-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Review threads always get embarrassing for this reason. Some people just have different rating scales as well. I hate how video game reviews have essentially ignored 1-5 and just become 6 = bad, 7 = mediocre, 8 = solid, 9 = great, 10 = amazing. My rating scale has 5/10 as average, if I rated something a 6/10 I actually liked the game, but if I was a reviewer on MC/OC then I'd get lambasted for that just due to how dumb the video games rating scale has become.
Look, people can be biased.. people also have differing opinions.
If you think none of the 10/10 reviews don't have some bias, I have a Playstation Lifestyle magazine subscription to sell you.
The more important thing is whether a review actually does a good job describing the game, their opinion, and why they reached that opinion. There's an unfortunate amount of reviews that don't do much of those things, regardless of score.. but hey, that's why we have metacritic so dozens are at our fingertips.
Of course if you have already pre-ordered the game, why even bother w/ reviews once you have decided enough not to cancel?
They exist for consumers to figure out what they do/don't want to buy.
Can you point me to something that at least explains why so I can make an informed decision if I should continue to support/watch them? Thanks.
User Threadbanned: Disruptive Derail over a Series of Posts
So this reviewer is not being fair with the quality of the product, and is putting his opinions above objectivity.
In the case of the roster that you have put, if in both games the quality is the same, it is obviously superior the one that offers more fighters, because the work behind the product is far superior to the other, and the player has more quantity for the same price,
Those mainsteam sites don't review truely bad games though. I they did you would see the full scale being used!
https://store.steampowered.com/explore/new/ (nsfw content warning lol)
Came here for a post like this and I am not disappointed. LMAO.
Sony 1st party review threads are always a wild ride.
Halo Infinite scored lower and that was a fairly short thread from what I recall.
Halo Infinite scored lower and that was a fairly short thread from what I recall.
You completely misunderstand/underestimate the value of expressing personal opinion in reviews, then.
I mean, it could be...
"New Video Game X is a game developed by Random Developer. It had a budget of 1million dollars and took three years to develop. It has five playable characters, 18 levels, 32 weapons, and 50 unique enemies. It retails for 39.99 and is being released on Steam, PS5, Xbox, and Switch."
lol.
You could make a presentation based on comparisons between similar games, agreed upon standards for the genre(s) it inhabits, design trends it iterates upon, etc... and present a neutral analysis of all of it... but that's not going to tell anyone if you enjoyed it or not... and if you want to start talking about how much you personally enjoyed these things it cannot remain objective.
You can have elements of objective analysis in any review, but to do so with any real meaning you need to present data, examples, reasoning, etc... which is why things like DF technical analysis are done separate to reviews of the game as a whole which are about how much the reviewer enjoyed the experience... which is massively a subjective thing.
And DF contain subjective elements too, of course. They relay the facts to us, like in HZD they say the Resolution mode is incredibly clear (with examples of why it is) and the Performance mode while having a stable 60fps has a bit more blur than we usually see (and they show examples of this, too), but they also say it is up to us to try them for ourselves to see which we prefer. There is no way to objectively say which is better.
And, of course, some games can amount to "more than the sum" of their parts. I'm sure everyone here can think of at least one example of a game they consider to be technically lesser than a lot of other games, but they love it anyway.
The best game reviews, imo, will relate the reviewer's experience in an articulate, enjoyable way, will back up their opinions with solid reasoning and examples, and will consider some technical aspects and try to present them objectively where they would benefit from it, ie: bugs and actual technical issues. To remain purely objective would strip a review of too much value.
This is even worse than the Arceus review thread. I will die on my sword saying that 89 is great for a game, and that people can have differing opinions on games as well.
It's getting worse and worse these days, especially with talks of more acquisitions.
It's getting worse and worse these days, especially with talks of more acquisitions.
As predicted, folks are throwing a lot of disproportionate flak for an excellently written, critical review of a highly anticipated AAA videogame, and they can't handle discussion about sociocultural aspects. Comments section was closed.
