Nem said:
Hiku said:
Nem said:
pokoko said:
That's utterly ridiculous. The moment an editor tells a writer to write a review based on someone else's opinion, that's when credibility is lost. Telling the reviewer the score they need to hit based on another work would be a failure of journalistic integrity. Any writer worth reading would refuse immediately, and rightfully so. That's a horrible, awful suggestion. I'm sure some editors might tell a reviewer to lie for the sake of "consistency" but, as a consumer, that's something I would not accept if I knew it was taking place. I have far more respect for an editor that lets a writer write their own work without pre-setting the outcome in advance.
|
What about the integrity to their readers? I see alot of concern for the journalist there, but in the end of the day both of them were writing for the same audience with different standards. How is this good journalism if theres no consistency? The publication should have a table from wich each score corresponds to the state the game is in. The rating should not wildly vary depending on who is reviewing. This reveals a lack of organisation and consistency. They are doing a disservice to their readers and their reviews are obviously incredibly parcial as a result.
|
People have different opinions. The readers are aware of this as well.
Reviewer A could appreciate the Social Link system of Persona 3, while Reviewer B dislikes it, and even finds that it becomes a hindrance to their gameplay experience since ignoring it has a negative consequences on the battle system. If their opinions continue to differ on different aspects of the game, the score could, and should, become noticably different. I wouldn't say that a 1.2 point difference on a scale of 10 is "wildly vary" though.
|
If that is the case, then one of those reviewers is a bad reviewer. How much something is rewarding is part of the design of the game. If reviews are this volatile and opinated then the scoring system makes no sense and is arbitrary.
At the end of the day, what we have in this case is the same game with less features (and this was a game created with the gamepad in mind and loses alot of its appeal without it). How can it possibly score higher? I can't account this to simply "opinion" and i can't clear the publication of the past review published for the same game. None of this is serious. If it isnt serious, i can't trust either of their reviews. Both of them are untrustworthy.
Imagine Fallout 4. It comes out for PS4 and X1 and performs the same on both systems but you give it to different people to review. At the end of the day they have different opinions and one gives it an 9 and the other a 6. Its their opinions but now the PS4 version is a 6 and the X1 is a 9. Does this make any sense? Would you be ok with that and why are you ok with it in this case?
|
Yes, it would make sense. To be fair, Bethesda's games usually run worse on playstation consoles so I actually expect the review to be worse for the PS4 port. That could be different with Fallout 4, though. We'll see on that.
It's asinine to think that that different reviewers would give the same score to different ports to a game. Also the wii u's version was pretty glitchy and the controller is a "love or hate it" type of situation with gamers. If the other consoles' version of this game isn't glitchy then it should automatically get a better score than the wii u version in my opinion.
Reviewers are individuals who will always come to different conclusions and judgements more often than agreeing on something.
