Shaunodon said:
Again, you seem to be confusing with caring whether people like a game with the game actually being judged fairly. If someone thinks they should be employed to share their personal taste in games, rather than actually judging the quality of the game as neutrally as possible, then they can't complain when they get criticised for doing their job wrong. Even when trying to be objective, not everyone will see a game at the same level of quality. Which is why having more viewpoints help. And once you've found the two ends of the spectrum, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, which is how aggregates are meant to work. When you have the vast majority of reviews between 85-100 and a few at 80, then your two reviews at 60 and 70 are officially outside the spectrum. Metacritic's algorithm should be adjusted so that major outliers like that have less-to-no effect on the score, rather than having the greatest. If you wanna throw the word 'pretentious' around, well it's rather pretentious to think your personal grievances with bugs in a game or apparently 'offensive incorporation of culture', should be so important that you can judge a game that much differently than everyone else and most likely making the score that much more inaccurate. Just because of your personal subjectivity. And that's just their personal issues with the game. Even worse (For the Gamespot reviewer at least), is how they misinterpret the superficialness of the world as being a flaw instead of a deliberate design choice, meant to display how the world is controlled by Megacorps flooding people with meaningless entertainment, to distract them from the harsh realities and corruptness around them while they drain their money/souls. Likewise the Cyberpunks' Kitsch-- outrightly known as 'style over substance' --is the idea that even if you can accomplish great things in the world, it won't matter if you can't make people people notice with something over-the-top and flashy. The symbolic superficiality thoughout the game is one of the most basic principles. I can understand that just from reading some of the associated material, meanwhile this reviewer had supposedly 50 hours with the game and still doesn't get it. That's not subjectivity, that's incompetence. And just to clarify before you misinterpret what I'm saying again, I do not condone any sort harassment or other unecessary acts against anyone. But if the case of this Gamespot reviewer being 'lit up' is just people criticising them for doing a poor job, I don't see how you can cry foul. I've seen other reviewers mention similar issues (the bugs at least), but didn't feel the need to exaggerate those issues throughout the review and conclusion, or dock several more points for it. If your job is to criticise and review other people's work, yet you yourself don't want to be open to any scrutiny, it just makes you a hypocrite. This got longer than I expected, probably because you descended to namecalling, but I've said my piece. |
Did you read the view? She did get it, just doesn't agree with the execution of it.
I found and read tons of text logs, scoured people's private messages, listened to radio and TV programs and random NPC conversations, and I struggled to find justifications for many of Cyberpunk's more questionable and superficial worldbuilding choices. It's a world where megacorporations rule people's lives, where inequality runs rampant, and where violence is a fact of life, but I found very little in the main story, side quests, or environment that explores any of these topics. It's a tough world and a hard one to exist in, by design; with no apparent purpose and context to that experience, all you're left with is the unpleasantness.
