Nothing is. We've done it a few times. The question is, what's stopping /v/ from not giving a shit about the website and still focusing on the shitty review sites, like what happened every single time?
Honestly, your regular /v/irgin is the last person you want to ask for reviews. A large majority of people here are easily swayed by the consensus opinion and will approach every game with a set bias from the start.
>>259295671 Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm more confused as to how DSP figured out how to use Twitter. >What do you mean I can only have 140 characters? I have to click a button to post? WOOOOW!
Everyone's opinions are subjective as hell, and even if we made different people specialize in each genre, there would be fighting because they like/don't like something somebody on the board doesn't like/likes in the genre.
>>259295370 well people could maybe submit reviews anonymously (if they want, readers often appreciate if they can recognise writer they like) and they'd be voted on forums or whatnot (peer reviewed) or picked by some rotating staff and those would go to front page with community endorsement.
>>259296675 >You wouldn’t know it from static screenshots alone, but everything in the game hinges around the rhythm of the soundtrack. Movement and combat is dictated by the four directional keys alone, which have to be pressed in time to the beat in order to move. All actions are performed with these four inputs, be it attacking enemies by stepping towards them, switching weapons or picking up items by walking over them, or using items by pressing two directions simultaneously. This control scheme lends itself perfectly to the game’s compatibility with the dance pads you may remember from DDR, but I never got to try it out in NecroDancer. zone2 >The rush I felt while playing NecroDancer at its most hectic, fueled by the adrenaline-pumping soundtrack, was quite similar to that of BitRip Runner. NecroDancer demands much of the same precise timing and undivided attention as you try to navigate its devious obstacles in time to the music. A casual shit site for casual shits.
there's been quite a few attempts but making real in-depth reviews does take a good amount of time and effort. it's hard to find people who will do something like that for free to a small and especially critical/nit-picky audience.
since this is the video game board it would only make more sense for people to play the games themselves and just hold our "discussions" as usual.
The only way I could ever see a review site working is if 3-5 different people of varying taste all submit a review for the same game. The most they would show to identify themselves is their preferred genre and maybe a list of their favorite games. Those 3-5 people would also need to actually PURCHASE the game (and this is important) just so that there's some actual value attach to it when they review it.
It could work if not in a traditional review format.
Something more like: Good and Bad stuff about a game columns. Done all in /v/ itself and published elsewhere. No names.
Insert every (relatively brief) opinion posted in a single image removing repetitions, people read over them to get a general sense of the game and if it is wroth of their time or to confirm/deny what they expect of the game.
If must grade it numerically, split into subcatherogies and give no 'total score'. (graphics, gameplay, fidelity to franchise, sex simulation, so forth, each game can have its own scores but scores are done o average).
I can't write for shit. I try to articulate why I love certain games all the time but it mostly amounts to "shit's cool man." When you're a writer, a reviewer? You need more than that. The readers deserve more than that.
>it's not on my favorite platform so it's shit 0/10 >it's eastern/western it's shit 0/10 >I don't like this developer 0/10 >I don't like this genre 0/10 >I don't like the politics of the guy that delivered pizza to the devs last wednesday 0/10
>Fairly average, run of the mill game comes out >it has a lot of cinematic elements, but there's a game in there to be had >additionally, it's not a complete cookie cutter game that plays exactly like whatever FPS defines the current standard, but it's still fun >/v/ run "review" site gets a hold of it: >"HURPADERP! top fucking kek! ENJOY YOUR MOVIE FAGGOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??!!?!?!?!!!?!?!!!!! Let me just TIP MUH FEDORA TO YEH! literally 40,000,000,000 keks!!!! It ONLY runs at 59 frame per second!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?! WHAT THE LITERAL FUCKING FUCK YOU FUCKING FUCKS!?!?!? MY $10,000 super computer makes the graphics look SLIGHTLY better, so console fags can blow me!!!! I R THA GREETEEST REVEW'R EV'R!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Do you really want that?
The only way it would ever work is if there were some kind of nomination system, involving users with set names (witch I think would cause enough of an uproar) that would be up to popular vote.
