Have you ever bashed a reviewer for negative review of a game you highly anticipated? Even better, did you just look for a score and then erupt with rage over what you saw?
Reviews are just opinions, so it always beats me how people can post hate comments on a review simply because a review didn't give a game the score they wanted. I've had it on a few reviews I've done, all because I gave the game lower than a reader thought it deserved, and in some cases because I scored it higher. Reviews are opinion, not fact.
I hate it where reviews miss out major bugs in the end score or clearly rushed through a game to get their review out. It is easy to spot when a review is rushed out.
I hate reviewers that give a game a good review. So you, thinking the game is good based off the review, purchase it yourself only to find out it isn't all as fun it is supposed to be.
you cant please everyone in how you review something. Some people have a greater sense of forgiveness than others when it comes to certain aspects of the review process. Like you say..if you spot bugs and glitches then why arent they called on. It could be that the person reviewing has a better tolerance level for stuff like that. Yeah, reviews are opinions but what has happened over a short amount of time is the bending of the review to no longer be a neutral objective view of the product and more of the one sided yay or nay. If someone can truly be objective and give good with bad without being overly critical of one or the other then we would be back to the glory days of reviews. When it was left up to the individual to decide for themselves. Reviews then gave a summarized perspective of the product but never said yes get it or no stay away from it. It was always left for the consumer to decide.
"Yeah, reviews are opinions but what has happened over a short amount of time is the bending of the review to no longer be a neutral objective view of the product and more of the one sided yay or nay." As I stated below, its impossible for a person to give a neutral objective review since they are HUMAN. Everyone has a different outlook on what makes a game good or bad. If reviewers were ENTIRELY objective..then how could they possibly recommend the game to anyone? How can a reviewer tell you whether a game is fun or not since(according to you) they must be objective/neutral? Whether a game is "fun" or not is an opinion. It seems to me like you want to suppress that opinion. Take Gran Turismo 5 for example. Theres no way to OBJECTIVELY say that GT5 is fun. Some people enjoy slowing to a crawl with every turn they make...and others like roaring through turns with unrealistic speeds ala Burnout/Split Second.
Reviews are much more than just opinions, they can make or brake a game. Problem today is that most big reviewing sites are in bed with certain publishers and console makers, so reviews today have lost all their value. Remember when gamespot fired Jeff Gerstmann for giving a bad review of Kane&Lynch? Eidos threatened to stop paying for ads on their site and so gamespot took action. Inestead of defending their colleague, they acted like lowest of whores and fired him. I won't even mention the likes of IGN, since there is no insult bad enough to describe their reviewing methods.
i think you missed the point. There can be reviews based on facts. Does the game do this or have that yes/no and so on. The point where the review process breaks down is the personalizing of the review when the reviewer knows not everyone can share the same opinion. Thus the neutral objective approach has long vanished and we are left with one sided opinions that take the place of reviews. Can i objectively say killzone 3 has lots of action? yes which can be proven as fact. Can i say it has the best action of any game? No because that would be my personal opinion being thrown out there as fact. Bottom line is that suppressing the opinion would be a nice thing when it comes to the real meat of the review. If after an objective review is made and the reviewer would like to add their personal 2 cents...by all means. Just keep the opinion out of the main review itself.
That's just it a review should be a review not opinion a game should be reviewed by meeting certian criteria and bases on other games in its genre
I tend to judge on multiple reviews, that way it gives me a good idea about the game, if you go off only 1 review, your only getting a single persons opinion
Inconsistency bothers me. I hate it when a reviewer points out something is wrong about one game, and then in another game it gets a pass. Or the "I'm obviously reviewing for hits" scores. Destructoid was(is?) bad for that. They review a game, and the review sounds fantastic with nothing bad mentioned and then they slap a 6 on it because they know it'll drive traffic to their site. I find I have a few reviewers I trust who haven't let me down, or I'll just view an aggregate score that's got all the super highs and super lows factored in when I need help making my purchasing decisions. I'd love to just be able to play every game and make up my own mind, but my gaming time is limited. I rely on reviews to help me spend my gaming dollar.
While reviews are opinions of a kind, a good review tells you more than what the reviewer thinks. It is both knowledgeable and informative. Imo, a review is just an argument for or against a game. Like any good argument, it should be supported by facts and some solid research.
I don't see anything wrong with a reviewer who has a different opinion, no game is perfect after all. What does irritate me are reviewers who obviously have not played the game they're reviewing , or those who have a clear bias.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
yes thats true but reviews shouldn't be opinion pieces they should give all the ups and downs of a game not like reviewers today who compare all fps to call of duty and say its bad because its not call of duty, or give a game a good score because its popular like call of duty or GTA
True that's why you pick the good apple out the bunch. Their are so many reviewers and out all of them I only have maybe 2 or 3 that I trust.
