Rumour - Kingdom Hearts 3 PS3 exclusive and will be at TGS.

[Hidoshi]

Well you all can shove it cuz I love KH :P. I'm pretty sure Pat does as well considering he gave KH2 an editor's choice, which I would have done the same.

That's... great. But defend your choice at least. If you want to make an argument that is. It's kind of silly to claim you'd give such and such a game an ed's choice award without really explaining /why/.

But hey, I get the distinct feeling you and I would not enjoy the same kinds of games, nor do we subscribe to the same kind of reasoning. I for one think MGS4 is subpar for its series and genre, for example, despite its high production values and well-directed cinematics.

[Blace]

Well you all can shove it cuz I love KH :P. I'm pretty sure Pat does as well considering he gave KH2 an editor's choice, which I would have done the same.

That's... great. But defend your choice at least. If you want to make an argument that is. It's kind of silly to claim you'd give such and such a game an ed's choice award without really explaining /why/.

But hey, I get the distinct feeling you and I would not enjoy the same kinds of games, nor do we subscribe to the same kind of reasoning. I for one think MGS4 is subpar for its series and genre, for example, despite its high production values and well-directed cinematics.

Yeah I'd say we probably don't enjoy the same type of games and have different reasonings for liking/disliking games.

As for my reasoning on liking KH2, it's simple: fun. I had so much fun playing through that game and I still don't think to this day I have played a game since KH2 came out that was as fun. I played that game for 40 hours within the first 3 days of release, something I still haven't matched since then. Closest I guess would be the 20 hours I poured into MGS4 in 2 days. What a coincidence :P

[Hidoshi]

That's the issue though -- while I agree with the maxim that games should be /fun/, you have to go beyond fun and start looking at the genre as a whole, the technical execution of the game (not just in terms of software, but in terms of writing, direction, etc), and so on. The more you do this, the closer you can get to something thoughtful as a review.

It helps to know a bit of history too. People laud MGS4 without considering its genre, or its series. As a standalone product it might seem good, but so does bad food if you completely forget you ever tasted anything better. It's like claiming a McDonald's hamburger is better than a properly prepared rack of ribs. The food may taste 'better' to you, but you haven't done the proper thinking involved when considering its actual quality, versus your comfort zone.

Just my two cents.

[Lard]

MGS 3 Subsistence was *awesome*.

:P

[Blace]

That's the issue though -- while I agree with the maxim that games should be /fun/, you have to go beyond fun and start looking at the genre as a whole, the technical execution of the game (not just in terms of software, but in terms of writing, direction, etc), and so on. The more you do this, the closer you can get to something thoughtful as a review.

It helps to know a bit of history too. People laud MGS4 without considering its genre, or its series. As a standalone product it might seem good, but so does bad food if you completely forget you ever tasted anything better. It's like claiming a McDonald's hamburger is better than a properly prepared rack of ribs. The food may taste 'better' to you, but you haven't done the proper thinking involved when considering its actual quality, versus your comfort zone.

Just my two cents.

I know all these things, I just think fun is the most important aspect because it's the entire reason we play video games in the first place.

[Hidoshi]

Again, "fun" is a very wide blanket term. Is it mindless fun? (Trigger Heart Exelica is 'fun' in this sense, but it's not what I'd call a great shooter compared to Ikaruga.) Is it sensual fun? (Hi there dating sims!) There's variations even on this theme, so I'd say much more careful consideration has to be given for a fair review before you could really approach 'editor's choice'.

An example: I consider Persona: Revelations 'fun', and I had a good time with it. But I could never score it very well because despite the great enjoyment I derived from the game, it's /not/ technically well made, the translation is horrible, and there are far better games out there not only in its genre, but in its own series. Conversely, Persona 2 is a far better game, and I had fun with that too, but for some reason not  as much fun as Persona: Revelations -- yet I would score Persona 2 much higher for its actual merits.

Addendum: I do want to make it clear however that I'm not saying you need to throw a wide net. That only accomplishes the reverse, which is writing a colourless, pale review that does nothing to explore the game from the viewpoint of a satisfied (or dissatisfied) customer, and reflects none of the personal experience. Merely that you need a net wider than "fun".

[Blace]

Again, "fun" is a very wide blanket term. Is it mindless fun? (Trigger Heart Exelica is 'fun' in this sense, but it's not what I'd call a great shooter compared to Ikaruga.) Is it sensual fun? (Hi there dating sims!) There's variations even on this theme, so I'd say much more careful consideration has to be given for a fair review before you could really approach 'editor's choice'.

