I don't hate the game; I just find it extremely boring to play. It still baffles me the game thinks its okay to hand out journal entries that just tell you what is going on...
Reviewer's credibility
- Thread starter MAUSZX
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To me the fun of FFXIII came in setting up the perfect set of paradigms for a given area, or against a given boss. So satisfying. I'm not going to go ahead and say that Final Fantasy XIII is fantastic...but it's fun times imo.
As far as reviewers go, I just listen to them in the same way that I listen to anyone else's opinion, keep what they say in mind, but don't let their opinion rule yours.
As far as reviewers go, I just listen to them in the same way that I listen to anyone else's opinion, keep what they say in mind, but don't let their opinion rule yours.
At the end of the day, just because your opinion differs to someone elses does not mean they are inferior to you when it comes to judging something, as the original poster seems to believe...
You should always find a reviewer that has a taste similar to yours and listen to that, but all reviews are subjective and need to be taken as such.
As for FF13, I luckily only played it at a friends house that is a huge fanboy and will defend every FF to the grave, but even he was finding it difficult to swallow this one.
For me it is the lowest point a game can reach, it looks really really nice, all the rest is as it seems a test howmuch they can take away from a game and people won't mind, I like to play the game so I found it horrid.
As for FF13, I luckily only played it at a friends house that is a huge fanboy and will defend every FF to the grave, but even he was finding it difficult to swallow this one.
For me it is the lowest point a game can reach, it looks really really nice, all the rest is as it seems a test howmuch they can take away from a game and people won't mind, I like to play the game so I found it horrid.
I don't care what opinion a reviewer has of a game anyway. How am I supposed to know if they have good taste. I just look for facts or (in the case of Zero Punctuation), laughs.
I actually prefer a reviewer under-rate a game I like then overrate a terrible game. Everyone (even Yhatzee) said No More Heroes was worth getting but it turned out to be the worst collection of minigames on the wii: all based on jobs so bad we give them to immigrants. I'm surprised we weren't also asked to "press X to" clean hotel rooms or bus tables.
My point is reviewers don't have credibility. If you're not sure, rent it.
I actually prefer a reviewer under-rate a game I like then overrate a terrible game. Everyone (even Yhatzee) said No More Heroes was worth getting but it turned out to be the worst collection of minigames on the wii: all based on jobs so bad we give them to immigrants. I'm surprised we weren't also asked to "press X to" clean hotel rooms or bus tables.
My point is reviewers don't have credibility. If you're not sure, rent it.
Well I think black ops had a better story than the other CODs so maybe that's why people say it has a great story, because of the others COD. I personally like the story but the campaign in veteran was unfear and a Pain in the arse, but the multiplayer, zombie mode and the arcade game were pretty good.Trolldor said:
A reviewer's opinion is less important than your own. Sometimes I disagree with Yahtzee's or Ebert's opinions on certain games or movies, respectively, but I will always value my own opinion over theirs. Though, that doesn't mean I won't consider other people's views on a subject; sometimes I miss a few subtle things in media that others catch which would have immensely changed my opinion if I caught it.
I don't listen to anything critics say. Their qualifications are unknown, as is why their opinion at least in so far as for a game I am buying for myself are concerned, should matter in the least. I'm also turned completely off by the general tone of most reviews. I don't think that I (or my friends and family) should have to sit through what essentially boils down to a lot of swearing and sexual "humor?" used in the place of other devices for humor when all I wanted was the info!
Too bad CSPAN doesn't review video games.... For us CSPAN lovers that's interesting to wonder what that show would BE like man.... CAN you be an honest to god journalist when the subject is so open to individual opinion? Maybe that's why no one makes "nuetral reviews."
What I personally rely on more than anything are people who have already played the game I'm considering. Besides I enjoy the conversation a LOT more than reinforcing the incorrect notion that it should be someone's job to tell us what we like. It shouldn't.
A good example of this is a game I got for Christmas: Tron Evolution. The reviews of this game are really quite mixed. I have played it more than anything since I got it. I think it's one of the best games of this past year. Heck if I hadn't been talking to someone about a really great game they had been playing named Vanquish I'd probably be playing Tron now. Vanquish is another great example of an outstanding game (Which is of course only my opinion, you may not like it.) that I only heard via other gamers and word of mouth.
So would you have named Tron Evolution game of the year? Maybe. Maybe not. So what right or authority does anyone have to tell us that it should/shouldn't be.
A good example of this is the way some gamers (who do read/frequent critics) will tell me that one of the problems with a game I'm thinking of buying is that it's too short for the money I'd pay. They seem to forget that while passing that info on to me, that what the critic left OUT of their review was that it won't be short for US as we are not payed to play games for a living and well, just don't play as often. So it might be a good idea to be especially wary of the "short" pan from professional reviewers.
I think your greatest tool for deciding future purchases would be a friends list of other gamers that shared your tastes and interests. That's why I'm here. Call it an alternative to critics and yes, when parents can't let their kids go surf sites about video games without censoring them to the point where they are basically visiting Redacted.com, I do feel an alternative is needed.
My point is that if you love Mirrors Edge and someone says "Don't buy it it's a piece of EXPLETIVE DELETED! Are you just a stupid EXPLETIVE DELETED, EXPLETIVE DELETED?" Buy it anyway and play it and have fun in spite of critics who, when you really think about it, are about as qualified to make choices for everybody else as the rest of us are. Which is to say not at all.
When I think about it it makes me a little annoyed that critics cannot be more gracious, well okay that's asking too much maybe, but at LEAST civil, towards an industry without which they wouldn't have a job.