So let's say a user called "I_like_gaems_45" submits a bunch of reviews that a bunch of us basically up voted, then he'd be "in" and allowed to review whatever he wanted and post it after that.
Then we'd just have to deal with the epic fucking asspains over named users in general being attention whoring faggoots and the inevitable PC bias that would occur. Because I think we all know that the absolute best console reviewers here would get lambasted and treated worse than jews in WWII Germany, while the most cancerous, trolling asswipe euphoric PCtards would get voted in just for owning a PC...
First steps towards critiquing any artistic work (yes, video games are technically an "art" just as literature) is that a clear list of elements are defined. There are elements of literature, film, fine arts, et cetera. However, we don't have any universally recognized "elements of video games." Can we make a list? What are the essential elements of a video game.
A requirement for any review should be to have played it from start to finish.
Review should also focus on:
>Core gameplay >Graphics >Audio if any, don't review just the music, what about the sound effects >Comparison to similar games or games that are completely in the other direction >Overall presentation of the game, this is where you talk about problems
One paragraph each. If anyone wants to start, just pick a game you recently finished and write it out in this thread now.
So you don't run it like some sort of hyper-democratic community shit site. Have 1, and not more than 1, righteous incorruptible person approve reviews for publication. Anyone with the time and inclination could do this.
>>259300264 Gameplay seems nice, but what are the elements of gameplay? Can you define gameplay? What is a game and why? I'm not just being douchy, we have to understand what a game is, what makes something a game (and not some interactive website or graphic novel) and how we should analyze game mechanics.
Game: a medium of interactive entertainment, with emphasis on interactive.
Gameplay: how the game works, how to play the game. What is your impression of the learning curve, is it easy to get into? Are reflexes/twitch skills a must? Can you get into it, or do you find the gameplay is not for you?
>>259299442 This. Everygame should have a >the good >the bad >the ugly buttons that directs you to a different reviewer, one that liked the game, one that thought it was shit, one that thought it was mediocre at best.
Would it work if there was a forced format by which to review games? say you rate each aspect out of 10 (gameplay, story, music, etc) and write a few sentences about why your feel that score is justified for that aspect and then the website gives an overall score (you cant directly give an overall rating).
Once a review is posted it is passed through a peer-review stage and once it is accepted it is placed onto the website front page.
>>259302874 That's what fucking formalism is in other arts. You typically review based on those elements. Other theories are criticism are sometimes needed to explore certain areas of a particular work and sometimes they serve as fun exercises. But, typically, when people review Tolkien or whatever, they don't just start on with calling him a queer hater.
>>259297234 >great points about the awfulness of in-groups, cliques and nepotism in the games industry >lovely point about the importance of gameplay in games >suddenly turns into shit opinions on gender
conquest's second law the instant people have identities they start drifting towards the same sj bullshit you get on polygon, shitaku, etc. http://unvis.it/www.gatheryourparty.com/2014/06/16/assassins-creed-unity-and-historical-accuracy/
>>259303046 >It would be full of memes You don't know /v/ if you think it enjoys cancer. >No reviews about games just dragon dildos Dragon dildos would be a feature >All the games reviewd would be called shit Most probably would, but the actual good games would be acknowledged. Protip, most games are shit nowadays. >Nintendo games get perfect scores regardless of quality Nintendofags are a large force on /v/ but they aren't the majority
I was thinking of this the other day. Do like valve does. All the reviews are community driven. You can vote for your favorite review and the best liked ones will be at the top. There will be ads since no bribery is accepted. Video reviews are welcomed through the utubes. If the voting system gets manipulated, it will be done with. You can favorite reviewers so you can see what they are writing and so forth.
>>259295526 Although I do have some writing talent, I'm not really fit for reviewing games. I never play games for long periods of time, I barely ever play games soon after release, and most games I barely even get halfway through before hopping to the next one.
