bmmb1 said:
You are distorting people's arguments, no one "screamed bias" just because certain games got hyped and then got low scores, or becasue one game got a 9 and another got a 9.2 ... The problem with reviews is twofold - 1. Reviewers getting to review games they don't like from the onstart (What's wrong with that, you say? Ok, let's let someone who is an excellent writer and enjoys only games like NSMBWii, a Boy and His Blob and Rabbids Go Home write the official review of GOW3 {or Halo 3, or MGS4} for Eurogamer or some other "major" site - these games will all be torn apart in that person's review, I promise you) or even on systems they don't like (let's get that same person, who let's assume usually plays only on the Wii and is used only to its controls, to review Demon's Souls on the PS3. Or any PS3 game for that matter. Note that the person dislikes the PS3 controller - what do you think that person will say about the game?) 2. Reviewers don't play games through. Sometimes they play them just 30 minutes. And some of the review give the impression they just read about the game somewhere else... |
1. Ok, let's let one of the millions who enjoyed Carnival Games to review that game. They think it's great, right? So it gets a 9/10......if you think that game is of the same caliber as (and I'll go after one of Nintendo's gems) Ocarina of Time, you're wrong. Sure, all reviews are subjective, based on what people "like" but then again, no matter how bad a game is, SOMEONE in the world must like it, otherwise it would have never sold. Should reviewers then have to cater their reviews to those gamers and boost the scores of said bad game?
2. I doubt they sit through a half hour only. I'm sure you just made that up. Otherwise, reviewers should just review demoes
