How would you feel if someone gave Killzone2 a 7 without seeing multiplayer

[ZenfoldorVGI]

Carl2291 said:

mhsillen said:
I agree with op
He did the review without playing a major componant of the game thats lie

I think something should be done by gamepro
I feel like being OC about this

IGN UK and AU reviewed MGS4 without playing online.

And those reviews only gave 9.9 and 9.5. I sense an injustice! I demand a re-review!

Did they blame the PS3's price for the deduction of .1 point? If they did, you might have a point.

A. Numerical scores are not the point here. The tone and inflection of the review text is. Read it, you will see the big deal then.

B. Conduit was highly touted for its multiplayer. That was the main selling point actually.

C. Yes, not playing a game completely, and then reviewing it, is an injustice. Even in this case. The reviewer doesn't know what he/she is talking about, and is, by definition, ignorant of the game s/he reviewed. It wasn't touted in the MGS4 case, because the review was on the positive side.

D. The biggest injustice here is the large amount of time spent flaming the Wii-mote, graphics on Wii, and other things Nintendo, with very little time spent playing, actually talking about the Conduit. Despite all that, he saw fit to give it a low review based, admittedly, upon his dislike of the Wii.

 

While your attempts to equate this to other injustices and marginalize it is perfectly acceptable, it is, in the end, incorrect. If I would have know about it, would have spoke out against the MGS4 reviews as well. Numerical reviews mean nothing when you are ignorant of some major features of the product you are reviewing.