On the other side you have people who could very well review games due to the amount of time they put in them and their knowledge and insights in the whole thing, but then those people couldn't even write a note for a teacher so somekid wouldn't have to do PE if they broke their leg.
Although either one of us could easily do a much better job than any of those idiots running the show now. So I'll just go ahead and say it's general laziness and a fear of online interaction beyond anonymous boards, plus a dash of fear for responsibility.
>>259303590 Honestly fuck that. Make it like an image board. Make it like 4chan. A list of reviews and those with most recent comments are at the top, that way you don't have to deal with the bullshit reddit style of popular opinion=fact. Voting systems aren't worth it imo.
>mfw no richanon to support me and 3 other anons and help us get our reviews off the ground
It's really a huge part about who you know. Whether its someone who's a huge fan and is financially able to pay for steady reliable work. Then establishing relationships with the companies themselves to get access to alphas/betas/ect,ect,ect.
>>259303740 >You haven't been on /v/ if you think they dont post memes all the fucking time Alright then, link me 3 threads full of memes. We post them all the fucking time according to you so this should be pretty easy.
I wanted to do it myself a couple of times. I mean, I have the domain, webspace and time available. So what's stopping me, right? for the most part it's motivation.
My website is full of unfinished things. I messed around with mediawiki, phpbb, coppermine, content manager, wordpress and other stuff. I was always highly curious and motivated at first but then I lost interest.
I think it'd be nice if we had one that had like, a few admins (as the main writers) and then also offered a selection of reviews from the public (/v/) and a general consensus via voting.
That'd be a pretty perfect review; a main one from someone affiliated with this "review" site, a few public opinions and a consensus voted on by the community. so you get 3 alternate views on the game.
>>259295370 /v/ is divided, unmotivated and above all self-loathing. Just look how people reacted to the /v/GAs. We don't need a "/v/" review site, we need reviewers site with a politically moderate (or apolitical), hardcore perspective. Like what EGM used to be.
>>259304326 I wouldn't want to pay for an advertisment either, are you honestly silly enough to deliberately that the comparison in my reply was about people wanting things doesn't legitimize their existence, not directly comparing the horse armor to a terribly hamfisted advertisement dropped in a game for 5 year olds.
>>259295370 because if you post it here everyone will turn on you instantly thinking youre just a shill. On top of that when you say anything someone here disagrees with he will lash out at you because your opinion now represents "/v/s" opinion
after that its no longer "/v/s review site" but just another review site
All a review website needs is a good sorting/indexing system to navigate through reviews, a place to store screenshots or concept art, and a place to actually put the text of the review and a peanut gallery/comment's section.
Of course you're gonna get stupid shit like that, but there will always be people who give out their honest opinion on the game, you just gotta discriminate between posts and pick what you think is the best stuff. I honestly can't see how having our own review site would be much better.
>>259303397 You are everything I hate about /v/. Every time something that is down very often on this board, someone like you will go "n-no it isnt" we just do it ironically. Dragon dildos arent a fucking feature, its not fucking funny, its not fucking video games. Nintendo does get way too many passes, along with every gaming related company. I would hate for /v/ to try to make its own site, it would be full of the same bullshit thats being posted here every goddamned day.
>>259304668 Most of these things aren't as mysterious/terrible as they might sound. Most of them come with easy installers and walk you through everything step by step.
>>259304960 Wordpress can get most of that stuff done way I see it, Kotaku is just a blog, so wordpress should do the trick. The problem is finding a style that works. Some content manager software might work for that too.
If you have webspace available, storing concept art isn't a problem. I think the real problem is getting a general idea on how your site should look and then look into the options that are available to you without cutting too many corners.
Are you implying /v/ would have better reviews than any of these other shitholes? Maybe a few years ago but not anymore. /v/ gets more new posters more frequently than any other board, any sense of community this place once had is long gone. Instead it's now a giant mixing bowl of different colors of shit from tumblr, gamefaqs, neogaf, reddit, youtube, twitch, etc and it's the largest reason why this board is so god fucking awful and why every thread turns into a giant argument because they're all a special variety of stupid and they can't agree on anything.
