Game Informer Review

[Vyse of Arcadia]

Well, yeah, but Chrono Trigger is a godlike symbol of everything great about the 16-bit generation. Or at least that's what I'm assuming from all the fanboy (and fangirl) drool. GI would probably get bomb threats if they gave CT anything less than a 9. Lunar's just a lowly cult classic.

Yeah, but that's my problem w/ it. SE can remake their games multiple times and it's usually regarded as a great thing. SE is praised for this all the time. Then Lunar is remade and it doesn't get bonus points for nostalgia. I think it's bogus you are paid to review and rate a game not a game and it's publishing company. Yes, Chrono Trigger sells more games, it was a great game that was popular. However Lunar is the better game it's just won't sell as much, it's score should similar to CT in my eyes.

HIt the nail on the head. I love Chrono Trigger. It's a fantastic game! But because of its popularity, it always gets extra nostalgia points. I'd be willing to bet good money that whoever reviewed SSH perhaps played SSSC in passing and has probably never touched TSS.

[Final Night]

Ok, finally read the review (wanted to read it out of my own Game Informer, but hadn't had the time yet). I think this guy assumes too much. He basically writes a middle of the road review (more positive than negative) but gives it a very solid 8 score.

The review just doesn't read like that of an 8. Reads like more of 6 or 7. I think he assumes that people know more about Lunar than they actually do.

[Silver Phoenix]

It was half-assed and VERY uninformative. It does very little to focus on the game itself regardless of it being a positive review. You can tell this person didn't even complete the game, and I bet they didn't even get 1/4 into it before writing the review. They don't touch on any of the new meaty aspects, and it's very bare bones. The two pictures choses are basically filler as they do nothing to really show off the game.

[Aaron]

The problem I see with the GI review is that his review doesn't match his score.

The way he wrote about it suggests this game is horrible. Yet you look at the page and there is an 8/10. That to me suggests its a good game.

But with videogame reviews it seems that a lot of the time a review is given based off of who buys the most ad-space in the mag or on the website. It's rare to see any game receive lower then a 6. Which has its positives and its negatives. If you look at the movie critics they pan everything. Then they praise things that most people hate.

It seems to me that a lot of reviewers fall into the hype of the product they're trying to objectively score. Take for instance Halo or Gear's of War or even GTA. Sure the mechanics are solid, but nothing is really new about those games, in fact I find most of them boring. Yet most of them got rave reviews about ingenuity and inventiveness.

Seems to me that most game reviews are merely bought indirectly by the publishers to generate sales for a their game.

[Silver Phoenix]

In most cases for high profile titles that is correct. You can tell this was just a basic mini-review because of how small the segment was. Usually big title reviews end up with a full page or two full pages, sometimes more.

[LunarRaptor]

You shouldn't take Game Informer too seriously. They're a good source of information for what's coming up, but most of the staff of that mag are dicks when it comes to reviewing games. Chrono Trigger gets a near identical remake and they priase. Lunar gets remade with several updates and they pan it. This is not the first time these schmucks have been unfair like this.

[Vyse of Arcadia]

You shouldn't take Game Informer too seriously. They're a good source of information for what's coming up, but most of the staff of that mag are dicks when it comes to reviewing games. Chrono Trigger gets a near identical remake and they priase. Lunar gets remade with several updates and they pan it. This is not the first time these schmucks have been unfair like this.

They're still not as bad as EGM was. I recall, back in the day, all three reviewers giving both Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker 10/10 (Or 9.5/10 or some such.) A couple of years later, in their reviews for Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess, and I believe it was at least a couple of the same reviewers, they wrote endlessly about how horrible the previous games were and how everyone hated them. Way to be consistent, guys. After that shenanigan, I let my subscription lapse. And I did a little dance when the magazine went under.

Longish anecdote aside, GI seems to have pretty good reviews for console games. The actual score numbers are worthless, but the review texts are good. They fall behind for portable games, though.

[ShindoW]

I loved EGM, mostly because they only reviewed stuff like KH, FF, and the occasional Atlus RPG (Persona 3 for example, which has all the hype and IMO wasn't that awesome-- I do love 4, however) and I liked reading the fan-mail.