I don't know why but...when people will not buy a game based on a review..it kind of pisses me off. Because they won't give the game a chance..and they just scrap it and go to a game that has a 9.0 like call of duty.
I don't know why but...when people will not buy a game based on a review..it kind of pisses me off. Because they won't give the game a chance..and they just scrap it and go to a game that has a 9.0 like call of duty.
Isn't that the whole point of a review? It's not like when I finish a game, I sit and go "hmm I kind of enjoyed it, I wonder what Joe Blow Numbnuts thought of it?". I'd be on your side regarding numerical scores, but I still think reviews are generally useful for shopping around. They may not be perfect, but they're more of an unbiased opinion of how the game looks, feels, plays than the back of the box.
Isn't that the whole point of a review? It's not like when I finish a game, I sit and go "hmm I kind of enjoyed it, I wonder what Joe Blow Numbnuts thought of it?". I'd be on your side regarding numerical scores, but I still think reviews are generally useful for shopping around. They may not be perfect, but they're more of an unbiased opinion of how the game looks, feels, plays than the back of the box.
Point it is the whole point of a review to let people know what you think of it. I'm speaking of places like IGN and Kotaku. Who think they are the all mighty gaming guru's of today, tomorrow, and next week. I mean..I don't know I've seen people turn down games because of a 6 or a 7 because IGN said so.
Point it is the whole point of a review to let people know what you think of it. I'm speaking of places like IGN and Kotaku. Who think they are the all mighty gaming guru's of today, tomorrow, and next week. I mean..I don't know I've seen people turn down games because of a 6 or a 7 because IGN said so.
My point is that nobody cares about reading reviews of games they've already played unless they are entertaining. Your only argument against reviews seems to be the numerical rating system, of which the value of has been debated many times.
If people are stupid enough to buy or not buy a game based on a number, that's their problem. Don't blame reviews. Reviews are what help promote games. Many independent developers rely on the hopes that submitting their game to a reviewer in the hopes they will review it. Either they help promote it positively, or even if they hate it, it will get people talking and get the name out there. Reviews are fairly win-win for smaller companies. Even if it was bad publicity, there was way more talk about the Jurassic Park game because of the reviewing incident behind it than if they just released it and did nothing.
Point it is the whole point of a review to let people know what you think of it. I'm speaking of places like IGN and Kotaku. Who think they are the all mighty gaming guru's of today, tomorrow, and next week. I mean..I don't know I've seen people turn down games because of a 6 or a 7 because IGN said so.
My point is that nobody cares about reading reviews of games they've already played unless they are entertaining. Your only argument against reviews seems to be the numerical rating system, of which the value of has been debated many times.
If people are stupid enough to buy or not buy a game based on a number, that's their problem. Don't blame reviews. Reviews are what help promote games. Many independent developers rely on the hopes that submitting their game to a reviewer in the hopes they will review it. Either they help promote it positively, or even if they hate it, it will get people talking and get the name out there. Reviews are fairly win-win for smaller companies. Even if it was bad publicity, there was way more talk about the Jurassic Park game because of the reviewing incident behind it than if they just released it and did nothing.
I think what IcedHope is trying to say is that said reviewers are far more subjective in their opinions than they would ever admit, to the detriment of an otherwise-uninformed gamer who is looking for objective information to help them decide whether or not a product is worth spending money on.
Iced is saying that people shouldn't look to reviews when deciding which games to purchase and my argument is that that is the sole reason why they exist in the first place.
For the record, IGN is bullshit and I think a lot of people are starting to realise it. All their reviews and opinions are based on what they think their fans like and want to hear. Most of the time it's praising the hot new games and jumping on indie bandwagon rides when they come along now and then, but sometimes the utter bullshit comes through when they make a mistake about a game they think people will love/hate and they dismiss/glorify it and their reasoning makes no sense. Just look at their top whatever lists they have now and then, every one of them has at least one "what the fuck were you guys thinking" slot. Screw IGN.
Kotaku is the same. What the hell was with that article about how Zelda games all suck?
Also, I've discovered that GameTrailers' video reviews can be rather spoilery at times without warning. I mean, if I'm watching a review to help me get a sense of whether or not I'd like a game, do I really need major plot points of the story ruined for me in the process?
