do you think that gaming magazines,sites,etc should review fighting games?

[Xxenace]

Me and a few friends were having a converstion about this the other and to be honest i just dont think that most gaming review mediums should review fighting games for me it just seems like that most reveiwers will ehither love the game if its easy or has nostalgic value or just plain out hate the game if it actually requires you to learn anything
so what do you guys think?

[solidshark]

It's kind of yes and no answer to that. Publications could potentially write really accurate reveiws of most, if not all fighters, but fighting is one of those gaming genres that where progress is hard to gauge. Past all the achievements, taking your skills to tournament level takes longer than nearly any single-player experience out there. I think it's brave to have the job of being a game reviewer - a few games you like, even fewer you love, and most you might hate after you've hyped the hell out of it in an earlier preview.

It's pretty much clear that the simpler fighter might just get the higher mark because of what reviewers take from hours of an introductory experience, or they're thinking of their audience, which is assumed (probably true) a big surge of casual. That's not to say that the more technical games automatically get taken down a peg, but magazines do show more love to the pick-up-and-play types.

When it comes to reviews of fighters, I'm inclined to look at reviews written by players who've logged twice or 4 times as much time into the game to judge it fairly. Most publications will only go as far as noting a fighter's potential; I'd like to think most gamers are looking for a review who's seriously tested that potential, but things are probably not so.

[The Fluke]

I think reviewers mainly cater to casual players. Ofcourse they could go indepth, but i wouldn't expect it. Since MK9 is recent it is good to check out reviews for. I've only listened to some video ones, but i've found all reviews bogus regardless of being positive or negative because the reviewers have had serious trouble grasping the obvious parts of the game, like what moves are unblockable and how those are avoided and that teleport attacks should just be blocked 9 times out of 10 etc.

If you wanna play a game mainly as a solo experience then reviewers can probably help you find fun/flashy games.

If you wanna play a game competitively/with others, ask for/read the oppinions of other players, check videos and try and see.

I don't think fighting game fans have much need of reviewers.

[MUSOLINI]

there where rare instances wher the reviewers actually knew their shit back in the days (gamefan). nowadays reviews done by online gaming sites dont know jack shit. its like the more money is given to them, the better the games score. thats without even going into the bias of some sites (these sons of whores at ign just straight out hate the ps3, and like the 360, its been like this ever since ive known that site, fuckers).

[jinxhand]

Real talk, fighting games get a bad wrap just like rpgs. If its not Final Fantasy, then its not as great as it could be. There were a bunch of rpgs back in the day that were actually good but got a mediocre or bad score like the Shadow Hearts series, and the Shin Megami Tensei series. Some reviewers really don't take the quick time they have to understand the system and truly understand how things work. I feel there should be at least 2 people that have that particular "ability" to pick up something without having to spend too much time breaking it down... I'm pretty sure games like Kakuto Chojin would've received a better score if someone actually were able to understand how the game played and not just mash buttons per sé.

[LouisCipher]

I think Fighters occupy a certain nitch that's hard for the public at large to grasp, other then the very basic of basic fundamentals (like, that guy seems to be winning). There was a stream a few months ago on Machinima where they invited a few top Marvel 3 players, and it was interesting to see how the Machinima guys knew next to nothing about fighters and were asking questions like "What's a super? What does that meter mean? What did he just do?" and etc. This is the general public's perception of fighters.

[sibarraz]

Yes

In the other hand, i believe that hardcore fighting games fans should stop reading those since will only lead you to dissapointment

I recall that time when 98UM was reviewed by IGN, and those guys were so lazy that they copy-pasted the review that they did from the PS2 version.

In the other hand, maybe that was a good idea, since they never mentioned the online aspect of the game

[marchefelix]

Video games are video games

So yes.

[jinxhand]

Yes

In the other hand, i believe that hardcore fighting games fans should stop reading those since will only lead you to dissapointment

I recall that time when 98UM was reviewed by IGN, and those guys were so lazy that they copy-pasted the review that they did from the PS2 version.

In the other hand, maybe that was a good idea, since they never mentioned the online aspect of the game

It's IGN though; those cats really aren't any source of truth in gaming reviews anymore... EGM seemed to be the ones closest to being real about their reviews... Game Informer, while they have multiple reviews for one game, still doesn't seems like they just "go with the flow" and don't really understand much about a fighting game system or even an rpg system at times. Not saying that there isn't much to shooters, but nowadays when you compare Quake or UT99 to any COD, COD doesn't seem like there's much to it, as if it were dumbed down. Instead of an all out deathmatch based on speed and skill, its more team-based, with slower movements and weapons that don't require much aiming making deaths from splash damage easier to execute. Even Counter Strike had more intricacies than games like COD imo...

[The Fluke]

Even Counter Strike had more intricacies than games like COD imo...

Counter Strike is still a good game to this day. There is a lot more to that game than just reflexes and accuracy although i'm not going to go in depth on the subject. I'm done with the game, prefer bf1942/vietnam/1943 or dod. Credit where credit is due though.

[jinxhand]

Word... Yeah Counter Strike is deep, and I think its more in depth than CoD... Again, that isn't to say that CoD isn't a fun or good game, I just feel its good from a different aspect altogether... Yeah I'd prefer the BattleField series over that as well, as each job had its own strength and weakness, and it was different altogether...

[Xxenace]

Yes

In the other hand, i believe that hardcore fighting games fans should stop reading those since will only lead you to dissapointment

I recall that time when 98UM was reviewed by IGN, and those guys were so lazy that they copy-pasted the review that they did from the PS2 version.

In the other hand, maybe that was a good idea, since they never mentioned the online aspect of the game

It's IGN though; those cats really aren't any source of truth in gaming reviews anymore... EGM seemed to be the ones closest to being real about their reviews... Game Informer, while they have multiple reviews for one game, still doesn't seems like they just "go with the flow" and don't really understand much about a fighting game system or even an rpg system at times. Not saying that there isn't much to shooters, but nowadays when you compare Quake or UT99 to any COD, COD doesn't seem like there's much to it, as if it were dumbed down. Instead of an all out deathmatch based on speed and skill, its more team-based, with slower movements and weapons that don't require much aiming making deaths from splash damage easier to execute. Even Counter Strike had more intricacies than games like COD imo...

wat