So Sonic Lost World got some harsh reviews...

...

 

Jim can

But that ceases to be an excuse when you are paid to explain why you like or dislike a game. Yeah, it is hard to figure it out sometimes. Do it anyway. Otherwise nobody learns. You don't get a pass out of doing something because it's hard. You get some sympathy if you fail, maybe, but if you want to be understood, you have to keep trying to understand yourself.

Here ya go, buddy

In the same way as World of Warcraft: It hits buttons in the player's head. It keeps you playing for a shallow reward that manipulates you into thinking it's valuable, and furthermore makes itself feel both like work and play at the same time so that all you ever want to do is that; when you stop playing it you feel lazy, and when you are playing it you feel like you're having fun.

 

Eh, I don't agree with all the points, and he sounds like he has a different experience compared to me.

Payment does not make someone better at their job, inherently. It's hard to convey to anyone what's good and bad, I've had friends who have taken market research internships, and it's been part of their job to ask people what they like or dislike about their product. People know what they like or don't, but they find it hard to explain why and more often then you think it's inaccurate, hypocritical or still muddled in wordiness that lacks clarity. We pick reviewers based on whether we agree, try to agree, sympathise or like the person, not always because they are 'good' at their job. Like I said, most reviewers are bad, yet they have many fans and followers who listen to their advise, even if it's biased, subjective, reactionary to other reviews and other things that generally causes them to be bad at conveying clear and concise arguments.

We choose what reviewers we trust and listen to them as a result, doesn't matter if they're right or wrong usually.

That could be generalised to most descriptions of why we enjoy games.

 

Oh yeah, obviously not. Otherwise that one little shit wouldn't have spit in your nachos at Taco Bell. But when you're on the clock you're at least expected to try.

But all of these are simply naming the obstacles to a task that must, in the end, still be attempted. You say them like I'm not aware of them. I am. But it needs to be done regardless. And if there's a more efficient way, let's find it by knocking out the bad ways.

Be careful with that 'we.'

That's a bold assumption that I'm absolutely not party to. Most reviewers have room for improvement; furthermore, the current system of reviews is flawed, in such a way that it makes reviewers seem bad, because the goals are muddy.

Then the problem is double-fault. Simple as that.

Again, speak for yourself please.

 

Gee what a surprise a Sonic game gets a bad review.

 

Most reviewers are bad, because in essence they are not the typical person playing a video game. Video games journalists have seen early previews, interviewed developers, had hands on, been given early copies before consumer release, played in under the assumption of reviewing it, and so on of other factors that are different from a typical gamer's experience.

They can't accurately reflect their experience of the game into someone else's experience with it, though they try the best with what they have. Reviewing is an inherently biased business, gaming or not, and in no way can you accurately extrapolate a handful of reviewers experiences with a game onto the experience of thousands of gamers out there.

YouTube reviewers are becoming more popular than gaming journalists with reviews because people grow an affinity to them, and see them as equals, where people believe the Youtubers understand what a 'gamer's' perspective of playing is like, and that they won't bullshit if a game is good or not. People typically think that gaming journalists reviewing games are getting paid to give good scores, or that they are too high brow in their reviews and don't get the pleasure from simply playing a game or somehow inept of grasping the every man view of games.

A review is never going to be as good as playing the whole game yourself, at the end of the day. Everyone should take a small bit of cynicism even in the most persuasive of arguments.

 

I wouldn't say that the company-paid reviewers account for the majority anymore, both because of the ease of reviewing a game yourself through various services and, as you briefly mentioned, the rise in popularity of independent reviewers through such things as Youtube. Regardless, all of those reviews are afflicted by the flaws in the system; even reviews from ostensible peers in the gaming community can be unreliable, hard to follow, and just plain murky. And yeah, people could try harder to take reviews with a grain of salt, but we could also try to lay some real, serious ground rules for how reviews are made. If one side gives, the problem lessens; so who cares which side it is?

Part of the reason that we can't properly gauge how much we'll like a game from a review is because no one's really sure how a review is meant to be done. Should they be talking about the game as if their observer has never heard of it, or should they assume we all know the mechanics and skip to the evaluation of them? Should the reviewer's emphasis be upon rating their own experience, or providing an objective quality assessment, and what's the ratio on that? For what elements should they be looking out? Of what should they warn their observers?

The answer to most of these varies wildly with genre, demographic, the developers' goals, so on and so forth, but absolutely none of it is accounted for by a flat 1-to-10 rating. There is no room for variation, no clarification as to what type of reviewer this is or what sort of review they're giving, none except to study them carefully and form one's own conclusions - and even then, some reviewers can be erratic! With no rules or guidelines to tie them down, they can take radically different approaches to the games they review and produce skewed ratings as a result, to the point that no one can really be sure if their 8/10 last week means the same as their 8/10 this week. Add to it the fact that some reviewers are too generous to rate below a 5 or too stubborn to rate above an 8, and the convolution reaches critical mass. Not all of this goes away if you change the rating system, but it becomes more manageable if all you have to do is figure out the reviewer's personal quirks, and not also discern what type of review they're giving.

If we were to restructure the way reviews work, to take them more seriously, then they'd be harder to fake. Reviewers paid to praise games may actually be caught in a lie now and then. And those on the up and up could communicate more clearly to those interested which games are for them and which they should pass up. Yes, reviews are biased, and maybe they never will be 1:1 with playing the game yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not as good as they could be and no one's doing anything about it.

Listen man Generations was arright

 

To add to the review discussion, I have not seen a publication or reviewer account for taste as opposed to just saying "it's ****!" I blame this generally on the frustration of losing still sitting fresh.

I'm actually really fond of Sonic 4 and I'll even defend Unleashed on a good day.

Also, don't go revealin' our plans to reformat the review system

 

For the record I have no idea what he's talking about

 

Atta boy

 

Uh...who is this "typical person" you're inferring to?

 

referring*

Phone?

 

Someone who enjoys games in their leisure time, as a hobby or other recreation.
My point was to say that reviewers aren't those sort of people, when they're on the job at least, since their aim when playing a game is to judge it as a reviewer who is trying to convey to an audience an unbiased opinion.

 

No, just dumb and in something of a hurry :<

I'd be careful with classification of "typical people" personally, although I guess you're not wrong in this case. I just try to have higher expectations of people in some cases

 

Praise be, someone might consider my argument to be right, ha.
I generalise people here because that's the point of my argument, that reviews aren't specific to each reader, but distributed to what a reviewer would see as their general audience. I mean it's a generalisation to say all gamers enjoy playing games, but we presume certain aspects of generalisation aren't always accurate. There are always exception to the rule, after rule.
Higher expectations of the public or the reviewer?

 

Why not both?

 

It's nothing intentional, and it's an inherently flaw of general opinion giving, people just can't express themselves very well.

 

...

 

...