The point, i believe, is that the score needs to be given with some care whether it be high or low.
Remember, the entire reason we have those score aggregation sites is specifically because we can't just rely on one review. Give out a useless score out of pure ineptitude and you're basically diluting a tool that was borne out of the general uselessness of reviews.
Remember, the entire reason we have those score aggregation sites is specifically because we can't just rely on one review. Give out a useless score out of pure ineptitude and you're basically diluting a tool that was borne out of the general uselessness of reviews.
So before we couldn't trust the individual reviews because they were rubbish on their own. And now we can't trust the compilation of them because on bad review can throw them off?
It almost sounds like we should NEVER take ANY review seriously and form our OWN opinions about these games we care so much about.
OK...looking at the review again...I noticed something
in the good section it says the gorgeous enviroments yet then right below it in the bad section it says ugly enviroments
um.....someone mind explaining this to me. There is kind of only 2 enviroments, a cave and a town/waterfall. And since they uses the plural form that means that both are good looking and both are bad looking?
VRaptorX: OK...looking at the review again...I noticed something
in the good section it says the gorgeous enviroments yet then right below it in the bad section it says ugly enviroments
Actually he said that there were "Some gorgeous environments." and "Too many ugly environments".
By that I assume he was not contradicting himself, but rather stating the fact that he either really liked the scenery, or really hated it. I can understand with fantasy games, because the scenery enjoyment factor is usually at extremes for people.
Also, if you dont hold them as credible, why do you care?
Because if one person in any sport takes bribes it looks bad for the whole industry. Gamespot doing this crap makes every gamer look bad.
???
Gamespot maybe takes bribes, so that is why the mainstream media dislikes us so much. DAMN YOU GAMESPOT, DAMN YOU.
I highly doubt that anyone who doesn't care about videogames even knows what kind of site Gamespot is.
That's a completely unrelated issue.
It has to deal with professionalism. You don't allow people to review games that don't like a certain genre. Even further, if it is a payroll thing (which Gamestop has been known for), then it shows a major lack of care for something that is supposed to be a passion.
But lets go a step further and say that I was interested in buying the game, however, before buying it I want to look at the reviews. So I'm going along and reading the reviews. "Hmm... this game is getting a pretty decent score!" Then, I stumble upon the Gamestop review. "A low score? That doesn't seem right."
This means that they are either on the payroll of a rival company, it was reviewed by somebody who doesn't like the wii/platformers, or the person genuinely didn't like it. This raises questions. Will I not like it? What kind of games does this guy like? Why did these other guys like it so much? Do I want to buy this game now (since you can't rent it)?
Sure, I could ignore reviews by Gamestop, but maybe the person reviewing the game has a similar taste in games and a purchase of this game would simply make me regret yet another video game purchase.
This is the sort of problem that gamers face now. A game that can't be rented (or demoed) is a major deal.
Also, if you dont hold them as credible, why do you care?
Because if one person in any sport takes bribes it looks bad for the whole industry. Gamespot doing this crap makes every gamer look bad.
???
Gamespot maybe takes bribes, so that is why the mainstream media dislikes us so much. DAMN YOU GAMESPOT, DAMN YOU.
I highly doubt that anyone who doesn't care about videogames even knows what kind of site Gamespot is.
That's a completely unrelated issue.
It has to deal with professionalism. You don't allow people to review games that don't like a certain genre. Even further, if it is a payroll thing (which Gamestop has been known for), then it shows a major lack of care for something that is supposed to be a passion.
But lets go a step further and say that I was interested in buying the game, however, before buying it I want to look at the reviews. So I'm going along and reading the reviews. "Hmm... this game is getting a pretty decent score!" Then, I stumble upon the Gamestop review. "A low score? That doesn't seem right."
This means that they are either on the payroll of a rival company, it was reviewed by somebody who doesn't like the wii/platformers, or the person genuinely didn't like it. This raises questions. Will I not like it? What kind of games does this guy like? Why did these other guys like it so much? Do I want to buy this game now (since you can't rent it)?
Sure, I could ignore reviews by Gamestop, but maybe the person reviewing the game has a similar taste in games and a purchase of this game would simply make me regret yet another video game purchase.
