@spartanx169x @kyelo It can go either way. If someone is really into a genre, they can be overtly critical there, too... like being an expert in something and setting your standards too high. I don't think that's the way VanOrd works, but it is a logical possibility. In retrospect, I think VanOrd likes story content a lot, so most shooters get a downgrade based on that... unless it has a story behind it (like mass effect).
For Watters, he is definitely on the FPS bandwagon, and he rates these games more highly than the typical reviewer. By about 0.4 points, by my analysis. Conversely, VanOrd downgrades FPS by about 0.5 points. Based on this, you could see a full reviewing point difference between them on a typical FPS game. Very dry stuff, this is. I would just read the details of the review and worry less about the score.
@jbraden6075 @Stebsis I would be careful about saying what is fair for what games a reviewer can review. If he absolutely loved RPGs only, that could represent a positive bias where we would adjust his scores to be lower, and this is just as concerning as a negative bias. All you can really ask for is that the reviewer 1) plays a lot of games in that genre at an in-depth level, and 2) accurately describes the content and mechanics of the game.
Whatever the reviewer's personal biases are will come out in terms of if they like or dislike the style/content/mechanics. But as long as they are accurate, and have enough experience with that genre, then you don't need to worry as much about the score. In this instance, he's reviewed a similar number of RPGs and shooters (~50 of each, and obviously has played many more), so I think his credibility isn't at question. The only question is, what and how much bias does he have? In my analysis, while he tends to score shooters half a point less than his co-workers, he tends to score most games lower, as well. The only genre he doesn't is RPGs/MMOs, which he rates at the same level (generally) as his co-reviewers. Which I think really points towards his love of story-driven content.
@spartanx169x @jbraden6075 That's not necessarily true. I have looked at all of his reviews by genre, and he does score FPS games about half a point lower than his GS compatriots. This could mean he doesn't like the genre, it could also mean he is more critical of shooters. IMO, he appreciates story-driven content more than other aspects of a game, and thus has a slight bias towards any game that develops a good story (which is usually absent in today's shooters).
At the end of the day, we just hope he is presenting the game honestly, and we can take or leave his opinion on the score. If you want to be mathematical about it, simply add half a point to any FPS he reviews, and that's what your typical GS reviewer would give it. For myself, I pay less attention to the score, and more to the description. Even in his Destiny review, he told us exactly how the game worked (and why he didn't like it), but it was an accurate description, so if you like games where you grind for gear and such, then it would be your cup of tea.
@Kevin-V Thanks for the reply, Mr. VanOrd. I had no idea you reviewed THAT many shooters, as searching for reviews by reviewer here is actually impossible. I had to scan through by scores and look for your name on each one.
Though, to be fair... you list a few games that aren't FPS games, but third-person (MGS4, Lost Planets) or not shooters at all (Assassin's Creed 2?). Or, were you just listing non-fantasy games you gave good scores to?
Anyways, I'll keep an eye on your reviews, buster. I'm not buying the unbiased bit, but I'll try to find a better record of it somewhere.
@benelori Actually, yes, I have (it's really hard to do on this site, though... there's no search term for reviewer, just for genre). As far as I've found, he averages 1 FPS a year... which is a very small sample size to guess his bias. He does a lot more fantasy/adventure games.
@Deadlysyns87 The campaign isn't a grind at all. You don't need to upgrade gear at all to finish the "story" (it is pretty weak), and it's short. Across those 10 hours, you fight against 4 different species of enemies, with 3-4 different types within. The enemy selection isn't terrible. Once you get to the grind, though... well, you end up seeing those enemies a lot. And, it's pretty standard for these types of games. If you want to complain about loot games, then it's just not your type of game. I appreciate Destiny for doing a decent job of mixing a loot game with a shooter (which is kinda rare), for which I think VanOrd missed the point because he's expecting something more like an action RPG.
@Deadlysyns87 The grind is one of the "features" of these types of games, though. The campaign doesn't take long to beat (< 10 hours), but after that, you can still find new gear and upgrade it. Could it be better? Yeah, it would be nice to face new enemies... but there's always a limitation. Compared to Diablo 3 (another loot-grinding game), Destiny has just a handful of enemies. However, I hope you can appreciate the graphic/gameplay difference between the two.
delcidanddarth's comments