An example: I consider Persona: Revelations 'fun', and I had a good time with it. But I could never score it very well because despite the great enjoyment I derived from the game, it's /not/ technically well made, the translation is horrible, and there are far better games out there not only in its genre, but in its own series. Conversely, Persona 2 is a far better game, and I had fun with that too, but for some reason not  as much fun as Persona: Revelations -- yet I would score Persona 2 much higher for its actual merits.

Addendum: I do want to make it clear however that I'm not saying you need to throw a wide net. That only accomplishes the reverse, which is writing a colourless, pale review that does nothing to explore the game from the viewpoint of a satisfied (or dissatisfied) customer, and reflects none of the personal experience. Merely that you need a net wider than "fun".

I getcha. Just merely saying that if I find a game fun it will at least be a somewhat positive review. I just happen to think KH2 is a very well made game that also happens to be very fun. Great voice acting, dominant music, pretty good story, excellent graphics at the time, and combat that is fun = editor's choice in my book.

[Alisha]

the only way i'd be interested is if you actually got to control the final fantasy characters instead of just the main character. hell even the original star ocean let you control other characters even though the main character had no AI to act on his own.

[Hidoshi]

That's the primary problem I have with KH. I could excuse most everything else if the gameplay was good. As it is, it feels castrated because it restricts how much control I have over my party.

[Robert Boyd]

Again, "fun" is a very wide blanket term. Is it mindless fun? (Trigger Heart Exelica is 'fun' in this sense, but it's not what I'd call a great shooter compared to Ikaruga.) Is it sensual fun? (Hi there dating sims!) There's variations even on this theme, so I'd say much more careful consideration has to be given for a fair review before you could really approach 'editor's choice'.

An example: I consider Persona: Revelations 'fun', and I had a good time with it. But I could never score it very well because despite the great enjoyment I derived from the game, it's /not/ technically well made, the translation is horrible, and there are far better games out there not only in its genre, but in its own series. Conversely, Persona 2 is a far better game, and I had fun with that too, but for some reason not  as much fun as Persona: Revelations -- yet I would score Persona 2 much higher for its actual merits.

Addendum: I do want to make it clear however that I'm not saying you need to throw a wide net. That only accomplishes the reverse, which is writing a colourless, pale review that does nothing to explore the game from the viewpoint of a satisfied (or dissatisfied) customer, and reflects none of the personal experience. Merely that you need a net wider than "fun".

That seems like a backwards philosophy on reviewing to me.  Games should be enjoyable and a more enjoyable game should be rated higher than a less enjoyable game.  Scoring a less enjoyable game with a higher score because of certain technical aspects seems to me to be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Back on topic, I'd be very surprised at PS3 exclusivity for the next Kingdom Hearts.  Besides the fact that Square-Enix has shown that they aren't particularly impressed with the PS3 at the moment, I would think that the Wii would be a much better fit for Kingdom Hearts target demographic.  Even the 360 would be a better fit than the PS3 seeing as how the Kingdom Hearts series has traditionally sold best in the US and there are far more 360 owners in the US than PS3 owners (a gap which is likely to widen with the big 360 price cut coming this Friday).

[dalucifer0]

But the PS3 has outsold the 360 this year. That's just as good as an excuse as the 360 got a year head start, so it has more sales.

[Shiguma]

That seems like a backwards philosophy on reviewing to me.  Games should be enjoyable and a more enjoyable game should be rated higher than a less enjoyable game.  Scoring a less enjoyable game with a higher score because of certain technical aspects seems to me to be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Office Space is a very "enjoyable" movie in my book, much more so than, say, Casablanca or Gone with the Wind.  I suppose as a "reviewer" of movies, I should give it a higher score?

Give me a break.

[Hidoshi]

Again, "fun" is a very wide blanket term. Is it mindless fun? (Trigger Heart Exelica is 'fun' in this sense, but it's not what I'd call a great shooter compared to Ikaruga.) Is it sensual fun? (Hi there dating sims!) There's variations even on this theme, so I'd say much more careful consideration has to be given for a fair review before you could really approach 'editor's choice'.