>Reposting: Idea for a gaming website: >Weekdays One article regarding a certain aspect of a new video game. Mondays are related to the game's Development History, Tuesdays are about the game's Art Direction, Wednesday is the Gameplay, Thursday is the game's Story and Characters, and Fridays could be a guest article about something else related to the game, whether it be Social Issues brought up in game or a deeper explanation of a game's Inside Jokes or References to Films, for example. It can essentially be about anything, as long as it doesn't mimic the previous four articles. Each article, if necessary, may also be appended with a Second Opinion from one of the other writers if they wish to make their own short comment. The fifth article is exempt from this, unless that Second Opinion is as well-crafted as the original article.
>Weekends On Saturday, there is a Final Review of the game that takes from the first four articles (and the fifth, if applicable), essentially summarizing the week's content. Each of the four article writers then gives their own score of the game, maybe with a short explanation, and the final score is added from those scores. Sorta like Famitsu, but out of 25 so that Metacritic can get an X/100 score. On Sunday, one of the writers puts up their own review article about any other video game, whether it's a game from a few months ago that the site missed reviewing or a game that only hipsters from TIGSource would know about.
>>259304306 He isn't. Nintendo gets shit on all the time, just like every other company. Every single WiiU release is impossible to discuss in the months near release. W101 got shitposted to death and only got decent threads afterwards, DK threads got shit on, even Pikmin threads got shit up.
>>259295370 I remember there was some site that /v/ tried to get going. It was called novidya or something like that. The entire idea was based around not having a scoring system and just having a written review that people would have to read instead of just seeing X/10. Once the site got up half the reviews had a scoring system in place (some X/10 some X/5). I contacted the site owner about it and he replied with "Who gives a fuck?"
>>259305975 That's... not an awful format suggestion, but making readers wait 1-1.5 weeks for the final score seems like it would vastly inhibit interest and miss the traffic wave right after new releases. Especially if reviews are all the site does. I do like the concept, though, it just seems less feasible unless you're looking to make this a pure hobby site hosted on some awful free web host.
>>259305850 While I agree with you on those, off-topic doesn't always mean bad. I would rather have an off-topic post that was original and actually funny or something new to discuss than the same fucking boring threads that get reposted a million times a day.
The idea of a sort of /v/ consensus I think is inherently flawed in the implication that kind of system would give you useful information. First of all it would eventually get taken over by reddit, so it almost goes without saying the whole venture would be pointless. But beyond that the idea that /v/ can provide recommendations as a community is no good, because /v/ on average is tasteless, poor, and a console pleb.
Your best bet would be to find some youtuber that has similar to your own personal taste and take their word for it if you must follow reviews. Generally speaking I think there is such an incredible level of user feedback on games these days you can filter through the astroturfing and the trolling.
Who among us is not totally inured to buzzwords these days anyway? When someone says a game is fun and immersive, do you think wow I should buy it? Or do you think that the person has basically just spewed some shit with nothing to back it up.
I'm hoping it's the latter. Do your research, be an informed consumer. Failing that find someone with similar taste to your own, and begin developing your skills as a critic.
Remember that video games are still a hobby, you can wait a few days for a game to come out, you're not going to miss anything and your life won't be worse for it.
>>259305850 >Doesn't know what cancer is You have to be cancer in order to not understand cancer. Board culture isn't cancer you stupid fuck. You think board culture and memes are synonymous, showing your new.
>>259295370 Because /v/ is not a single person. There are fuckloads of different people here with completely different taste and opinions. There's no "us" or "our", because most of us has nothing in common. Also, we rely on anonimity. Writing and publishing a review is based on some sort of authority. You listen to some guy's opinion, that's what a review basically is. Anonimity rejects any authority. We not only can't, but also shouldn't try to organize something like that. It's missing the whole point.
>>259305829 Go to reddit where they will hug and kiss you for liking the stupid AAA bullshit you think is good. If you can't handle people having negative things to say about games you might like, get the fuck out. No one is saying you can't enjoy it or like it just because someone else doesn't like it.
>>259307634 The important thing is that they are both shitposts and are proof that any review site made by /v/ would be torn apart due to our own rampant factionalim and inability to stay united when it's most necessary to do so.
>>259308453 >ask for something for a reason related to the discussion we are having >guy gives you exactly what you asked for >then guy proceeds to pretend he is mentally retarded and completely forgot what the discussion was about Nice try strawmanning.
We would need a semi anonymous contest so /v/ goers can pick people with what they feel are decent tastes and writing ability.
I say semi anonymous because once those people are chosen, their mandate would be to review games and nothing else. They would never give their name, other than their reviewer number (so as to let people know which reviewer is reviewing which game).
The point of anonymity is that it would prevent the industry from trying to buy them, like they did every other reviewer.
So no interviews, no previews, no opinion pieces. Game reviews that state facts couch opinions purely in the comparative so that everyone can understand and get a good feel for what the game would be like.
>>259295370 But we do anon. This board is the home of many autists and neckbeards, and our reviews sift through garbage tier vidya gaems to diamonds in the rough. True, 90% of the time in this board it is shitposting and le epic amy may tr0ling, but we do find some great games.
>>259295370 >DSP being actually based >DSP actually figuring out how to use Twitter >DSP actually making a real sentence that is correctly capitalized, not mis-spelling or shortening words to fit the shitty character limit, etc.
>>259299246 >Super Smash Bros. Could Ignite Wii U Sales, man in hobo clothings says >Last of Us gettings a movie release on the PS4 >Top 5 keks of the day >5 weird grandma tricks to see if your friend is a sonygger
1. build staff to categorize games (not tags, some actualy goddamn taxonomy) 2. build userbase to vote simply like/hate on games 3. build aggregate liked/hated data sets per category and present to public ('80% of all users like this game; 95% of all users that like FPS like this game') 4. cross-reference data sets for profiled users (you like 75% of all your FPS games, and NEW GAME is liked by 90% of all users that like >75% of their FPS games, so you might like it)
that doesn't seem so hard
does steam make tags for games available via their api yet? last i checked they did not since it's beta
>>259305374 >implying it isn't ironically You must be one of the people who think le nodding man is something people look up to. >Angry at dragon dildos sarcasm You just proved you're new and a fucking idiot. >Nintendo does get way too many passes /v/ isn't one person you fucking cancerlord. It's different people and groups defending what they love. >along with every gaming related company How fucking stupid are you? Nintendo gets more 'passes' then anyone else because Nintendo fans always come to their defense, just as it has always been since the beginning of the internet. You are seriously new as fuck and reek of cancer. >I would hate for /v/ to make its own site Then get the fuck out of here and don't return. You already proved you don't belong here.
>>259299874 >Core gameplay This should be the focus of the review. Every other aspect should be talked about in terms of it, for the most part >Graphics Beyond technical aspects (lag, resolution, framerate) simply showing off footage of the game is usually enough, unless there's some really niche part of the game that isn't represented in said footage >Audio If there are specific audio things that enhance the gameplay, sure. If the soundtrack is above or below something that serves its purpose and nothing more, sure. Otherwise, in-game footage is more than enough. >Comparisons to other game Should be used throughout the review, but only at time where it is needed in order to highlight why an aspect of the game could be better or worse >Overall presentation >This is where you talk about problems What? THIS is where you talk about problems? I don't understand. Anyways, anything here should still be talked about in the "gameplay" portion. You can usually cover everything important through either relating it back to the gameplay, showing in game footage (except for narrative driven games)
>>259309798 the data sets seem like a nice idea, but with a bunch of registered users it will result in an enormous amount of processing power only used to calculate these. I've been on sites that had something similar that had to disable it after test runs. Not because it didn't work, but because the performance hits were too large
>>259310752 > /v/ isn't one person you fucking cancerlord. It's different people and groups defending what they love. > goes on to say Nintendo gets the most "passes" because he's a stupid retard that browses /v/ for 15 minutes at a time
>>259295370 gather your party is made up of /v/ alumni. I was an editor on there back when they started, hung in there for about 6 months until we got significantly more talent, then let it go, as I could not keep up all of my obligations and work for the site at the time. It's a pretty good site, and I see that they've been steadily putting out a lot of good content.
