Biased reviews

[Samus Aran]

ameratsu said:

I have to go to work so I'll make this short. This is for the OP

1) The first Halo was an innovative game. It created many staples of the console FPS so while it may be generic story wise, it added now heavily used gameplay elements to console FPS games and at the same time saw rise to a massive fanbase because there simply was nothing like it on consoles last generation.

2) There are biased reviews for all systems. That doesn't necessarily mean the reviewer has an axe to grind when a poor review is written. Sometimes they simply don't care and put minimal effort into their review. Find a reviewer/site who you find conforms to your taste and go to them for reviews. Ignore the rest. No game site can be everything to everybody.

3) I have yet to play it, but the conduit looks to be a mediocre FPS from a still unproven developer. Given how many absolute shit to mediocre FPS games there've been this gen, you might be able to see their reluctance in putting together a good review for a game like the conduit.

1)The first Halo was innovative for a console, the 3rd is generic.... 

2)Yeah, there are biased reviews for all systems, but more biased reviews for wii. I read a lot of wii reviews and the things  I read make me       laugh sometimes.

 

3)Yeah, you're right, wii has seen a lot of fps this gen that aren't total crap or port! The campaign looks mediocre, the online looks great and solid. Same as with Halo 3. And yes I know Halo 3 is a better game then the conduit. Still doesn't justify all the crap reviews, I'm not talking about the scores here, but what's in the reviews.