crissindahouse said:
curl-6 said:
crissindahouse said:
it's interesting how some defend this guy and say it's only his opinion and a review is always subjective. yes it is in parts, someone can love a 70 metascore game and would give it 90 an some don't like a 90 metascore game and would give it 70 because you can still understand why it is a good game if you aren't a hater or troll.
if you watch football/soccer it's simply not possible to say manchester united is worse as the team of your little village you watch every weekend. you can personally think the games of that are better to look at for you because you are a fan of that team but you should be still able to say "yes manu's team is better" and if not, your opinion should never be used to write in a magazine to decide which are the best football teams in your country.
because that's what this guy did, saying with his score that it's the worst of all games he ever played and tested. a review is there to be a decision helper for people and with that, he is useless to write these articles. you can give a normal score and people will still understand it's nothing fro them but if you talk as if everything is bad it's hard for someone who would only read this review to understand that it would be good for him.
|
Italics: Big difference: in football there's an objective measure of overall quality, how much they win. No such objective measure exists for games because fun is completely subjective.
Bold: First of all, he is NOT necessarily saying its the worst game he's ever played. If he's given, say, 35 games a 1/5, then Halo 4 could be 35th worst. (Not to mention he's certainly played far more games than he has rated) The review still has value as a decision helper because people who might find the flaws he pointed out offputting will be warned.
I very much doubt I will agree with him when I play Halo 4 for myself, and it's definitely not the most well written review out there, but he justifies his opinion enough to be more than just a troll in my view.
|
right, he didn't say it the worst, just that there is no game which deserves even a lower rating.
and there is no big difference between the football stuff or the game stuff because you don't have to see the teams winning to see which is better. it would be enough to watch their training to see which teams have a huge difference in quality. so maybe you can't watch the training of chelsea or aston villa to decide which team is better but you can decide it if you watch the training between chelsea and the small team playing in the lowest league.
yes you can say you like or donÄt like the story but in no way can't a reviewer who kows what he is doing not see that halo has very good controls, very good graphics, very good sound quality, very good multiplayer possibilities with spartan ops/multiplayer/co-op and more stuff which is simply good. and if you are not able to review the full package you have the wrong job.
i did hate killzone 2 but i believe i gave it still 76% because i know some stuff is simply good and even some stuff i don't like is nothing i can really say it's horrible, i just don't like it.
|
Underline: Except, potentially, other games he has rated 1/5.
Italics: You lost me as to how any of that applies to gaming.
Bold: Games aren't just the sum of their parts. There are games that check all the boxes and just aren't any fun or have no spark. The best graphics, controls, and all the content in the world can't redeem a game if at its core its not a positive experience. For this reviewer, the lack of the originality that defined the first Halo was enough to undermine whatever positive traits it possesses.
