Many games get backed up in the pipeline. This must be one of them.

It's looking like a good game (then again, all Suda's games are), but the best stuff for it has to be the cosplaying at E3...

Will get when price is dropped. It may be good, but it's too short for me to drop the wonga for it.

If it is 7 hours long, I will buy it. If it is only 4 hours long as I have been reading...NO BUY.

Can you tell me the name of the woman in your avatar pic? :D

What are the other games?

@Zim

Your wrong pure and simple. A reviewer is providing customer service. They are getting paid to service the needs of their users. That should be foremost in their minds. That they need to know what their audience likes, and provide a review that would reflect how the customer would rate the game. There job is basically to tell you if you will like a particular game. Not whether they personally like that game.

Most good reviewers understand what their job is about. Even if they do like something niche or not mainstream. They place those views in the text, but not in the overall score. It is called representing the pro and the cons. The job of the reviewer isn't to sell the game to people. If someone wants to look beyond a general representation. They can always dive into the body of the review.

Your also wrong about there not being dolts. The reality is we are all dolts some of the time. Are you going to tell me that you never just take someones word for something. Who has time to parse every little thing out. Hell who wants to be in a perpetual state of paranoia. Yes there are people that are just going to run with the review score whether you like that or not. Last time I checked trusting someone wasn't a justification for getting fucked over. We don't say the victims of con artists deserve what they got do we.

Lastly you do realize that your comments about Bayonetta are making my case for me. Doesn't it irk you at all that there are reviewers giving this game the same score as Bayonetta. Why do you feel my comments degrade that game, but don't feel the same about reviewers giving these two games the same score. I mean if they are giving both games the same score it means they are equally good right.

I think you know that I have a valid point. Snuff films shouldn't be getting the same score as cinema masterpieces. Would you give the Faces of Death the same score as Citizen Kane, the Wizard of OZ, or Gone with the Wind. No I seriously doubt that you would. You would know there was something called discretion, and you would know that if you want to give a fair assessment to a lay person. You would recommend the classic well above a bunch of people shooting themselves in the head.

I am not expecting perfection. I just expect some common sense and professionalism. They are getting paid to be informed. So that the consumer doesn't have to play and judge for themselves.

Sorry, this assumes that there is an objective standard of quality when it comes to this particular craft, and that isn't the case. A reviewer's job isn't to tell me what I like, it's to give a fair assessment of what she likes, and by viewing the body of her work I can see whether or not we have the same values. If a reviewer doesn't show their own values in the review, the review is less than worthless, and might as well be boiled down to bullet points about framerate and the number of levels.

Anybody here get lollipop chainsaw and play and like No More Hero's?

It is incredibly hard to take your points seriously when you can't even be bothered to read what you write. Your wrong? There job? 

No I don't see how you have a valid point. You don't seem to even know what your own point is. Fluctuating between vastly different ideas.To quote you:
''  Some dolt out there is going to pick this game up on the rating alone, and that same dolt is going to blow a gasket when he or she polishes the game off in one sitting. They are going to get reamed, and deservedly so I might add.  ''
'' Yes there are people that are just going to run with the review score whether you like that or not. Last time I checked trusting someone wasn't a justification for getting fucked over. We don't say the victims of con artists deserve what they got do we.  ''
Well which is it? They are totally opposite points. 

Your first post stated that reviewers should change the score of their review to match what the average consumer will think. Your second post states that obviously you would give a lower score to a snuff movie than Citizen Kane. Well if you released Citizen Kane nationwide today then your average consumer would hate it. So by your own logic a reviewer, who did a review of the movie today, would have to give it a low score. 

You also compared LPC to a snuff movie and Bayonetta to cinema classics. Beyond an odd comparison. That I'm not even sure of the basis of. I guess to try and prove that there is in fact total objectivity regarding films?

No a reviewer does not work in customer service at all. Their job is not to make sure that you specifically get the game you like. It is to provide their opinion and perhaps some facts about the game (Length, modes etc). Although even those facts aren't strictly needed.

No it doesn't irk me in the slightest that some reviewers would give this game the same or a better score than Bayonetta. You know why? Different people like different things. Much as in the same way some reviewer will give Skyrim a higher score than Dragon's Dogma. It doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have a different opinion to me. 

It is also very hard to take you seriously when you talk about Bayonetta yet have barely played it. Looking at your gamertag it seems you played it through on easy, the first couple of hours on normal and didn't really bother with the alfheim portals. Not exactly enough to get a good grasp on the combat system (or actually even need the depth of the combat system). If you are going to compare it to Citizen Kane then perhaps you should actually see all that the game has to offer?

Your entire first point was that price matters in regards to amount of content (yet not necessarily taste or quality). Well Bayonetta has far less content than some other games, so should it not be given high scores? Or are reviewers actually reviewing the experience? 

Your entire stance reminds me of a friend I have. When I bought and completed Shadow Complex in around 8hours, he told me that it was a waste of money. As for the same price I could have bought BF1943 and had far more than 8hours out of it. Seemingly not understanding that they are totally different experiences. 

As Khuutra said, what you are actually looking for is basically a fact sheet about games. 

@zim

Obviously my analogies confused you. They aren't contradictory by the way. A glass can be both half empty and half full. You were obviously having trouble grasping it in one way. So I put it to you another way. Obviously it didn't work so I am just going to dumb it all the way down. Reviewers are being paid to do a job. You can argue for some kind of artistic license all you want, but if the audience is dissatisfied with the result. The audience is of every right to take their money elsewhere. They don't have to use a reviewer if their review score doesn't reflect their tastes.

The question a reviewer needs to ask themselves is are they doing this for themselves, or are they doing this for their audience. They shouldn't confuse those things, because they are actually different. When they make it all about their likes or dislikes. Then they aren't tending to the needs of their audience, and in the long run they are going to become ridiculed. You don't tell the customer they are wrong, and if you constantly do that you should not be surprised when you get a angry response.

I ain't saying they should change their score. I am saying they are going to regret handing out that high score. The number of gamers that are going to feel that score was spot on is going to be exceedingly small. While the vast majority is going to be dissatisfied, or worse will feel outright lied to. You seem to be confused about the whole price value analysis so I will now move onto that.

It isn't that the game is short. That isn't the issue here. The issue is the game is short and costs sixty dollars. There is nothing wrong with a short game if that is reflected in the price. You can say fast food is good, but that comes with the stipulation for what it costs. You don't expect cheap food to be extraordinary. When the price is low you can lower your standards. When the price is high your standards should be higher. If you go into a fine dining restaurant you shouldn't expect to spend fifty dollars or more on cheap deep fried crap. Shadow Complex may be short, but it is short at a appropriate price point.

As for Bayonetta I think you really have the wrong impression. It isn't one of my favorite games this generation, or a genre I am particularly fond of at all. I felt it was a good game for what it was, and deserved to be brought up in this thread, because many reviewers have highlighted the strong similarities. Personally I didn't pay full price for the game. I picked it up used for fifteen bucks. I feel I got my moneys worth. If you want to know how I would have reviewed the game if I had to pay full price. I would have given it a eighty.