The GS staff showed before that you want to dive deeper into aspects of gaming other than the joy (the "overall"experience) the game provides - which has been the norm for years already.
It's a somewhat recent "work ethos" here, to contribute to the gaming community with your work, providing more complex views on games.
I'm all for it. God knows Xenogears needed that when it came out, to make justice for the game.
But the way I see it, there's still some balancing to do...
A review is different from a critical analysis... at least that's how I see it.
Maybe some games deserve special articles on social, psychological, cultural or political contexts that may go unnoticed to many. But are reviews the best way to address what are meant to be complex matters discussed by that medium?
Come live a couple years in Brazil (go further than a tourist's impression) and see what a completely laissez-faire society leads to...
Of course not being judgemental about gender, race, etc. is a good thing (a necessary thing), but saying moral reticence is good is another thing altogether... a pejorative take on morals, like if moral's purpose is antagonizing diversity in any way... while it's actually the contrary.
@Scarab83 @binderdundat Sounds more like an opinion from someone who doesn't like even the very concept of the game, before even playing it, not any newcomer.
@RSM-HQ @SambaLele The games are not perfect, far from it. I agree with you there. There are some cheap shots, and eventually you may find some "perfect" weapon or skill design.
But it's not as cheap as most games, a lot lot less. And finding that perfect build will take anyone time, trial and error, through a fun process if it's the kind of game you enjoy. At the end, it's still a great game series. That's how I see it. Though I think the first Dark Souls is the best of them.
@Scarab83 @SambaLele @Godchain Of course they aren't.
But you're the one sounding like you doesn't have any idea what a critic/reviewer does. The impossibility of total objectivity isn't an excuse for complete subjectivity, like is the case here.
Gamespot, sadly, has been dumbing down it's review system and is now allowing these "attention grabbers" multiple review, which are obviously an end in themselves, for attracting users for the site, and not a professional review, a job let's say.
I don't need to tell you. Just read the succession of review system in GS' history:
"All games were judged on five different categories: Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Value, and Reviewer's Tilt. Each category is assigned anintegerscore from one to ten, and these five integers are combined using a weighted average to arrive at an overall score. Should a game score at least 9.0, it is designated as "superb," and given "Editor's Choice" recognition. Although many games achieve this status each year, only eight in GameSpot's history have ever received a perfect ten.
On June 25, 2007, GameSpot began assigning scores by increments of 0.5 instead of 0.1. It also ended its practice of giving sub-scores for gameplay, graphics, sound, value, and tilt. Instead, user reviews now possess a medal system that permits the reviewer to highlight given characteristics of the game such as its artistic design, original soundtrack, or difficulty. GameSpot believes that this will create a more detailed rating system than the previous one. The only change in terms is the new term "Prime" for games that receive a 10.0 score, replacing "Perfect." Then Jeff Gerstmann blogged about the change, answering questions regarding it.
While games are rated mostly with regard to how they compare to the other games available on their specific platforms, games released simultaneously for multiple platforms are also compared between systems, which often results in differing scores being given to the same game depending on the system, usually due to the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each platform."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameSpot
Obviously, objectivity comes through criteria, comparison with other similar games, through examining the devs intent and if they managed to achieve it, and at which level... etc. This is not the case here. This is 100% personal input based on the experience, and that only.
The "reviewer" is basically saying "meh, this is not for me, so 5/10". There's not a trace of even an attempt at objectivity here.
@RSM-HQ @SambaLele lol Yes, I also thought it was a lot of fun! I enjoy both hardcore and easy games, each has it's own charms... but for what people are used to playing today, DS is not really an inviting game, imo. And many think this is a flaw at the end.
@RSM-HQ @SambaLele Like I said, what I said was valid assuming the new DMC games were not really hardcore.
I did play Ninja Gaiden Black and DMC 1 and 3, but I didn't play the new ones (not even 4, that's not that new). I played Bayonetta and thought it wasn't hardcore at all, then assumed the norm.
Anyway, does one DMC game really make a new norm that contradicts what I said?
"It really isn't. Still, a lot more hardcore than what's the norm today."
If you think the new ones are more hardcore and they are selling less, it proves that people now enjoy easier games more than harder ones... thus the norm I talked about. Thus you proving that point...
SambaLele's comments