The problem with reviews
- Thread starter migo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well if the harsh critics are saying their beef with a game is it not living up to screen-shots, then you can simply ignore that part. At least the harsh critics are telling the truth.
It's much easier for to give negative jokey reviews. You just pick up on one or two features and mock them. You don't have to try and understand the subtleties or work to get good at the game.BlackWidower said:
I never said it was possible to 100% objectively rate a game, there's always some subjectivity to every review in any medium. Graphics is pretty easy to be objective about, the game either looks good or it doesn't. You may not like the art style but you can still tell if it was executed well graphically. The one thing is sometimes you may feel the art style (whether you like it or not) just doesn't work for the game, and that is definitely subjective. I think there is a pretty good and accurate consensus of whether a game looks good or not even on the Internet game boards. What usually is argued is that game X looks better than game Y, everyone agrees they are both good looking.Cassita said:
It is possible to take out some subjectivity though. For example, I really enjoyed both Resonance of Fate and Eternal Sonata; however, I don't think I would rate either of them more than an 8, they both have some flaws that I can see even though I really had a good time playing them. I think enjoyment level does not equal review score; therefore, you can to a DEGREE objectively rate a game. I can play a good game that's not my cup of tea and be pretty close to (at least in the ballpark) with someone's review of that game in which it was their cup of tea. I think the person that loved the game should be able to objectively take off points for the game's flaws. Don't get me wrong, some people inherently value certain things more than others so there is no such thing as being completely objective.
Note how I also included the words 'sift the bias.' It's usually easy to tell if a person is a fanboy a a certain series, or if they're having rather obvious and biased opinions.Tankichi said:
At least, to me it is.
I don't like reviews.
I like analyses, as they're far more objective, and a good critic, even if they don't like the game, will say it's well crafted/designed if it is.
I like analyses, as they're far more objective, and a good critic, even if they don't like the game, will say it's well crafted/designed if it is.
But when the Edge or Destructoid uses the actual WHOLE scale (giving 5 to average games and 7 to good and solid games that fail to be something truly special) the shitstorm is imminent.
Just look at cinema critics!
Just look at cinema critics!
Yeah, I gotta agree with that. There's a lot of media bias, especially with high budget or much beloved titles. The two most recent Experienced Points on this site poke fun at that, even. And the Jeff Gerstman (I think that's the right spelling) controversy highlighted it. I ignore the scores and look more at why they';re scored as they are.Phoenixmgs said:
And I agree with your later points. You can objectively judge (to a point) things like graphics, audio, and controls.
Controls can be judged objectively in terms of whether or not they work. If there are significant responsivity issues, you can judge it objectively. Similarly, if the mechanics work poorly (or sometimes, not at all), it's not really "opinion." The fine points, maybe, but not the coarse ones. Obvious plot holes and bad acting are pretty objective. Some delivery is not, and some plot holes are open to interpretation, but many are big enough to drive trucks through.
Audio and Video are tricky. The disparity between graphics in different games doesn't make them bad by default, but if it's hard to see what's going on, or items are poorly represented, you have a problem. Similarly, if the audio track doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do (support the experience), it doesn't matter if it's 8 Bit synth or a full on orchestra in DTS.
I've actually seen fanboys who would state that CoD MW2 and Red Dead Redemption have awful graphics. That's pretty much objectively false.` I don't even like MW2, but I can certainly appreciate the visual. To argue that it's valid because it's an opinion is just asinine.
I think a good reviewer will be as objective as possible. I just wish there were more.
Yes I use amazon as well, mostly for books but its the best iv seen that averages user reviews. The reviews seem to be more professional as well, unlike something like IMDB where a number of people give things one star just because they want to bring down the overall rating.Garak73 said:
For example Halo Reach has 4 stars there.
Thank you, someone that finally sees there is a degree of objectivity that game reviews should have.Zachary Amaranth said:
A good reviewer should use the WHOLE scale, 5 should be average. Almost every major game release gets a 7-10 score, which then makes everything seem so similar in quality. It's kinda like "when everybody is special then nobody is" logic. An average game should not be 1 point lower than a good game. When a game gets like a 6/10, people are like that game must suck because of how the 1-10 scale is used. A 6/10 should represent an above average game, not a bad game which is how it is now.Blackality said:
Yeah, Finnish is in a not intuitive at all fashion similar to Hungarian. Another language I don't speak.SimuLord said:
That's certainly a way to go about it if the game you're into is available for rent or a friend has it.Nedoras said:
That only goes so far though, and it's a reason I really like RPG-fan. Since it's RPG reviews by guys who like RPGs, I know that I'll get the right type of review. RPG reviews from other sources are usually pretty useless, so then you need someone who likes every game type, but they're way too forgiving.Haseo21 said:
I find this to only be useful if it's a feature I hate but other people like, and that might get missed in other reviews. Alternatively, if it's a feature I like but the reviewer hates, I'm still not sure if the rest of the review is valuable to me.Racthoh said:
He doesn't really count as a review at all, which is funny as he always says it's a journalistic review, and it's neither of those words.Snotnarok said:
I think an important aspect is overlooked in this thread: Information.
Okay, so some game gets a certain rating. Lets say many reviewers give that game a rating. Now you look at that much hyped metacritic, and what does that number there tell you? That apparently a lot of reviewers like the game.
So what? Without information how those games where rated - what they got their score for, all it tells me is "popularity", and nothing else. I get zero info on the game content. And reading the reviews isn't much more helpful either: Lots of babble and rethorics and little explanation and information besides of trivialities.
This is the main reason why i do not read reviews: They rarely give me useful information. Information which *I* can use to decide if *I* would like it. Screw ratings - gimme data!
P.S.: Ninja'd
Okay, so some game gets a certain rating. Lets say many reviewers give that game a rating. Now you look at that much hyped metacritic, and what does that number there tell you? That apparently a lot of reviewers like the game.
So what? Without information how those games where rated - what they got their score for, all it tells me is "popularity", and nothing else. I get zero info on the game content. And reading the reviews isn't much more helpful either: Lots of babble and rethorics and little explanation and information besides of trivialities.
This is the main reason why i do not read reviews: They rarely give me useful information. Information which *I* can use to decide if *I* would like it. Screw ratings - gimme data!
P.S.: Ninja'd
That's why I watch Let's Plays instead of reading reviews. I get a pretty good glimpse of how the game is actually played, instead of some guy's opinion on how the game is played. Sometimes I even watch with my controller in hand and make believe that I'm actually playing.
That's a pretty interesting thought. I find I get bored pretty quickly in though, as the guys are quite detailed. Of course that's how I play as well, but I'm doing what I want, and sometimes the dude isn't checking out what I want to check out at the moment.SideburnsPuppy said:
I really only ever watch the first ten minutes or so, when it's mostly tutorials and easy missions. In order to get a view of the game in the long-term, I usually go for Wikipedia articles or walkthroughs.migo said: