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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Two actual reasons reviews aren't that credible.

LordTheNightKnight on 29 May 2008
Shameless said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Shameless said:
Don't see why fans of this industry are so focused on reviews. Do you need to read a load of reviews before you buy an album or watch a film?

Well as some stated on other threads, games cost more, so you want more assurance that your money will be better spent.

Also, in the past, game reviewers have been actual gamers, so they tended to review more in line most gamer's tastes, unlike movie critics, so they got a reputation for credibility.


Unlike movie critics? Are you trying to say they don't watch movies or something?


See the bolded part. Movie critics hate summer blockbusters. Most moviegoers don't seem to mind. Movie critics love indie films, and most moviegoers stay away from them. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Shameless on 29 May 2008

I personally dislike review systems that use a 100 point scale. How can the difference between a 43 and a 44 be anything other than a random arbitrary decision? There's no way someone has actually written down the criteria for every point.



DMeisterJ on 29 May 2008

What does this have to do with the actual reviewers?

It has to do with publishers moreso.

Reviewers just review a game. But their review does have to do with developer incentive, but a reviewer doesn't see that. So why would a reviewer overscore a game, and not make any money off of it?

Off-topic:

This topic is getting old. GTA IV gets a ten, and now reviewers are getting paid off around the world and whatnot. Why does anyone care anymore? Ocarina of Time is back on top, and all is right in the world. Let's move on people.



LordTheNightKnight on 29 May 2008

DMeisterJ said:
What does this have to do with the actual reviewers (1)?

It has to do with publishers moreso. (2)

Reviewers just review a game. But their review does have to do with developer incentive, but a reviewer doesn't see that. So why would a reviewer overscore a game, and not make any money off of it? (3)

Off-topic:

This topic (4) is getting old. GTA IV gets a ten, and now reviewers are getting paid off around the world and whatnot. Why does anyone care anymore? Ocarina of Time is back on top, and all is right in the world. Let's move on people. (5)


1. The title says rewieves, not reviewers.

2. The fact that publishers are abusing reviewers tastes still makes reviews less credible.

3. See point 1. 

4. "Off topic", and then "this topic"?

5. Oh, god. Why do you assume this is because of GTA IV and OoT? Couln't the Kane and Lynch thing have more to do with this?  Did you even read the OP, or just make assumptions?



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Riachu on 29 May 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:
Shameless said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Shameless said:
Don't see why fans of this industry are so focused on reviews. Do you need to read a load of reviews before you buy an album or watch a film?

Well as some stated on other threads, games cost more, so you want more assurance that your money will be better spent.

Also, in the past, game reviewers have been actual gamers, so they tended to review more in line most gamer's tastes, unlike movie critics, so they got a reputation for credibility.


Unlike movie critics? Are you trying to say they don't watch movies or something?


See the bolded part. Movie critics hate summer blockbusters. Most moviegoers don't seem to mind. Movie critics love indie films, and most moviegoers stay away from them.

Why would anyone hate summer blockbusters?

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InvaderZimGuy1?feature=mhum

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 29 May 2008
Riachu said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Shameless said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Shameless said:
Don't see why fans of this industry are so focused on reviews. Do you need to read a load of reviews before you buy an album or watch a film?

Well as some stated on other threads, games cost more, so you want more assurance that your money will be better spent.

Also, in the past, game reviewers have been actual gamers, so they tended to review more in line most gamer's tastes, unlike movie critics, so they got a reputation for credibility.


Unlike movie critics? Are you trying to say they don't watch movies or something?


See the bolded part. Movie critics hate summer blockbusters. Most moviegoers don't seem to mind. Movie critics love indie films, and most moviegoers stay away from them.

Why would anyone hate summer blockbusters?

 


Because they are more often then not vapid CGI fests with no story?



DMeisterJ on 29 May 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:

DMeisterJ said:
What does this have to do with the actual reviewers (1)?

It has to do with publishers moreso. (2)

Reviewers just review a game. But their review does have to do with developer incentive, but a reviewer doesn't see that. So why would a reviewer overscore a game, and not make any money off of it? (3)

Off-topic:

This topic (4) is getting old. GTA IV gets a ten, and now reviewers are getting paid off around the world and whatnot. Why does anyone care anymore? Ocarina of Time is back on top, and all is right in the world. Let's move on people. (5)


1. The title says rewieves, not reviewers.

2. The fact that publishers are abusing reviewers tastes still makes reviews less credible.

3. See point 1. 

4. "Off topic", and then "this topic"?

5. Oh, god. Why do you assume this is because of GTA IV and OoT? Couln't the Kane and Lynch thing have more to do with this?  Did you even read the OP, or just make assumptions?


I don't see why you're offended, my post had nothing to do with the OP.

It had to do with a few of the replies that harp on how the review scale is messed up, or about reviewers being soft on developers.

The OP was fine.  



LordTheNightKnight on 29 May 2008
DMeisterJ said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

DMeisterJ said:
What does this have to do with the actual reviewers (1)?

It has to do with publishers moreso. (2)

Reviewers just review a game. But their review does have to do with developer incentive, but a reviewer doesn't see that. So why would a reviewer overscore a game, and not make any money off of it? (3)

Off-topic:

This topic (4) is getting old. GTA IV gets a ten, and now reviewers are getting paid off around the world and whatnot. Why does anyone care anymore? Ocarina of Time is back on top, and all is right in the world. Let's move on people. (5)


1. The title says rewieves, not reviewers.

2. The fact that publishers are abusing reviewers tastes still makes reviews less credible.

3. See point 1.

4. "Off topic", and then "this topic"?

5. Oh, god. Why do you assume this is because of GTA IV and OoT? Couln't the Kane and Lynch thing have more to do with this? Did you even read the OP, or just make assumptions?


I don't see why you're offended, my post had nothing to do with the OP.

It had to do with a few of the replies that harp on how the review scale is messed up, or about reviewers being soft on developers.

The OP was fine.


Actually, I don't see that even in the replies.

Yet since you meant those, it's a good idea to make it clear what you are commenting on. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs