I hated on reviews last time and I think it’s time to take a step backwards.  A step closer to root of the problem.  The reason I bought such shitty games as Advent Rising and Spiderman 3.  I’m talking about previews.  Previews are an essential instrument for video game enthusiasts, but most in their current state need some rethinking.  With new franchises I almost completely rely on the previews to determine whether I’m going to purchase the game at release.

The Silver Lining

It doesn’t matter what is being previewed, the writer has to pretend it’s going to be a great game.  At the very least they have to pretend that Barbie’s Island Adventures isn’t going to be a bland romp through trophy wife training school… on an island, probably Hawaii.  (Side note:  Is that game fictional?  I’m not entirely sure it is.  Typical of the diversified cock smoking sellout she truly is, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Mattel lent her likeness to an E rated game that was later ripped off by Drake’s Fortune.  In her defense, she has jump started many boys’ puberties with her buxom nippleless  bust and vagless crotch.).  It’s like saying the best little whorehouse in Texas is the best whorehouse in Texas ever, oblivious to the fact Dolly Parton works there.

I understand the writer is detailing a game they haven’t had the opportunity to play.  They are usually critiquing video clips, screen shots, and the word of the developer that the game isn’t going to be the same repackaged bullshit.  How can you pass sound judgment on a game simply by looking at a screenshot or gameplay footage?  You can’t and by saying, “this screenshot looks incredible,” you’re only validating that the specific still looks good graphically.  A good example of this is the upcoming Ghostbusters game.

With no disrespect to the movies, which managed to scare the shit out of me when I was a kid, that game is going to be terrible.  I know this because every preview I’ve read, every screen shot I’ve seen, every video I’ve watched, preys on my childhood memories.  The game was dropped by Activision for being fiscally infeasible and was later picked up by Atari, a company also guilty of preying on my childhood memories.  I’m picking on the Ghostbusters game because contrary to what I’ve read on it, I don’t think it’ll be any good.  That’s not to say I’m totally right.

Yield to Publishers/Developers/Franchises

Let’s look at the developers/publishers who have good previews and subsequent reviews of any game they release:  Rockstar, Valve, Bethesda, Blizzard, Square Enix, Capcom, Nintendo, Bungie, Epic, etc.  That list goes on and on.  Fallout 3 is basically Oblivion, no Final Fantasy or Resident Evil has ever been worthy of high praise, Grand Theft Auto IV is a regression of substance and gameplay.  Portal is a highly specialized rip-off of Prey.  What I’m trying to say is this, we all yield concessions to the publishers and developers associated with our personal definition of quality.

I’m certainly not saying the publishers/developers I’ve mentioned are encompassed in my definition of quality.  They are however associated with someone else’s’ and because of that, they get good previews and reviews from the corporate sources who exist because they sate rabid fans.  It’s not just the well known publishers/developers that get rave preview response.  Looking at my previous point.  The preview is usually based on what the developer says the game will be like.  If the PR person for your company comes out and says the game you are working on is going to be terrible, they should be drug behind a beat up pickup truck in true Alabama fashion.

The Dennis Dyack Effect

I don’t totally agree with the man but he did propose a valid argument.  Video games are the only media that have comprehensive previews years before the product is finished.  With movies you get teasers, then trailers, then the final product is released.  Rarely do you see a teaser more than a year in advance.  Music has an announcement, then it goes to radio(the exhibition of the final product.)  Radio is for music like art galleries are for paintings.  Video games on the other hand have outsiders telling you what your game will be like well before they’ve had a chance to play it.

Dennis made his argument referring to the slight ire Too Human received after a poor showing at E3.  Just in case you’re a newcomer to video games and have absolutely no idea how the industry works, developers stymie game production months in advance to prepare something specific and grandiose to showcase at E3.  E3 is every year, meaning there’s roughly a year of lost production time in the game’s development cycle simply to prepare for the annual expo.  Of course Dyack’s proposal is invalidated because I knew Too Human wasn’t going to live up to the hype.   I could smell the sour salty fragrance of failure coming years in advance.  I can read between the lines of the previews.

It was announced shortly before Eternal Darkness, which was on the Gamecube, when Silicon Knights was still owned by Nintendo.  When they were sold, it was announced  on the Xbox, and then the Xbox 360, when it was still called the Next Xbox.  Then almost 3 years into the console’s life it was finally released.  Something to make note of is this; when a game takes more than 5 years to make, it probably isn’t going to be game of the year, look at Dark Sector.

Previews are good to an extent.  They should be brutally honest.  Don’t say “based on these screen shots and this footage this game will be totally tits.”  Are kids these days still using the word “tits” like that?  If you’ve played an early version of the game, state the shortcomings and then defend them by saying “it’s not the finished product.”  As a journalist you owe it to your readers to present the accurate and vaguely subjective point of view that they as normal folk can’t get.  Good day!