Khuutra said:
Oyvoyvoyv said:
Khuutra said:
Oyvoyvoyv said:
I believe that the reason why very few (on VGC) complained about SMG getting a lot of 10's, is that, at that time, VGChartz was incredibly Nintendo owner dominated. So many loved the game, and the ones who didn't were simply ignored.
When GTA IV came out, Nintendo owners and Ps360 owners were about 50-50, causing a lot of dicussion and drama. Just a few weeks earlier, had the review system also been complained heavily about.
GTA IV was 2 things.
1) Slightly over-estimated by reviewers, as they wanted it to be awesome
2) A change for Nintendo owners to let out their anger for the Wii having a smaller quantity of good games than the Xbox 360, and to a certain degree the Playstation 3.
That's why it was attacked.
After GTA IV, we entered a new fase with reviewers. Before, it had been so that people trusted reviewers, but ignored some reviews. Now, there were 2 categories. People who still trusted reviewers, and people who didn't. If a game not on your console recieved a good score, some morons would go out and complain about reviewers being biased. Before GTA IV, this would just be ignored, as a moron, but now this was accepted, and far more people did so.
Does that make sense to people? Hopefully it does.
And people, Okey, Konnichiwa and Outloawauron are correct. The Wii simply doesn't have the same quantity of quality titles as neither the 360 nor the Ps3. And please, do not embarass yourself by
A) Writing a list with all good Wii games and Wii games that will come out.
B) Say that the Wii has more games than the Ps3 and X360, and giving the number of titles each system has.
Why? Well, A) is stupid, as the Ps3 and X360 both have bigger lists, and B) has nothing to do with this.
Okay, I am not saying that the Wii is not as good as the Ps3 or the X360 (frankly I prefer it to them), but it does not have the same quantity of quality titles. That's a fact. |
You were doing well until you equated quality with something that can be measured objectively.
Reviews have never been important, if you weren't afraid to think for yourself. Nothing foolish about being stalwart in the formation of your own opinions.
|
Reviews are important as hell. Saying otherwise is moronic. Fact, is over 3/4 people look at a review to determine whether or not a game is worth buying. For the casuals, it's the review in their paper, or whereever.
I read them too, but I ignore the score. Case is, nothing is as good as a review to find out what kind of game a game is. If you refuse to read reviews, you're ignoring some of the people who are best at telling you what kind of a game the game is. You'll be missing out on important information.
To a certain degree I am doing that though, as I read relatively few reviews.
Quality cannot be measured totally objectively, but I'm fairly certain that most people would subjectively feel that the 360 has a bigger quantity of quality titles than the Wii. That's not a problem for most people though, as they're happy with the ~ 15 top notch titles on Wii.
|
Reviews, as they are now, are worthless. The state of gaming journalism in general is worthless, but that's a much bigger issue having to do with the writers and the credentials of the writers in general, IGN being the poster child of the whole problem.
My use of Everyone in the post that Oyvoyvoyv is writing is an exaggaration, it's meant as mostly everybody.
|
Saying that reviews are worthless is some real ignorant piece of shit.
Everyone reads a review. Whether it's in their local paper, a magazine, or online, everybody does. They have a huge value to whether or not people buy a game.
Not only that, but reviewers are paid for what they do. If there were someone who were better at writing reviews directed at their readers, they would hire them.
The online reviewers aren't meant to tell how good the game is for everybody. They're meant to tell how good the game is for their readers. Thus, how good they think the game is will have nothing whatsoever to do with how the game sells.
Then there's the local paper writer. He writes how the majority of his users are interested in, and by their scale. For the average IGN user, this review would seem very shallow and stupid.
Edit: Ignore what I said about not caring about the score. I do. Having the 5 scores shows me what the reviewer valued, and is very important for me regarding a purchase, if I decide to use a review to help me out. I have somehow been fooling myself to think that I ignore the scores, but it appears I don't.
