scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
So you're saying that it's fair that the PS3 version of LP2 got a lower score and that the 360 version of FFXIII didn't because framerate is more important than graphics? (that isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I'm just checking that I understood you)
In which case, I would say that that is completely a matter of personal opinion. I agree that framerate is more important for me, but for many others it is not. Which is why I stated that all that this event shows is that reviews are subjective.
that changes neither of the facts that framerate is considered a graphics issue by all major reviewers, nor the fact that Leo-j raised this point because he perceived inconsistency
in the review system, rather than as a way to troll
|
Framerate IS more important than graphics. That's not subjective at all.
And yes FFXIII on the 360 might deserve a bit lower score, BUT a lower resolution doesn't change the gameplay, but heavy framerate drops do.
Reviews should NEVER be subjective. Every review is a bit biased, no question about that, but they should be kept as unbiased and objective as possible and therefore more informative for their readers. If they are subjective, they're worthless.
|
I hate to simply say 'no' but no. Some people would enjoy a game more if it had good resolution and effects, than if it had a high framerate. In something like a turn based rpg I may even agree with them. Some people prioritise graphics over gameplay btw, and nothing you say will convince them otherwise. Hence, subjective.
The claim that a review should be in any way objective is hilarious. Historians study at university for years - and the actual history that they learn is completely unimportant. What they actually are there to learn is to produce objective works. Only one person in the entire world has ever produced a completely objective history book, which was described as "the only real history book in the world, and so dull as to be completely unreadable" The purpose of a review is to entertain, more than to inform. Making it objective will make it boring, and thus worthless. A reviewer is incapable of presenting an objective review, so they should acknowledge their writing as subjective and present it as such.
|
We're talking about graphical issues here and in that case everything that is below HD standards (720p, 30FPS) is bad. However framerate drops are far worse than a below HD resolution[1]. (Already explained why)
If you read reviews only because you want to get entertained, so be it, but don't expect others do the same[3]. Reviews are meant to help consumers buy the games they would like and they probably never heard of or at least don't have many informations about them. In that case a personal opinion from a stranger is completely worthless[2]. Like I said before it's not possible to completely hide the personal bias, so reviews are always a bit flawed, however they get even more flawed when the author only talks about his personal opinion.
|
1 - Yes, that is your opinion. Other people have different opinions, hence subjective
3 - I wouldn't take it on myself to expect anything, that would require me to be able to predict the future. However, I am great at predicting the past and present, and I know for sure that this is what occurs currently.
2 - Something we can agree on :) The only way a review can have worth is if it is objective, or if you know the reviewer. Maybe that's why the only reviews I read are from VGChartz staff. What exactly was your point again?
|
To keep it short (because I wanna continue playing FFXIII)
1 - The issue is you think it's an opinion.
3 - People who only want to be entertained shouldn't take reviews too serious anyway and especially shouldn't complain about certain reviewing methods. Don't ruin it for those persons who actually need help in gaming purchases.
2 - Which point do you mean ? That bad framerate is worse than bad graphics or that purely subjective reviews have no validity contrary to objective ones ?
