I have lost faith in the crediblity of reviewers

[theRepublic]

Khuutra said:

Sky Render said:

Kurakasa said:

theRepublic said:

Kurakasa said:

I lost my some of my faith in reviewers when a generic platformer like SMG got way too high scores. Some times they are too biased towards nintendo-games.

I don't think that SMG was a generic platformer, and I thought it was a great game. But I agree that its scores were also inflated. Reviewers are inflating all the scores of "core" games this generation, and this one certainly qualifies as core. Anything that is technically good (graphics) also tend to recieve inflated scores.

The nostalgia factor helps Nintendo games as well. But you have to admit that Nintendo's core fanchises are still some of the best around.

 

 

Well that is your opinion. I did not see that much difference in SMG or mario 64. :) But really, why do I have to admit that nintendo' s franchises are some of the best? I never liked any of them.

 It's called "cognitive dissonance".  Being able to recognize the quality of an item even if you personally do not like that item is an important skill in critical thinking.  The only true measure of "quality" that exists is quantity, which of course is not a measure of "quality" at all by any usual standard.  However, quantity can tell you something about an item's functional quality, that is to say, how useful it is in given contexts.  For example, Pokemon games sell very well indeed.  I don't especially enjoy them (the first one was interesting, I'll give you that, but I lost interest afterwards).  But I recognize that the fact that they do sell so well is an indicator of their quality, specifically their marketable nature that makes them very popular.

 You don't have to like something to see that it has value.  You do have to be able to see past your own bias, however, to see value in that which you personally do not value.

 

I want to reject this out of hand based on principles outlined in my post at the top of the page, but only because you're equating sales with objective quality. The idea of recognizing values in something is fine, though it only amounts to acknolwedging an agreed-upon set of subjective criteria.

I guess you specificly don't have to recognize that Nintendo makes some of the best franchises around.  But the games are both critical and comercial successes, and those in the video game community recognize them as such.  You don't have to like them to admit that they are good.

I was never personally a fan of the 3D GTAs, but lots of people like them and call them the best sandbox games out there.  Even though I think that The Hulk: Ultimate Destruction was the best sandbox experience I have ever had, I can still recognize GTA as a great game, even if I don't really understand why.