Cyberpunk 2077 Review Thread | 83 OC, 87 Meta

[Shaunodon]

Ka-pi96 said:

Shaunodon said:

I don't expect reviewers to adore any game they review. But the whole idea of having 'professional reviewers' who contribute to aggregate sites, is so the average consumer can get a general idea on the quality of a title. Not so they have to try and weigh every reviewer's personal bias/frustrations with any given title.

The logic of 'every person has their own subjective view' is the same dumb excuse used when Jim Sterling dropped Breath of the Wild's Meta, in a rather blatant act of attention-seeking showmanship, yet people will still defend it. When a score/review is that much of an outlier compared to almost every other reviewer, there's clearly a disconnect, and they're likely not doing their job properly.

If you want to post opinionated views on games for everyone with your particular mindset, put it on your blog and the people who care will read it. If you're gonna contribute to an aggregate site as a professional reviewer, then be a professional. Is that too much to ask?

Why would you consider not copying everybody else "unprofessional"?

Plus there's really no point at all in even having aggregate sites if everybody has the same opinion. If everybody gives a game the same (or very similar) scores then why bother coalescing them on one site, why not just have people go to individual sites since they'd all be pretty much the same anyway.

As far as I'm concerned a professional reviewer would post their review, as is, regardless of what others think. Changing one's review just because a bunch of other people thought the game was better/worse than they did would be incredibly unprofessional.

Because the more sources that can reliably judge the quality of a game, and the more you have reaching a similar outcome, the more you should be able to trust that you're getting an accurate assessment.

It's not about everyone 'copying' eachother. That would be counter-productive. Obviously every reviewer should be independant. But if they're all doing their job correctly to judge the objective quality of a title, then they should all be delivering scores and points within a certain value to be accurate. Or are we going to have the argument now that 'objective quality isn't a thing'?

When 38 reviewers give it at least 90+, five more give it 80-85, and one gives it 78.. then those scores of 60 and 70 are big outliers. At least with the grading system Metacritic is judged by.

Saying 'they use their own grading system' only makes the matter worse. If you're gonna judge games by your own standard rather than the one that's universally recognised on the aggregate site, then you're only further muddying the data. You're not helping the average consumer.