"yes thats true but reviews shouldn't be opinion pieces they should give all the ups and downs of a game" But everyone has different opinions on what the "ups" and "downs" of a game are. Several people who reviewed Borderlands said that the looting became redundant after a while...yet I personally LOVED the looting aspect of the game. You can't have a review that isn't an opinion because it wouldn't be an honest review. By the very fact that all reviewers are human, ALL reviews will be biased in some sort of fashion.
COD does not deserve good scores when it has always have had a terrible(and I mean absolutley horrible) single player campaign. Pisses me off when they reward that a goty over Uncharted 2.
And thats your opinion. Reviewers can also have the opinion that COD is a fantastic FPS experience. Neither you or them would be wrong. I wouldn't say its anything to get "pissed off" about. If you personally enjoy Uncharted 2...why care what others think?
I agree, however thats your opinion, so why can't someones opinion be different? certainly not a reason to hate on someone.
CoD gets good scores because it offers alot of goodies for you to play it and the 60 fps fast fluid gameplay and nicelly designed maps are key. But WAW,MW2 and Black Ops should definitly get 8´s instead of 9´s in my opinion.
Yeah, it's just opinions. Kinda like IMO I think Mirror's Edge should get a sequel. :-D I know, different subject, but it would be awesome.
Well reviews should be an honest opinion of how a games is telling you all the good and bad in it.However some reviewers are biased and will either be overly critical of a game.Or will praise a game to no end just because they like the series.
But to provide an honest review, the reviewer MUST be biased in some sort of way...unless he/she is a robot. Everyone has different preferences and opinions..theres no objective way to review a game if you want to give a review that actually means something. If reviewers were non-biased, then they wouldn't be able to tell you whether a game is "fun" or not since everyone has a different opinion of what fun is. If reviewers were non-biased, they wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not a game's story is engaging..since this would be a biased statement. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion.
It's easy to give a good review of a game. All a reviewer has to do is take out the score/grade and list the good and the bad. Of course all reviewers are not going to have the same issue's, but that will give the reader a fair review.
I agree. If you can basically state both good and bad stuff about a game without marginalizing either, you're probably writing a decent review. It might be a different flavor compared to other reviews, but all the facts are out for the readers to judge.
I usually don't care because, as many others pointed out, they're just opinions. But when someone is paid decent money, and I've paid to read their words in print, they damn sure better have the facts and not be inclined to simply make shit up. So to answer, yes. Ben Reeves from Game Informer and his AvP review was just garbage. His magazine persona is also that of a complete tool who doesn't need to be a tool but feels like he needs to be a tool. What a tool. And a dick.
I'm ashamed to say it, but it's been two years and I still haven't fully gotten over Jim Sterling giving Assassin's Creed II a 4.5 out of 10 ha ha.
We all know which fanboy group is infamous for raging over reviews
I play games that have bad scores and usually their not bad at all just weak sauce *looking at DNF*
Gamepro is infamous for horrible reviews of games that they obviously haven't played. Godfather 2 5/5, Ninja Blade 5/5 seriously?? I don't hate on the too low, I hate on the too high because they were paid by the developers.
I only get upset with reviews when they compare a game to something entirely unrelated, give a high score to a game solely because of its popularity, and complain about the difficulty of the game. I still remember a video of a game reviewer complaining about Nier because he couldn't find where a certain fish was located (even though it told him in the game where to go). The whole video was him complaining about it and saying how the game was broken and how bad it was. Cut to more recent times and Nier is now a "cult classic" or "an underrated gem". Well, guess who underrated it? GTA games are always going to score high, COD games too, and Fallout: New Vegas, which scored high despite being buggy, yet there are a lot of games that are bug free and fun to play that either get ignored completely or score below 6. For all of those reasons I don't trust game reviews and instead rely on demos or personal experience in choosing which games to buy.
A review is an opinion. Whether or not that opinion is very reliable is personal experience. Fun and boring are subjective - they vary from person to person. You can not describe something as being fun and be objective at the same time. Do you trust the reviewer? Have they recommended games that you have enjoyed in the past? That's how you know you can trust that reviewer's opinion. I believe that people are confusing this whole issue with 'biased.' If you're in bed with a publisher, then yes, you're biased towards a specific game, but that's another story all together. If you're looking for an objective write-up of a game, then look at the back of the box.
great, more POLLING.......no thanks
No not at all if a game gets ten i wont buy it because its a big fat sheep ten,games that score 7 and under ill take a look. I really love it when the hurt comes out ign spells ignorant one of my personal faves microledge has bribed all my friends family and world, if my fav game ever got -10 it would still be my fav game.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.