This topic is locked from further discussion.
i think Me2 deserve higher than it got
max-Emadness
:roll:
I thought Sonic Adventure Battle 2 deserved more than it got, at least a 7.5... although repetitive it was highly entertaining I used to play it all the time.
tokidokii
That was one of my favorite gamecube games, and I'm only moderately ashamed to admit I got all the emblems and the green hill remake
As for reviews they're just opinions and definitely aren't affected by all the ad revenue from banners you see on the homepage
I don't think any review is unfair... a review is someones personal opinion. It cannot be unfair or wrong.
joesh89
(not meaning to pick on you joesh89, just using your quote as an example):
^^^^people saying things like this frustrates me, and many have in this thread. Reviews can be inaccurate and flawed, and they are not excusable under the premise that all are "subjective" and therefor all equally valid. Everything holds quality that is objective, that is removed from personal perception or influence. For instance, old 1800 era car's brakes are simply not as good as brakes on a Porsche racing car. Design wise, the latter's brakes are inarguably better. Because someone considers the 19th century car's brakes better does not make it so.
Reviewers should critique something for how it exists, not how they percieve it. Of course this is difficult as we all are human, but that is the art of a good review. As such, someARE more valid and others more flawed.
[QUOTE="joesh89"]
I don't think any review is unfair... a review is someones personal opinion. It cannot be unfair or wrong.
Rekunta
(not meaning to pick on you joesh89, just using your quote as an example):
^^^^people saying things like this frustrates me, and many have in this thread. Reviews can be inaccurate and flawed, and they are not excusable under the premise that all are "subjective" and therefor all equally valid. Everything holds quality that is objective, that is removed from personal perception or influence. For instance, old 1800 era car's brakes are simply not as good as brakes on a Porsche racing car. Design wise, the latter's brakes are inarguably better. Because someone considers the 19th century car's brakes better does not make it so.
Reviewers should critique something for how it exists, not how they percieve it. Of course this is difficult as we all are human, but that is the art of a good review. As such, someARE more valid and others more flawed.
It is physically impossible to write a review for a video game that is not subjective. A completely objective review of a game would be a list of specs. If you actually want to see a review include things like the quality of graphics, audio, story, gameplay and voice acting, you're stepping squarely into the realm of opinion. Period.
You can make sweeping comparisons like "This game that just came out is graphically sharper and less pixelated than games from the PS1" (which is roughly what you're doing with your "cars from the 1800s" statement). But when you're trying to compare something like... the quick controls of Halo, vs the weighty controls of Killzone... or the graphics of Uncharted 2, vs Final Fantasy 13, vs God of War 3... the lines are blurred and it all comes down to preference.
[QUOTE="Rekunta"]
[QUOTE="joesh89"]
I don't think any review is unfair... a review is someones personal opinion. It cannot be unfair or wrong.
Greyfeld
(not meaning to pick on you joesh89, just using your quote as an example):
^^^^people saying things like this frustrates me, and many have in this thread. Reviews can be inaccurate and flawed, and they are not excusable under the premise that all are "subjective" and therefor all equally valid. Everything holds quality that is objective, that is removed from personal perception or influence. For instance, old 1800 era car's brakes are simply not as good as brakes on a Porsche racing car. Design wise, the latter's brakes are inarguably better. Because someone considers the 19th century car's brakes better does not make it so.
Reviewers should critique something for how it exists, not how they percieve it. Of course this is difficult as we all are human, but that is the art of a good review. As such, someARE more valid and others more flawed.
It is physically impossible to write a review for a video game that is not subjective. A completely objective review of a game would be a list of specs. If you actually want to see a review include things like the quality of graphics, audio, story, gameplay and voice acting, you're stepping squarely into the realm of opinion. Period.
You can make sweeping comparisons like "This game that just came out is graphically sharper and less pixelated than games from the PS1" (which is roughly what you're doing with your "cars from the 1800s" statement). But when you're trying to compare something like... the quick controls of Halo, vs the weighty controls of Killzone... or the graphics of Uncharted 2, vs Final Fantasy 13, vs God of War 3... the lines are blurred and it all comes down to preference.
This is kinda true, but you can still describe the graphics and framerate and stuff and without too much opinion. The games you listed are just all great for thes t y l ethey are trying for, I don't think that's opinion. As for which is best, a review isn't going to compare them, they may or may not have a score, which is tad opinion, but not too much.A good review can describe everything with minimal oppinion, and Gamespot fails at this a lot, like the Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn review I mentioned, they talk too much about how terrible the story is and the characters. Story is something that is PURELY opinion, that should take up a very small section of a review, and should not be scored.Just decribe the world a bit, say how much work it seems they put it into it. Is it cliche? A few things like that. Even if it is a story based game, it has gameplay, talk about that, story is purely opinion.
It is physically impossible to write a review for a video game that is not subjective. A completely objective review of a game would be a list of specs. If you actually want to see a review include things like the quality of graphics, audio, story, gameplay and voice acting, you're stepping squarely into the realm of opinion. Period.
Greyfeld
And can someone's opinion not be flawed when reviewing these things? People are claiming that ALL reviews are always equally credible simply because they are an opinion, which is what I take issue with. An opinion is only as well backed as the facts it rests upon, and preference and taste can only go so far. Someone gives Super Mario Galaxy 2 a 2.5, another gives it a 9. Are both as credible? Nope, one is much more valid than the other based on the FACTS. Preference be damned.