This is the sort of problem that gamers face now. A game that can't be rented (or demoed) is a major deal.
Well, I was replying to him commenting that it lowered the entire credibility of the games industry in the eyes of the rest of the world.
And people wonder why I run the community's independent reviewing blog? Indeed, as many have said - the review does look slightly obnoxious, kind of reminding me of IGN's 10/10 for GTA just because it was the next GTA, or the guy on 1UP who gave a small-time RPG title a low score just because he didn't like the genre - you're dealing with mainstream reviewers, here, and they're paid to simply state their opinion ruthlessly; no matter how many other readers and writers may disagree with it.
It has to deal with professionalism. You don't allow people to review games that don't like a certain genre. Even further, if it is a payroll thing (which Gamestop has been known for), then it shows a major lack of care for something that is supposed to be a passion.
But lets go a step further and say that I was interested in buying the game, however, before buying it I want to look at the reviews. So I'm going along and reading the reviews. "Hmm... this game is getting a pretty decent score!" Then, I stumble upon the Gamestop review. "A low score? That doesn't seem right."
This means that they are either on the payroll of a rival company, it was reviewed by somebody who doesn't like the wii/platformers, or the person genuinely didn't like it. This raises questions. Will I not like it? What kind of games does this guy like? Why did these other guys like it so much? Do I want to buy this game now (since you can't rent it)?
Sure, I could ignore reviews by Gamestop, but maybe the person reviewing the game has a similar taste in games and a purchase of this game would simply make me regret yet another video game purchase.
This is the sort of problem that gamers face now. A game that can't be rented (or demoed) is a major deal.
I think its a somewhat larger issue if you're incapable of deciding whether or not to get a game without someone telling you what to do. I've loved loads of critically crap games, and detested high-scorers. If you're really that interested you can get a good idea of the game's flaws and advantages by reading several reviews, and in that case it helps if someone didn't like it, because then they're less likely to skim over the problems and you can get a better grasp of any downsides.
Or on the other hand, you could just decide you like the look of it and take a risk.
The problem is that a bad score amongst otherwise good scores hurts a game's overall score on aggregator sites.
Sorry for the heavy editing, but I really just wanna discuss thin one point.
Are you saying that a reason to score a game high is to avoid lowering it's overall score. Should a reviewer refrain from sacking a game that everyone else seems to like, just to "go with the flow" or whatever you wanna call it? Or have I got it all wrong?
Yeah, that's not what I meant. I see how you could take it that way. The purpose of that statement was to explain why people care about a low score.
Jon Rose: Gloating Swine is pretty much dead-on, and at this point i have to believe that Jumplion is just being deliberately obtuse. It's NOT just an opinion, which we could get from any retard on the internet. Reviewers are professionals -- or are supposed to be -- and people rely on them as an aid in figuring out if a given game is worth their hard-earned money. The only way you could not understand this is if you get all your shit for free, or if you willingly blow money on games at the drop of a hat.
Jumplion is sidestepping the argument entirely. He says it's an opinion, then backpeddles into saying "well, not really. Kind of. But it's also the person's experiences". Which, in this case, involves having a problem with the camera control in a FUCKING 2D GAME.
Protip: there's more to reviewing than just giving one to a fanatic of a genre and letting him jizz out accolades. Or, at least, there's more to it than that if you're not a PR rep.
But yeah, this "credibility" bullshit is way overrated, man.
Blech, it always happens to me. I try to explain something in my opinion but i can't find the right words to explain it with and it ends up meaning something else that i didn't want it to. And words hurt, more than any blade/gun/laser can penetrate. Let's just say a review is 50% opinion 50% proffesional.
But seriously, why do people complain about a score? I can understand if it pisses you off, even i'm annoyed about this stupid review, but it's just a number. It isn't the end of the world.
I always make a game out of these things, i find a really popular/horrible game and try to find the lowest/highest score someone gave it (wether it be press or reader review) it's halarious when you read their reasons.
