By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
crissindahouse on 05 November 2012
Edit Thread
curl-6 said:
crissindahouse said:
 

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

yes as example controls should be a factor of a review, you simply shouldn't give a game a perfect score if it has bad controls and if you look at halo you simply have to see that that's something halo is good at and better as many other games.

and he can think what he wants as much as you, that still doesn't qualify him do this job. we all know gaming journalism has many flaws but do you think people study journalism and learn "if you write an article about a game/product everything has to be your own opinion and you don't have to try to write it at least in a way people can still understand if it's good or bad for them"?

like i said about the egm guy (i edited my post you quoted), he gave 70 for halo and i even defended him in another thread as one of the biggest halo fan but the difference between him and this guy here is, he wrote the article to explain to people if it is a good or bad game for them. for me his review reads exactly as i will love  the game. he pointed some stuff out as negative for him which i prefer in a game and people who think like him will understand it's maybe not a game for them. if you read this guy's review NOBODY will read out of it that it could be good for them. if i would only read this review i would think this game has to be a horrible experience for me so this guy absolutely failed to write a review in which he differentiate between different kind of gamers. if all people would fail as much as him dance games would get a 5% metascore because most reviewers don't like those games but they obviously don't deserve it if they are good in their genre.