Peh said:
I am not saying less people should review games. What I mean is, a reviewer who is not that good at/ doesn't like a certain type of game like Dark Souls and reviews it. This game is clearly not the game for him and because of that, he gives it a lower score for not being able to progress far in it. This is followed by people who use this review for justifying that it sucks because of difficulty. A review like that is crap and it helps no one. An honest and objective reviewer will tackle both sides, good and bad. And will try to elaborate the core concept and come to a reasoning conclusion about the game itself. Taking the approach like Jim Sterling and saying, "Oh, the game got Ubisoft Towers = bad game design", then that's all I need to see what a biased and bad review is. And objective reviewer would approach this design element in relation to the game and its purpose and elaborate it. What Jim did in this case is a baseless statement. Why should I listen to a reviewer who's biased, at all? I mean, first, I want to see the reasons which are speaking for the game and against it. Can the reviewer reflect my opinion and questions I have for the game? What kind of game mechanics do I value the most and are they there? If not, then it clearly isn't my type of game and I move on. But, going back to Jim, his focus, from what I perceive, was mainly due to durability of weapons breaking too fast. Welp, if he would play more of the game, than he would clearly know that certain weapons will have certain type of abilities like a way higher durability. Like I said in the other thread. My inventory is full of good weapons because they don't easily break anymore. But Jim clearly didn't went so far and thus he doesn't even mentioned that fact. |
You ended your argument in your first paragraph.
If the reviewer that is bad at the game comes to the conclusion that it's too hard for some people that's perfectly fine. As you can see people then use this review to decide for themselves that the game might be to hard for them and don't buy it. That is the exact purpose of a review.
The problem is that people think that the score under a review has any meaning beyond that specific review. reviews aren't meant to be aggregated. Reviews are written by a single person and are exactly for the people who trust the reviewer because said reviewer has similar tastes. So it is perfectly fine for any reviewer to give the game any score because that is what the readers want to know. How a certain reviewer liked a certain game.
The problems begin when certain people only go by aggregate score and go after reviewers for lowering their precious number even though that single reviewer has absolutely no impact on other reviews. Reviews are made to educate consumers and the score at the end is the least important part.
Also your comments about how biased Jim is show that you have no idea who he is. Also apparently you didn't read the review because he specifically mentions that later game weapons break less. He mentions it again the Jimquisition on the topic. So that's a big fat lie on your part. he also said that weapon durability is never a good mechanic which is a valid opinion. So that later weapons are more durable doesn't really matter.
But let's roll with it for a moment. Let's say a heavily biased reviewer reviews a game and gives it a terrible score. The people following this person have most likely the same mindset. Now the people know that it's not worth their time and move on. Unless the review is full of lies there is no harm saying how fun a game is based on your own biases.
A good review is determined by the pros and cons the reviewer can give and not by the score at the end. Jim did say nothing false in his review and rated the game as "good" and said that he liked it. I really don't see the problem here.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
