What you think about Clickbait Reviews ?

[Peh]

                               

vivster said:

 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.

That's good so far. I havn't said otherwise.

vivster said:

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.

Well, it gets a meaning when it is being used as a comparision towards other reviews on the same product.
Also, you think its OK for me doing a review on DOTA 2 which I don't like at all, and rate it a 4/10 just for the sake of it? According to your reply, you do, because the score is just for that specific review and has no meaning beyond that. But, would it count as a troll review? Clickbait? How would you know if not for making a comparision?

vivster said:

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.

Obviously at first site. But then you also agree with troll reviews at 0/10, because as you said, its specific to their review and shouldn't have any meaning beyond that. It's also for those who have a similar taste and those people would agree with these low score. It's just the same mindset as you've said.

What you are arguing about is that every review is it's own thing, which I agree with. But are those reviews and specific scores also justified? How do you discern biased, trolls and clickbait reviews from objective and unbiased reviews? I do by making comparision with other reviews by not knowing the product itself. And that's where your argument about meaning beyond the specific review doesn't hold.

9 out of 10 people say that chocolate bar taste like chocolate and 1 out of 10 says it tastes like shit. Who do I trust and why? How did he came to this conclusion? Is it reasonable for me? Or are the 9 out 10 people lying. Sadly, there is no correct answer to this until you try the product out yourself. But common sense would go with the majority.

vivster said:

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.

Actually yes, he did mentions it, but I guess it fell under my radar of all the ranting inbetween and not showing it in the video of his. I also cannot access his whole review because that site is down. Obviously he doesn't like the mechanic. I do, and this gives purpose to every single weapon in the game.

vivster said:

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.

That's the point.

Also, how do you know that he said nothing false without playing the game at all? You see, some people take it just for granted, because they simply trust the reviewer on this. But here we got the 9/10 reviewers have no real issue with it and one does. 

Oh and .. what about "Oh, the game got Ubisoft Towers = bad game design". Is this a fair statement? I cannot cite the correct sentence, because I cannot access the review, but it was something like, "It got Ubisoft towers by the way" at the end of his review.