Koki on 17/4/2012 at 09:33
No I can't.
That's the whole point of the thread.
Nice of you to finally figure that out halfway through page two
Thirith on 17/4/2012 at 09:41
Then make up your own fucking example. Seriously, do you expect *anyone* to take you seriously, advocating a fabled sort of facts-only review that has never existed but is magically better than reviews that contain *opinions*? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your point makes more sense than, "There should be reviews that are purely factual, and these reviews will be much better than all the ones that have existed in the ~30 years that there've been game reviews!"
Yes, and there should be unicorns and flying pigs and cheese helmets. I pay my taxes, why can't I have one?
CCCToad on 17/4/2012 at 13:00
Like it or not, there's certain objective factors that do pay into whether or not a game is "fun". Sever bugs, shitty controls, graphical glitches or poor quality, and such all play into the bottom line of whether you can have fun with a game.
MorbusG on 17/4/2012 at 13:13
Yeah, Koki has a point; here's a screengrab of the Metacritic page for Mass Effect 3:
Inline Image:
http://whitecortex.net/~mikko/reality.jpgThis raises the question what are gaming magazines for?
N'Al on 17/4/2012 at 13:17
And those user scores are facts-only? I highly doubt that.
Thirith on 17/4/2012 at 13:20
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Like it or not, there's certain objective factors that do pay into whether or not a game is "fun". Sever bugs, shitty controls, graphical glitches or poor quality, and such all play into the bottom line of whether you can have fun with a game.
Which is vastly different from saying that reviews should be all about facts and in no way about opinions. Koki seems to be talking about reviews that are innately different from reviews, whether by IGN or Eurogamer, and that would seem to be the exact opposite of e.g. RPS's "Wot I Think".
MorbusG on 17/4/2012 at 13:22
Quote Posted by N'Al
And those user scores are facts-only? I highly doubt that.
What? I was commenting on the OP. If gaming magazines exist for the purpose of informing gamers about the games, and gamers make buying decisions based on those reviews. When the buyer finds that the game did not meet the expectations created by the review, the question is: “What are gaming magazines for”? There is such a huge gap in the ME3 example.
DDL on 17/4/2012 at 13:37
Quote Posted by MorbusG
“What are gaming magazines for”?
This is a major point, and in fact has very little to do with reviews, either.
Simply put, who the fuck reads gaming magazines any more?
Also, I like how you picked the single most obvious target evar. Would be interesting to see what that metacritic comparison would've been if they hadn't reached the end, too.
Plus saying "omg reviewers are clueless fucks coz look how their opinion differs from the user opinions" is a bit silly when the users are also basically overwhelmingly clueless fucks.
Finally, of course, almost nobody (who isn't paid to do so) registers and grades a product when they are
satisfied, it's only when they're
outraged that they take the necessary effort.
People are silly.
Long story short, just find people who play games before you do, and whose tastes generally seem to align with your own, and then just
fucking listen to them, whoever they are.
Jason Moyer on 17/4/2012 at 14:37
Quote Posted by MorbusG
Yeah, Koki has a point; here's a screengrab of the Metacritic page for Mass Effect 3:
Inline Image:
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/5764/ootp7.jpgHighly giving a shit about metacritic user scores here.
