Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gravity Rush scandal review creates a bigger shitstorm than Zelda

Why do you think Gravity Rush is good?

Coz its from Sony Japan Studios 47 29.19%
 
Coz it looks really good 89 55.28%
 
Coz it has great reviews on Meta 22 13.66%
 
Total:158

The Zelda review score was to prove that the website has moved on from its checkered and biased past. Gravity Rush just got an unlucky reviewer draw. It's not a big enough game to affect positive or negative PR for the company so there was likely no malevolence behind the decision.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
greenmedic88 said:

Anytime I see a review that deviates too far from mean score either merits a closer look as to what the reviewer saw that everyone else didn't, or I simply don't bother giving that site and the review my time and hit.

The former runs the assumption that the reviewer in question, as it is no longer the review itself that's the point of focus, is either incredibly insightful and perceptive or in rare instances, is simply a reviewer who's written reviews I largely found myself agreeing with in the past.

I have to say that the "incredibly insightful and perceptive" stamp of legitimacy is so rare that it may as well be a platinum leaf embossed stamp of approval and in virtually every case, the review can simply be chalked up to:

a) they just didn't like the game. Not their thing. They like FPS games and instead they're reviewing the latest chapter of Let's Dance.

b) all too common: the reviewer really wants to be relevant, generate hits and create any sort of controversy that will make it happen. They may not even agree with their own words.

c) must be the contrarian. If the vast majority is universally in accord regarding the merits of a given game, they feel it's their duty to tell everyone otherwise.

The one thing all three types of reviews have in common is that none of them matter beyond the opinion that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" which overlooks the fact that some opinions are more valid than others.

best post in the thread. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

ZenfoldorVGI said:
The Zelda review score was to prove that the website has moved on from its checkered and biased past. Gravity Rush just got an unlucky reviewer draw. It's not a big enough game to affect positive or negative PR for the company so there was likely no malevolence behind the decision.


Holy shit your alive again.



Former something....

greenmedic88 said:

Anytime I see a review that deviates too far from mean score either merits a closer look as to what the reviewer saw that everyone else didn't, or I simply don't bother giving that site and the review my time and hit.

The former runs the assumption that the reviewer in question, as it is no longer the review itself that's the point of focus, is either incredibly insightful and perceptive or in rare instances, is simply a reviewer who's written reviews I largely found myself agreeing with in the past.

I have to say that the "incredibly insightful and perceptive" stamp of legitimacy is so rare that it may as well be a platinum leaf embossed stamp of approval and in virtually every case, the review can simply be chalked up to:

a) they just didn't like the game. Not their thing. They like FPS games and instead they're reviewing the latest chapter of Let's Dance.

b) all too common: the reviewer really wants to be relevant, generate hits and create any sort of controversy that will make it happen. They may not even agree with their own words.

c) must be the contrarian. If the vast majority is universally in accord regarding the merits of a given game, they feel it's their duty to tell everyone otherwise.

The one thing all three types of reviews have in common is that none of them matter beyond the opinion that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" which overlooks the fact that some opinions are more valid than others.

Yeah that post is amazing and should be the first post of every thread that complains about a certain score from a certain publication.

Except if that publication is Destructoid and that reviewer is Jim Sterling. Then you need:

d) the fat one



"Why do you think Gravity Rush is good?"

because I am playing it, and it is really AWESOME!!



Around the Network
DepthAlly said:
Turkish said:
DepthAlly said:

You post everywhere, I'd have to be clinically blind not to notice you on here. And no, this isn't really derailment. I'm talking about the validity of your thread's topic, which is completely on... topic.

Its good that you notice me and all, but I dont know you, so dont talk like you know me. Next time don't be a lurker but reply to my comments so we can have a discussion.

Reply to your comment next time? That's what I did 7 pages ago. I usually ignore you, but I guess I decided not to this time. And a lurker? No, not at all. Your posts are usually not worth acknowledging, if I say so myself. And I shouldn't have acknowledged you here, I just didn't like that you labeled this review a scandal and bigger "shitstorm" than the Zelda one based on the reasoning you used.

"not worth acknowledging", seems the way you feel now you have been upset with my comments for quite some time. Anyways, you cant measure the amount of shitstorm, so I used amount of comments of each review wich shows how much people have discussed it.  Don't tell me what to do or what reasoning I should use to measure dissapointment.



Blacksaber said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
The Zelda review score was to prove that the website has moved on from its checkered and biased past. Gravity Rush just got an unlucky reviewer draw. It's not a big enough game to affect positive or negative PR for the company so there was likely no malevolence behind the decision.


Holy shit your alive again.

Thought the same thing XD



Mr Khan said:
oniyide said:
Fusioncode said:
Gamespot - Nintendo fanboys

Gametrailers - Microsoft fanboys

IGN - Sony fanboys

AMIDOINITRITE?


I thought IGN was MS country?? When did that change??

It's easier my way. Everywhere = PS360 country, Nintendo-specific sites = Nintendo country. Pretty much nothing else works.


This is probably one thng we can agree on



Boutros said:
Blacksaber said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
The Zelda review score was to prove that the website has moved on from its checkered and biased past. Gravity Rush just got an unlucky reviewer draw. It's not a big enough game to affect positive or negative PR for the company so there was likely no malevolence behind the decision.


Holy shit your alive again.

Thought the same thing XD

Haha! Know this, I didn't even know what the gamespot review score was for Skyward Sword!!!! Yes, I'm back though, as in, I've now become addicted to gaming again and everyone may have to put up with my ignorant, non-sensical, and crazy comments from time to time.

This whole thing though, does remind me of the New Vegas bonus debate, where Obsidian(sp?) only got a bonus if the Metareview was over 85. I think we all put too much emphasis on review scores nowadays. If you like the game, love it, no need to worry about the haters.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Turkish said:
DepthAlly said:

Reply to your comment next time? That's what I did 7 pages ago. I usually ignore you, but I guess I decided not to this time. And a lurker? No, not at all. Your posts are usually not worth acknowledging, if I say so myself. And I shouldn't have acknowledged you here, I just didn't like that you labeled this review a scandal and bigger "shitstorm" than the Zelda one based on the reasoning you used.

"not worth acknowledging", seems the way you feel now you have been upset with my comments for quite some time. Anyways, you cant measure the amount of shitstorm, so I used amount of comments of each review wich shows how much people have discussed it.  Don't tell me what to do or what reasoning I should use to measure dissapointment.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded.

And you're right, I can't truly measure it, but neither can you. And I wasn't trying to "tell you what to do", I was pointing out your unfair comparison of the two reviews.



Food for thought: Shove an apple in your brain