AngryLittleAlchemist said:
http://www.thejimquisition.com/changing-criticism-or-fuck-game-reviews/ |
I'll just take your word for it on the matter. I don't want to read all that right now...
My Prediction was just one point off for the Metacritic score. Looks like i predicted the open critic score though. Of course it could still get a 95 for Meta.
I expected this game to get great reviews and i wasn't wrong. Really looking forward to playing it.
| Intrinsic said: Oh I am aware about those. Eg, like the tank controls I mentioned, or using a bow and arrow in KCD. Or being able to use Pauls deathfist in Tekken...... Some could look at stuff like that and call it broken (wrongly if I may add) simoly because it doesnt worl for them oe they cant wrap their heads around it but thats just wrong because they aren't broken. But the examples I gave are clear examples of broken gameplay...... and those arent subjective. Because they are broken. Something about the gameplay either prevents progression or makes progression too easy or at least easier than designed. Things like that usually gets patched out of the game if the devs have a choice. |
Here's the thing. I do not think there is any such thing as "objective" criticism. The moment you decide whether something is good, bad, positive, negative, or somewhere in between ... you are judging it by your reception. Because of this, reviews ARE 100% subjective. They just reference things that might be objectively provable. But they are still receiving it through their biased mind.
KLAMarine said:
I'll just take your word for it on the matter. I don't want to read all that right now... |
A small excerpt:
"The same old arguments about “objective” reviews, the usual hassle and pressure accompanying scoring systems (which I’ve always defended, but I’m so tired of doing it), not to mention the fact that publishers have pretty much ensured game reviews en masse are tightly controlled (they’re terrified of the “wild cards” after all) means I’d much rather tackle games criticism in a way that keeps me happy and invested in my work."
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
If you're reffering to the first part of my comment, then I always thought the game was going to be in the 94-96 range, and I have old comments saying as such. I even had to convince a Playstation fan that this kind of reception was absolutely possible (and probable). The thing is, Metacritic does not define to me what a good game is. If you're referring to the last part of my comment, then the developer behind the scenes videos and that tweet about how it compares to other video games is really what did it for me... |
No, I just remember that you once made a comment wondering why people are hyped for GoW and Spiderman because those games looked boring to you. It's cool to see that you've changed your mind. Maybe it will happen with Spiderman also. Or do you simply not care about superhero games?
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Here's the thing. I do not think there is any such thing as "objective" criticism. The moment you decide whether something is good, bad, positive, negative, or somewhere in between ... you are judging it by your reception. Because of this, reviews ARE 100% subjective. They just reference things that might be objectively provable. But they are still receiving it through their biased mind.
A small excerpt: "The same old arguments about “objective” reviews, the usual hassle and pressure accompanying scoring systems (which I’ve always defended, but I’m so tired of doing it), not to mention the fact that publishers have pretty much ensured game reviews en masse are tightly controlled (they’re terrified of the “wild cards” after all) means I’d much rather tackle games criticism in a way that keeps me happy and invested in my work." |
Sounds like some insider info from Jim. Figures that publishers have some influence on reviews of their games...
Hence why I almost never bother with reviews nowadays.
PEEPer0nni said:
No, I just remember that you once made a comment wondering why people are hyped for GoW and Spiderman because those games looked boring to you. It's cool to see that you've changed your mind. Maybe it will happen with Spiderman also. Or do you simply not care about superhero games? |
I did say I didn't care about superheroes ... but Arkham Aslym and City are great games and made Batman more interesting to me. Traveling around the city in Spiderman looks really fun, and some of the new footage they've shown has looked really great. I think that I am just a highly skeptical person when it comes to game footage revolving around specific sequences. So when they show more open gameplay I will probably be really hyped for it. But yeah, I am anticipating a better game than I expected with Spiderman. Hopefully it makes the character interesting to non-Marvel fans as well ... which it probably will 
Errrr.... the game is sold out on amazon NA......
Color me shocked.
| Intrinsic said: Errrr.... the game is sold out on amazon NA...... Color me shocked. |
I didn't even know pre-orders of games could sell out :O
Predicted 15+ million lifetime-sales for God of War:
- http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=234612&page=1
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Here's the thing. I do not think there is any such thing as "objective" criticism. The moment you decide whether something is good, bad, positive, negative, or somewhere in between ... you are judging it by your reception. Because of this, reviews ARE 100% subjective. They just reference things that might be objectively provable. But they are still receiving it through their biased mind.
|
You are right, but you are also looking at it wrong.
No matter what, the individuality of human nature will make any opinion subjective. However' said subjectivuty is pulled from generally objective facts.
This is the very reason why every major decision making role in human society is based on averages from a pool of people as opposed to the voice of a single person.
MC does just that for game reviews, if a game scores 95 on metacritic, it means a greater average of its reviewers scored it above 9. The majority of reviewers.
In that case, the one or two people that score it a 5 simply cant be taken seriously. Mind you, this goes both ways. If the majority of reviewers rate a game a 5, then one person that gives it a 10 has to be ignored.
Its flat out folly when looking at a generally independent data set to then somehow give more credence or value to the single number that deviates from the majority.
| CGI-Quality said:
|
Lmao much better than the photo one :) well done CGI-Quality.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