I'm going by an old format for a now defunct review site in the late 1990s.
>Comparisons to other game This should not be used or merged throughout the review at all.
This should be separate.
This way you can talk purely of the gameplay mechanics in the game that's being reviewed in the first three sections.
>Overall presentation It's really meant as a summary paragraph to tie up loose ends or thoughts you had that you hadn't included in the other four sections. Disregard my talk about problems mention, I remembered that wrong.
>>259311463 Every dumbass fanboy defends their shit. Nintendrones, platdrones, xseedshits, treasurefags, megamanchildren, intishitters, ace assholes, chibirobodrones, fag combat, autists may cry, you name it.
>>259295370 I'm not sure if someone has said this already: How about a site or a series of youtube videos that just focus on giving information on a game in a very concise format. No ratings, no "i like this", non of that, just quickly explaining how the game plays, mechanics, how much focus it has on story, just whatever information is relevant. If a video have bits showing gameplay/dialogue/anything relevant while talking. If there was a youtube channel that, in under 5 minutes, showed a ton of games (especially not well known ones) that I could quickly watch and get a good feel for how the game is I would subscribe instantly.
I'm worse at playing games than DSP. It took me until mid game of MGR to find out how to parry. I lost to Sundowner at least 4 times once I figured out how to fight him, but before that at least 8 times.
>>259312280 >implying Nintendrones don't go full damage control on /v/ You really are new. Seriously, did you just arrive here a year ago or something? This shit has been going on for over 8 years on /v/, possibly longer.
>>259295370 /v/, in general, are a bunch of bias and corrupt, no talent hacks, who remain unmotivated procrastinators.
No one person could represent /v/ as a whole. No one person could represent /v/'s ideals. It would simply be another site that claims to be unbiased, except it has /v/'s name pinned to it. But it won't be /v/.
Yo so check it this game, this fuckin game is tight fuckin 90s straight outta the loud and extreme era tight my nigga its like a Bee Movie meets that N64 offroad beatle racing game sick as fuck dude this shit is hot.
-The game is TOO LOUD I could not turn down my tv the remote is broken -Shiiiit all thm beatles look nice as fuck my nigga nice as FUCK +You can wave dash +The lead developer for this has a great twitter account
>>259312691 >it's worse cuz I say so! No, it's worse when you've been here long enough and notice it. You are fucking new and you won't admit it. Everyone who has been here a while knows this but you are just upset because you got called out for being a newfaggot cancer shit. :^)
>>259312885 >it's defend more than Sony or Microsoft But it isn't. Look I know you neofags have infiltrated this place a long time but if you're so new that you don't think Nintendofags are on the defense the most, then you're not only new to /v/ but new to videogames in general.
>>259313090 >not noticing how much Nintendofags defend their shit >still arguing like you know what your'e talking about Just stop posting. Anyone who has been here long enough know that Nintendo gets way more bias than other companies. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but that's a fact and if you don't know that then you're new to /v/.
>>259295671 I'm on DSP's side. I can't completely hate him because despite him being a huge idiot and shit at almost every game he's actually pretty good at Super Turbo. As an ex competitive ST player myself I respect anyone who can play it, it's a hard game to be good at.
>>259313989 >You just see what you want to see I've been here too fucking long to have a neoshit tell me what /v/ has been like. Yes, sony gets defended. Yes, microsoft gets defended. Do they get defened as much as Nintendo? No. And anyone who has been on /v/ long enough can back me up with that shit. I'm not even a Nintendo fanboy. I have no reason to defend that opinion other than that's the truth and I've been here way too fucking long for someone to say "N-no! Not true!" when it's basically like someone spouting that Bioshock Infinite is /v/'s favorite game and when you disagree they say "B-b-but you just haven't seen the right threads!"
