Resistance 2 will get higher metacritic score than Gears of war 2!

[ZenfoldorVGI]

Kantor said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

FinalEvangelion said:
TBH, I'm glad I'm away from all this FPS hype / wars being in Japan.

Gears 2 will get higher review than R2. It's just the way it works, even if both are equally good games (which it looks like they are).

Still, for me, Valkyria Chronicles, Last Remnant, WKC, Mirror's Edge, Fallout 3, TR Underworld have to be bought before I get either of these titles. Just my gaming preference.

 

Unfortunately, IGN took that cop-out as well. Gears 1 was about as good of a shooter as I've played. Looks like Gears 2 is as good. It seems impossible that R2 could be better, but it could be equal. I doubt you'll get a lot of reviewers saying KZ2 is better than Gears.

Anyway, reviews don't matter. I'm just saying that yes, these games qualities are opinion, and if you've never played either one, you can't form a valid one. However, while saying "they are both equally good"  and a very nice thought by you(which i appreciate), it's still an invalid opinion. Everyone who plays these games will prefer one over the other. Honest opiinions, even fanboy ones, are better than cop-outs. To me, IGN did a worse thing than when they gave those games 10/10s. They are bleeding credibility. Gamespot will probably pull the same crap.

Wait, so IGN are cop-outs for saying the games are equal? Are they cop-outs for giving Guitar Hero II, Tools of Destruction, Gears of War and Halo 3 the same score? First, you say reviews don't matter, then you say that the sole purpose of IGN is to say "X PS3 game is better than Y 360 game". You seriously think they gave the two games the same score because they didn't want to OFFEND people? That is just plain ridiculous.

But you're right. People will like one game more than the other. The job of a reviewer is not to fill the 4 pages with opinion, a GOOD reviewer gives facts, and then some opinions at the end. The two games are technically equal, but of course, some people prefer third person, some first. Some people prefer 360 controls, some prefer PS3 controls. You will never have a review that pleases everyone, you will never have a game that is anjoyed by anyone. There are probably people in this world who think Haze is better than MGS4. Who think Too Human is better than Halo 3. Who think Resistance 2 is better than Gears 2. Who think Gears 2 is better than Resistance 2.

The same person did not review Resistance 2 and Gears 2, you know that, right? The first reviewer could have hated Gears 2, the second could have hated Resistance 2. And even if it was a same person, their opinion is invalid because they say they are equally good? I say God of War and Oblivion are equally good, just in different ways. They're both among my favourite games, they're both in my top five. Some people prefer one, some prefer the other, and some like them both equally. So their opinion is invalid?

 

 

1. Opinions are invalide when they aren't opinions, but assumptions. If some one has never played either game, they don't have an opinion about the, they have an assumption. In your example, if you said Oblivion and God of War are just as good, but you had never played Oblivion, then that would be an assumption. Invalid.

2. Hell yes, I believe IGN tied these games on purpose. Maybe to be fair and balanced, maybe because the teams made a deal with each other, so they wouldn't over-rate, but yes. There are a million reasons to tie it, and none to name a winner, because it would do nothing but get a large mob of fanboys with assumptions to discredit them. If the games were close, I have no doubt that it was debated on how to score them against each other. IGN doesnt' use an averaging system. The reviewers could give those games any final scores they wanted. You think those scores weren't even discussed before they were posted? Most people realize that this was probably(but unprovably) a cop-out by IGN. The motives are obvious, and real. You sir, are naive if you believe that is impossible.

3. All reviews are opinion. Facts and bullet points mean nothing. Reviewers don't score games based on the positives and negatives you can come up with. Giving that information in a review is fine. The important thing is if the game came together in a cohesive and immersive package. That, my friend, is all a score means. An opinion. A critic without an opinion is like a carpenter without a hammer. Being able to look past ones own opinion and score a game based on what general fans of the games opinion would be, is what Famitsu does. Nobody is ever completely unbiased, and attempting such will inevitably lead to misratings of games by overcompensation.