You should give it a low score. If your review doesn't reflect your values then you're not actually reviewing anything, you're pretending to be someone else whose tastes you literally cannot understand. It's dishonest, disengenuous, and worse-than-useless in the context of talking about the merits of a game within the context of different value sets. It does nothing more than build upon the idea that "gamer culture" is a monolithic and homogenous force of synchronized personalities which don't know how to speak their own minds except so far as they're able to match the minds of htose around them. Despicable.

You review a game you don't like, rate it low. Give good reasons, stay away from hyperbole, explain your views, but be honest first. Worry about what other people think sec-....never worry about what other people think of the game.

Reviews are not buying guides. THey are single statements in the larger context of the dialogue that surrounds the merits of games according to different value sets.

I felt the same way when Valkyria Vhronicles wasn't awarded full marks.

VGChartz reviews have just never been the same!

Edit: And I LOVE Valkyria Vhronicles.

I think that the written portion of the review is ok, although it's pretty obvious how much the reviewer hated XIII and wanted to hate XIII-2. Regardless, the problem is how the reviewer adheres (or does not adhere) to their review system methodology.

For example, under gamrReview's methodology, a score between 5-5.9 is:

"Mediocre. These games are bland and ordinary. They barely make adequate status, and will likely not be particularly enjoyable if at all. Note that we do not expect the “average” game to fall into this range. Ideally most people are making games that are at least good, and the majority of games do not need to be scored in this range or below."

If the review score was in the 7 (or hell, even the 6 range), then it would match the methodology given by gamrReview, but a 5.4 just doesn't seem to match the game, especially considering that many have enjoyed it thus far.

Beyond the score, it's also important to note that while reviews are opinions, they are supposed to reflect how the reviewer believes other gamers would recieve a particular game, which is evident in the methodology (in the methodology, terms like "most people" are used).  Thus, even if the reviewer hates a particular game, they have to review a game based on how he or she perceives others would recieve it.  Generability is one of the major factors that separate a well-written review from a mere opinion piece, and if you can't write a review under that notion, then you really shouldn't be writing an official review.

I have no problem with a heavily-biased individual reviewing a game that he or she hates, as long as that reviewer abides by the methodology given by their review system.  When reviewers don't follow their site's own methodology, it's hard to take those reviewers seriously.

You misunderstands me : I was refering to the way it was written, which is very offensive and irrespectful for those who like FFXIII and FFXIII-2. Gamrreview is perfectly free to give a low score, I don't really have a problem about that.

Edge gave the game a 5 and the reviews are clearly mixed for the game (some very high, others much lower on the review score spectrum). Vgchartz has some of the best reviews of any site so I'll definitely take this one into consideration.

I personally fully blame the reviewer himself for accepting to review FFXIII-2 in the first place.
It's as if I was asked to review a sports game despite me hating sports games. I would step up and say that I am absolutely not fit to review such a game.
He knew he hated FFXIII. He didn't just dislike it. He hated it. With an irrational hate I might add. And he hated FFXIII-2 before even playing it.

But I'm playing the game right now and I'm loving it so in itself the review is useless to me and I just hope no one really base their purchase on this review because I'm objectively sure I'm not playing a 5.4 game right now or anything close to that.

This isn't a problem with Runa in particular, but rather the entire reviewing process. The scores at the end of reviews need to be eliminated. Reviews are opinions, and nothing more. However when that score is latched on there it represents the entire website. "Yeah, Edge, and VGChartz thought that game was a piece of shit!" While that may not be the case because there may be many people who do enjoy it.

I don't understand Runas take on value because Final Fantasy IX can be finished in what 11 hours? X-2 took me about 22. Hell there are FPS games that take 4! So I would say 23 hours for a speeder is great. It's quite clear that she didn't put effort into doing hardly any of the side-quests, extra NMs, casino, chocobo racing, monster hunting (seriously, they even do this better than Pokemon) and the many other things that XIII-2 has to offer. Also Final Fantasy has never been a "difficult" game for the main story, the real challenge is on the post game.

It's just one persons opinion though, go look at Amazon, Gamestops, Gamefaqs user scores. They are already leaps and bounds ahead of XIIIs. So Square did something right here, if Runa believes so or not.

The better question would be: How the hell did it still got more than 5?

Is it really a she? O.o

Not that it would explain anything >.<

I'm not entirely certain, but I *think* so. Can't say for sure. If Runa would like to clarify that's up to him/her. I'm sure Runa will be eyeing this thread over like a hawk so this post will be found.