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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Proof that reviews are meaningless

@ Leo and Spartan

Are you saying that anyone who says they've played MGS4 and doesn't hail it as the greatest game ever is lying?



Around the Network

Leo and Spartan may doubt the fact that those who claim MGS4 is not soooo special, have actually played the game. On the other hand I highly doubt the fact that these guys have played a considerable amount of games in their lives so that they can shape a descent and sound opinion about every bloody game they criticize.
On topic.
@disolitude
I really rely on your opinion and I'm getting the game no matter what "if there was an 11 we would give it" IGN says. I strongly believe that if AitD had a simultaneous release on both HD consoles, the score wouldn't have been so low.
I also believe that, sure, AitD may have some serious flaws and design mistakes (all the reviewers can't be so in common blind). But many games had serious flaws and were praised by the Press (anyone remember the "stay still" over the shoulder shooting of RE4? I found it rather irritating but the game was great)
I'm gettin it!



Reviews aren't useless but if you treat them as gospel then you're in trouble. Reviews for games I find particularly challenging as the 'rules' are not clearly defined for the medium yet vs say film reviews.

Reading your post and the replies all I can say is:

1) reading a number of reviews this one seems harsh but there you go - I'd say the game sounds like a solid 70% let down by puzzle/combat issues and if you like the kind of experience it offers you'll certainly enjoy it

2) reviews are useful if treated correctly and compared with others - sometimes for me certain negative reviews = must buy while certain positive reviews = no thanks. That's because I understand what I like playing and evaluate reviews accordingly.

3) personal preferences do not equal universal truths - while technical aspects are universal, i.e. a buggy game is simply not as well made as one with no bugs, what gives you enjoyment is not. If I played a totally stable game whose gameplay I didn't like while I'd note it had no bugs I still wouldn't be enjoying myself. Conversely if I played a somewhat unstable game whose game

I have no issue with someone preferring AITD to MGS4 but anyone who does needs to realised that they haven't discovered some big truth - it just means that your personal preferences in this case put you in a minority. It's very unlikely more people will prefer AITD to MGS4 for example.

Likewise its probable a majority of gamers will be more irked by the glitches than you were.





Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Seriously, what's all this crap about reviews being meaningless? I find reviews to be right FAR more often than they're wrong. If you keep in mind that they are subjective and use them as a guideline, they're probably the next best tool to determine what to buy (of course nothing beats trying a game yourself). Also, especially average scores can give a good idea in what scale a game should be considered - combined with some popular opinion and trailers/vids, you can easily know what you DO, and DON'T wanna buy.



I drink your milkshake.

You proved what most people with common sense already know, that metacritic scores are generally better than individual review scores. So that's 95 (PS3 MGS4) compared to 59 (360 ALITD).

You stated that ALITD should be no lower than a 6. Metacritic has it at 5.9 which is very close to a 6, so you proven that metacritic works.

Generally IGN is not so far off from center as they are in this case, but it does show that not even IGN can get it right every time. So you proven that metacritic is better than an individual review. However, guess what... metacritic is made of a composite of review scores. So you proven that review scores are not meaningless, as metacritic wouldn't be possible without them!



Around the Network
disolitude said:
leo-j said:
SpartanFX said:

lol,,leo I think it's safe to assume that he hasn't played MGS4,,,,

 

he is just pretending that he has PS3 so he can criticise the game and then don't forget about his upcomming Thread about selling his imaginary PS3 since PS3 is not good.

 

 

I completely agree with you, him squillium and sieaner have tried there best to attack the game. The funniest part is that squilliam thinks the game runs on par with GTA4(rofl), and he also believe MGS4 has pre rendered cutscenes, truley pathetic.

Aww arent you two funny...here you go especially for you...

Spolers...

MGS$ starts with live action commercials, some about excercising, some are a game show, some about shooting guns with laser vision. After that the game really begins and snake is on a truck getting shipped in to battle...

First boss is laughing octopus and you fight her in a house after a long scene where Naomi tells you that you are infected with foxdie which is mutationg. After you beat the boss you have to follow the footsteps of naomis using you IR vision.

On the end you fight Vamp who you have to stab with a nanomachines suppresnat needle to beat him. After that you control metal gear Rex for a bit and fight Liquid in metal gear Ray. Then the second last boss is a female version of Psycho mantis with 2 dols on each side...you have to shoot the dolls. The last fight is with Liqiod on the deck of a submarine and is probably the most boring end fight in any vidoegame to date.

Does that prove I've beaten the game?

 

 

not really, but its very easy to prove, just add me on psn(Holy Tard) and start up metal gear 4



Reviews are meaningless. I do not care what some n00b has to say about games. I play the game and see if I like it myself. Games with high reviews are not necessary the best games to play. It is similar to movies that win Academy awards, some of those films were really boring to watch. It is just a critics opinion and everyone has a different opinion.



Picko said:
disolitude said:
Picko said:
disolitude said:
Picko said:
That's not so much proof as evidence you have different preferences than a single reviewer. Who would've thought?

Considering most people on this site pase their arguments around metacritic scores, I think this is proof enough.

 

Doesn't matter how you wish to spin it, it's not proof of anything ever.

 

Well smart guy...how is not the fact that a game that was reviewed at 3.5 is more enjoyable to me than a game that was reviewed at 10 by the same publication proof that reviews are meningless?

In what way does a reviewer speak to you and your gaming tastes when reviewing a game?

Because the world doesn't revolve around you. But if it did then reviews would indeed be meaningless in this case.

Of course I am assuming that the point of this thread wasn't just to say you have a different opinion to a reviewer. If that was actually the point I would've replied simply with "Duh" and left it at that.

So what you are saying is that the review is "right" and I am the problem for having a different opinion. Thats funny...

I wasn't talking about myself but everyone out there. You may not like GTA4 or sandbox games in general...but it got a 10...sorry its the best game for you to get.

 



I seriously doubt the OP has played MGS4 or owns a PS3.

Go troll somewhere else.



I seriously doubt that YOU have played any games at all!
Now! how's that?