By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Something all game reviewers should remember.

You don't have to play a certain game. If the game is not suited towards the general audience that is no reason to lowers its score. A game shouldn't have to appeal to anyone but its target audience. If you weren't able to enjoy the game because it is not your type of game then you shouldn't be the one reviewing it. You don't see movies being critiscized for not trying to get the general audience. In fact they are often praised for it.



Around the Network
Trentonater said:

You don't have to play a certain game. If the game is not suited towards the general audience that is no reason to lowers its score. A game shouldn't have to appeal to anyone but its target audience. If you weren't able to enjoy the game because it is not your type of game then you shouldn't be the one reviewing it. You don't see movies being critiscized for not trying to get the general audience. In fact they are often praised for it.


This is just about the silliest thing ever. Every game has some target audience or another that will love the game more than anything else. That doesn't mean all games should get perfect scores. It's completely justified to criticize a game if it only makes you press the button A over and over with nothing actually happening, even if there's some lunatic target audience for it somewhere.

In fact, I'd say things need to move more towards reviews being based on appeal to the general audience and not on one gamer's personal opinion because that is far closer to objective.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Immortal said:
Trentonater said:

You don't have to play a certain game. If the game is not suited towards the general audience that is no reason to lowers its score. A game shouldn't have to appeal to anyone but its target audience. If you weren't able to enjoy the game because it is not your type of game then you shouldn't be the one reviewing it. You don't see movies being critiscized for not trying to get the general audience. In fact they are often praised for it.


This is just about the silliest thing ever. Every game has some target audience or another that will love the game more than anything else. That doesn't mean all games should get perfect scores. It's completely justified to criticize a game if it only makes you press the button A over and over with nothing actually happening, even if there's some lunatic target audience for it somewhere.

In fact, I'd say things need to move more towards reviews being based on appeal to the general audience and not on one gamer's personal opinion because that is far closer to objective.

A games score should never be lowere because you aren't the type of person to play it. It doesn't excuse bad games.



Immortal said:
Trentonater said:

You don't have to play a certain game. If the game is not suited towards the general audience that is no reason to lowers its score. A game shouldn't have to appeal to anyone but its target audience. If you weren't able to enjoy the game because it is not your type of game then you shouldn't be the one reviewing it. You don't see movies being critiscized for not trying to get the general audience. In fact they are often praised for it.

In fact, I'd say things need to move more towards reviews being based on appeal to the general audience and not on one gamer's personal opinion because that is far closer to objective.

Also there are many people who don't like fighting games. Should scores be lower just because it belongs to a particular genre. A game ixists to do what it is supposed to doe.



Trentonater said:
Immortal said:


This is just about the silliest thing ever. Every game has some target audience or another that will love the game more than anything else. That doesn't mean all games should get perfect scores. It's completely justified to criticize a game if it only makes you press the button A over and over with nothing actually happening, even if there's some lunatic target audience for it somewhere.

In fact, I'd say things need to move more towards reviews being based on appeal to the general audience and not on one gamer's personal opinion because that is far closer to objective.

A games score should never be lowere because you aren't the type of person to play it. It doesn't excuse bad games.


You don't seem to realize that there's really not much distinction, if any. I've personally loved plenty of games that people consider  bad games. I'd say they're just not the type of people to play them.

As for your other point, there are many people who don't like fighting games with broken controls. I'm willing to bet you there are some people who do. Should the rating be lower just because the majority of people are in the former category? I think so.

I'll agree that your point evidently stands insofar as genre preference alone is considered, meaning that some shooters-obsessed gamer should not be the one to review a slow-paced JRPG, but this idea is meaningless if you consider the larger picture.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

Around the Network
Immortal said:
Trentonater said:
Immortal said:


This is just about the silliest thing ever. Every game has some target audience or another that will love the game more than anything else. That doesn't mean all games should get perfect scores. It's completely justified to criticize a game if it only makes you press the button A over and over with nothing actually happening, even if there's some lunatic target audience for it somewhere.

In fact, I'd say things need to move more towards reviews being based on appeal to the general audience and not on one gamer's personal opinion because that is far closer to objective.

A games score should never be lowere because you aren't the type of person to play it. It doesn't excuse bad games.


You don't seem to realize that there's really not much distinction, if any. I've personally loved plenty of games that people consider  bad games. I'd say they're just not the type of people to play them.

As for your other point, there are many people who don't like fighting games with broken controls. I'm willing to bet you there are some people who do. Should the rating be lower just because the majority of people are in the former category? I think so.

I'll agree that your point evidently stands insofar as genre preference alone is considered, meaning that some shooters-obsessed gamer should not be the one to review a slow-paced JRPG, but this idea is meaningless if you consider the larger picture.


There are good fighting games and bad fighting games. A good fighting game should not get a bad score because it is a fighting game. A fighting game is for fans of fighting games. If you have never played one before it shouldn't have to be accessable to you because it is not for you. It is clear you are misinterpreting what I am trying to say.



Trentonater said:

You don't have to play a certain game. If the game is not suited towards the general audience that is no reason to lowers its score. A game shouldn't have to appeal to anyone but its target audience. If you weren't able to enjoy the game because it is not your type of game then you shouldn't be the one reviewing it. You don't see movies being critiscized for not trying to get the general audience. In fact they are often praised for it.


i remeber when giantbomb made the review of mario kart 7, they gave 3 stars because and i quote "well its mario kart" i was sooo pissed because the review didnt explain anything deep about the game. and was excatly because of that, the guy showed no interest in the game and that made it worst.

i think you are right, you have to like the type of game before you review it, it helps you explore all aspects of the game so you can make a final call.



By this logic Roger Ebert should not be a film critic, because 95% of movies he reviews aren't targeted at him.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

NightDragon83 said:
By this logic Roger Ebert should not be a film critic, because 95% of movies he reviews aren't targeted at him.


You obviously did not read, he said it should not receive a lower Score because reviewer is not the target audience



Without order nothing can exist - without chaos nothing can evolve.

"I don't debate, I just give you that work"- Ji99saw

I agree. Almost every single time I read a review about a Naruto game, the review starts with the reviewer saying that they've never watched the anime. I mean sure, some non Naruto fans will probably buy the game, but they are not the game's target audience. When I played Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm 2, I literally got chills while playing one boss battle (the same thing didn't happen to me either with the previous or the next game of the series).

The game was not just good for the fans, but outstanding (sure some didn't like it, but it's like that even with the most highly accclaimed games). None of the reviews I read reflected that. And the fact that a reviewer can be a fan doesn't mean he should ignore all the flaws and simply praise the game, but be able to appreciate the attention to detail by the developers. I watched an interview of the developers of the game and they seemed like hardcore fans. After playing the game I was certain that they were fans of the seiries and made the game to please tha fans, as they should (in my opinion).