Hiku said:
First of all, "I have a feeling" ≠ true. It's your speculation. What's true is that different reviewers have different taste.
Secondly, I've done nothing but express the flaws of the review score system and why I don't think it's good to rely on scores and Metacritic since I first joined this site, including in this very topic, so I certainly don't fall under your category of people who would get annoyed because of that, as I've never expressed disappointment in any review score ever, and never will. But the fact that you try to drag me into it as well only further shows that you're more interested in trying to discredit others for belonging to a different fanbase, than sharing your opinion on the subject at hand.
I can get annoyed seeing spam and unproductive posts as well. Doesn't have to relate to me specifically, other than the fact that I'm participating in this discussion and would like to read meaningful posts.
But yours is not only a mudslinging attempt at certain individuals based on nothing but your own speculations, because they belong to a different fanbase, but also ignoring the fact that reviewers do have different opinions. That's why I found it annoying to see in this case. I'm fine with seeing mudslinging posts if it's warranted. If you had proof and could call someone out on it with a link or two, that would be great. But this only comes off as petty and paranoid. Because whether you believe that these people would change their minds if the situation was reversed or not, their point is still accurate, and you only have unwarranted suspicions.
As for your suggestion about assigning the same reviewer, you're another example of people who take review scores way too seriously if that's your suggestion. And you also have to realise that when an editor assigns a different reviewer to a different version of a game, they have a reason for doing so. One that is more important than catering to certain people's insecurities about the importance of review score accuracies. Such as the reviewer in question no longer working there, or having been assigned to a different part of the company. Maternity leave. Vacation. Or they don't want to waste time playing the same game again when they're more interested in reviewing a different game, and a new recruit is a bigger fan of the FPS Zombie franchise. Or the original reviewer was critisized for the first review, so they listened to the feedback and gave the readers a review from a fresh. Reading two different perspectives is usually better than reading only one, etc. There are a lot more reasons that can be mentioned for why the same reviewer may not be preferred for a second review, or even able to do it. But more importantly is that a lot of people need to stop obsessing about these things. Instead of focusing on the score, look at the context of the review. A review that gave a game a 7/10 can sound more appealing to you than a review that gave it a 9/10.
|
Rattled are you, my post is an observation much like how I've observed you're rattled that you can't even read the post you're replying to, I never said they should put the same reviewer I said they should either assign someone familer with the prior versions or at least have the reviewer get acquainted with the prior version so they can give buyers how well the new version holds up and whether it's worth a try for those new to it and so on, that's what a review is meant to do after give the consumer a full overview of the product. This is a productive view and one you failed to and can't really argue against.
Right now you've possibly exposed yourself as one of the mob I'm talking about, you've just posted nothing but a typical keyboard commando response, it's not the fanbase because I'm in the fanbase of PS4/X1/PC/Wii U, I talking specifically about certain individuals across the board who I suspect you yourself maybe one as ironically your own post is similar to a paranoid defensive response. Feel free to lose sleep over it, all the better.