[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]
[QUOTE="Rekunta"]
(not meaning to pick on you joesh89, just using your quote as an example):
^^^^people saying things like this frustrates me, and many have in this thread. Reviews can be inaccurate and flawed, and they are not excusable under the premise that all are "subjective" and therefor all equally valid. Everything holds quality that is objective, that is removed from personal perception or influence. For instance, old 1800 era car's brakes are simply not as good as brakes on a Porsche racing car. Design wise, the latter's brakes are inarguably better. Because someone considers the 19th century car's brakes better does not make it so.
Reviewers should critique something for how it exists, not how they percieve it. Of course this is difficult as we all are human, but that is the art of a good review. As such, someARE more valid and others more flawed.
lazyathew
It is physically impossible to write a review for a video game that is not subjective. A completely objective review of a game would be a list of specs. If you actually want to see a review include things like the quality of graphics, audio, story, gameplay and voice acting, you're stepping squarely into the realm of opinion. Period.
You can make sweeping comparisons like "This game that just came out is graphically sharper and less pixelated than games from the PS1" (which is roughly what you're doing with your "cars from the 1800s" statement). But when you're trying to compare something like... the quick controls of Halo, vs the weighty controls of Killzone... or the graphics of Uncharted 2, vs Final Fantasy 13, vs God of War 3... the lines are blurred and it all comes down to preference.
This is kinda true, but you can still describe the graphics and framerate and stuff and without too much opinion. The games you listed are just all great for thes t y l ethey are trying for, I don't think that's opinion. As for which is best, a review isn't going to compare them, they may or may not have a score, which is tad opinion, but not too much.A good review can describe everything with minimal oppinion, and Gamespot fails at this a lot, like the Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn review I mentioned, they talk too much about how terrible the story is and the characters. Story is something that is PURELY opinion, that should take up a very small section of a review, and should not be scored.Just decribe the world a bit, say how much work it seems they put it into it. Is it cliche? A few things like that. Even if it is a story based game, it has gameplay, talk about that, story is purely opinion.
Without making comparisons to the "standard" of the current day, there is no review. And by making the comparisons (implicitely or explicitely), you are giving your opinion.
A review isn't telling gamers how big the pixels are, whether or not a game is 3D, or even what the game's control scheme or camera view is. A review is a general, overall feeling of the game.
Read through movie reviews and tell me if any of them spend the majority of their writing space on the length of the movie, or the exact graphics engine used to produce its CGI. They won't, because movie reviews (just like game reviews) are about emparting what someone should expect from the experience.
If you want a dry, objective rundown of what the game offers, read the specs on the side of the box.
[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]
It is physically impossible to write a review for a video game that is not subjective. A completely objective review of a game would be a list of specs. If you actually want to see a review include things like the quality of graphics, audio, story, gameplay and voice acting, you're stepping squarely into the realm of opinion. Period.
Rekunta
And can someone's opinion not be flawed when reviewing these things? People are claiming that ALL reviews are always equally credible simply because they are an opinion, which is what I take issue with. An opinion is only as well backed as the facts it rests upon, and preference and taste can only go so far. Someone gives Super Mario Galaxy 2 a 2.5, another gives it a 9. Are both as credible? Nope, one is much more valid than the other based on the FACTS. Preference be damned.
I'm not saying that people are incapable of having bad, or uninformed, opinions. I'll be the first to say that there is definitely such a thing as a "bad opinion."
However, what I am saying is that one reviewer believing that the clipping, repetitive combat, bland storyline, or bad gameplay of a video game warrants a slightly lower score than a different reviewer does not make their opinion flawed. It simply makes it their opinion. Whether or not you actually agree with that opinion is completely up to you, and honestly is not something that should really be debated on.
[QUOTE="Rekunta"]
[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]
It is physically impossible to write a review for a video game that is not subjective. A completely objective review of a game would be a list of specs. If you actually want to see a review include things like the quality of graphics, audio, story, gameplay and voice acting, you're stepping squarely into the realm of opinion. Period.
Greyfeld
And can someone's opinion not be flawed when reviewing these things? People are claiming that ALL reviews are always equally credible simply because they are an opinion, which is what I take issue with. An opinion is only as well backed as the facts it rests upon, and preference and taste can only go so far. Someone gives Super Mario Galaxy 2 a 2.5, another gives it a 9. Are both as credible? Nope, one is much more valid than the other based on the FACTS. Preference be damned.
I'm not saying that people are incapable of having bad, or uninformed, opinions. I'll be the first to say that there is definitely such a thing as a "bad opinion."
However, what I am saying is that one reviewer believing that the clipping, repetitive combat, bland storyline, or bad gameplay of a video game warrants a slightly lower score than a different reviewer does not make their opinion flawed. It simply makes it their opinion. Whether or not you actually agree with that opinion is completely up to you, and honestly is not something that should really be debated on.
Ah I see, I misunderstood. My bad. :)
Don't ever take professional reviewers opinions seriously. Most are paid off or are given incentives to give a game a better score than usual. For example, a reviewer who always bashes the new Zelda game will not get a copy of the new game pre-release date. Always look at the user score. If it's a hyped game subtract .5 from the score. volchchaReally? Any proof to that ... I tend to wait for a few reviews to appear rather than follow Gamespot blindly.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment