By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HoloDust 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.

HoloDust said:

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.

Yeah, well that's the thing with non quantifiable stuff and objectivity. Slapping number on review just makes it even harder.

Take Witcher 3 for example - for me, that game averages around 8 - some things are 9.5, but other, like RPG elements and world design are as low as 6 or 7. Or take combat in it - I think it's fairly good, while I find Souls combat to be average at best (and I'm ssaying this as someone who finished and liked all 4 Souls games), the very thing they have been lauded for.

My 2 cents - there are waaaay too many mainstream reviewers out there, who don't know shit about genres they're reviewing and/or are reviewing those games for mainstream audience.