Just got this on a PSN sale, and I feel like I owe Studio Japan more money. This game is seriously good, very difficult to put down, and just plain fun. The creative directors behind this are incredibly talented - hope they keep making great stuff like this
@Korvus85 @Dragonbob76 I'm not sure you're entirely right about that, but probably more similar criteria than between two reviewers. We probably should just ditch the scores at this point. Why have a numeric representation of a personal opinion?
@ThePowerOfHAT @vanrok I'd say that unless GS revises it's scoring policy, it ends up being a little confusing for newer users and/or people who are diving into a series for the first time. I'd say it's a legit complaint, but when it's only one or two reviewers on a site taking that approach, it can muddle things a bit. I mean, it's good to have reviewers with differing points of view for sure, though less than ideal if that means that you need to filter the text of a review through a different sieve depending on who wrote it. Worse yet is that those can only be based on a series of loose guesses as to the reviewer's state of mind. Is Carolyn annoyed by this because she's burnt out on the series as a whole? Did she just play another game that was similar and is feeling genre fatigue? Is this a more permanent stance on the need of games to innovate on their past iterations? Would any of those complaints hold water for someone who hasn't played the other titles? It's confusing guesswork, at best, especially for newer readers.
I get that reviews are ultimately 'someone's opinion'. That said, in a 'professional review' that assigns a numeric value, the editorial guides should probably be more fleshed out, and particular designations of value followed by the staff as a whole. If 'need to innovate' is a legitimate criteria for good game (and there's a decent argument to be made that yes it is), then they really need to apply that hammer across the board. You can have a personal opinion and still speak to an editorial rubric.
Personally, I think they should stop assigning numbers all together, because their only possible use is in comparison with other titles. But when the criteria for evaluation swing wildly with each individual, why even bother putting a number on it? If the main deflection of critique of scores is always 'it's just someone's opinion', then why publish scores at all? The only other alternative is to divide reviews into more structured affairs that follow a set of predetermined (and openly available) considerations on one hand; and an 'impressions' piece on the other to address other (personal) concerns and issues that a reviewer may want to raise. Because as it stands, it's a little disingenuous to claim 'opinion' whenever you get called out on inconsistencies, but also demand 'professional' recognition when your knowledge or authority is questioned. If you want to be considered professionals, you either follow professional standards (journalism has many, of which GS follows very few), or accept that you're just some gamer with an internet soapbox. Can't have it both ways.
I thought the intention of crowdfunding was to circumvent the control of major publishers, not fund their games for them.
My main concern with this is that Squeenix is basically trying to use crowdfunding platforms to create a risk-free publishing environment for themselves. We'll have to wait and see the revealed 'terms and conditions' but I'm guessing they're not only going to want a cut, but also at least partial ownership of the games and IPs produced (even those that don't use the Eidos stable), while the game itself is effectively funded by the community.
The vetting process by Squeenix may end up convincing people to take risks on more unknown developers, but aside from a Squeenix 'seal of approval' I'm still unsure what this setup provides that's actually beneficial to developers or consumers. In any instance of a new or independent IP, this provides nothing that couldn't be better accomplished on open crowdfunding platforms.
Best case scenario this ends up as a pitch-platform for reboots and sequels from 'old Eidos IPs' (read: the ones that Squeenix is uninterested in pursuing on their own dime). That caveat is pretty major - that means no Tomb Raider, no Hitman, no Deus Ex, no Thief, and (most importantly here), NO IPs from either Square or Enix themselves. And all at NO financial risk to Squeenix. I dunno, maybe we'll finally see a new Fear Effect from a completely unknown dev? Yay, I guess...?
kohle36's comments