vizunary said:
ClaudeLv250 said:
BrainBoxLtd said:
You should never have to justify a critique if you?re a good critic. The justification should be the review itself. I read their Ratchet and Clank review, and it felt half-hearted. Like someone kinda hurried through parts of it to finish for the weekend or something. Their review complained constantly about the game being to easy, but only briefly mentions you unlock a hard mode after beating the game. Well does that help? It change anything? Was it a bust and the game is still to easy?
Same for the story. ?There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting, and the ending is a letdown.? I understand they don?t want to spoilt things for people, but is it not interesting compared to previous R&C titles, or what? He does explain the ending is a cheap cliff hanger however, but is that what ultimately made the story a letdown? Because even a simple story for a game works fine, provided you still get proper closure.
Perhaps they do have very good reasons for their scores, but they need to further elaborate on why to avoid these kinds of accusations of favoritism or incompetence. It?s also cop-out to use the collective anonymous asses of the internet to avoid answering valid criticism when you?re confronted with it |
That's how I felt. The fact that this isn't the first time they've come out to "justify" their review speaks volumes to me, everytime they do so it feels to be done in a condescending matter and if anything is meant to infuriate the people that disagree with the review even more. The last time I recall them justifying a review was for the Twilight Princess 8.8, except the guy defending the review didn't actually write it and his defense pretty much came down to how Twilight Princess sucks because it's like Ocarina of Time, then revealed that he had started playing for about 5 hours. Hardly the person to be backing up a full review. Jeff Gerstmann is gaining more enemies on the internet than that guy IGN fired for calling Nintendo fans nazis. |
agreed as well, i don't remember ebert & roeper ever having to go back and justify one of their reviews. these guys are "supposed" to be professionals, they shouldn't have to justify themselves. if they feel the need to, then there must already be an issue. all that being said, i've never valued ANYTHING gamespot has ever said and never use their site anyways. someone called Nintendo fans nazis... now that's kinda funny... the weirdness of the internet, huh? |
Actually Ebert has had to go back and justify a couple of his reveiws. He had to defend his "Revenge of the Sith" review from rabid Star Wars fans for one. You might see a paralel here. Of course those were rabid star wars fans who thought ROTS sucked.
"Star ratings are the bane of my existence, because I consider them to be relative and yet by their nature, they seem to be absolute," writes Roger Ebert, who in his recent Movie Answer Man column took on complaints of his three and a half star rating for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Ebert wrote in his review: "The dialogue throughout the movie is once again its weakest point: The characters talk in what sounds like Basic English, without color, wit or verbal delight, as if they were channeling Berlitz" yet somehow he gave the movie 3.5 stars. "I got a lot of messages saying there was a disconnect between my star rating and my review," wrote Ebert. "Perhaps there was." Ebert defends his review saying that Episode III "returned to the space opera roots of the original film and succeeded on that level," and because of that he wanted to honor it, while "regretting that it did not succeed at the levels of intelligence and wit as it did on the levels of craftsmanship and entertainment."
http://www.cinematical.com/2005/05/30/ebert-defends-star-wars-review/
