Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[JEMC]

vivster said:

JEMC said:

While I understand your point, the truth is that a game score should reflect the quality of a game as a whole. It's the function of the actual review to let you know what is what a game does right and wrong. So, if a game does wrong things like battle mechanics or animations, the game score should note that it's not a very good game, even if it excels in one.

Of course, that brings us to the old debate of using the whole range of scores, not only from 5/6 to 10, and that we all should read the actual reviews, not just the scores, but I'm affraid that that's lots cause.

No, the point of a review is to reflect the opinion of the reviewer. There is no reason to adhere to standards of other reviewers. Nobody should be forced to give a low score to something he enjoyed or a high score to something that is awful.

Scores are not meant to be aggregated and compared to other reviewers. They're a measure to compare the reviews of a single reviewer with each other. That's why review aggregators are absolutely pointless. The scores of reviewers who do not have the same standards or priorities as me mean shit to me.

I mean look at all the 10/10 BOTW reviews that didn't take into account the many flaws. Absolutely useless to me.

We'll have to disagree there. What I expect from a review is an objective, accurate description of a game, with its pros and cons well explained and how they can affect gameplay.

After all, that's why they are called reviews, not editorials or opinions.

As for Metacritic and other similar things, I couldn't care less about them than I already do, and the only time I've used them was to find more reviews of a certain game, not to look at what score it has.

Lastly, I already said that I believe that there are no perfect or 10 games, like movies, books, etc. so we don't need to go there again.

HoloDust said:

JEMC said:

And I said, or at least tried to, it's perfectly ok to be excited for a game that doesn't excels in any aspect excep the one you are looking forward the most. But that doesn't mean that a review score should put the rest of the game aspects aside just because of that.

To make my point a little more clearer: if, back in school, I got a 10 in mathematics but failed in all the other subjects, I would still have to repeat the course and would be scolded by my parents, despite that 10.

It's the overall game that matters and should be reflected on the score, not just one part of it.

Have to read the review first, but here's my take on any review - it's crucial to know what is most important thing in certain genre. Just like it's important that someone who actually knows the genre reviews the game. That way people who are interested in genre and specific game will know what to expect.

From what I understood from Vivster's post, this is, more or less, classic PB game with all the good and bad things. PB games are very specific, I really love them, but they are not mainstream (thankfully) and I can see how mainstream reviewers might be harsher on them.

I agree that picking the right reviewer for a game is important. I would never give an FPS game reviewer the task to review something like Cities: Skylines, for example, but even then, there needs to be some objectivity.

There's nothing wrong in giving a game a 7/10, which is still a very good score, because of its flaws and making it perfectly clear in the review that gamers that are into the principal aspect of the game, open world games in this case, will be able to forget the flaws and greatly enjoy the game, while the rest of gamers will "only" find a good game that does one thing very well, but that isn't that good with the rest.