Malindy Hetfeld (Eurogamer)
Malindy Hetfeld (Eurogamer)
Except that it isn't because a larger roster means that you will have to learn every move and possibly the frame date for every move of every character if you want to be competetive. Some players prefer smaller rosters for exactly that reason, it is more manageable and you can concentrate on the the essentials more quickly (like footsies, mind games, setups etc.). I saw a video about Tekken not too long ago, that was talking about just how difficult it is to get into the game at this point due to all the DLC characters and the absurd size of the roster. It is absolutely fair to factor that complexity into how you rate the game and that perspective can absolutely be valuable. Bigger doesn't necessarily equal better in this particular case. It is subjective.
If they reviewed more than AA and AAA games and the occasional indie game you'd realise why we only ever really see 5/10 at worst. What you think is an average game is actually far better than the true average game quality.
The ocean of garbage video games is deep. For example, Project Summer Ice exists. That is probably an objective 1 or 2 out of 10. Compared to that, games like Damnation and Ride to Hell Retribution definitely start looking like they're 5/10s, and compared to those two most video games we see these days definitely are somewhere between 7 and 10.
I think the question of objective vs. subjective isn't really the right way to put it. Some reviews just look lazy. Dan Ryckert looking and saying, "Why would I play this when I can play BOTW?" is lazy. There's many reasons why one player will gravitate to one or the other (or both), and if a review chooses to blow off or put in a poor effort on their review, misrepresent an issue they found, etc., they should rightly be raked over the coals for just doing a bad job.
Believe it or not, there are some reviews I've read that barely dive into gameplay discussion compared to this one to the point that I came away not actually understanding the gameplay system. Those reviews spent more time with other trivial gripes and therefore, this could technically be considered a more useful review for me, lol.True.
However here's an example of a truly objective review so that everyone can see how ridiculous the idea is:
100% Objective Review: Final Fantasy XIII
www.destructoid.com
It was tweets someone posted way back in the middle of this thread. I assumed it was part of a review -- if it wasn't then I guess it's just a blowoff statement. Same message applies though. If people trust Dan's word, and he says this, it might turn some players off.
I was almost expecting this, people love to pile on to these kind of perspectives. This game will almost certainly end up high on my GotY list but we need more of these critical examinations, not less and these incidents will only drive those away that can provide them. I'm also not sure what to do about it either. You'd need better moderation specifically for reviews like hers but I'm not sure how practical that is on a site like Eurogamer. Just a shitty situation all around.
That would be on those individuals for putting too much stock on a silly tweet, then.
Regardless of that, your point about "some reviews just look lazy" was based on that tweet alone?
So should people with sufficiently large followings never say off the cuff remarks about a game that didn't grab them because it might convince their followers to not buy it?
It's true. Some prefer scores that are more like how the Olympics judges the halfpipe -- if you had a plan in mind but clearly fell on the first jump, you're only getting a 2/10. The aggregation factor makes that more difficult, because that 2/10 drags down everything else, so one review that takes one aspect and rates the entire experience low because of that one aspect breaks the entire review score and makes a perfectly good game look mediocre to bad. But a game like Cyberpunk? That type of scoring would be perfectly fair, even if the technical bugs and issues do eventually mask what was probably a good game underneath.
I didn't say that. I do say they should expect criticism for oversimplification.
Thats not really any lazier than most posts you see here about movies, music, games, etc.
The problem is not with Dan being lazy. Its with people getting too emotional or upset over other people's OPINIONs about any kind of media.
I mean this thread is 50 pages long with people reacting to other people's opinions on a game they haven't even played. And to be fair that is a minority of posts. Most people are normal and are enjoying getting more information about a game they are interested in or are just excited about the game in general.
You made a statement about reviews being lazy seemingly based on a single tweet that wasn't even in a review...
Which is kind of ironic, right?
I don't understand when people are making these kinds of critiques but are doing that very thing themselves. We're all just people, we all fail to express ourselves perfectly at times, and reviewers are just people too. Even if a single review isn't written to a person's standards... it's just one review of many.
89 is a great score, especially if you were already interested in the game.
I'll definitely pick up the game when I get a PS5 a few years from now. It looks like they made some nice improvements that I was hoping for.
I'll definitely pick up the game when I get a PS5 a few years from now. It looks like they made some nice improvements that I was hoping for.
