| Dodece said: @Zim Your wrong pure and simple. A reviewer is providing customer service. They are getting paid to service the needs of their users. That should be foremost in their minds. That they need to know what their audience likes, and provide a review that would reflect how the customer would rate the game. There job is basically to tell you if you will like a particular game. Not whether they personally like that game. Most good reviewers understand what their job is about. Even if they do like something niche or not mainstream. They place those views in the text, but not in the overall score. It is called representing the pro and the cons. The job of the reviewer isn't to sell the game to people. If someone wants to look beyond a general representation. They can always dive into the body of the review. Your also wrong about there not being dolts. The reality is we are all dolts some of the time. Are you going to tell me that you never just take someones word for something. Who has time to parse every little thing out. Hell who wants to be in a perpetual state of paranoia. Yes there are people that are just going to run with the review score whether you like that or not. Last time I checked trusting someone wasn't a justification for getting fucked over. We don't say the victims of con artists deserve what they got do we. Lastly you do realize that your comments about Bayonetta are making my case for me. Doesn't it irk you at all that there are reviewers giving this game the same score as Bayonetta. Why do you feel my comments degrade that game, but don't feel the same about reviewers giving these two games the same score. I mean if they are giving both games the same score it means they are equally good right. I think you know that I have a valid point. Snuff films shouldn't be getting the same score as cinema masterpieces. Would you give the Faces of Death the same score as Citizen Kane, the Wizard of OZ, or Gone with the Wind. No I seriously doubt that you would. You would know there was something called discretion, and you would know that if you want to give a fair assessment to a lay person. You would recommend the classic well above a bunch of people shooting themselves in the head. I am not expecting perfection. I just expect some common sense and professionalism. They are getting paid to be informed. So that the consumer doesn't have to play and judge for themselves. |
It is incredibly hard to take your points seriously when you can't even be bothered to read what you write. Your wrong? There job?
No I don't see how you have a valid point. You don't seem to even know what your own point is. Fluctuating between vastly different ideas.To quote you:
'' Some dolt out there is going to pick this game up on the rating alone, and that same dolt is going to blow a gasket when he or she polishes the game off in one sitting. They are going to get reamed, and deservedly so I might add. ''
'' Yes there are people that are just going to run with the review score whether you like that or not. Last time I checked trusting someone wasn't a justification for getting fucked over. We don't say the victims of con artists deserve what they got do we. ''
Well which is it? They are totally opposite points.
Your first post stated that reviewers should change the score of their review to match what the average consumer will think. Your second post states that obviously you would give a lower score to a snuff movie than Citizen Kane. Well if you released Citizen Kane nationwide today then your average consumer would hate it. So by your own logic a reviewer, who did a review of the movie today, would have to give it a low score.
You also compared LPC to a snuff movie and Bayonetta to cinema classics. Beyond an odd comparison. That I'm not even sure of the basis of. I guess to try and prove that there is in fact total objectivity regarding films?
No a reviewer does not work in customer service at all. Their job is not to make sure that you specifically get the game you like. It is to provide their opinion and perhaps some facts about the game (Length, modes etc). Although even those facts aren't strictly needed.
No it doesn't irk me in the slightest that some reviewers would give this game the same or a better score than Bayonetta. You know why? Different people like different things. Much as in the same way some reviewer will give Skyrim a higher score than Dragon's Dogma. It doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have a different opinion to me.
It is also very hard to take you seriously when you talk about Bayonetta yet have barely played it. Looking at your gamertag it seems you played it through on easy, the first couple of hours on normal and didn't really bother with the alfheim portals. Not exactly enough to get a good grasp on the combat system (or actually even need the depth of the combat system). If you are going to compare it to Citizen Kane then perhaps you should actually see all that the game has to offer?
Your entire first point was that price matters in regards to amount of content (yet not necessarily taste or quality). Well Bayonetta has far less content than some other games, so should it not be given high scores? Or are reviewers actually reviewing the experience?
Your entire stance reminds me of a friend I have. When I bought and completed Shadow Complex in around 8hours, he told me that it was a waste of money. As for the same price I could have bought BF1943 and had far more than 8hours out of it. Seemingly not understanding that they are totally different experiences.
As Khuutra said, what you are actually looking for is basically a fact sheet about games.
