More than once, but if I was in a position where my review would be listed and used in what is an attempt at a metric for how I rate a video game I would leave my personal & subjective views out of the score.Adon Cabre said:Alas, we come to the question: are games a work of art, or just a bunch of code spliced together? Games are art, and characterization and plot dynamism can be subjectively reviewed:Abomination said:Everything he said appealed to me about this game. Even the negatives... I want to play a story as a vile individual because that's actually something the industry is lacking at present.
So if the only cons he has with the game is how ruthless, evil and despicable the protagonists are? Sounds like a 5/5 review to me.
Will get when on PC.
Edit: upon further reflection I think giving it a 3.5/5 is a bit strange since the only reason given is what could be considered a truly subjective one.
Using a recent release like Total War: Rome II as an example the game has issues that are simply not subjective: incredible load times, bugs bugs bugs, a lack of transparency in the political system, leveling paths hidden in the in-game manual, terrible battle AI, and baffling building pros/cons (like something that gives you 12 bonus to public order in one way also gives you -12 to public order in another way). All of those things can be universally agreed to be negative for the game.
On the flip side, disliking an evil protagonist is a subjective thing, other people might love the idea. To rate the game in a negative manner because of it, rather than mention it as a problem the reviewer had on a PERSONAL level, I feel isn't doing the already broken gaming metric score any favors.
[li]Are character's motives neatly described or relate-able?[/li]
[li]Was there any fulfillment in the 60 hour story-line? (that would be huge for me)[/li]
[li]Did one part of the story drag on and get boring?[/li]
It's difficult for this tech culture to focus on the artistic side as most of this community is buried in the pockets of the PC gamer dominated net. But somethings are more important than mechanics, frame rates and pixelation; and many games have been forgiven their shoddy design because so much effort placed in creating a meaningful experience.
Fallout 3 bugged horribly, but it was game of the year because of that experience -- it's dark tone contrasted by brighter elements shining throughout the wasteland.
Characters that are just bad, bad and more bad will choke the emotional context out of some people. Apparently, it happened to one reviewer.
Has a character or story within a game (or lack thereof) ever turned you off to the whole thing?
It's happened to me.
Essentially I feel one should at first think what the score is supposed to represent and therefore make that the focus. If is an opinion piece or a reflection of what the game is about? The characters might have been nasty but was the story poorly told? It's entirely possible that an evil guy is just an evil guy. Some peoples' moral compasses just point in the opposite direction as to what you would expect and playing a protagonist who is a villain shouldn't be a reason to score a game poorly - especially when a game is all about being a member of the criminal underworld. Eventually you have to write a game for someone who WANTS to be there and not have nothing but anti-heroes.