Topic: Review Scores - Do you agree?

actually, we ran a similar talking point about review scores on Push Square this past Friday. Sorry to disappoint :3

I thought you guys posted the article because of this thread, too.
_{please keep your off-topic musings to yourself, thanks; the last thing we need right now is another derailed thread — TBD}

On topic. Read reviews, look at score or vice versa, think about it, decide.

you don't disappoint since I was not expecting one thing or the other, I was just wondering. Missed that one then since I'm not interested in "Push Square" and don't follow it.

Back on topic - while many people have different opinions on what a review should be for them I don't like people that complain if they went and bought a "9" game just for score and then figure they don't like it. The web is full of such and all I can say is: you oughta have read the review and not just bought the game for score!

Technical aspects of other forms of entertainment aren't excluded in the reviews of decent critics. If I'm reading a book, I do want to know if there is a noticeable lack of spell-checking and punctuation, especially in this age of increased self-publishing via Kindle and such. A good movie critic will point out if a movie includes amateurish acting, poor direction/lighting/etc. It's just arguably more important with games because they're such an interactive medium, I think.

Anyway, good critics, as Bankai notes, aren't robots. They give their personal evaluation of a game, along with noting the objective facts about it, and back up these evaluations with strong arguments. The objective facts are important, though. I can't tell you how much it annoys me when I read a review and I still don't know what kind of gameplay style it employs, what the basic premise of it is, what kind of graphical style it employs, what kind of extras, if any, there are, and especially if these is any extensive post-game content. I also like to know about frame-rate, possible bugs, etc. Bugs aren't always detected when people are professionally reviewing a game once a copy is sent to them, but it is always nice when they give a heads up on those sorts of things.

I think the only person qualified for a review is someone who has no nostalgia for the series, as that can ruin a review. For example, on IGN they gave Ocarina of Time a 10 on the Wii but a 9.5 on the 3DS. Would a remake be better? Apparently not, because (from my point of view) the reviewers were blinded by nostalgia, and reviewed the Wii version like they would've reviewed it in 1998, not 2007 (when the review was written).

@SkywardLink98: Whether the review is 'ruined' or not is all in the eyes of the reader — a reviewer tackling an established series with no concept of what came before, seeing things through brand new eyes, they could think that series staples are zomgsoamazing when in reality they're just rehashed iterations of what came before that may or may not deserve a passing glance. Their review would be great for someone to read if they, too, had no concept of the series or expectations regarding the game whatsoever, but a long-term fan would find such a review useless, as they'd probably want to see what the game holds in store for them, someone who's played everything that came before.

There's just no way to please everyone as far as something so subjective as a review is concerned, it's almost foolish to try. It's one of those things where you can only do your best and hope you don't get bitten too hard for your efforts.

@Scollurio I agree with your post about the COOP in reviews. Alot of Times I'm left with a feeling of Vagueness after reading a review about a game which I already Know has COOP but the article or review didn't go into detail about how it was achieved or works. Alot of times even in a games description at gamestop, Amazon and in the Eshop it will say Online interactions or online coop but how and what exactly are those played out. It seems to be a big secret these days

You have to realize that most reviewers receive a review copy approximately four days in advance of the actual release date. Sometimes even sooner.

With that, you have to consider most publishers don't launch the servers of the multiplayer until the night before the release date. Even if it's online the previous weekend, the activity (the community), is relatively small.

Developers are working on ways to fix that. With the big releases (so Halo 4, Gears of War) the development team actually sends out a note giving us all a couple of times that they themselves will be online for multiplayer in the days leading up to the game's in store release.

@theblackdragon Well yes, but keeping with the Ocarina review they also praised the Lock on system, which is now where near as revolutionary as when it came out. My point is not that someone shouldn't have played the series before, but the many reviewers end up reviewing games in series they played as kids and it can be hard to remain objective with something that takes you back to your childhood or shows you the flaws your child self missed. I prefer reviews to be written by someone who has experience with the series, but isn't blinded by nostalgia (e.g. it being a childhood favorite).

If it's of interest, with Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate the online servers were on when I got the game a little over two weeks ago, so Capcom clearly decided not to lock reviewers out. I spontaneously found some guys in Germany that I played with a few times, and then there was a defined period when reviewers were invited to hop online (there were about 20 European writers on at one point). Some DLC was even around for a while before coming off a few days ago, but again it gave curious reviewers a chance to get the flavour of the full product.

If all games with online play did that, then it'd be a big help for everyone.