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

[vivster]

JEMC said:

vivster said:

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.

I honestly don't care about scores, I lost faith in them a long time ago. When I want to know about a game I look for user's opinions and some gameplay videos to see if I'll like it or not.

What I'm just saying is that if there's a score, it should reflect what the review says. That's why I said that I didn't understand negative reviews that end with very good scores and viceversa.

Also, PC games reviews should be the same as console games reviews, just with the added tech info to know if it runs well or not and if there's much difference between the different settings. There are a lot of games where there's almost no difference between high and very high/ultra settings, albeit a huge drop in performance.

Well first of all that review wasn't negative, so why would there be a negative score? You just think it was negative because your own standards tell you that the negative points mentioned matter more. Also scores don't mean the same thing for the same reviewer. One reviewer might give a 5 to game that was ok while others call it trash. Some reviewers will give an 8 to an ok game while for others an 8 is a really really good game.

For some people performance makes or breaks a purchase so it should be an integral part of the review. A part that can also influence the score if the reviewer values it. See, you're now treating your own standards as if they're universal again. You just decided that 30fps isn't worth influencing a score while for a lot of people it completely devalues a game. That's why we need different reviewers with different standards. So not all reviews are generic bullshit that only helps one portion of consumers with one specific set of standards.

There is absolutely no point for every reviewer to adhere to the same standards because reviews from different reviewers have absolutely nothing to do with each other and are not meant to be compared. So why do you want a set standard for something that is not supposed to be compared?