I love how people never question the 10/10 for being biased but the moment a game scores 6/10 or 7/10 they are so fast pointing at the reviewers calling them console warriors or "haters".
People missed the memo, reviewers are far harsher than 10 years ago and you are not going to score 90+ without having one aspect or two that excell over the rest; TW3, BOTW, RDR2, God of War; they all had something that was pretty well done compared to the rest of the industry and the scores are reflecting this.
People missed the memo, reviewers are far harsher than 10 years ago and you are not going to score 90+ without having one aspect or two that excell over the rest; TW3, BOTW, RDR2, God of War; they all had something that was pretty well done compared to the rest of the industry and the scores are reflecting this.
This is the most scientifically objective video game scoring system I've ever come across:
89 and under = literally unplayable
90 - 91= wait for a sale
92 - 93 = decent
94 - 95 = good
96 - 97 = Breath of the Wild
98 -100 = Ocarina of Time
89 and under = literally unplayable
90 - 91= wait for a sale
92 - 93 = decent
94 - 95 = good
96 - 97 = Breath of the Wild
98 -100 = Ocarina of Time
$89 billion. Phil is getting a discount because of the poor metacritic score
Nah but I'm with Amazon. I used to get copies early from the usual suspects like Shopto and Simplygames but I've been disappointed a few times by both of them sending games late. My last order from Simplygames I had to cancel was Cyberpunk as it was almost a week late and by that point I already ordered it digitally.
I don't think I've ever heard reviewers complain about the protagonist talking to much. Gerald and Nathan drake do it all the time but all of the sudden it's annoying when aloy does it. And the complaint about her talking when you are doing a puzzle is kind of funny considering uncharted and god of war have npcs do that same thing.
I'm not a reviewer, but I thought she talked/quipped too much in the first game. And it sounds like they made it even more frequent in the sequel. Same with Persona 5. I wanted to strangle Morgana after a while. LOL
Objectively, these reviews that didn't shower the game with praise are biased and have an agenda to ruin Sony's metacritic scores, Sony should blacklist them and give more codes to reliable outlets like The Playstation Geek who objectively review Horizon with an objective 10.
As predicted, folks are throwing a lot of disproportionate flak for an excellently written, critical review of a highly anticipated AAA videogame, and they can't handle discussion about sociocultural aspects. Comments section was closed.
Malindy Hetfeld (Eurogamer)
People can't even handle a 6 for this game or even having a proper discussion. This is no surprise. As much as I love the franchise, there's always room for these types of discussions and I'm glad she was not discouraged.
Naw the extra $1 bil is to pay metacritic off and have them change the metascore to 90
I wanna say after reading her review it's not like she dedicated half the review to critisize this aspect , it's literally a sentence near the end where she notes that stuff like the face paint felt awkward and maybe inelegant. Her gripes seems to be mainly combat encounters and story, which I watched Jeff Gertsmann, who gave the first a perfect score, stating that he's not hot on the story here. Just wild how people can't stand any mild critique of their fav game that they haven't even played.
The difference is expectations.
Anyhow it seems the topic has diverged into a topic about game reviews so ill just put it here. Professional reviewers should be able to give any score to the game they like but the least they can do is properly justify it and also disclose how much they are interested in the genre to give the whole picture. It shouldn't be like oh we can't climb anywhere but why lack of climbing is a negative which some reviewers fail to do
E.G I have no interest in MMO and if I review one it should be from that point of view. Often I am seeing a poor review with some
Not only is that nonsense it doesn't make any sense.
What does "journalists" mean? Fake journalists?
I was a hardcore diehard Halo fan starting in 2002 and going all the way to the release of Halo 4. At that point I realized the party was pretty much over and I've never been particularly excited about a new Halo release since then. I buy them, I play them, I forget them. Infinite was fun.
Whereas I was iffy on whether Horizon ZD would be any good, and it impressed the fuck out of me, I loved it and have re-played a shitload of times since 2017 and I am very excited about finally playing its first sequel. My expectations are MUCH higher. I figured he meant something like that.
Not yet, got the Regalla edition from GAME and they charged me yesterday evening..