By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 01 July 2016
Edit Thread
Qwark said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

But how does that work? Are you saying that something that is popular is, by definition, good?

And what makes a review objective? It's an opinion, after all. What makes it more objective than my opinion, for example? A byline?

What about a game like Call of Duty: Ghosts? It has a 78 critical score and 36 user score? Which is right? Which is wrong?

There is no "objectively good." There's no way to measure "good." You can measure the percentage of endorsements, sure. You can measure sales and GOTY awards. But those thing do not, and never will, translate to "goodness." 

Professional reviews a way more reliable than user reviews and they are defenitly more objective than 95% of the user reviews which are either a 10 or a 0. Sales, professional reviews and GOTY awards do determine whether a game is good, mediocre or bad. If you or I feel the same about a game as another discussion entirely.

I in general am not a fan of FF games I even did not like the seventh installment, neither am I a fan of the Pikmin series. But objectively speaking those are good to great games, due to it scores good for all (mostly) objective parameters. Whether a game is good or bad is determined by the reception of the game and how it will be remembered.

I doubt anyone can give a legit reason to trash Uncharted 3 or final fantasy 7 and claim it is a bad game for the masses. That's why professional reviews which are targeted at the masses are way more reliable than fanboys and haters which either give a game 10/10 and in COD is case a 0/0 purely to trash a game. A user review is purely an opinion, while professional reviews are written by professionals which contains multiple pages and explain exactly what the pro's and cons are of the game even if the reviewer in case doesn't value those points for its own experience. A proffesional review score is nearly always fully explained, most scores on metacritic are not. For instance some professional reviewers don't have a problem with an 8 hour run, but will still put it as a con leading to a lower score. That objectivity lacks by 95% of the user reviews.

So, you're saying that popularity and quality are directly related? That the more popular a game is, the better it is? Or that the more popular in critical circles it is, the better it is?

And are you arguing that a forum user's opinion on a game is purely subjective, but that when he or she is in the employ of a publication or web site, his or her opinion suddenly becomes objective?