2 comments

The Godcast: Game of the Year – Day Four

by on December 19, 2013
 

All this week we’ll be bringing you a daily podcast talking about the categories we’ve published.

Day Four is here! Today we’re talking about our most anticipated games of 2014, as well as two exclusive to the podcast categories: biggest disappointment, and best system.

Aside from just listening on this very page, we’ve made it easy to follow the show on as many devices as possible. You can subscribe via iTunes or Feedburner (for you Android users), or you can even listen to the podcast via Stitcher, the mobile internet radio app that we highly recommend. If you’d prefer a simple old-fashioned MP3 download, you can do so by right clicking here then selecting save file.

 GodisaGeek

comments
 
Leave a reply »

 
  • cannibalwombat
    December 19, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    Another great podcast chaps. I’ve not played a single one of these disappointing games, and that got me thinking. Do you tend to play games that you have a fair idea will suck, just for the good of your audience? Or do you simply play games at at stage when you’re not sure what they will be like and nobly play them through for the sake of a comprehensive review? I ask because I’m conscious that you guys are gamers at heart and it must be a real knock each time you’re disappointed with a gaming experience. I find myself pretty well-shielded from bad games by journalistic outlets such as yourselves, in fact I can count the games that have recently disappointed me on one hand. But then I wonder, is that also a disadvantage? Does that keep us from trying a games we may well enjoy?

    Reply

    • December 20, 2013 at 7:37 pm

      I suppose I’m best placed to answer this one…

      Basically, I believe very strongly that it’s important that outlets such as ours cover every game type. Not just triple-As, not just indie darlings. If you cover all ranges, it gives you the chance to review games your audience might never have heard of, while retaining the “big hitter” types.

      This means that you can bring incredible experiences to people that might not get *hits* like a GTA V review does (and shit, that review DID get hits, like crazy). It’s about being honest and open with the people who are kind enough to spend time reading what you write. As the person who organises all the content you read, it’s absolutely vital that the end goal is that the articles are written for gamers, and not for PR or for our peers. Too many people forget that games are bloody expensive, and for someone to go and spend their hard earned cash on YOUR recommendation is a massive responsibility.

      So you’re kind of right as it’s “all of the above”. We’ve reviewed games we knew would suck, because it’s important we don’t allow our audience to be “hoodwinked” in any way and try to shield them from wasting cash that could be better spent elsewhere, but we’ve also been shocked by a game’s quality, and had to force our way through it for the review. Star Trek was an example of that. It previewed very well with very early builds. Hell, Calvin came away from E3 thinking it was brilliant! But then… well… it just wasn’t, and we were all sad because it *SHOULD* have been better.

      Any review is always someone’s opinion, though… However, usually we’re all pretty much on the same page before the publish button is hit.

      Reply

Leave a Response