience.
The biggest issue is no one can tell whether a game is good or a rental. When I was with Wii60.com, we tried to come up with a system that measured five traits that every game had, and five categories unique to certain sorts of games (for example, puzzle games do not have level design, therefore would not be rated on this). We then gave each numeric score a verbal summary, where a 50-74 was a rental, 75-89 was good and 90-100 was excellent.
The problem was, there are just some times where coming up with a category was hard to do for some games. Not to mention that, in one's stomach, a game could feel like an 80 but, numerically, it added up to a 73.
Playing games is all about emotion. Enjoying yourself is certainly an emotion. While various other aspects of a game should be taken into account, we have reached a day and age where most of them are pointless. Reviewers are focusing on the wrong categories. Nearly every game has impressive graphics and digital 5.1 surround sound, so how are you going to rate those fairly? It's like having a fluff score to just pad onto the average. Even games that technically look terrible, like Earth Defense Force 2017, don't look bad.
My personal philosophy is that graphics and sound should only be mentioned if they somehow add to or detract from the experience. The Halo series has had a tradition of creating breath-taking environments, for example, while some games have had very unclear visualizations to indicate usable tools or paths that can be traveled. Same goes for sound design. If the graphics or sound are not really all that noticeable, then why mention them to begin with?
Reviewers should have an idea about game design, but the problem is most have no clue. They like to think they do, but just looking at how most reviewers score games makes it clear that all they know is what they read in magazines as kids. The score system is confusing and, half the time, pointless, and often enough lies. Particularly when a game's scores are all over the ballpark, as is the case with some games like Bionic Commando.
I've reached a point where I take notes on what works and what doesn't when I play a game, functionally, write my review recalling my experiences, and in the end attach a verdict that best fits my evaluation. The verdict is simple: Excellent, Good, Rental, Poor or Atrocious. It is easy for anyone to understand, doesn't grade a game as if it is put on a report card, and focuses on what is important. If the game is fun and worth $60 or not.
To say the modern face of game reviews is fine is ridiculous, and someone that sees no issue with it is clearly part of the pr"
Friday, August 07, 2009
I'd still kind of love to see such a game made, honestly. I mean, we have a fantasy harvest moon and a sci-fi one. Why not? As lame as this zombie craze is there's a lot of bad assery that could be had with such a mash-up."