In response to one of yesterday's letters -- about different yahoos in the government censoring video games -- an article in the Indianapolis Star addressed the Supreme Court's snubbing of Indianapolis Mayor Bart "Evil Gestapo Satanic Doo-doo Head" Peterson's proposal to keep minors away from games with strong parental advisories. The text of the article is here .

-Paco Cheezdom, putting the 'nkm' in 'funkmasta'.

first off, you must have missed the Simpson's episode that brought Jebus into play. So now you are "in the know". Congratulations.

Now about the topic, I thought about why I read the reviews on the GIA and it struck me that, when it comes to opinion, the GIA staff and I usually end up on very different planes. There are many exceptions, but for the most part our verdicts on games are in disagreement (as, I'm sure, is the case within the GIA staff).

But I still read the reviews. Why? because i know that in order to have the positions you have at the GIA, y'all have had to play a shit load of games and you know a whole lot more about them than me. of course that does not imply objectivism in any way. What it does mean is that you'll know what to tell us. How it compares. What can we expect from this game? What elements does it sport and in what manner are they combined?

That's why i read. Well, that and the fact that you all have some cool writing styles, so I consider the reviews a form of entertainment.

-yours cruelly,
opultaM Forward

I don't know about everyone else, but reviews definitely matter to me. Often, if several gaming sites are all giving positive reviews to a game I will definitely give it a shot. While granted, I place more weight in GIA game reviews over other sites, its only because they so often have coincided with my own views.

When I read a review, I often times don't care who is reviewing it, I merely take the opinion into account. But in certain cases I look at the reviewer and ask myself "Do they generally like the games that I do? Or are we very different?"

Even when I disagree with a review, what point does it do in flaming a reviewer except waste both people's time?

For example: I feel Devil May Cry it is a muxh better game than the GIA reviewer decided, and I obviously disagree with Erin vehemently about Star Ocean 2, and Earthbound but honestly, what good does it do me if I rant at either of them about it?

If I disagree with the review, I simply show my disagreement by using the time I could be griping to the reviewer to play the game itself. That's more effective than ranting at someone. In the end, I have to decide whether or not to buy a game, and if it turns out that I made a bad consumer decision, I have no one to blame but myself, not the reviewer. At most I blame the add agencies, but in the end I chose to buy the game, not anyone else.

-SSJPabs

Nowadays, reviews are not worthless, you just happen to be working at a place where mainly the hardcore visit. For the hardcore, reviews are worthless, because they can dig up every morsel about the game before it's released and be able to regurgitate it and the url where they found it with a blink of the eye.

For the middling to occasional gamer, though, reviews are important deciding tools. They have just as little money as the average hardcore gamer, too, so they need to pick and choose their games. Why not pick the best games instead of the bad ones?

So, from an external "I don't know jack about games" view, reviews are god's gift for saving money. For the "I've known about that game for months" sect, reviews are indeed for inflating their egos and/or cementing their ideas about the game better, because they already know if the game's gonna be good or not as well as if they're going to buy it or not.

-Opty

I would say reviews have a purpose, but it really depends on why people read reviews.

A while ago, back in the day when Brooke was here, she posted a link to a website where several people had given flawless reviews to Final Fantasy XII, a game that, quite frankly, everybody knows next to jack shit about. They just gushed on and on about how great it was, when in reality, nobody has even seen the logo yet.

What I mean by this, is, whenever Final Fantasy XII is released, these people aren't going to care how you review it because they've clearly already made up their minds about it. However, if you give it a somewhat negative review, people will be all over you like stink on a monkey.

Why? I'm not positive, but here's my theory: when there's a title that has been in development for months, and you have had it pre-ordered almost for as long as it's been in development, and after months and tantalizing screenshots, when it FINALLY comes out, you really really really really want to be damn good. I'd be pissed as hell if say, when Ocarina of Time came out, I heard it got really shitty reviews because I've been anticipating it for a long time, and really want to see it do well. Thankfully, OOT really kicked some ass.

Don't get me wrong! I'm not saying the people who anticipated the game and then saw it get a bad review from you are justified. Your job here is to tell what YOU think about a game when you're reviewing it. If you don't like a game, by all means you should say so. If a highly anticipated game really sucks, I fail to see how it's your fault. I guess the saying is "Don't shoot the messenger," or something like that.

But hey, I'm sure I don't need to tell you what your job is. Just keep doing what you're doing.

And on a closing note, regarding SNK, I think their sound team deserved waaaaaaaaaay more credit than it got. Get the King of Fighters 2000 arrange album if you don't believe me.

