By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
VGPolyglot on 27 May 2018
Edit Thread
forevercloud3000 said:
VGPolyglot said:

But what's wrong with someone who doesn't like open-world games reviewing it? There are consumers who also don't like open-world games, and want the opinion of someone who doesn't to see if it'd be something that they may enjoy or not.

I hate shooters, but i wouldn't tear into a game on that premise alone. I think critiquing anything requires a tad more critical deduction to judge it properly. Like technical accolades for one, performance should be important. I ask "what is this game's objective and how well it accomplishs that for anyone playing it?"

 

Your 6th grade teacher graded your paper on the merit of completing tye objective, not whether she enjoyed the topic or not. That teacher probably sees 100s of the same subject paper, but u didn't get an F for not reinventing the wheel.

Thats why i can't take a game that isn't an absolute broken mess being rated below what is considered average. Whether that benchmark is 5 or 7/10, a 4 is too low for this game. It is at minimum, functional.

 

I think most see scoring this way, but in the heat of a game release reviewers are subconsciously trying to offset what they suspect the metascore to be.

There's a huge difference between a 6th-grade teacher and a game reviewer, a teacher generally has to follow an established set of guidelines that were determined by the educational board of that jurisdiction, whereas there is no standardized system for how a game has to be reviewed. Also, if it's entirely based on the merit of completing the objective, should a game that is released and is intentionally poor receive a high score because it completed its objective of being a poor game?