@blindbsnake: I'm not talking about technical reviews, but rather global ones. You cannot really have a global review without including the technical elements though, which is why I was pointing them out.
For example, Forspoken is a terrible game, but not because of flawed/broken game mechanics or visual bugs so it gets a 4 or 5 out of 10 for most people.
"This is wrong... very very wrong. In a review the agreement of "other people" is irrelevant, otherwise your review is by default biased."
You've got it entirely backwards there champ. How can a review be biased if the review comes out BEFORE the people get a chance to experience it? I'm talking AFTER the fact, meaning that if a reviewer rates a movie a 4, but the general audience in aggregate rates it an 8 or 9, then the reviewer didn't do a good job.
"People are too sensitive nowadays... if the review is not of your liking make the contra argumentation..."
It's not my job to write reviews, but it IS the job of professional reviewers to write reviews. Further, the professional reviewer gets access to materials that an average joe does not, such as advance screeners and they have influence over the reception and production as a result. As such they have a higher responsibility to do a good job than an average non-professional reviewer.
To put it another way, you're saying that I shouldn't complain about a restaurant that serves me slop because I can go and cook my own food or start my own restaurant if I don't like it that much. That kind of argumentation is completely asinine.
"The time to let a reviewer influence my opinion is long lost."
So you actually admit that these professional reviewers are no longer fit for purpose then? What is the point of paying a professional reviewer if they cannot do a decent job of it? Why should we read such reviews and give them any more weight than in reading a random reviewer's opinion online? This is why there are so many issues with journalism, not just in the gaming world, because they have completely lost any semblance of objectivity...
"...but 2020 showed me that any reviewer has a personal agenda. (not talking about politics)"
Pushing personal agendas is the very definition of politics...
Not all politics exist in Washington...
Ever hear of office politics or social agendas?
Methinks you are too sensitive around that word "politics".
@s9fx55fe77lam: Ditch Netflix and get HiDive or Crunchyroll. Better selection of anime, though the latter heavily censors and is owned by Sony now and have gone so far as to disable comments and written reviews so they're falling out of favor with me real fast.
@blindbsnake: It's not a conspiracy theory. You've heard of Oscar Bait, right? It's well known that if your movie has the right politics, then you get higher ratings by critics and even terrible movies can come away with Oscars if they tickle the fancy of some Hollywood elites.
Meanwhile movies that are actually loved by the masses that don't pander to some social issue of the day get panned by critics.
The only way this is a conspiracy is if you aren't paying attention.
@Solaryellow: Quantity over quality only works if you maintain a minimum level of quality with no competition. The studios have been riding that razor's edge for a long time now and they're slipping into the abyss. Seriously, who would have thought that Disney of all places could end up circling the drain? They got there by foregoing the quality for far too long and now people are looking to alternatives that are far superior in quality AND quantity (see booming anime and manga industry)
@blindbsnake: No, but you could take it as them not blowing smoke.
Good reviewers consistently hit close to the mark.
Bad reviewers, like this one appears to be, seem to almost intentionally miss the mark, especially when there are political reasons to review something in a particular way.
@blindbsnake: You sound like one of those people that excuse anything a terrible writer does in a fantasy story because it's a fantasy and the writer technically can do whatever they want.
A review is not supposed to be simply an "opinion". It's supposed to be an actual evaluation and assessment of the subject on multiple levels and the critic is supposed to curate their opinions accordingly.
A good review is one that captures the essence of the subject and distills it down to a rating that is informative for the readers and is generally agreed upon by the public. This is not a good review because they are being overly harsh about things the author personally doesn't like rather than what they believe the target audience would like about it.
There's a reason Siskel and Ebert were legends in the film review space, because they rarely had a bad review that people generally disagreed with.
@megagood2345: Oh come on, you're setting up such an obvious kafka trap it's like you're not even trying.
1. You certainly implied it. When you said that you're forcing this stuff down your own throat you're saying he should have just moved on rather than respond.
2. It is a logical fallacy because objecting to something requires observing and consuming that thing. If you don't observe, you can't object or form a dissenting opinion. Thus it forms a logical fallacy to say you shouldn't complain because you consumed willingly, since the act of consuming the media is what allows you to form an informed opinion of it.
3. Complaining about something generally DISincentivizes the production of more of that thing. This is why we hear so much about "review bombing" and how terrible it is for a show like this. If complaining about something didn't cause things to change, then the Karen's of the world wouldn't exist. Negative attention is still attention, but it ends up breeding apathy in the end which will kill the brand eventually. Case in point see the performance of the Acolyte commercially. People are turning off of Star Wars in a very big way as a direct result of enough people giving the show a chance and then rejecting it and reading articles like this that attempt to rewrite reality and gaslight the audience.
Yes complaining about something is very important, because it's the only way you can create change. If the show runners never saw a negative comment about their show, then they would think that they did a great job, despite the reality that this was a TERRIBLE show.
Akriel_Boulve's comments