Sure, to the extent that they help weed out real stinkers. If a game gets low scores across the board, then most likely it isn't a very good game. I don't trust the opinions of any individual reviewer, though. I know what genres I like, and if a game in a genre I like is getting decently good reviews, I know I'll probably enjoy it.
Oxymoron. But otherwise you're right (I think the term you're looking for is "educated opinion" or something of that nature).
what i meant by "objective opinion" is that the critic shouldn't be putting their personal preferences into the game. for example, a critic shouldn't deduct points from a game because its against their religious beliefs, or they shouldn't deduct points because they don't like the genre the game is (like for example, if a guy doesn't like space shooters, he shouldn't give Namco's Galaga a bad score). does that make sense?
No. Because those things are actually important. If a guy who doesn't normally like Space shooters reviews a space shooter and likes it, his review is that much more important to people who also don't like space shooters. And if a reviewer honestly finds that a game going against his religious believes actually interferes with his enjoyment of a game, he should bring it up, and the score should reflect that, since the score is supposed to represent his overall opinion - because if even one person reads his review and has the same opinion, and is able to make a judgment based on the information that he was able to provide, then the reviewer has done his job.
Oxymoron. But otherwise you're right (I think the term you're looking for is "educated opinion" or something of that nature).
what i meant by "objective opinion" is that the critic shouldn't be putting their personal preferences into the game. for example, a critic shouldn't deduct points from a game because its against their religious beliefs, or they shouldn't deduct points because they don't like the genre the game is (like for example, if a guy doesn't like space shooters, he shouldn't give Namco's Galaga a bad score). does that make sense?
No. Because those things are actually important. If a guy who doesn't normally like Space shooters reviews a space shooter and likes it, his review is that much more important to people who also don't like space shooters. And if a reviewer honestly finds that a game going against his religious believes actually interferes with his enjoyment of a game, he should bring it up, and the score should reflect that, since the score is supposed to represent his overall opinion - because if even one person reads his review and has the same opinion, and is able to make a judgment based on the information that he was able to provide, then the reviewer has done his job.
fair point, i suppose. what could be offensive or obtrusive to one person could be totally welcome or usual to another. i guess those are just bad examples, but you make a fair point. i remember reading somewhere a review where the critic said the game was totally fine, but the sexual aspects bothered her, so she deducted points off of it. she said the game was great, except for that. everyone in the comments made fun of her and got really mad because she deducted a few points.
one could argue that it is also a critic's job to think about how the content might be viewed by others when writing their review. i'm not arguing that, just stating that one could argue that.
i am part of a social group interested in uniting the world by painting it blue.
Blue blue.
The only ones that matter to me are the Famitsu ones problem is they are so difficult to find.
(I would subscribe to that straight away if I could get it in English).
Metacritic is not useful because the only way to get universal acclaim is to make it too easy. The way Rotten Tomatoes works is much better.
My head hurts...it's a review aggrogator. The point of it is to get many different opinions, not "Universal acclaim". And Rotten Tomatoes works the same freakin' way...
Enjoyed myself to many times with very low scoring games, bored myself to many times with games that get monsterscores to state that critics really matter. I read reviews to get a better understanding of the game mechanics once the game appeals me in a basic sense, from there on I move in for the purchase, or not. Couldnt care less what some reviewer or critic thinks personally, opinions and taste's differ, there is only one judge for myself and thats me.
Just be smart with the "critics" you give your ear - many are experienced in the industry and have seen WAY more than you ever have, offering a more seasoned perspective and insights. Others are, quite frankly, perhaps not as experienced and not as seasoned as some more avid gamers. Do your research. Look into a journalist's credentials and work history, just like anything else in life. Finally - realize that we are all human and the preferences and bias can never be taken away.
Forums
Topic: Do critics really matter?
Posts 41 to 48 of 48
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.