AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Here's the thing. I do not think there is any such thing as "objective" criticism. The moment you decide whether something is good, bad, positive, negative, or somewhere in between ... you are judging it by your reception. Because of this, reviews ARE 100% subjective. They just reference things that might be objectively provable. But they are still receiving it through their biased mind.
A small excerpt: "The same old arguments about “objective” reviews, the usual hassle and pressure accompanying scoring systems (which I’ve always defended, but I’m so tired of doing it), not to mention the fact that publishers have pretty much ensured game reviews en masse are tightly controlled (they’re terrified of the “wild cards” after all) means I’d much rather tackle games criticism in a way that keeps me happy and invested in my work." |
Sounds like some insider info from Jim. Figures that publishers have some influence on reviews of their games...
Hence why I almost never bother with reviews nowadays.







