vivster said:
Well first of all that review wasn't negative, so why would there be a negative score? You just think it was negative because your own standards tell you that the negative points mentioned matter more. Also scores don't mean the same thing for the same reviewer. One reviewer might give a 5 to game that was ok while others call it trash. Some reviewers will give an 8 to an ok game while for others an 8 is a really really good game. For some people performance makes or breaks a purchase so it should be an integral part of the review. A part that can also influence the score if the reviewer values it. See, you're now treating your own standards as if they're universal again. You just decided that 30fps isn't worth influencing a score while for a lot of people it completely devalues a game. That's why we need different reviewers with different standards. So not all reviews are generic bullshit that only helps one portion of consumers with one specific set of standards. There is absolutely no point for every reviewer to adhere to the same standards because reviews from different reviewers have absolutely nothing to do with each other and are not meant to be compared. So why do you want a set standard for something that is not supposed to be compared? |
Well, for starters, I haven't read the review and the omly info I got from it is what you just said:
| vivster said: According to the German Gamestar review of Elex it seems to be exactly Gothic. Horrible battle mechanics, janky animations, loads of bugs and the best RPG world anyone has ever seen. They gave it an 85. |
Reading that first part, one would think that the game isn't exactly good, right? Now, if the problem here is that you have exaggerated the negatives, how could I know it?
The problem of using the whole scale of scores or not is another matter, a problem known for all of us that has been discussed a lot of times and that won't go away anytime soon, sadly. Also, given that I already said that I don't trust aggregate score sites and that I read reviews, trying to use that against me is a weak argument.
Lastly, and to make my point clear about PC games reviews, when I said that a PC game should be reviewed like a console one, I was tlaking about the game mechanics and such, not the technical aspects of it, which I also said that should also be tested and reviewed to inform us how stable, buggy or good/bad optimized is, something of interest for us. We are on the same page here.
I honestly don't know what else we can discuss about it anymore since we've already said it all:
- Reviews are meant to be read. Scores aren't the most important part of it
- Even then, review sites and reviewers should use the full scale, 0-10/100, and not use 5 or 6 as the base number
- Sites like Metacritic and such do more harm than good as they focus only on the scores
- PC games reviews should talk about both aspects of a game: the game itself and the tech side of it. And then judge it with both sides in mind (aka "good game burdened by tech problems that make it unplayable")
This whole discussion seems to be about my comment about your description of the review which, as I explained at the beginning of this post, I took it as negative. If that wasn't the case and it was simply another case of you using your sarcasm, then sorry but it didn't look that way.
Please excuse my bad English.
Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070
Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB
Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.
.
