First MGSV: GZ Review!

[outlawauron]

Kresnik said:

naruball said:

And that's how it should be. Because someone buying the game a week, a month, a year later will definitely not pay full price, but the score won't change. Some will even get it for free (rental services, borrow it from a friend) so value shoudln't affect the score like that. Hell, some are filthy rich and wouldn't care if it cost $100 as long as it was a good game. But not everyone reads reviews. They look at metactitic and assume that it's a bad game. 

I find this a bit ridiculous.  You can't base a review on the assumption that "someone somewhere down the line might be playing this for 'free'" or "0.1% of our viewers don't mind paying £100 for a game so we'll review it not based on price".

The content of the review should explain what the game is like.  Honestly, in an objective way with subjective comparisons to other games that do things similarly.  In that way you can judge what the game itself is like.  Then the score should reflect the the actual outcome of the whole package, including whether or not the value is reflected in the content you're getting.

Otherwise, indies would never be games which scored anything past a 5/10, because they're often good games subject to the fact that you're not paying $60 for them (and some would be good games even for $60, but that's besides the point).  If you placed all games on an equal footing then they'd hardly ever be able to match up.

In my opinion, of course :P

Why does that matter? The cost of the game never inlfuences the content of the game. I think you should review it for what it is rather than putting each in their own box.