Look at me! I am playing badly reviewed games and having fun!

[MaxwellGT2000]

BMaker11 said:

bmmb1 said:

BMaker11 said:

I'll go ahead with the theme of this thread and scream PS3 bias because of Lair and Haze. Those games were hyped to hell, and got low scores. I'll scream PS3 bias because MW2 got a higher graphical score than KZ2 from IGN, and I'll scream PS3 bias because Eurogamer liked Halo 3 better than MGS4. 

Not so much a one way street, now is it?

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

I really don't know about the 30 minute claim though I see some reviews that after playing the game you KNOW they at least didn't play even half way through before making the review.

Many sources do pretty awful reviews simply because they review the game based on an incomplete build, this happens a lot in fact, one example I can list off the top of my head is the Nintendo Power review of Okami, it was unfinished, it had things factually wrong, and not representative to the build sold to the public, so in short it make the review absolutely useless to everyone, yet its still on metacritic lol