85 is not average

No one really expected a game based on the ‘run-away success’ Da Vinci code, to really get anywhere. Not only is it now a movie tie in, its also a fairly boring, hype based subject. This post is less about the game, and more about the effort of the BBC News story about it. Chet pointed this out on IRC today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5007998.stm

A summarisation of the discussion that follows, highlights the relentlessly poor quality of games reviewing the BBC produce. Jonathan Fildes begins the review with the standard opening, a small amount of cautiosly optomistic hype; “Even before its release, the Da Vinci Code video game had a lot to live up to.” In all honesty, did it really. Living up to a mediocre fictional novel, with a mediocre film tie in staring a few out of work actors, who really are worth more, does not leave a lot to live up to; (Jean Reno, what has happened to you?).

Reading on through the story, it becomes apparent that a set of criteria has been laid down presumably on a piece of BBC headed paper, for the reviewing of games by those higher up in the BBC. A noble effort, I am in favour of standardisation and rules, which allow a credible degree of flexibility, however when Jonathan bleets; “Disappointingly the game only offers a single-player mode.” we can all begin to wonder, just what is on that sheet. Just how could multiplayer work exactly? And why does everyone assume that games MUST have multiplayer features. Every man and his dog has multiplayer in this business, and most of them are shit.

Petty comments about the lay out of the piece (as is typical with a review that lacks serious content, yet MUST fill enough to make the main body of the text extend beyond that occupied by the menus) are valid. “Eights words does not a paragraph make” as a great man once said, springs instantly to mind. Constantly taking a breath during the assimilation of 12 words of text, spanning the white space, like an over-work hurdler, my eyes begin to bleed.

Fortunatly all is not lost, with what I hope is an honest core of 5 overall being pinned to the game, though the lazy conclusion which straddle the fence reveals that the back bone of the review is a lost cause. If its shit, say its shit. A slightly more satirical and more enjoyable read is available on GamePro: http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps2/games/reviews/57392.shtml, who also give it 2.5/5, reassuringly similar, and also probably read by the author of the BBC article. I will leave you to note the similarities.

This entry was posted 2 years, 7 months ago at 2:18 pm by Doug and is filed under Bad, Hype. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.