@mr_huggles_dog said:
@jg4xchamp said:
That's not how reviews work, you dolt.
Still...I mean it seems the game is a blast and just bc the story is not a whole realization they give it the same score as COD or a game with almost no story like DS3.
A few things
A: If the reviewer values context and plot, which does play a role in modern video games, why shouldn't he or she criticize that portion of the game? Especially if it's prominent? I understand not criticizing Mario for its story, but yeah in the case of something like Metal Gear, absolutely the shittyness of the story in those games should be held against them to whatever point the reviewer deems acceptable.
B: Reviews don't start at 10, and get knocked as they go, so bad story isn't the only thing, most importantly sometimes it's not about the complaints either. It's about how good exactly are the positives. If the mechanics or gameplay loop is only good, not great, why would you call it great? Or in this case superb? The number is not like a grade on a test, it is a representation of a word, in the case of gamespot 7 = good, 8 = great, 9 = superb, whatever. It's a product of they reread their review, and go with the score that they feel appropriately fits what they wrote. Van Ord has said that, I remember Lars Anderson (he did the first Bayonetta review, so I might have his first name wrong), it's even something Jeff Gerstmann was aiming for when they dropped their incremental review scale thing, because he felt it was stupid.
More to it it's not always about what the game did wrong, too often people look at the 8 or 7 as "what it do wrong to warrant X" and not enough on if the game did anything exceptional enough (as in positive) to warrant higher. The other games you deem not worthy of high scores getting their scores, is a false equivalence given that those games aren't similar and neither are reviewers.
Ergo, the criticism presented stems from a level of ignorance worthy of dolt.
Log in to comment