By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Akvod on 06 December 2009
Edit Thread
Seece said:
Akvod said:
CGI-Quality said:
Seece said:
Carl2291 said:
The only problem with Heavy Rain's score is this -

You know full well there will be a bunch of people who wont be able to get to grips with it, and will give it a 50/100 or something.

I think it will be one of those games that will just miss the "AAA" status, because of a few harsh reviews.

Kinda like Demon's Souls and R&C:ToD

Exactly, which is a shame. A lot of low scores (for various games across the board) should not be counted, because even though a reviewer may not like the game, you need to give credit where credit is due. If a game had undoubtably got the graphics, the gameplay, the story ect, but the review JUST doesn't like it, so gives it 6/10 ... that just isn't fair.

I concur.

Yeah, but doesn't the reviewer not like the game BECAUSE he thinks that the games is deficient in either graphics, gameplay, story, etc?

... I mean you two are believing that a reviewer subconsciously likes a game and doesn't give the score he really has for the game... IDK it's a very weird theory you two guys are having.

 

If you're saying that the general consesus is that the game has the graphics, gameplay, story, etc, and that the reviewer should give a score based on that, you two are only promoting the current score inflation problem.

I believe the score should be based equally on it's own merits, and the reviewers opinion (aka if it's FUN, ect)

When I say low score I don't mean 7/10. I mean 5 and in some cases 6, to a game that clearly deserves a 9+. If reviews were 100% opinion they would be worthless, they have to have some basis on the quality of the game.

 

CGI can probably explain it better than I can ..

I mean, there's a difference between demanding consistency from a reviewer, and saying that a reviewer should give a good score to a game, because it's a good game.

The first demand is absolutely correct. However, I'm just weirded out at the second demand because it depends on the axiom, assumption, etc that the game IS good and deserves a good score, which is just bull shit because it's subjective. The second demand is an impossible one because unless you can objectively say a game deserves a good score, the theory just collapses.

Even things like graphics, you hear Xbox 360 fans deriding Killzone 2's artstyle, or PS3 fans deriding GeoW as bieng "Shiny".

There's few objective things to judge a game on.

So my point: You demand reviewers judge games based on objective qualities, but I argue that the demand collapses because there are few such objective qualities.

CGI-Quality said:

My point is simple, I find it bad that because a game is different, it receives a thrashing from reviewers. I'm pretty sure that was Seece's point as well too my friend.

 Yeah, but unless you can prove that it's just speculation. Even with the Wii-bash theory, it's very hard to ALL CERTAINTY, prove this. If a game is "different" it's different. You can't really point to another game and say "Hey, they gave A game a 100, but B game 50! Clearly there's bias against 'difference/uniqueness'"

I mean most 'different/unique' games have radically different gameplay (flower, scriblenauts, etc for example). So you can't say "They gave 'generic FPS' a 100, but gave 'unique genre defining title' a 50" The gameplay is completely different. Graphics probably will be different games too (for "artsy" types).

 

The only way to show some bias is to have 2 exactly or similar games, and the reviewer gives different scores for an arbitrary reason (example, a multi plat for the HD twins).