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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Somethings wrong with reviews and Killzone: Mercenary proves it

iamdeath on 16 September 2013
RazorDragon said:

Not sure why you're complaining here, 77% is a great score. Every game that scores above 70 is considered to be a good game, "average game" is one that scores between 5 and 7, and, if you liked the game, I don't see why you should care about review scores. Scores are just the opinion of someone else, they won't reflect the enjoyment you had out of the game, since, as you stated, the user score is much higher than the one from the gaming journalists.

77 for a game that is the standard bearer for MP and FPS on its platform? If it were a console game it would be averaging over 90. It's not the score the matters, but the hypocritical nature of game reviews. The descrepancy between users and so called pros with this game is pretty big and only underscores the OP's point.

 

I picked it up after seeing the reviews expecting a borderline godo game, what i got was one of the best handheld games I have ever played or seen.



Around the Network
iamdeath on 16 September 2013
sethnintendo said:
iamdeath said:
 it really is the FIRST full fledged MP shooter, MP is outstanding.


Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, Turok: Rage Wars were heavily focused on MP.  Starsiege: Tribes, Team Fortress, and a few other PC games are pretty much 100% MP.


They were on a portable?



pokoko on 16 September 2013
Metrium said:
It's Sony's fault for advertising the Vita as ''Console gaming on the go''.

Nonsense.  Any professional reviewer who uses that as a justification should be retrained or replaced.  It's like penalizing a BMW in a review because the writer doesn't think it's actually "The Ultimate Driving Machine".  They're going to compare a BMW 320i to other cars in its class, not against a top of the line Porche, no matter what advertising slogan is used.  Television sets that use lines like "theater quality" don't really get compared to actual theaters, either.

The whole idea that because a Vita is almost as good as a PS3 it should be penalized is just stupid.  If a handheld is going to lose points because of its weaknesses then it should gain those points back because of its main strength--that is, being portable.

 



Otakumegane on 16 September 2013

I thought it was the sticks.



http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/92109/nintendopie/ Nintendopie  Was obviously right and I was obviously wrong. I will forever be a lesser being than them. (6/16/13)

iamdeath on 16 September 2013
pokoko said:
Metrium said:
It's Sony's fault for advertising the Vita as ''Console gaming on the go''.

Nonsense.  Any professional reviewer who uses that as a justification should be retrained or replaced.  It's like penalizing a BMW in a review because the writer doesn't think it's actually "The Ultimate Driving Machine".  They're going to compare a BMW 320i to other cars in its class, not against a top of the line Porche, no matter what advertising slogan is used.  Television sets that use lines like "theater quality" don't really get compared to actual theaters, either.

The whole idea that because a Vita is almost as good as a PS3 it should be penalized is just stupid.  If a handheld is going to lose points because of its weaknesses then it should gain those points back because of its main strength--that is, being portable.

 

Exactly, professional reviewers have brains no? Time they use them , this game has simply incredible quality for a handheld game. MP is more fun then I ever imagines it would be.



Around the Network
Nem on 16 September 2013

I've been saying that for a while now.

This has been the case on the reviews here on gamrreview aswell until recently. I dont understand why Vita games are compared to its PS3 counterparts, i really dont. When choosing a mobile game i choose between Vita and the 3DS. It absolutely makes no sense and goes to show how sweked todays reviewers are in their insecurity and wanting to prove themselves has legitimate by beeing overly demanding/critical to the point of absurdity.

I miss the times of the 16/32 bit eras in wich games were reviwed on how fun they are.



iamdeath on 16 September 2013
Nem said:
I've been saying that for a while now.

This has been the case on the reviews here on gamrreview aswell until recently. I dont understand why Vita games are compared to its PS3 counterparts, i really dont. When choosing a mobile game i choose between Vita and the 3DS. It absolutely makes no sense and goes to show how sweked todays reviewers are in their insecurity and wanting to prove themselves has legitimate by beeing overly demanding.

I miss the times of the 16/32 bit eras in wich games were reviwed on how fun they are.

Agree, game reviews are immature but so is the industry. Way too many games get rave perfect reviews, yet others are needlessly nit picked. Do away with rudimentary numbered scores and just write a review, and give it a recommended or not recommended, that's it. This chase to compare some number is moronic between games.



Nem on 16 September 2013
iamdeath said:
Nem said:
I've been saying that for a while now.

This has been the case on the reviews here on gamrreview aswell until recently. I dont understand why Vita games are compared to its PS3 counterparts, i really dont. When choosing a mobile game i choose between Vita and the 3DS. It absolutely makes no sense and goes to show how sweked todays reviewers are in their insecurity and wanting to prove themselves has legitimate by beeing overly demanding.

I miss the times of the 16/32 bit eras in wich games were reviwed on how fun they are.

Agree, game reviews are immature but so is the industry. Way too many games get rave perfect reviews, yet others are needlessly nit picked. Do away with rudimentary numbered scores and just write a review, and give it a recommended or not recommended, that's it. This chase to compare some number is moronic between games.


I completely agree with that.



PullusPardus on 16 September 2013

Kotaku is the only site that doesn't do scores, Scores only attract negative attention

Here is a good article why they don't do that, and I agree.

http://kotaku.com/the-problem-with-review-scores-part-v-1326561822

 

Don't get me started with Metacritic its a joke of a site.



iamdeath on 16 September 2013
PullusPardus said:

Kotaku is the only site that doesn't do scores, Scores only attract negative attention

Here is a good article why they don't do that, and I agree.

http://kotaku.com/the-problem-with-review-scores-part-v-1326561822

 

Don't get me started with Metacritic its a joke of a site.


Totally agree.