Too bad CSPAN doesn't review video games.... For us CSPAN lovers that's interesting to wonder what that show would BE like man.... CAN you be an honest to god journalist when the subject is so open to individual opinion? Maybe that's why no one makes "nuetral reviews."
What I personally rely on more than anything are people who have already played the game I'm considering. Besides I enjoy the conversation a LOT more than reinforcing the incorrect notion that it should be someone's job to tell us what we like. It shouldn't.
A good example of this is a game I got for Christmas: Tron Evolution. The reviews of this game are really quite mixed. I have played it more than anything since I got it. I think it's one of the best games of this past year. Heck if I hadn't been talking to someone about a really great game they had been playing named Vanquish I'd probably be playing Tron now. Vanquish is another great example of an outstanding game (Which is of course only my opinion, you may not like it.) that I only heard via other gamers and word of mouth.
So would you have named Tron Evolution game of the year? Maybe. Maybe not. So what right or authority does anyone have to tell us that it should/shouldn't be.
A good example of this is the way some gamers (who do read/frequent critics) will tell me that one of the problems with a game I'm thinking of buying is that it's too short for the money I'd pay. They seem to forget that while passing that info on to me, that what the critic left OUT of their review was that it won't be short for US as we are not payed to play games for a living and well, just don't play as often. So it might be a good idea to be especially wary of the "short" pan from professional reviewers.
I think your greatest tool for deciding future purchases would be a friends list of other gamers that shared your tastes and interests. That's why I'm here. Call it an alternative to critics and yes, when parents can't let their kids go surf sites about video games without censoring them to the point where they are basically visiting Redacted.com, I do feel an alternative is needed.
My point is that if you love Mirrors Edge and someone says "Don't buy it it's a piece of EXPLETIVE DELETED! Are you just a stupid EXPLETIVE DELETED, EXPLETIVE DELETED?" Buy it anyway and play it and have fun in spite of critics who, when you really think about it, are about as qualified to make choices for everybody else as the rest of us are. Which is to say not at all.
When I think about it it makes me a little annoyed that critics cannot be more gracious, well okay that's asking too much maybe, but at LEAST civil, towards an industry without which they wouldn't have a job.
I don't even care about reviews anymore. You can't know how much you're going to like a game until you try it for yourself, which is why I Redbox just about any game I'm interested in, to give it a chance before making my opinion.
The only reviews I trust are user reviews. And even then I read a lot of them, compare them and that helps make a good choice. I never trust official reviews. They all take the money. How else is the same game getting top reviews over and over again? Yes, I'm talking about Call of Duty. Whenever a sequel of any other game is released it will be criticized if it's too similar to the last game. Not CoD. CoD is praised for it's repetitiveness and unimaginative design.
There are 3 things reviews are for: informing people on the fence about buying a game whether it's good or bad (mostly) and expressing the reviewer's view of the game (always), and generating fanboy rage (in the case of bad reviews) or fanboy self-appreciation (in the case of good ones).
Ergo, the only time one should trust reviews is when one does not wish to spend $60 without having a higher-than-average chance of getting a good game.
Examples for all 3:
1. "We think Fallout 3 is a masterful game, well suited to both first-person RPG fans and Fallout fans alike. Others may find the game interesting, as it is well-rounded and highly polished."
2. "I think Metal Gear Solid for is the best game of this generation. Everyone should buy this game."
3a. "This new Mario game is the worst thing nintendo has farted out since The Other M." *fanboy rabble in background*
3b. "Civilization 5 is one of the most masterful strategy games ever made." *fanboy pride in background*
Ergo, the only time one should trust reviews is when one does not wish to spend $60 without having a higher-than-average chance of getting a good game.
Examples for all 3:
1. "We think Fallout 3 is a masterful game, well suited to both first-person RPG fans and Fallout fans alike. Others may find the game interesting, as it is well-rounded and highly polished."
2. "I think Metal Gear Solid for is the best game of this generation. Everyone should buy this game."
3a. "This new Mario game is the worst thing nintendo has farted out since The Other M." *fanboy rabble in background*
3b. "Civilization 5 is one of the most masterful strategy games ever made." *fanboy pride in background*
You brought up a good point and what turned out to be a good idea for me. After reading your post I decided to read a random independant user review for a game that I am on the fence about. (Okay and one for a game I already have just to see if anyone else was enjoying it as much. Nope, they aren't.) The game was Bioshock 2 and after reading the review I think the author has actually swayed me to buy the game. Not because they were paid to, not because of their ego or online persona, not because they have any dog in the race other than sharing something that they personally love, which they did quite well.ImprovizoR said:
So I take it back, those kind of reviews are very useful, as other posters have rightly said when taken in context and used as a comparison with friends opinions, I do still wish there wasn't some all controlling force behind these writers that has convinced them that they need to swear and borrow "the funny" from Porky's though. My psychologist says that when I swear what's happening is my brain is just grabbing the first thing to flash to it, we swear partially because of conditioning, partially due to lack of real creativity and active thinking as opposed to reactive thinking. In conversation that makes sense, slips happen of course. Yet with printed works it has to be pre-meditated and then even edited. Which brings me to the disturbing thought that what is incivility to some of us is STRATEGY to others.
Not good news for our kids (or people who kinda' like civility) folks....
It's hard to tell, because there are games I've liked everyone else loves, and games I hate everyone loved, it's all a matter of opinion. Risk and reward, that's what the bargain bin is for. If you hear bad but still want it, or are on the fence just wait for price drops, or rent it
As for reviewers, I use them as an opinion and take it into consideration, though I've taken risks on a smaller title because of a good review, or prolonged my playing of a game on a bad one.
As for reviewers, I use them as an opinion and take it into consideration, though I've taken risks on a smaller title because of a good review, or prolonged my playing of a game on a bad one.