| IsawYoshi said: If people think a game sucks that's ok, but a review is not supposed to be a protest. A review is supposed to be "Non biased" as far as it can go, and you shouldn't be giving bad scores for a game just if others is giving a good one. Also, the amount of games that deserves a 0/10 is incremental, and COD certainly ain't one of them. Repetitive or not, it sure as hell ain't that bad. And as a lot of others have stated, a lot of this just boils down to fanboy wars. People can write as many reviews as they want to, but they shouldn't be given such a big role on a major review site when it's just misused for fanboy wars or protests. They could remove the score system, at least for users (they'll never remove it from reviewers) and let them write reviews. |
I can see where you're coming from. But on the other hand, to be perfectly honest, the only reviewers who are obligated whatsoever to be "non-biased", are the pro ones, and a good majority of them haven't been that since, I would argue, the 90s, or early 2000s at the latest. There was a time when gaming magazines like GamePro and EGM could absolutely be trusted to give totally professional, non-biased reviews. In fact their review score systems worked really well, especially GamePro's. But those mags went downhill, and with the rise of the internet, and more and more internet review sites popping up, even sites that were once trusted such as IGN became increasingly less professional in their conduct, and increasingly more "fanboy". It has gotten to the point where, in my honest opinion at least, there are not really any "non-biased" pro reviewers left. They're all just giving their opinions of the game, whether they personally liked them or not, and not just giving you the non-biased FACTS of the game. So.............yeah, it's a pretty miserable scenario all around.