>>259314398 > I've been here too fucking long to have a neoshit tell me what /v/ has been like. Yes, sony gets defended. Yes, microsoft gets defended. Do they get defened as much as Nintendo? No. > Because I say soooo!
>>259296128 Most reviewers did back in the day. You'd have a few broad spectrum writers, then a maybe one for flight sims, strategy, or other niche genres.
Personally I like the way Game Informer does it with one main review and a second opinion (even if their reviews are too generous, it's a decent model in theory).
Really I think what game reviews need is less objectivity. It's too easy to say "well everything works well enough, so some people are going to get enjoyment - 8/10" as opposed to actually having an opinion...
Maybe set it up like this: Anyone can submit review for any game, and people upvote the ones that are most accurate. The second opinion would be can underdog review chosen by the editors, but might more accurately represent the game in the editors opinion, or might be more insightful.
Anyway. Just a thought... Have a picture of Doomguy I edited from a painting of Ash (Evil Dead)
>>259314779 >Admits he's new I'm not even bragging, I'm just saying that it's the truth and lots of neoshits lately have bee coming on here acting like they know what board culture is. Fuck it, you probably bought a doge shirt or some shit. The cancer on this board took on its own life. You probably aren't even aware of the gaia raids onto here or anything around then.
Just realize that you being a pretentious faggot doesn't mean you know what /v/ has generally liked. I don't even like or hate Nintendo, but I will call out when I know what is fact from years. It's not even just me, lots of people on /v/ have quoted how Nintendofags are defending their company constantly. Hell, this shit has been around since 2003.
>>259295370 we already are, sort off, kind off. we have generals for games that are very popular in /vg/, and normal threads on /v/ for games that aren't. go to any thread on /v/ or /vg/ and you'll get a way way deeper analysis of the game then from any review site.
Cool set up would be each game would have 3 or so shortish reviews by different people who have largely different taste in games so over time people would find some one they often agree with and then pay more attention to what is probably more relevant to them
I personally would say most games are pieces of shit designed for tards and that Japanese games are a scam to get weeb money in exchange for anime girls and bad gameplay
>>259315603 I can't prove it obviously but anyone else who is reading this and has been here a long time can back me up. I've just become tired of what this board has grown into, but I still held on even though I knew it was nothing like it used to be.
Now I see faggots saying "Oh /v/ has always been this way." when it never has been until the past 2-3 years when this board had way too much cancer spread onto it. It's just saddening when you see a board turn into something else and then see idiots who are so obviously new to here, telling how a board is when it's obviously not true.
If someone makes the website, i'll do it. Go off donations or something. The only reason I quit going for gaming journalism was because of all this bullshit. Last of us 6/10 Depression quest -10/10 Injustice god among us 8/10
>>259316893 It used to not be a shithole. It used to be funny as fuck and way more positive. Yeah /v/ has always hated video games, but it had a lot of fun and love for the stuff it did like.
Everyone knew it was turning into a shithole years ago, but kept holding on. Then with each year it seemed to get so worse. I don't think anyone would expect the board to turn into what it is now, but if you think it's a shithole, why are you still here?
We should stop talking about Zoe, and start a boycott campaign against RPS, Polygon, The Escapist, Kotaku, and any other of these sites that we know now to be unprofessional and corrupt. Also, the IGF, and any other involved.
They are smearing us and the gaming community as a scapegoat for this whole situation, when they are to blame. I propose we do the same.
Do they get ads from gaming companies? Let's tell these companies what we think, threaten to boycott their games too, hit these sites where it hurts.
Let's think about alternative ways to get the journalism job done.
Their bias, censorship and cronyism is unacceptable.
We buy and play the games. It's our community, not theirs!
I would like to try my hand at this if it got off the ground. Would be cool to write about something I enjoy.
I was a decent enough writer to get hired by a newspaper, but I got fired almost immediately because I realized wow I don't give a shit about real news and didn't write anything because I couldn't make myself care enough.
