By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast said:
DonFerrari said:

If I don't like a genre or a game why would I look after reviews to cement that view when I can use my time in a much better way playing what I like?

If you don't like the genre, hate the type of game, then your score is born from hating it. Just like the gal that reviewed GT5 and her main reason for a 4/10 was "what is the point of running in circles? Despise being pretty this game is really boring".

But surely enough if you are looking at exclusives you may also ignore the magazines that are attached to the brand to also avoid overly positive reviews... but in a case like HZD a 6/10 is a troll even if you go there and justify "it is cogent and artful". There were justifications on the 6/10 with "this perfect part here Witcher was doing before, this other great part over here GTA have done, this amazing section Assassins Creed done", so the game was reviewed as almost flaweless, but got a 6/10 because aspects of it were done in other games, that doesn't seem like value added at all.

Try to read what you're writing. You say that if someone hates a type of game, then his score is born from hating it. Well, then if someone loves a type of game, then his score is born from loving it. How is that any more objective or legitimate? It's not. It just means a higher score. 

This isn't about journalistic integrity or due process. It's about marginalizing negative reviews so that your favorite games will secure high scores. You're part of the problem, I'm afraid.

People that play the genre are the ones that like the genre, so reviews of people that also like the genre will be more aligned with their needs and objectives they seek on the game and review.

If a game is hovering around low 80's you can certainly discuss the validity of the 100's gave as possible from loving the game and lacking objective view as well.

It isn't a matter of securing high scores, as I said, if someone likes the genre and gives bad score to a game it is much more plausible that he analysed what the genre is about and gave a score based on that (even if he is a lot lower or higher than the average) than someone that despise a genre and do the review to reinforce his own notions about it and take points just for the heck of it. The person who doesn't like the genre, quite possibly also don't understand it enough or know enough about what is valued on it.

I'm pretty sure if I made a thread grading BotW with a 40 because the graphics are very outdated, the story isn't memorable and any other "justification" it would be considered hating on it and not acceptable. You were a Moderator from what I remember, and moderation team on this site were always very strict on criticism being only allowed within userbase while positive praise could be given by anyone.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."