By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Edouble24 on 12 February 2008
Edit Thread
Stever89 said:
Edouble24 said:
 

This is why I made the movie comparison, just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it should score well. Lots of games sell well that are heavily flawed. Why is Mario and Sonic selling? Maybe because Mario and Sonic are on the cover. If someone is writing an opinionated review and gives Mario and Sonic a 10, fine, but the game has some bluntly obvious flaws that most reviewers simply can't ignore.

You can get good sales from advertising a poor product, just because people bought into the hype doesn't make it good.

And Smash Brothers was always intended to be a party game, why wouldn't it be?


I've never considered SSB:M a party game... but I don't know. I guess my definition of a party game is slightly different than yours.

And I think what Bod was trying to point out is that every movie reviewer, will normally review movies similarly. Good movies get good reviews. Bad movies will get bad reviews. If two average reviews review a movie, they will respond with similar reviews. So even movies that lack a real story, such as Date Movie or Scary Movie, will get reviews based on what the movie is suppose to do, and not what they (the reviewer) wants it to do. Not saying that bad movies will do bad, though that is usually the case. I can't think of one "ok" movie that did "really great." If you know of a movie that has a really bad average (or even just a bad average), yet did really well in the boxoffice and in DVD sales, let me know. Critics who like action movies will fairly rate a comedy movie.

Game critics on the other hand mostly review based on their likes and dislikes. And there are a large number of games that sell a lot better than their averages would indicate, and I don't even think that applies to party games. MySims (which I wouldn't consider a party game, since it lacks multiplayer as far as I know, and has a story line and unlockables, which by your definition would give it depth) got a 7 on IGN, a 6.4 average press score according to IGN, yet the readers gave it a 7.9. Now why is that? Is it because the game wasn't suited to the reviewers, and thus they did not give it a fair chance?

How about Endless Ocean, which was given a fake review by that mag (can't remember which one), that basically made fun of the game? Was that game given a fair review? IGN did give Endless Ocean an 8, but the average press score was 7.1, and the average reader score was 8.6. Why is it that the review scores always seem lower than what the game is given by critics?

I feel that they just don't know how to review these games fairly. And like I said, I never said these games should get 10s, or even 9s. It's just that a lot of these games get really bad scores because they don't fit into the "mold" of a what a game should be.

 

Well said, but I still have to disagree as I think you give user reviews too much credit. Just use this site as an example, somehow 106 people have reviewed Final Fantasy XIII already, many giving it the lowest score, others giving it the highest. Video game fans that submit fan reviews aren't the same people casually picking up the Wii controller and playing fun game of Wii tennis or Wii bowling. And Final Fantasy XIII was a lone example, I could have named one of the any hundreds of popular unreleased games. This is also not limited to VGchartz, it's just how video game fans are. 90 percent of them have something against a series/game and wrongfully bash it any chance they get. I'd never take the average of user reviews seriously.