>>259317924 >implying caring about a group changing is autistic That's actually the opposite of autistic. You can't even detect what real autism is, most likely because you yourself are one. Most autists can't comprehend human feelings or emotions.
>>259316146 >Expecting quality control on any popular board >Not being aware that you can raise post quality by avoiding posters from certain timezones and thread hopping >Still acknowledging shitposters Feel free to lurk for another year or so.
A wiki. A gaming wiki. ED of /v/. Multiple boards with a base not that much better than v's have pulled it off, a very tangible project for any group of channers. Take your humor there and make it count.
>>259318281 >your ridiculous bias That being what? Over 8 years of being here and watching the board degrade to shit, noticing how it has changed over time and realizing what a common theme is amongst people who actually stick around?
>You're screaming how you're right when you're simply not I even have someone else hopping in here saying how I"m accurate. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I have no reason to. I'm just telling you because I've witnessed it for too long and it's not my opinion anymore, it's fact and I'm tired of people acting like they know what the general consensus is here from a few retarded threads and a few months lurking.
>>259319549 >That you actually thinking Nintendo is defended to anymore of an extent.. It is though. Even look at any E3 thread ever year. It has always been defended regardless of what happens or what Nintendo does. That has been common knowledge on /v/ for a long time. Look I'm just calling you out on bullshit, I don't hate Nintendo or nintendrones even. >Did you already forget the whole reason you keep responding to me The reason I am is because people keep acting like they know what /v/ general consensus has been when they don't, because the cancer here is so fucking bad.
>Can't you just stop responding You seem butthurt that I keep calling you out for being new and yet you don't deny it. Why don't you go back to where you belong
>>259311117 >they're just gonna try to be super edgy different and pull a reverse SJW
That's a completely stupid understanding of the suggestion OP did.
In my view we are sick exactly of that. People trying to pull "im different and edgy" bullshit. We just want sincer reviews, or news, like, of the game really seems to the person that played, without extreme views of artistic philosophy and market or social comment, just.
>This is fun because. also watch video related >No fun, would not play again, watch video related >some gun here, no fun here, what do, video related
>>259298216 This. Much like the way famitsu does it's reviews. Having 3-4 people play the game and review it separately would make those who are biased against a certain game or genre would be cancelled out by other honest reviewers of the game.
This is pretty much the older 90s formula, brought back, and a good one at that.
The only challenge you have to do, is get enough popularity to get into the meta-critics rating system. Mainly because that's how the "industry" operates, and if you want to change it, gotta do what it needs to be done to curb public opinion.
Plus, if it's /v/-sponsored or /v/-run, the chances of letting an sjw takeover happen would be relatively low; we can see that coming from a light year out. It's rules of nature.
>>259320175 But it's not. If you actually use the board you can easily see that. Again, I'm not going to agree and admit to something so goddamn ignorant. You hate Nintendrones. Fantastic. That doesn't mean they defend their shit any more than any other droning idiots on here.
There you go with general consensus shit again.
I'm not butthurt about it at all. I don't need to prove how long I've been on the board. And you wouldn't believe me anyway, since you're on you're retarded ignorant tirade.
I suppose we can keep this going. What's next. Tell me about some good times on 2006 or so.
>>259321420 >You hate Nintendrones But I don't. I'm just saying they defend their shit way more than xbots or sonyfags. It's true and has always been true. You not knowing this shows how ignorant you are.
>B-b-but I"m right! You are wrong! I have been here long too but you wouldn't believe me! I don't give a shit. Your new already showed from your retarded opinion.
>Tell me some good times on 2006 Donkey Kong music threads.
>>259320584 I can't seem to understand why so many people treat anonymity like some kind of sacred treasure. Besides, as far as this thread's concerned, the reviews would be more of a /v/ concensus posted by a single admin than anything else.
Is it too late to propose a satirical angle? I think subversive is the way to go for a mess like /v/. We have quite a few humorous fellas here, we could do a little of vidya-TheOnion with a little Yahtzee-in-text (his articles are too detached and srs bsns anyway) and a side of ED.