reggin_bolas said:
Wright said:
reggin_bolas said:
A bunch of people asked me if I have played B2S, I haven't. I don't need to play it to form an objective opinion, that's why we have gaming journalists.
Are you guys telling me people should not trust the average score of all reputable reviewers before making a purchase? If that's the case, it completely destroys the whole point of a review system.
Why do we bother with gaming journalism if the only opinion that matters is your own? |
So, I shouldn't like a game because gaming journalists said the game wasn't good?
|
Aggregate review scores is as close as we can come to some semblence of objectivity when judging video game content. Would you say the last of us is a bad game? GTVA5? Probably not because of the high review scores. Most people seemed to enjoy them. Does that mean you personally liked playing those games? No. But that's not the point.
I don't have to play B2S to form an objective opinion about it; it adds some layer of credibility if I have but I don't need to play it. That's why we have a review system in the first place.
|
A review system, that, let me tell you, isn't inmune to bribery.
This is like telling someone that you have to trust journalism when more than the 50% of the newspapers agree on something. That's a big mistake. Not trusting a newspaper doesn't void journalism. Not trusting a videogame review doesn't void gaming journalist. It's as simple as that. For some people it works well and help them actually buying games they might enjoy. But for others, they can't stand a rewview, especially when it conflicts with their own gaming vision.
