@pedro_lucena Game reviews involve both the elements you mentioned. A reviewer has to be descriptive when mentioning whether or not the game runs well on hardware. If the game is broken, then the story or the gameplay don't matter since it doesn't work.
However, when it comes to plot and mechanics, it is simply impossible for someone to have a neutral opinion on them. You either liked the plot, or you though it was boring. You either enjoyed the mechanics or you hated them. There's no general consensus on what a game's story or mechanics or art direction or music score should be.
Games reviews are essentially a mix between tech reviews and film reviews. Game critics must see whether the game works or not and they have to see if they personally enjoyed it at all.
There are a few ways for you to see if you would like a game or not.
1) Read more than one review. Some reviewers may not be on the same wavelength as you so it's best to just head to metacritic and see what a whole bunch of critics are saying about the game you're interested in. I also recommend you watch Zero Punctuation reviews (they're on YouTube too). Highly entertaining and they really help you see the game's flaws.
2) Play a demo of the game. If it compels you, go ahead and purchase the full title. I understand that not every title has a demo, but if it does, you should definitely play it.
3) Watch the first 20-30 minutes of a let's play. They're becoming incredibly prominent on YouTube and can really help you get to grips with the game's message and mechanics without even touching it. The person playing it (if there's commentary) will more often than not, point out problems they might be having with it as they play which could be quite useful. I recommend Total Biscuit to this end.
@pedro_lucena Reviews of art can't be unbiased and neutral. The only aspect of a game of which you can have an objective opinion on is whether it's broken and buggy or not. Opinions on the story and the way the mechanics are implemented can never be right or wrong since they're entirely subjective.
Journalism in terms of articles should be unbiased, no doubt, but reviews and editorials which are highly based on opinion should not be. Otherwise, everyone would give the same game the same score since there's apparently a correct way and an incorrect way to feel about a game.
@ax_a @josh7845 @Joshuavil You are aware I refer to average as a game being neither good enough or bad enough to earn any reasonable amount of passion from the person playing it. 5 means average. Run of the mill. Competent but with no unique features that would make you particularly excited in your trouser area. This game does just enough to not go there in my opinion. You might think differently, but you have to understand that not everyone agrees with you. If every review score was the same, there would be no point in them.
@Casuallad @josh7845 @Joshuavil What with the game breaking bugs, the messy narrative, the shit multiplayer, among other problems, I disagree. No game with that many problems deserves to get such a high score.
@Joshuavil @josh7845 Above average does indicate it should be played by anyone who doesn't have high expectations. Besides, what with all the bugs, the lack of freshness and the shit multiplayer which is a large component of the game (maybe not the main one, but large nonetheless), I think it's a reasonable score, but again, that's my opinion. Let's leave it there :)
@Joshuavil @josh7845 Of the three, it does have the best written story in my opinion, but that's really one of the few things that's new. The poor boss fights from Arkham Asylum were already fixed in Arkham City. The only other thing that's brand new is the multiplayer which isn't very good and therefore, rather unsurprisingly, brings the score down. You can't ignore large sections of the game just so it can get a good score.
In regards to your second point concerning other games, the reviews written for them are written by people who's opinions differ from yours. The world isn't a hive mind and no one thinks the same as any other person. If you feel one reviewer's opinions don't match your own, you could always take a look on metacritic and find a reviewer who you do agree with. I personally recommend Yahtzee Croshaw of the Zero Punctuation reviews.
You said it yourself "IMO". It's what you think, not what anyone else thinks, that should matter to you. If you enjoyed the game, then so what if other people didn't like it as much as you?
@sergiodoom Gamespot isn't a hive mind/ collective conscience. Different reviewers have different cocking views. And she gave GTA V a 9 for Christ's sake.
@Joshuavil 6 is above average. 5 is the average by virtue of it being in the middle of the scale. 8 would mean the game is great and worthy of being remembered as fondly as the other games.
@acepentacle Just because there's a logical explanation as to why it's lifeless, doesn't remove the fact that it is lifeless. I was hoping for more. Stopping muggings, store robberies etc. Instead Batman just punches the shit out of blokes for no reason other than the fact that they happen to be standing on rooftops. Yes they may be hostile, but if you saw a hulk of a man in an armoured batsuit with upperlegs the size of fucking watermelons, wouldn't you try and hit it until it goes away?
josh7845's comments