CGI-Quality said:
A review should be about the sum of a project's parts, not whether or not you dislike a genre. It means you went in with a preconceived notion and really shouldn't have reviewed it in the first place. They are supposed to be there to inform and help guide to a purchase. And don't try to tell me that you'd be okay with some of your favorite games being bashed simply because someone doesn't like their genre. I call nonsense on that, given what I've seen of you over time. And really, there's nothing wrong with that, either. You should want games reviewed based on what they are, not what the reviewer would have preferred. Take points away for a broken mess, a bad looking production, a story that doesn't work, game-play mechanics that don't work. Not - "oh, yeah, this is just another 'interactive movie', or ' WWII shooter', or '2D Mario'. No way would I give it a good score". |
That is the reason I wouldn't review Halo, CoD and the like. I know Halo is a fantastic game, that my review (and score) wouldn't give justice because I almost hate the genre. So I limit to say I don't like the game but recognize it's highly regarded.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







