@mkdms14 What the heck do you mean by "bias review"?
Giving a game a score YOU want instead of giving the critic's take on it is the exact OPPOSITE of an "honest review".
By "objectable" I assume you meant "objective", which is absurd. When evaluating any work of art there's no such THING as "objective", that is to say "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions". That doesn't even make SENSE. If that's what you want, read the marketing copy for the game. Read the back of the box where it tells you how many players it is and what resolution it supports-that's the only "objective" you can get for game (or any other) criticism.
The job of any critic is not to appease YOU, it's to give their take and thoughts on a given work of art. If instead they're forced to give an artificially high or low score and ignore things they liked or disliked about it, then they're NOT BEING HONEST, and it's no more "objective" than a review that is being honest.
@Vault_Dweller83 @blackbetty1974 Umm...huh? A game is a work of art, it isn't a vacuum cleaner.
Every single point raised certainly applies to 2, and I can say that despite the fact that I really enjoyed 2. He raises excellent points, and this is actually a demonstration that maybe the industry is growing up. A review isn't supposed to be an affirmation of what YOU want it to be. Go write your own review if you want to , but don't insult someone for giving their take on it.
I mean if a review honestly had no connection to the work at all, that would be one thing, but this clearly does, and I think is really interesting.
@CocoaPistolero All excellent points. It matters too the context that (for example) racism or sexism are presented in, since of course just presenting something doesn't necessarily mean a work is advocating for it (can be quite the opposite in some cases).
I've played 2, which I really enjoyed, and own but haven't played 3 yet. And I'm really not sure how I feel about 2's characters...certainly everything he mentioned in the review applies to 2, and I'm not sure if 3 is tonally different or not.
It may be that I'd take 3 in a different, kind of absurdest context, I'm just not sure (and may not be sure even after I play it LOL)
There's zero doubt that even if I end up feeling like the game is playing with tropes or pointing out racism or whatever, there would still be a lot of...less sophisticated people who would take it seriously/literally.
At any rate, you bring up great points, as does the review. I'm amazed and thrilled that Gamespot and the critic were willing to give a big game such a low score. We need that in games criticism! I can't believe how many people seem to be personally offended by a score not matching up with what they want it to be. It's like professional critics of anything are giving an educated look at a work and personal opinion, which can both inform someone as to whether they want to experience, and also be an interesting start to a conversation. The point of a review is NOT to validate that "THIS GAME IS AWESOME!" or whatever, that's worthless, and I'm sick of game reviews being unwilling to use the whole review score range, unwilling to tick off people who don't understand what a review IS.
@Anigmar This is review. A critic is giving their take on something, not some magical "absolute score" that doesn't exist. It's personal opinion, and he brings up a ton of valid points.
If this is like 2 (I haven't played 3 yet), I suspect I'll enjoy it a lot, but even still the points he raises certainly apply to 2, and regardless I'm thrilled Gamespot and this critic didn't feel the need to appease people who don't understand that professional reviews of any sort are ultimately personal takes on a piece of art from someone knowledgeable about the art form.
Good review, very interesting. Brings up sooo many interesting points I'd love to talk about. Regarding the difficulty, I found the first game impossible, though I'm not sure if that's just because I didn't understand how to play it yet, or if it was just broken. 2 finally "clicked" for me and I started enjoying it (particularly when I realized it was more about time management and making sure you collected as much money and experience as possible, not about wasting time fighting zombies). I actually played the version with Frank West first, on the PS3, and am now playing through the PC version of the original release. I wonder if 3 is like 2 where you're really needing to restart it a couple of times before the boss battles are remotely doable?
Even if that's the case, it's still a VERY weird way to design a game!
And interesting points about offensiveness. I wonder if it's worse than 2 in that regard? I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing. Even calling the bosses "psychopaths" is kind of questionable. 2 at least, I guess I just take it in a certain way...it has a certain...I'm not sure quirky is the right word, but WEIRDNESS to all the characters, and the bosses are just absurd as characters.
Not sure if 3 has a different feel, nor how to feel about what sounds like some real problematic material. I mean is it meant to be taken seriously in that way? Do the developers actually feel like that, or is it just trying to be stupid/absurd? Either way a certain segment of the population won't be mature enough to take it in the right context.
Anyway, I bought it for Xbox but haven't played it yet...may end up actually playing it on PC. Not sure how I'll feel about it (COMPLETELY agree that the boss fights really strain the game's controls/systems in 2).
Regardless, I'm both looking forward to trying it, AND love this review! Brings up a ton of great points that are certainly valid things to talk about, and I LOVE that Gamespot and the critic didn't feel the need to give it a 7-10 just because it's a big, popular game.
wolfpup7's comments