windbane said:
No one is attacking you, they are attacking your lack of logic. Your logic: games that sell well are the best and every game that doesnt sell well is terrible. That's the stupidiest thing anyone has said/implied on this forum in all the time I've been reading. I am completely serious. That's worse than being a fanboy of any particular system. That's worse than being a troll. Thank you, your mother, for trying to argue against an unreasonable troll. And very nice pictures.
I've said many times that the PS3 and Wii have very few great games. I enjoy many of the PS3 games that have not gotten 85%+, and many people have enjoyed similarly rated Wii games. However, this notion that review scores are useless is beyond my comprehension. I've read a lot of magazines over the years, and from playing both highly rated and badly rated games, I can honestly say that review scores are very helpful. Are they the end-all judgement? Of course not, everyone is different. But to try to tell everyone that they are all biased and not to be trusted is just ridiculous. It's like trying to tell me that I buy games simply because I want a certain company to do well! Just fyi, but in the end all I want to do is have fun playing games. I'm not going to buy them all, so I read reviews to HELP weed out bad games. I've read PSM since the PS1 was out, and it's not like they rate every game a 10/10 just because they only review playstation games. Not every magazine is Nintendo Power (I used to subscribe back in the SNES days...not the best...probably better now). PSM is completely independant. Now, that's just one magazine, and of course some reviewers are biased. Everyone is biased. But for the most part, reviewers do their best to be objective and compiling a huge group of them is going to give you a graet general idea of how good a game is. That's why they exist. I particularly enjoy EGM because they not only seem fair but give you 3 scores for every review. They will disagree amonst themselves and give reasons for how they feel. Generally, the scores are close. Generally, compiling a list of reviews with metacritic (and gamerankings.com which is very close to the same scores) gives you an idea how good a game is. I use it to great success, and so do a lot of people. Someone brought up the point that gamers on this forum are no worse than game reviewers. Concerning game knowledge, that may be true, but if you were good enough to be a game journalist then maybe you should be. However, the point is that they are gamers too, so if all the reviewers are basically like us, and get early access to games to tell us how good a game is, then obviously that's a person one should go to when trying to decide to purchase or rent a game. If we are all the same, and they have played the game, there is no reason to throw out their opinion, especially when you compile all of their opinions. Also, reading game reviews can give you information about the game, such as how bad the F.E.A.R. port was for the PS3 (ugh). Those reviewers had played multiple versions of the game and could tell the differences. How is that not useful?
Typing this was probably pointless, but oh well. Gballzack, I do wonder, how do you decide to buy games if you don't trust review scores? You have time to try them all? Maybe if you just play the Wii I guess...Personally, I have PS2 games I haven't finished, too many PS3 games/demos to play (including Japanese and UK account demos and Warhawk beta), PSP games I want to play, and a Nintendo Wii to buy for Strikers and others. There is no way I have time to play all of the games. I like to narrow them down. I do not wait for sales because #1 I don't want to play Pokemon and #2 I like games like Okami. |
Again, another troll... sigh... Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle Black. I can't help but notice how you leaped over the sea of those who supported my statements on this to single me out alone. Sigh...
Listen it's quite simple.
Game Reviewers are subjective. They cannot be used as factual proof of a game's value by proxy of what they are, opinions. Of what value a Game Review is, is up to the individual to decide.
The only element of determining a game's success is its sales. What good are sales? Depends, but its the only objective thing you have to prove anything.
To a lesser degree you can combine these two elements with fanbase to created a collective of circumstantial evidence to create a theory, but that's about it.
My issue with this is in people trying to use Reviews as proof of anything, which this thread is essentially about. To spear head my point I showed clearly that the majority of sources used on Metacritics were Sony or Graphics biased adding further damning evidence to the frey.
All of the issues you've brought up have been addressed but you refuse to acknowledge these and then just turn around and try and act as if I'm being the one unreasonable when you are in fact the one ignoring the issues I've adressed. Ignoring the overwhelming support for my side of the argument. And ignoring the context of the discussion.
Everytime I bring up damning evidence against you or one of your cohorts you simply fall back to another issue as if the first never happened and continue doing so forth and so forth arguing in circles and playing a game of rhetorical hop skotch. you can't keep pace with the debate so you get lost in it and try to bog me down as you now are with your own confused and messy replies. If you feel you make such a convincing case then try taking your argument up with someone else other than me, or am I the only person worth debating with here? :)
Face it, the only ground you have on me is the argument that my original statement that all the sources for Metacritic being Sony biased wasn't a hyperbole. Not that you even know what that word means but I'm sure that's all part of the confusion here you're simply dismissing as me being a troll. I'm not a troll simply because you can't keep up with a debate and only jump in part way through the thread, it is you who is now the troll, not I.
