By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
vivster on 16 October 2017
Edit Thread
JEMC said:
vivster said:

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.

Which is what the review does. The review perfectly explains all the flaws and all of the good things. That's why people should read the reviews and not just the score. It's not like the score is hiding the flaws. And as we have already established there is no objectivity in a gaming review because everyone has different priorities. I mean, are you trying to tell me that there is an objective distribution of priorities that counts for all games and people?

A PC gamer will review a game differently than a console player and that is how it's supposed to be. Because PC players want to read a review from someone who has similar standards and priorities for games. And people who hate micro transactions will want to read a review from someone who is sensitive to that as well. What good is an "objective" score of 90 when the game contains things that will categorily be rejected by some people?

Games need and should be reviewed by a lot of different kind of reviewers and the reviews should reflect that. You can easily list all the flaws and positives of a game and still not recommend it because you didn't have fun or because the game contains some objectionable content.

You just have an unhealthy obsession with scores.

If you read a review and then decide that the score does not reflect your formed opinion that's fine. That just means you have different standards than the reviewer. So you go look for reviewers who share your that's and then you can trust them. Demanding that all reviewers should adhere to your standards is a bit silly.

Reviews aren't entertainment, they're consumer advice. Would you take advice from someone who doesn't share your values? I know I wouldn't.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.