I don't know why but...when people will not buy a game based on a review..it kind of pisses me off. Because they won't give the game a chance..and they just scrap it and go to a game that has a 9.0 like call of duty.
The numbers are fairly useless, but what the reviewer says will help me determine whether or not it's my type of game. Like if they love it because scary things jump out at you all the time... I probably would skip it. Or give it to my brother.
For the record, though, the real reason why I haven't bought ME3 yet is because I'm waiting for it to either go on sale or go on Steam. Hopefully both. I'm in no rush. I haven't even got any saves to import from the first two.
Comments
Nope.
Resisting urge to point it out... :X
But I am the Prince of Nigeria, my money needs are bigger.
Or Bone. Or either of the poker games. And I won't even count CSI. But that still doesn't qualify as "almost everything" to me.
On the other hand, it's a great deal for what you get! If you don't have all the good ones already....
Would be perfect if you could gift the individual dupes to friends.
I think you just discovered the secret to immortality.
It's called water.
You can drink yourself to death with water. It just takes longer.
The chances of drinking yourself to life are far higher :P
Well, it rather depends on your starting point.
I love that this exists.
I love that its commercialized in the USA.
Anything fun I miss this time at work?
Isn't that the whole point of a review? It's not like when I finish a game, I sit and go "hmm I kind of enjoyed it, I wonder what Joe Blow Numbnuts thought of it?". I'd be on your side regarding numerical scores, but I still think reviews are generally useful for shopping around. They may not be perfect, but they're more of an unbiased opinion of how the game looks, feels, plays than the back of the box.
Point it is the whole point of a review to let people know what you think of it. I'm speaking of places like IGN and Kotaku. Who think they are the all mighty gaming guru's of today, tomorrow, and next week. I mean..I don't know I've seen people turn down games because of a 6 or a 7 because IGN said so.
My point is that nobody cares about reading reviews of games they've already played unless they are entertaining. Your only argument against reviews seems to be the numerical rating system, of which the value of has been debated many times.
If people are stupid enough to buy or not buy a game based on a number, that's their problem. Don't blame reviews. Reviews are what help promote games. Many independent developers rely on the hopes that submitting their game to a reviewer in the hopes they will review it. Either they help promote it positively, or even if they hate it, it will get people talking and get the name out there. Reviews are fairly win-win for smaller companies. Even if it was bad publicity, there was way more talk about the Jurassic Park game because of the reviewing incident behind it than if they just released it and did nothing.
That is... brilliance in a bottle. I love a good pun and that thing is pun-tastic.
Comrade Mortis bought this for me from a store in Berkeley a couple of times. Is delishus.
I think what IcedHope is trying to say is that said reviewers are far more subjective in their opinions than they would ever admit, to the detriment of an otherwise-uninformed gamer who is looking for objective information to help them decide whether or not a product is worth spending money on.
For the record, IGN is bullshit and I think a lot of people are starting to realise it. All their reviews and opinions are based on what they think their fans like and want to hear. Most of the time it's praising the hot new games and jumping on indie bandwagon rides when they come along now and then, but sometimes the utter bullshit comes through when they make a mistake about a game they think people will love/hate and they dismiss/glorify it and their reasoning makes no sense. Just look at their top whatever lists they have now and then, every one of them has at least one "what the fuck were you guys thinking" slot. Screw IGN.
Also, I've discovered that GameTrailers' video reviews can be rather spoilery at times without warning. I mean, if I'm watching a review to help me get a sense of whether or not I'd like a game, do I really need major plot points of the story ruined for me in the process?
Does it taste like freedom from the oppression of the bourgeoisie?
DA!
Ditto.
Also, god that thread was annoying.
The numbers are fairly useless, but what the reviewer says will help me determine whether or not it's my type of game. Like if they love it because scary things jump out at you all the time... I probably would skip it. Or give it to my brother.
For the record, though, the real reason why I haven't bought ME3 yet is because I'm waiting for it to either go on sale or go on Steam. Hopefully both. I'm in no rush. I haven't even got any saves to import from the first two.
Also, Yahtzee reviewed ME3
Oh great. You reminded me of this.