duomaxwell007

So someone on a message board is butt hurt because IGN gave DOA5 a higher review than Tekken even though Tekken is the better game....


to which those of us who are intelligent pretty much said even if Tekken IS the better game (which I too think it is), that doesnt mean EVERYONE is gonna share that notion there are people that will like DOA more, even IF it can be proven that it IS inferior to tekken.. because that show opinions work.

then he says:

"Reviews shouldn't get a free pass because its an opinion, they have to be objectively accurate and rate a game according to similar games in its genre."

lol am I the only one who thinks thats one of the dumbest things ever said?

robodaddy-o

Why would that be "one of the dumbest things ever said?" He's right in saying that a game rating should be objectively accurate based on similar games in the genre. As long as there aren't any major glitches, etc.

Do you not agree that a game should be compared to similar games in the same genre?

__________________

duomaxwell007

no Id say that review are indeed opinions, if they werent then theyd be facts.. which means the score would be undeniably accurate... so if reviews are facts and not opinions then that would mean any game that got a 2/10 from a review everyone else who played or reviewed that game would find it just as bad (or close to it)?

I mean is there not a game that got a 5-6/10 that you played an enjoyed it a lot more than what youd expect from a 5-6/10? or what about a game that got a 9-10/10 that you played and found stupidly boring or at least not worthy of such a high score?

If you answered yes to either of those questions then that proves that review are an opinion

robodaddy-o

Oh. I get it, now. I thought you were being serious. My bad.

__________________

Ben D.

This has always been my take on game reviews-

First and foremost, we're here to do a job, and that's to properly and accurately inform the readers. Few read reviews just for the heck of it; many read them to determine if they're going to spend their hard-earned money on a relatively expensive product. So critics should accept that responsibility. They should try to consider the targeted audience and put their own personal preferences aside when recommending (or not recommending) a game. I mean, unless they're part of the intended fan base.

As for the review itself, it's a mix of objective and subjective. There's always opinion but the idea that it's "100% opinion" has always been false. If that were true, it would mean that anyone on earth can be a critic because anyone can have an opinion. I can have an opinion on a piece of art or a gourmet dish; that doesn't make me an art or food critic. Certainly not a good or reliable one.

There is a level of expertise that has to be expected. Otherwise, what's the point?

The objective parts aren't that hard to grade. We all know the graphics in Uncharted are better than the graphics in Quantum Theory. Obviously, though, when things get closer, there's more subjectivity involved. So while it's easy to compare the technical components of two vastly different games, it gets harder when the games are closer in quality (i.e., comparing the visuals of Assassin's Creed II and Red Dead Redemption).

As for if games should be weighted against titles in the same genre, that's usually subject to change, depending on the source. I think in the fighting genre, it's the right thing to do...what else are you going to compare it to? GTA? CoD? Then again, even if it's great for the genre, if it's still subpar in relation to the best of the best, that should be noted.

......none of this is as easy as all gamers seem to think.

__________________
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."
-- Plato

"Small minds are interested in the extraordinary, great minds in the commonplace."
-- Elbert Hubbard

Beamboom

If reviewing were just opinion it would mean everyone could be a reviewer cause everyone has opinions.

But they can't.

__________________

PSN & Steam & Wordfeud & UniWar: Beamboom

Ben D.

An obvious truth, but so few are willing to admit it.

__________________
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."
-- Plato

"Small minds are interested in the extraordinary, great minds in the commonplace."
-- Elbert Hubbard

Spartan119

Any good review is ultimately a subjective opinion that is based on objective, stated fact. Any good review at first informs, and then decides, which means even a review in which the critic ultimately draws a negative opinion of a game can persuade some readers to make a purchase despite the critic's final assessment.

Case in point, Greg Kasavin's review of Full Spectrum Warrior was, ultimately, not very positive, as he felt the adherence to realism and focus on squad tactics over direct action (among other things) were a net negative for the game. However, the information he provided, on which he based that final assessment, influenced me to buy the game, and it's one of my all time favorites.

So even though he and I disagree on the quality of the game, his review still did exactly what it was supposed to do - help me make a decision - and that's because his subjective opinion was based on objective observation.

__________________