Another XBLA Hit, and Jim Sterling rates it 5.5

[Reasonable]

gumby_trucker said:

Reasonable said:

Seece said:

Wagram said:
Though I hardly ever agree with his reviews. I love how you all flame on him for having an: OPINION.

There comes a point where opinion is wrong, this is the difference between a bad and a good reviewer, being able to put aside your personal likes and dislikes and judging a game on what it is.

Agreed. As a professional reviewer his opinions should be informed and balanced against personal taste.  To score really low a game has to be broken, buggy and so on.  If the game works well but is mediocre that's your 5 out of 10, a decent game should be 7 out of 10 - i.e. a good example of the genre without any major flaws.

It's worth remembering though, that as in all things, not everyone is equally good at their job no matter what it is.  There are good critics, great critics and medicore critics.  Sterling just seems to be aiming for controversy for the sake of it most of the time.  Pity as on occasion, when he actually performs professionally, he does an okay job.

I wish people would realize the difference between uninformed opinions (which we all have but which, to be blunt, normally mean jack squat on any specific topic) and informed opinions.  If a professional reviewer is just delivering opinions and not informed opinions then they're not fufilling the job spec.

I'm sorry to be harsh but I think this is bullshit. Nobody is 100% objective, and claiming you are is usually hypocritical at best. Reviewers find success because their own, personal taste is representative of a large enough segment of the consumer base. There always has been and always will be room for many of them. The facts should be reported and credit should be given where credit is due, but at the end of the day if personal taste is removed from the equation then all reasonably good games would end up receiving the same exact score: a "Solid 7", because you can always find something in the design or execution that isn't perfect and that somebody out there might possibly not enjoy. The same is obviously true for the game's good points too.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that brings us one assembly-line clone after another, and makes publishers scared shitless  about trying anything different!

You can't argue for diversity in gaming and also argue against outlying opinions at the same time!

It used to be that anything below a 6 meant the game was technically broken or unplayable. Perhaps we are thankfully moving ahead to a point where these issues aren't as common. Movies can still be considered terrible without the projector having to burst into flames, you know! 

I don't think you really got my point juding by your analogy and other points.  You're also confusing a score (which by the way I don't like anyway, scores are a fairly stupid idea overall for games or films or books) with driving innovation.  The point I'm making is something (a car, a film, a book, a game) which is average should indeed always get an average score.  If you don't have that the whole idea of a review (and associated score) becomes meaningless.  There has to be established criteria otherwise the whole thing is irrelevant.

Of course everyone has bias, but a professional reviewer should be aware of and compensating otherwise their review is simply and opinion - which is my other main point.  TBH whether films or games most reviews are rubbish.  Only a few reviers are actually informed enough to be useful - the rest are no different from any other gamer, which makes the whole thing somewhat farcical.

Taken at face value your views would see a system where if I want I can give a perfectly good game 1 out of 10 and a broken, flawed game 9 out of 10 just because I want to.  That's fine for the internet forums (which are mainly uniformed views of little weight) but a shabby state of affairs for so called professional reviwers.