Can the man that posted a review thread and a thread questioning the reviews be trusted?

Sorry I just found this really funny.

LOL....that is pretty funny!

Anyone who eat the crappy review and fail to experience the marvelous graphics and superb gameplay JUST because a review..., i feel pity on them.., and please keep enjoying the world of faker and bullshit out there...

p.s : i'm sorry for being rude (--_--)

A lot of reviewers also addressed that the game doesn't really have that casual balance - that it's extremely hardcore in the whole, love of the cars kind of thing.  There's no proper place for people who "like" racing games, only those who "love" them.

Lowest rating I've seen though is a 7/10 which isn't terrible - so people need not lose their minds.

2 things:

1 - Blame Sony for not sending out review copies sooner.  They've been in this business long enough to know that people will try to have reviews up the second the embargo is lifted.  If they felt that you needed a week to review this game properly they should have sent out copies sooner.

2 - It depends on the genre of the game in my opinion.

A racing sim is different than something like an RPG or action adventure game where you really should play the game until the END to give a proper judgement.  I don't have GT5 but judging by past driving games is the experience you've had after 2 days really that different than the experience you'll be having after a week?   Sure they might not have enough time to fully play with some of the extra features like the track editor but I think things like inconsistent graphics quality, confusing and cumbersome menus, quality of driving simulation, opponent AI etc are all thing you can judge based on 2 days of play time.

Dude I noticed that myself just then and here I come to see you pointing it out.

COMPLETE CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!

Yeah I say it's a pretty big fail on my part but I found the "Can the Reviews Be trusted" pretty interesting so I posted here, while completly forgetting the fact that I just told people to go read the TSA review...

the criteria reviews are using is too harsh, maybe because of the long development time.

if we apply the same review framework to other games, they will be lucky to score a 3/10.

for example i read a review which said the damage hardly moves a few polygons.

apply that to call of duty: grenade blows up near wall. wall goes black, no damage what so ever. FAIL

another example, the standard cars dont look great.

apply that to GTA4: pedestrians look fake and ugly. FAIL

another example, there are only 200 premium cars

apply that to most racing games: there are not even 200 cars in total, FAIL

another example, some cars are the same with few changes

apply that to mario, 20% of the game was copy and pasted, 50% had a few changes. FAIL.

its the inconsistency in the review criteria which doesnt make be believe it anymore.

i think there's a big different between simply unfair scoring and unrealistic evaluation at all to silly...

But the "Can the Reviews Be Trusted" link wasn't a opinion from me though... It was from a site explaining they only had like 2 days to play and a day to write it.

I think the problem is that over the past 10 years or so the gaming industry has got itself into a bit of a bad position in terms of reviews. A sort of self inflicted injury. People now have this daft view that if a game doesn't get 9's then it isn't worth buying. Most games end up around the 70-100 mark i would guess. But the difference in that 30 is massive. A 70 game is generally thought of as shit while an 90 game is obviously adored. We have come to expect games to get high scores. Like take GT5 for example. Right now there are a lot of pissed people that it didn't get 9 or 10s across the board. Because it didn't they are looking into the reviews and trying to find some bit of evidence to discredit the reviewer. Like i think someone mentioned that the IGN guy had someone do research on him on his facebook and came to the conclusion he was a 360 fanboy. To me that is pretty sad that someone would do that. But that is how it is. Even though the people haven't played the game they think the score should be higher! I imagine a lot of people now days just look at the score and don't even read the review to see how that person came to that conclusion.

The score system is totally flawed. A game should only get a 10 if the game is perfect. If it defines the genre it is in and raises the bar. Games like Uncharted 2 deserve those scores because they have not only improved so much on the predecessor but in every single aspect done well. Things like graphics, sound, story, online, presentation, physics, interaction, gameplay, re-play value and so on. If everything is pretty much top notch then it deserves that score.

But so many games over the years have been getting 10s or high scores when really they shouldn't be because they have obvious flaws. We have all come to expect and in a lot of cases demand high scores that the reviewer probably feels if he doesn't he will get flak. Like take the reviews today. It has 86 or so on metacritic. People ignore the fact that it is a great score and become negative for various reasons. Like saying why did Forza get higher scores etc.

The only review that should matter is your own.