I think it seems pretty typical so far. I've yet to try a dungeon so that might win me over. I have no interests in 40 man raids everyone talks about. Hated it in WoW and will likely hate it here. Has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Waiting for those 40 people to show, waiting for the leader(s) to manage and organize them, waiting for others who took a "quick" break or the players that randomly dc, all make it the most annoying thing ever. There's just so much downtime during raids that size.
Maybe I'm just bitter and others have had better experiences but for me it was like chaperoning a class trip for preschoolers.
Don't bother arguing with Gelugon. There's a difference between stating your opinion and being rude about it. He has indicated that other opinions are "sanctimonious." You'll only get another rude remark from him if you keep at it. If you take a quick glance at his profile history, people in different threads and articles all over get frustrated by his inane comments and instigation while he, as you said, contributes nothing and instigates the argument further. Just ignore him. He'll likely deny such and such throw a couple of more crude remarks and effectively repeat his post history.
You can't possibly enter a game with ZERO expectations and ZERO standards.
But let's follow your logic: The reviewer started at a zero and worked his way up to an 8. What isn't pushing it higher? Can you pinpoint that for me in his article?
Said it sounded like. Not quoting you. Anyways there's nothing to argue anymore. I've said my feedback and you have informed me that this particular reviewer mostly does preview articles, hence the preview/trailer-like review.
"McGee here happens to be a staffer who has been assigned with writing preview articles and appearing in many of GameSpot's shows, in addition to writing reviews once in a while; I doubt that you would get a response from him."
Ah, it all makes sense now. The way you were defending him makes it sound like he was an esteemed reviewer with extensive reviewing experience.
By measure of the audience (that is who the critic is writing to after all!): Many people besides myself have provided feedback regarding the lack of information. No one has argued that the review is "too long" or "pedantic." It's the opposite! You can easily expand on that without making a lengthy review.
By gamespot standards: compare this review to other gamespot reviews. You get far more of a sense of opinion, strengths, weakness, and overall game mechanics and some are the same length as this review. Not pedantic or long at all.
And yes I am not satisfied. Hence the feedback and complaint. (I certainly wouldn't be asking for more if I thought it provided what is traditionally featured in a review.) I WOULD like to hear, as with many others, more of the reviewer's thoughts on this game as most other reviewers do.
Measure by his readers! By gamespot standards! Many aren't stating that his reviews are "too long" or "pedantic." They are stating the opposite. I, and many others, are suggesting that more detail could vastly improve his reviews. It doesn't involve changing his personality or style. Just to go more in depth. Compare his articles to other game reviews on gamespot. It is vastly less lengthy.
Ahhhh, Looking at your post history I now understand.
People in different threads all over get frustrated by your inane comments and pointless arguments to the point that they think you are trolling (and maybe you are!). Your posts either instigate further argument or create them. You don't consider their feedback and assume THEY must be wrong regardless of their points.
You say that I won't be satisfied unless its what I want to hear. However, your own quote mirrors your very own posts. You just repeat your "argument" and state condescending remarks. If they disagree with you tell them to get lost. Despite the fact that history repeats itself among all your posts demonstrates the evidence of how argumentative and rude you are but you refuse to change. You'll never strive to improve your own posts and consider other people's opinion. So of course you don't expect the critic to improve his reviews! You don't even know how to do it for yourself! You just expect people to agree with you or "look elsewhere."
If you want me to address your other points then here we go
1. You're telling me that there's NO addition and subtraction when it comes to scoring? That there is no subtractive/additive qualities between a 5 and 10? A game that receives a 10 isn't MORE enjoyable than a game that receives a 5? That previous iterations of the game are ignored and standards and expectations AREN'T set? Even if there were no standards, you cannot possibly enter a game with ZERO expectations and work your way up. You have some idea of what is expected and considered quality.
Yes, there's no concrete rubric where a game loses a point if it has flawed combat or +2 for intuitive design. But there are standards from previous iterations and expected quality. They do in fact subjectively add and subtracted.
2. Because reviews are subjective, he HAS to justify it. You are absolutely right, we are not hive minds and he needs to explain the reasoning behind his score so we can understand his conclusion. If you've ever written an essay, you know that you can't state your thesis then state some facts and allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusion. You have to back it up! Explain how it supports your thesis! Explain how you arrived at your conclusion!
3 &4. I addressed this but again, critics are not more "in-tune" and have better opinions than others just because of their profession. His words are not fact. He is expressing his opinion. If he is unable to articulate his opinion, he shouldn't be writing a professional review.
You are also ignoring my points as well. It ESPECIALLY sounds like you don't really understand the purpose of the written part of the review. You care about just the number score and the "great" sticker without question, because "great" is such a precise word.
Consider this: Other critics also gave it an 8/10. Do you honestly think all enjoyed the exact same things about this game? Do you honestly think that the 8 even means the same level of enjoyment for each and every one of those critics? How about other completely different games that recieve an 8? Is it just as enjoyable?
Perhaps the written review can shed light on what that "8" means for this critic. Oh, no it doesn't say anything to distinguish itself from the other 8s. Nor does it distinguish itself from the critics who gave it 7s, 9s, and even 10s. This so-called review is merely "Hey this game is pretty funny and here are some vague features that you can find on the game's store summary. 8/10!"
I can't even tell if he thinks these features are utilized well. Does it cause any issues? He only mentions it as though it were a preview article. Its more of an ad than an informed opinion.
But the article still doesn't specify why it is not "above and beyond." Is it really that hard to state the negative "-serves more as an expansion to Tropico 4" or "-offers nothing new to the simulation genre"
Both could certainly persuade the reader. If I were new to the genre and saw these points, I might consider Tropico 4 instead since it is cheaper. Or perhaps another city Sim entirely since it doesn't add anything new to the genre. This review, however, I can't even tell what is difference between this game and others iterations. If its not "above and beyond" to other games in the genre, I'd like to know why.
XenoSage's comments