-Irvine Kinneas, back from the dead.

I think the problem is that there are too damn many people reviewing games for too damn many places. Add into that biased sites and "official" magazines that candy coat crap and I just don't trust anybody's opinion unless it validates purchasing a game I either planned to or already bought. To give an example, I recently read two reviews of Wave Race:Blue Storm. One(egm) berated it and Nintendo for bad control and releasing a prettified sequel, the other(N-sider.com) says that it is the best of the GC launch games, which leaves me scratching my head and saying "What the hell?".

So to decide I throw out all reviews and being as I have played games for 17 years I use my past knowledge and inate ability to sift through shit. So as to your question; I don't think reviews effect anybody beyond ammo for fanboys, blurbs on boxes, and people sitting on the fence but were leaning in the direction the reviewer is supporting.

-achilleszero, can't believe nobody fucking picked Mario 64 for the top 5 games list

As long as a review covers all the bases, I am not overly concerned if the interpretation of the overall product differs from my own. I have a very high opinion of DMC, but I was more bothered by reviews that made no mention of the game's flaws that I was by reviews that gave more weight than I would to DMC's flaws.

Personally, I read reviews of games I am already familiar with so I can gauge a reviewer's competence, and decide whether or not I will factor in his or her opinion when deciding whether or not to buy a game I am unfamiliar with.

-Mark

When I'm trying to decide between games to buy, I take a few things into account. The first is whether I enjoy the type of game, as I'm not going to enjoy Dead or Alive 3 no matter how good it is, because I don't like fighting games. The second is game reviews. Reviews from sites or magazines such as IGN, TheGIA, or EGM from reviewers I'm familiar with and whose opinions usually run close to mine (John Ricciardi, David Smith, etc.) are invaluable because they've had the opportunity to play the game and I haven't. I try to get time playing the game(s) in question if I can but that isn't always possible, so reviews are the next best thing. I find reviews from as many different sources as possible and compare the things they say are good/bad about the game. I evaluate the way I think the way those qualities will affect my enjoyment of the game and make my decision.

Perhaps it would be better to provide a few examples. How many of us would have heard of Ico if not for the advance media praise and great critical reviews? I know I didn't see any commercials for it. But I played and loved the game, something I wouldn't have done if not for my perusal of said gaming media. Also, I was recently weighing the decision to buy Dragon Warrior VII. I didn't get it the day of release, but I waited for reviews. The first ones I saw were user reviews on GameFAQs and those were followed by Zak McClendon's excellent review on TheGIA. I must admit that I always go to TheGIA first when considering an RPG purchase because it's great to have someone that knows their stuff reviewing a game. I was saddened when said review was pawned off to IGNPSX, something I would have never done if given the decision -- I'd much rather see a varied body of opinions about a game than have the same one spread around. Either way you look at it, reviews of both games really influenced my decision to buy games I was on the ropes about.

Let's move on to the comments you made at the end of the column. You said that, in both cases, the accusations revolved around your review(s) of a very popular game. I think the reasoning behind this problem is obvious. Lots of gamers will feed into hype, and the gaming industry isn't known for having any shortage of that. I know a lot of gamers that will decide before the fact that a game is going to be great, buy it, and surprise, enjoy it. A self-fulfilling prophecy is hard to disprove. So when someone comes along and points holes in the game, they take issue with it. I really see it happen all the time, mostly with wrestling games, and it's pretty frustrating to me, as I generally make my own decision on whether I enjoy the game or not.

So in the end, I think it's wise to use reviews as a gauge when deciding to purchase a game, but not to let it influence the way you think of the game. Don't force yourself to play a great game because it got great reviews if you don't like it (Twisted Metal: Black and Madden 2002, I'm looking your way).

-Mark

Start mourning. SNK closed their doors about a month and a half ago. As of yet it's unclear exactly who got the rights to their various series, but the rumor is that the former SNK owner managed to snag most of them. Might mean that the games will continue on, but no one really knows right now. All that's certain is King of Fighters 2k1 at this point, and if 2000 was any indication of quality...It doesn't look promising, to say the least.

And just to incite a little controversy, why is Chrono Trigger worshipped in the RPG community? The characters had little to no backstory (and, for the most part, were pretty shoddy designs to begin with, IMO), the storyline left a lot to be desired, and it lasted about 25 hours from end to end. Yes, combat was fun, and Magus was a damn badass...But there really isn't a lot more to like about the game, at least to me. Someone enlighten me, please.

-Savior