An example: I consider Persona: Revelations 'fun', and I had a good time with it. But I could never score it very well because despite the great enjoyment I derived from the game, it's /not/ technically well made, the translation is horrible, and there are far better games out there not only in its genre, but in its own series. Conversely, Persona 2 is a far better game, and I had fun with that too, but for some reason not  as much fun as Persona: Revelations -- yet I would score Persona 2 much higher for its actual merits.

Addendum: I do want to make it clear however that I'm not saying you need to throw a wide net. That only accomplishes the reverse, which is writing a colourless, pale review that does nothing to explore the game from the viewpoint of a satisfied (or dissatisfied) customer, and reflects none of the personal experience. Merely that you need a net wider than "fun".

That seems like a backwards philosophy on reviewing to me.  Games should be enjoyable and a more enjoyable game should be rated higher than a less enjoyable game.  Scoring a less enjoyable game with a higher score because of certain technical aspects seems to me to be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Nothing backwards about it, Rob. The problem with 'fun' is that if you take it as your ruling coefficient, you wind up with an entirely subjective review that won't pay any real attention to the game's actual qualities. For instance, I could score Persona: Revelations with a 90% based around 'fun', but I'd be wrong to. Persona: Revelations is not that good a game. It has many technical flaws that will hamper the experience for other players, and as I mentioned, there are much better titles in its own series.

It's necessary to consider a wider variety of factors than just personal experience when dealing with a review. You have to look at how the game is composed, how it's directed, written, etc. Is the art good? Is the music good? Is the gameplay meaty and developed? If signs point to "no", then you need to re-evaluate your experience, at least when expressing it in a review.

It is a form of self-censorship, but a necessary one, because otherwise you might as well be some GameFAQ troll screaming "OMG FFVII IS BEST GAEM EVAR!!111" and leave it at that.

[Robert Boyd]

I guess my problem with that school of thought is that if you're enjoying one game more than another even though the less enjoyable game is supposedly superior in various aspects than maybe the so called inferior game is actually better designed on some level that's harder to define than Graphics, Music, Control, and Story.

Games are rarely the sum of their parts.  They're almost always more than the sum or less than the sum.  I've played plenty of games that were technically well designed, but had some flaw that rendered the game all but unplayable to me.  For example, the DS Pokemon games.  Technically good games, but the slow battle speeds prevented me from enjoying them and I ended up selling my copy after a couple hours of play.  Or Valkyrie Profile 2.  Technically very well designed, but the gameplay seemed to be complicated and unusual merely for the sake of being complicated and unusual and I just didn't have much fun with it.  On the other hand, there are games like Earth Defense Force 2017 that are much more than the sum of their parts.  EDF2017 is a low budget game with weak graphics, forgettable music, and a laughable story, but it does some things so right (fantastic sense of scale, fast pace of progress, tons of weapons to mess around with) that the result is one of the funnest, most enjoyable games I've played in the past few years.

Personally, I think there's room for both types of reviews: the reviews that try to be very objective (even though there's really no such thing as a purely objective review) and analyze each individual part of a game while comparing it to other games as well as the reviews that are very subjective and explain how much the reviewer enjoyed the game and why.

I've noticed that both approaches are used by professional reviewers.  IGN reviews tend to aim for the objective approach which means they're rather useful for finding out information about a game, but I personally never use them for determining whether or not I'd actually enjoy a game since that's not what they're focusing on.  On the other hand, Eurogamer reviews tend to do an excellent job of being subjective reviews; when I read one of their reviews, I tend to have a good idea of how all of the individual elements of a game fall into place and whether I personally would find the game enjoyable.

[Hidoshi]

Which is fine, I'm not at all devaluing the wonderful experience of low-budget games that are well-made or enjoyable. Certainly I would defend a game based on its simplistic merits. Just because it's low budget or 'simple' does not mean it's without technical or cultural merit.

Take for instance the game Two Worlds; it's technically a fairly good game, and does a lot of things well. But the problem is that it does nothing to mesh these elements together, nor to help the player connect with them. None of its technical accomplishments matter, because they don't serve the player in any way. Similarly when describing Everquest II, I could say that the graphics are amazing due to their high polygon counts. At the time of release, it was the 'best looking' MMORPG available. The problem with that statement is that Everquest II lacks any and all art direction, making its technical feat unimportant.

What I advocate is thinking beyond just what you like, and also beyond what specs or technical accomplishments are available. You have to consider the gestalt before you can put a useful word to paper.