-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Reviews that were massive outliers
- Thread starter Phediuk
- Start date
That Uncharted 4 review is still some BS to this day. Mainly because MC needs a score to input a review and the actual review didn't have one. But honestly its because lower 1 point from the MC score, kinda crazy how much weight a single negative score can have against 100s of positive scores.
Not so much the score because whatever, it's just a numerical value for their overall experience, but the written portion. The reviewer totally lost the fucking plot.
Wow, now that is truly an embarrassing exert.
Somehow the reviewer didn't catch on to the fact that everything in the game was all in Senua's head and she wouldn't have been suffering from it in the first place if it wasn't for her mental illness. What superpower exactly? That the voices sometimes included things that were helpful to an imaginary experience?
Then what about 70+ games that A Quarter to Three gave a maximum score? Including very controversial picks like Steep and Agents of Mayhem? You have to be really blind to call them games without any (major) flaws.
User Banned (1 week) - Inflammatory and hostile attack. Doubling down. History of similar behaviour.
I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt but at the time he stopped making reviews there were multiple threads with Gifs of him wearing a blond wig with robes and a face full of makeup singing or whatever.
I'm glad he found his true calling because as you can see by this thread he was an awful reviewer with zero credibility.
Yeah, no. The rewies plain ignored all flaws of the game, makes me wonder how many rewiews are actually written solely based on PR material.
I love Diablo 3 (probably my most played game ever) but I'm surprised the game only had one bad review.
The game was a mess at launch.
The game was a mess at launch.
Of all the reviews in this thread this one seriously makes me question whether the reviewer actually played the game.
Jim Sterling gave very specific critique of BotW, specifically of some of the systems, that was fair criticism. The reaction to that outlier score was strange, especially considering that in general, video game reviews tend to be poorly written and fairly uncritical. Sterling at least gave a reasonable critique of the game.
You should be embarrassed yourself for getting angry over a 7/10.
Thank u for saying this
Sometimes the internet have me thinking I'm crazy lol
Shrug. People like what they like. I'd rather have a reviewer be honest with their opinion and I value lower than average scores as the person might call out things that others don't. Or that others apologize for. Jim Sterling's review of Breath of the Wild is completely understandable. There are a ton of people who are going to feel the exact same way as him. Some will genuinely enjoy the weapon durability mechanic, some will convince themselves they enjoy it, some will overlook it to enjoy what else the game has to offer, and others will justifiably dislike the game for it.
People invest way too much of themselves in what reviewers score games and its really pathetic.
People invest way too much of themselves in what reviewers score games and its really pathetic.
A vegetarian can still give the place a valid poor review for it having few/no vegetarian options. I don't think that's a very good analogy nor does it translate very well to game reviews at all since these reviewers are hardly upholding a life long creed of "I don't do cinematic games!". You making that assumption about a reviewer is incredibly arrogant.
Sums up my experience back in the day almost completely. It was very frustrating trying to argue you had issues with the actual content of the review rather than score. I love the game and I could probably write a review that gives 7/10 and comes of as very fair. So the review being the way it was made me lose any credibility I had for him and I've just avoided all his content since.
The text here is pretty bang on the money to me, I adored the game but the breakable weapons, stupid "can't climb at all in the rain" mechanic and a few other niggles detracted from the overall experience.Here's my contribution, then. This one was pretty high profile :P
The score is a little low though, it's still one of my favourite games ever.
I can say for myself, that there is always a reviewers opinion that gives the score. I reviewed Extinction for our website and I really liked it, even with its flaws. Though I still cannot recommend the game to anyone because of the ridiculous pricepoint.
Was it? Even here there have been several threads about how the OP isn't able to get into the game and understand the accolades
The best thing about Jim's Breath of the Wild review is his Sonic Forces video, which also kinda fits in this thread.
Jesus fuck, the comments over the last couple of pages are cringe inducing.
So like with literally any game ever?
The "review" itself is straight-up garbage anyway, even without the score on MC
Looking back, Polygon TLOU 7 and Gamespot TP 8.8 were spot on for my personal tastes. Maybe even a tad high.
Most games don't even get anywhere close to that high aggregate score, to begin with.
Always happens with Edge. Maybe is the same guy from the ZOE review.
Not so much the score because whatever, it's just a numerical value for their overall experience, but the written portion. The reviewer totally lost the fucking plot.
How happy is Jeff Gerstmann knowing he's no longer the Bad Zelda Review guy?
Yikes at people attacking reviewers here. In the end of the day, as long as they gave the game a fair shake, all their opinions and reviews are valid. As if you peeps forgot that we're all unique individuals with different tastes and wants.
Because in the end it's all subjective, it's their opinion. I would personally give 7 to BotW myself because I was bored with it, it's just not for me.
Do you think a reviewer is doing an excellent job if they almost exclusively give high scores?
It's not about consistently high/low scores, it's about consistently uncommon scores. After a certain point, you have to wonder why they're doing it so often.
And the answer to that is, pretty likely, they have divergent tastes.
Dinging Stirling for getting mechanical details wrong is fair play, however complaining his reviews are lower rated is, I dunno, putting the cart before the horse.
You should use a reviewer's body of work to figure out if their tastes align with your own, not as a mechanism for validation.
Oh yeah, I wasn't using that as a blanket argument for all reviewers who consistently give out uncommon scores. Only Sterling. He has a history of doing so, and a lot of the times when he does this, his reviews flat out suck (the reviews, not the scores). He clearly is a very bad reviewer.
Sorry if it's been posted, but this reminds me of this amazing april fools thing on the games reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/88qf0e/cyberpunk_2o77_review_thread/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/88qf0e/cyberpunk_2o77_review_thread/
If a review doesn't exactly meet my own opinion of a game, then the reviewer in question is either an idiot or has been paid off, presumably by a shady corporation that has a vested interest in publishing articles to piss me off.
Sure, some reviewers are not good at their job. But to assume that someone who sometimes writes outlier reviews is a bad reviewer seems really unfair, imo. It could just mean they have an unusual taste in games that does not jive with the consensus.
As long as the review is factual and reflects their honest opinion, good or bad, then the reviewer is doing his or her job.
Yes but that is the point, most of the time you cant figure put those parts.
1st, how would you know they are being honest or not??
2nd, the factual part is more easy to spot, but many reviews fall into the mentallity "I dont like it, ergo is bad design"