The gaming review scene can go f--- itself

Isengard said:
Best thing to do right now. It looks like IGN is on a spoiler spree atm...
Click to expand...

IGN is a spoiler fest most day, from Game guide's to reviews that basically explain the whole narrative. I steer clear.

markface said:
omg, so not buying ME3 now...only 8/10. Pfft, must suck sooo much!
Click to expand...

Well who ever does skip it due to a review score or because of what user post its missing out of an epic game.
 
Biased reviews are nothing new, they're just another cog in the money-making media machine.

Personally when I review I give my personal impression of the game (even if I get crucified for it ala Dante's Inferno) and whether or not I think you should buy it. Essentially, I go through my experience as if I were trying to persuade or dissuade a friend who's contemplating a purchase.

If you're not into written reviews at all though you can't beat watching some unbiased, comment-free gameplay footage on YouTube.
 
I like that RPS writes up what they think of the game but don't assign any numbers to it.
 
OmegaFenix said:
Here is a funny bit of Info.

I am Alive was released today for Xbox live and as I am interested in it I went online and checked 3 major Publications and IGN for reviews here is what I found:

GameInformer - 8.50

Eurogamer - 8.0

EDGE - 7

IGN - 4
Click to expand...
Thing is we should be able to look at that and see nothing wrong. People should be able to like and dislike a game, as long as their reasons are valid then I don't see a problem.
 
I read Ars Technica reviews. They don't review much, only the major games that interest them. They give a nice detailed analysis and their scores basically end up as either "Buy" or "Rent", which is fine by me.
Also if a game truely is a paradigm shifting, groundbreaking gaming experience then why can't a reviewer give it full marks?
 
Last edited:
warr10r said:
Also if a game truely is a paradigm shifting, groundbreaking gaming experience then why can't a reviewer give it full marks?
Click to expand...

Because two out of every three games are getting full marks or very, very close to it. It wouldn't be an issue if every 2/3 games were actually paradigm shifting, groundbreaking gaming experiences, but I can't remember the last time a game actually was.

hideinlight said:
I would like to read some old magazine reviews again, just for interest sake.
Click to expand...

I paged through a couple of old Nags a while back before I threw them out, and back up until about 2007/8 it was pretty rare for a game to score in the 80s, nevermind the 90s.
 
Graal said:
Because two out of every three games are getting full marks or very, very close to it. It wouldn't be an issue if every 2/3 games were actually paradigm shifting, groundbreaking gaming experiences, but I can't remember the last time a game actually was.

I paged through a couple of old Nags a while back before I threw them out, and back up until about 2007/8 it was pretty rare for a game to score in the 80s, nevermind the 90s.
Click to expand...

I don't much care for scores, as for the review itself. It's rare to see a detailed, bit more technical less spoilerish review.
 
Yeah, often nowadays a lot of reviews read more like adverts than an actual critical analysis of the game.
 
Graal said:
Yeah, often nowadays a lot of reviews read more like adverts than an actual critical analysis of the game.
Click to expand...

A bit like Telecom/It news.

One to add which I don't like is the over use of pictures in articles, taken away it's like 5cm long. Double rating sometimes just doesn't make sense, it's a review your opinion. How can you give a score and then another score on top of it?

I'd like to know about the game, like what it is and how you'd find it. Then obviously some form of media. I do find that some factors tends to be overwhored, like longevity. I don't have more than 24hrs in a day, I certainly don't have the free time any more I use to have.

So it's not really applicable to myself any more, I'd hardly reply a game at all looking at my current play list split between my various platforms. I think one of the most important things I look for is... can this be a story that takes me out of the mundane in such a way that I want to return to the rabbit hole.
 
It's ME3, I would expect a 7 since it's all been done twice already and all they could have done was: Complete the story, add better graphics (not much) and refine their combat system. They did, and it still got 80%+

Nowadays I ask myself when looking at PC Gamer reviews, is that a Dragon Age II 80/100 or a plain 80/100 ?
 
Last edited:
judgefredd_za said:
The reviewer of BF3 said there was nothing between them, which is still wrong imo, but points to the fact that scores can't really be used to compare games.
Click to expand...

That's bullshit. They should use a checklist like MyGaming uses for things like Gameplay, Fun, Sounds, graphics etc, and deduce the score according to the average of all those factors.
 
Component scores are even worse than overall. How do you score something on gameplay or fun? What does it mean to have a fun score of 6 or 7? Even if they were meaningful, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts so something things just fit while other may be technically good but overall just lack cohesion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top