UltimateUnknown said:
What you state is not a problem with the reviewers, but rather a problem with the consumer. Instead of skipping to the end of a review and just looking at the final score, the consumer should be listening carefully as to why the reviewer gave the game the said score in the first place. That is the reason why review video last 5-10 minutes before awarding the final score, in which time the reviewer explains what is good and bad with the game. In the case of the gamespot and gt reviews, both the reviewers stated that BW2 use the same tried and tested formula from the previous iteration and if you liked that then you are likely to enjoy this as well, but the game does very little to advance the formula forward, and there is too much in terms of assets, gameplay, storyline, etc that was copied off the previous game. So it gets the low review score. A good consumer who didn't play the previous game would take this statement and go back to their review of the original BW and see what exactly they said about that game which the sequels copy from. If then the consumer likes what the first game has to offer, then they should buy the sequel as the sequel contains most of the material from the first game and more. Plus I don't understand the arguement with the Fifa game you made about some people not having Fifa 12 and so they can't get 13. I don't see why this is a problem. When BW came out originally it cost something like £35 where I live, but now BW2 costs the same. But if I wanted to buy the original BW it would probably cost me about £15-20 to buy now since the price has obviously dropped. So if they did release an expansion, newer consumers could buy the original game for the lower price and buy the expansion pack for pretty much the same price as the full game. |
Well so you actially agree with me that reviews are stupid. When the important stuff is written on all the I dunno 5 pages or is said in the 10 minutes before the score why do they use this stupid score system at all? When the score cannot reflect what was written/ment by the reviewer there should not be a score at all!
Do you know what I like? The Kotaku reviews. It has no stupid score system sure it tells you to buy or not to buy a game which is also not ideal because it depends on the person you are but it at least ignores the stupid point/score system and makes it a simpll yes or no with a seperate Info box about wahts good and whats bad and the usual block text.
I mean even just talking about a game would still be more usefull than giving the game arbitrary numbers
And about the Fifa example. Well lets say Fifa comes out in october. Every game should have some sort of activation code you have time untill 31st December of the same year to register the game online. And only the ones that bough the price game and registered it in time should be allowed to get the next fifa for 15 dollars as DLC (because Fifa 13 is basically a Fifa 12 DLC when it comes to content) Everone else would need to buy it full price.
So just waiting for a game to drop to 5 pounds/euros/dollars and then getting the new version for cheap is impossible. If you bought Fifa 13 as a DLC for Fifa 12 you also get a code you have to register but they are different from the retail codes so your can be sure Fifa 13 as DLC donwload version is not bought for just 2 dollars or something.
This could be some sort of "reward system for patrons" I know this system needs alot of tweaks and some after thought etc But I am pretty sure it would work.