Jon Rose: Gloating Swine is pretty much dead-on, and at this point i have to believe that Jumplion is just being deliberately obtuse. It's NOT just an opinion, which we could get from any retard on the internet. Reviewers are professionals -- or are supposed to be -- and people rely on them as an aid in figuring out if a given game is worth their hard-earned money. The only way you could not understand this is if you get all your shit for free, or if you willingly blow money on games at the drop of a hat.
Jumplion is sidestepping the argument entirely. He says it's an opinion, then backpeddles into saying "well, not really. Kind of. But it's also the person's experiences". Which, in this case, involves having a problem with the camera control in a FUCKING 2D GAME.
Protip: there's more to reviewing than just giving one to a fanatic of a genre and letting him jizz out accolades. Or, at least, there's more to it than that if you're not a PR rep.
But yeah, this "credibility" bullshit is way overrated, man.
I question how you feel that being a professional in any way elevates your reception of the game from your opinion about the game to fact. Push come to shove, a game's quality depends on the person writing it, ergo, it is fundamentally just opinion. You can be objective about it sure, but if you don't like a game, for whatever reason, any problem is going to annoy you more. People are biased, whether they get paid or not.
The problem is that a bad score amongst otherwise good scores hurts a game's overall score on aggregator sites.
Sorry for the heavy editing, but I really just wanna discuss thin one point.
Are you saying that a reason to score a game high is to avoid lowering it's overall score. Should a reviewer refrain from sacking a game that everyone else seems to like, just to "go with the flow" or whatever you wanna call it? Or have I got it all wrong?
Yeah, that's not what I meant. I see how you could take it that way. The purpose of that statement was to explain why people care about a low score.
So I guess this all boils down to the fact that the arguments for a low score has to be really good and well explained? :) I think that I'm trying to say that a low score is perfectly ok, if it makes sense. I don't think one should take care not to step on fanboy toes, but neither should you sack a game for no good reason. But again, care should be taken not to go with the hype. In between lies, maybe, the good review. :) All the high scores recently being harvested by GTA IV for instance makes me wonder what the hell is going on. I'm sure the game is fantastic, and when I get my PS3 I'll see for myself. But it can't possibly be good enough as to rake in a perfect 10 everywhere. Hmm.
Jon Rose: Gloating Swine is pretty much dead-on, and at this point i have to believe that Jumplion is just being deliberately obtuse. It's NOT just an opinion, which we could get from any retard on the internet. Reviewers are professionals -- or are supposed to be -- and people rely on them as an aid in figuring out if a given game is worth their hard-earned money. The only way you could not understand this is if you get all your shit for free, or if you willingly blow money on games at the drop of a hat.
Jumplion is sidestepping the argument entirely. He says it's an opinion, then backpeddles into saying "well, not really. Kind of. But it's also the person's experiences". Which, in this case, involves having a problem with the camera control in a FUCKING 2D GAME.
Protip: there's more to reviewing than just giving one to a fanatic of a genre and letting him jizz out accolades. Or, at least, there's more to it than that if you're not a PR rep.
But yeah, this "credibility" bullshit is way overrated, man.
I question how you feel that being a professional in any way elevates your reception of the game from your opinion about the game to fact. Push come to shove, a game's quality depends on the person writing it, ergo, it is fundamentally just opinion. You can be objective about it sure, but if you don't like a game, for whatever reason, any problem is going to annoy you more. People are biased, whether they get paid or not.
Thankyou, that's what i meant. I see both sides of the hand, but a review is an opinion no matter who reviews it.
I question how you feel that being a professional in any way elevates your reception of the game from your opinion about the game to fact. Push come to shove, a game's quality depends on the person writing it, ergo, it is fundamentally just opinion. You can be objective about it sure, but if you don't like a game, for whatever reason, any problem is going to annoy you more. People are biased, whether they get paid or not.
"Being professional" in reviewing terms means identifying subjective feeling about a game for what they are and trying to put them aside in the name of producing an accurate review. It means dismissing your own opinion in order to allow others to form theirs based on your report, the exact opposite of "elevating it to fact".
The point, i believe, is that the score needs to be given with some care whether it be high or low.
Remember, the entire reason we have those score aggregation sites is specifically because we can't just rely on one review. Give out a useless score out of pure ineptitude and you're basically diluting a tool that was borne out of the general uselessness of reviews.