[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] The meat is in the actual review. The point may be to say "you must buy this, it's that awesome", the point may be to say "don't dare buy this, it's the worst $*** ever", or the point may be to simply indicate what the flaws and the merits are, and then to allow the reader to decide for themselves if it's something they think they'd like. But scores generally come with an actual written review, and generally speaking all of the useful information is going to be in the review, not the score. The way I look at it, scores in the "okay" to "average" range have serious merits and serious flaws (in that reviewer's opinion). Still might be worth a buy for some readers depending on where the game is lacking. But again...readers will still have to read reviews in order to determine what aspects of the game got it points deducted. wiouds
i think the "in the reviewer's opinion" part is important. a good reviewer will be able to articulate why they feel a certain part of the game worked or didn't, but they could still be completely wrong (more pragmatically, wrong to the reader). a recent example would be dragon's dogma, where a common complaint was that the fast travel feature was extremely limited. now reviewers can argue against that decision to their heart's content, but the game would have fallen apart if capcom went the bethesda route with fast travel. the pacing and themes presented by the day/night cycle would have been lost (visibility is low and enemies are harder at night, so trips need to be planned by how far they can travel in the day) and all the far corners of the meticulously designed world map wouldn't have felt far away at all.
but yes, none of that will ever come through in the score.
I believe that there is a different between opinion and a review. I do not like fighting games. If I had to review one then my opinion would most likely be that I did not enjoy it. That is not a review. I need to be able to put aside that I do not like fighting game. I need to justify what I like or do not like about that game.
Take Dragon's Dogma poorly made fast travel. It was a big problem in the game. Also the combat in the game is not that good most of the time. This games makes you travel through the same area while fighting the same enemies three times in less that an hour does drag the game down.
It does not need to be a point of interest travel system but have something to cut down the repetitive backtracking that game has.
how was fast travel poorly made? the entire game world was built on being cyclical and a big part of that being conveyed was through the day/night transition. if you could fast travel everywhere like skyrim, you'd never have to think about the effect of that system because you could completely ignore it. without the looming presence of a larger cycle, the last few hours of the game would make no sense at all.
as for your fighting game example, so what if you don't like fighting games? the entire review wouldn't be "i don't like fighting games." if it's well written, the reader will understand that the reviewer has an issue with core traits of the genre. most reviews for fighting games now are written by people who do like the genre. should all those reviews be discredited?
Log in to comment