It's a good, opinionated review. He did not enjoy the game much and he couldn't slap a 7 in there just so people wouldn't get butt hurt. Just get the game and see for yourself.
"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian
If you actually read the review, it would be clear why. The reviewer was expecting great things; for the issues in the original to be fixed, and they weren't. This left the reviewer feeling disappointed and was left with an average game at best. Hence the score. Remember, 5 is average, 7 is good, 8 is great. So he views it as slightly above average but ultimately disappointing.
Saying that:
"I'm astonished that a well-established website as this one could let publish such an aggressive pamphlet :("
Is a stupid statement. Any website can give any score and shouldn't be pressured into giving a mediocre game a good score just to please visitors to the site. I say kudos to the reviewer for writing his mind and not feeling pressured, and good on the admin staff for letting it be posted.
Finally, EDGE gave it a 5, a few sites a 6 and one site a 1.5. This is not unheard of for this game, you know.
perfect review for a disappointing game
Reviews should be given to people who are neither fans nor strongly dislike that game/series, as much as possible. Only then will you get a valid representation of what the game actually might be worth and how the public will react to it.
Khuutra said:
Not so. When we accept that a single publication can have multiple reviewers we must also accept that they bring their different perspectives to the table, and when they do that we can only hope that they present their own views on a game as fully and truthfully as they can. If that means that one reviewer sees FFXIII as a 9 and another sees it as a negative seventeen, well, that needs to be presented. Honesty is more important than uniformity - "consistency" has too positive a connotation, here, and could only apply within the narrow band of a single person's reviews. |
The root of the matter is the importance with which reviews are recieved, that is, the score, and more importantly it's contribution to metacritic. A site is monolothically represented by the score and by its contribution to metacritic, and it is operating in this context that the call could be made for greater consistency between reviews between reviewers can be fairly made.
What you advocate is a call to reason, which is noble in and of itself, but is not viable in the current state of affairs. As it is, sites are perceived as monoliths vis-a-vis reviews and review scores, and to feed these perceptions (which, in the entertainment business, is the root of financial gain), one should cater to that notion and thus advocate that employees act, if not as a stifling monolith (which would be bad for honesty altogether), then to at least judge games of a certain type under similar criteria
Your problem with this matter is similar to my problem with it, that game reviews specifically are utilized in ways that a review of any item should not be utilized, but then we venture into the murky realm of whether it is better for sites to assume that reviews are going to be received the way reviews *should* (under the norms you assert) be recieved, or simply go along with the status quo of how reviews are received, and this status quo, i argue, mandates consistency in the form of agreed-upon criteria, which will by no means force reviewers to have the same opinion, but will at least guarantee that games of similar design (that is, a game and its direct sequel) will receive scores somewhat within range of one another.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
| Rainbird said: I don't really know how the general reviewing scene has handled the game, but I think our reviewer here made it clear what his likes and dislikes were, and made the score seem justified. A review only reflects the opinion of one person, and as such you can agree or disagree, as can every other reviewer out there. |
so much this. ^
i think i'd never give the game a low point as 5.4 is, but the Reviewer made valid points, so he justifies the score given. And people are way to focused on Scores nowadays, its terrible.
I'm a Foreigner, and as such, i am grateful for everyone pointing out any mistakes in my english posted above - only this way i'll be able to improve. thank you!
The review is absolute BS! For one they're contradicting their own statement way too often in the review. There is 40 hours of gameplay and the score for value is much too low. The battle system is just an upgrade of FF -13 and again they only give it a 4.0 despite rating FF-13 so high. It's obvious that the reviewer hated FF as a franchise and nitpicked every tiny point including the good ones too. I've played it and it seems a lot better than FF 13 in every aspect. They could have improved on Presentation and pacing however overall the game was pretty good.
Mr Khan said:
The root of the matter is the importance with which reviews are recieved, that is, the score, and more importantly it's contribution to metacritic. A site is monolothically represented by the score and by its contribution to metacritic, and it is operating in this context that the call could be made for greater consistency between reviews between reviewers can be fairly made. What you advocate is a call to reason, which is noble in and of itself, but is not viable in the current state of affairs. As it is, sites are perceived as monoliths vis-a-vis reviews and review scores, and to feed these perceptions (which, in the entertainment business, is the root of financial gain), one should cater to that notion and thus advocate that employees act, if not as a stifling monolith (which would be bad for honesty altogether), then to at least judge games of a certain type under similar criteria Your problem with this matter is similar to my problem with it, that game reviews specifically are utilized in ways that a review of any item should not be utilized, but then we venture into the murky realm of whether it is better for sites to assume that reviews are going to be received the way reviews *should* (under the norms you assert) be recieved, or simply go along with the status quo of how reviews are received, and this status quo, i argue, mandates consistency in the form of agreed-upon criteria, which will by no means force reviewers to have the same opinion, but will at least guarantee that games of similar design (that is, a game and its direct sequel) will receive scores somewhat within range of one another. |
Damn Metacritic, and damn the system, and thrice damn bowing down to something that makes no sense in and of itself. Appealing to the current state of affairs does not move me. Reviews are not buying guides, reviews are not slaves to metacritic, reviews are not objective, reviews are not for fans; each of these are true! I don't give a shit if this is how the industry thinks it works (other entertainment reviewers don't think this way, for some reason), the fact is that it's a stupid and corrupt system that should best be ignored. THis review doesn't fit within that system. Great! I think that is great.
The status quo is not an argument unto itself.
At least his review and his score are consistent. I enjoyed the battle system in XIII so I know that that aspect wouldn't bother me.
A review is just some guy's opinion. If you don't like it read some other review.
It seems that with movies it's OK for someone to give a movie a 10 and someone else a 0, but in the world of videogames people complain about the reviewer not giving it the same score everyone else did.
No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.
Khuutra said:
And I wouldn't have figured you the sort to actually buy this game. I mean, not that the review itself suggests the game isn't competent or entertaining, but this game just seems way, way outside your comfort zone. |
If I was reviewing a CoD game, which I really don't like, I wouldn't give it an automatic 5/10. I'd try and imagine how well the balance, gameplay flow, sum of presentation, etc would appeal to the typical shooter fan.
Are you saying I should give it a low score? Or that only reviewers who love that genre should review it, because I think that's the source of all of these "AAA" 9/10s.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
