Yooka 👏 Laylee 👏 is 👏 not 👏 a 👏 2
Just watch ACG's review. Completely unbiased and objective analysis of the game's strengths and faults.
it's a 2 sorry
Yooka 👏 Laylee 👏 is 👏 not 👏 a 👏 2
Just watch ACG's review. Completely unbiased and objective analysis of the game's strengths and faults.
I think he's jokingly making the artistic equivalent of the "Longer games are inherently better" argument.
That's not what objectivity means in this context, like it's not objective facts or anything like that. It's simply using common sense.
I'm not against the notion of scoring a game like this 2/10, I would give the same if not lower score to GTA V purely based on fun factor, but that review isn't meaningful to potential buyers. When I make game recommendations to people I try to assess a game based on how I think fans of the series will perceive it. Reviews are exactly that, recommendations. People click on them hoping to answer the question "is this game for me?" not to see what some other guy thought of it.
That's not what objectivity means in this context, like it's not objective facts or anything like that. It's simply using common sense.
I'm not against the notion of scoring a game like this 2/10, I would give the same if not lower score to GTA V purely based on fun factor, but that review isn't meaningful to potential buyers. When I make game recommendations to people I try to assess a game based on how I think fans of the series will perceive it. Reviews are exactly that, recommendations. People click on them hoping to answer the question "is this game for me?" not to see what some other guy thought of it.
Yooka �� Laylee �� is �� not �� a �� 2
Just watch ACG's review. Completely unbiased and objective analysis of the game's strengths and faults.
<art stuff>
Alright, bad taste doesn't exist. Won't stop people from raising their eyebrows.
That's not what objectivity means in this context, like it's not objective facts or anything like that. It's simply using common sense.
I'm not against the notion of scoring a game like this 2/10, I would give the same if not lower score to GTA V purely based on fun factor, but that review isn't meaningful to potential buyers. When I make game recommendations to people I try to assess a game based on how I think fans of the series will perceive it. Reviews are exactly that, recommendations. People click on them hoping to answer the question "is this game for me?" not to see what some other guy thought of it.
That's not what objectivity means in this context, like it's not objective facts or anything like that. It's simply using common sense.
I'm not against the notion of scoring a game like this 2/10, I would give the same if not lower score to GTA V purely based on fun factor, but that review isn't meaningful to potential buyers. When I make game recommendations to people I try to assess a game based on how I think fans of the series will perceive it. Reviews are exactly that, recommendations. People click on them hoping to answer the question "is this game for me?" not to see what some other guy thought of it.
I'm not sure why you're telling me this. I was simply answering his question.
And Skyward Sword isn't a 10/10 like many said it was, and belongs in the bargain bin with Battleborn and Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. And I say that as a massive Zelda fan. 2/10
You take that back you filthy whore mouth!!!
SS is art...Art I say!
^I dunno, I think reviews from big sites should consider more what the target audience will think of it.
But for individual reviewers, I don't think that should be necessary.
But 👏 it 👏 is 👏 to 👏 Jim 👏 Sterling 👏 and 👏 probably 👏 others 👏Yooka 👏 Laylee 👏 is 👏 not 👏 a 👏 2
Just watch ACG's review. Completely unbiased and objective analysis of the game's strengths and faults.
What's the point of reviews then? If this was the case there would be only one review and one score.That's not what objectivity means in this context, like it's not objective facts or anything like that. It's simply using common sense.
I'm not against the notion of scoring a game like this 2/10, I would give the same if not lower score to GTA V purely based on fun factor, but that review isn't meaningful to potential buyers. When I make game recommendations to people I try to assess a game based on how I think fans of the series will perceive it. Reviews are exactly that, recommendations. People click on them hoping to answer the question "is this game for me?" not to see what some other guy thought of it.
I am aware that you didn't take a stance on the matter, your post is only a clarification. I'm not responding to you specifically, but to the general argument that was in your post.
It would have made more sense to quote his post, then, since that's what you're actually responding to.
Imagine some punk reviewer giving Resident Evil 2 a 2/10 back in 1998 because they hated tank controls and wanted to make a point.
Imagine some punk reviewer giving Resident Evil 2 a 2/10 back in 1998 because they hated tank controls and wanted to make a point.
Sure but I needed your clarification, I read that post and it just didn't register, so for me it makes sense to reply your post since that was what actually sparked my comment.
I can objectively state that the former covers the canvas better than the latter. Therefore the former is better
so better art is simply based on the coverage of the canvas? lol
I think he's jokingly making the artistic equivalent of the "Longer games are inherently better" argument.
Imagine some punk reviewer giving Resident Evil 2 a 2/10 back in 1998 because they hated tank controls and wanted to make a point.
Imagine some punk reviewer giving Resident Evil 2 a 2/10 back in 1998 because they hated tank controls and wanted to make a point.
But 👏 it 👏 is 👏 to 👏 Jim 👏 Sterling 👏 and 👏 probably 👏 others 👏
Imagine some punk reviewer giving Resident Evil 2 a 2/10 back in 1998 because they hated tank controls and wanted to make a point.
It's one of the best games ever made. Anyone who hated Resident Evil 2 is damn wrong and shouldn't be getting paid to review videogames.
I mean that's incorrect, others have played it and not reviewed it. but you know what I mean either way.No, only Jim.
Others haven't played it yet.
It's one of the best games ever made. Anyone who hated Resident Evil 2 is damn wrong and shouldn't be getting paid to review videogames.
again, what good comes of that? literally every review would be the same and the scores would be homogenised. a press release is objective, should all reviews just simply be press releases stating the facts about the game?Reviews should be grounded and objective. I dont like God of War, but i recognize it is a good game so I wouldnt give it a 1/5 stars.
I use to review games for fun, and I reviewed games on occasion i didnt like. I however recognized that it wasnt my taste, rather than it being a bad game.
When you are doing reviews you need to realize that you are influencing others with what you say. That is why it is important to be objective. You can find a balance for being objective and opinionated.
Ill say this again though. For those who follow metacritic, or opencritic, dont focus on it so much. Focus on reviewers you trust rather than a whole score.
I think that's a bad way of doing reviews though. If you're trying to guess how fans of the series (of a new IP?) will perceive it then you're already going in with a bias. Just play it and tell people what you liked and what you didn't like.
Like if I want info on a game, I go to reveiwers who I know from past experience have tastes that are similar to mine. I do care what other people think of it, if they have a history of liking the same things as me. That's why I don't get why people get so annoyed when someone gives something they like a bad review. It just means they have different tastes from you. Don't go to them for recommendations.
Junior indeed.
Because some people dont have the time or motivation to search out what reviewer has similar tastes as yours. Especially a new gamer who never reads reviews normally.
So when such a person sees a 2... he must think that the game is broken and doesnt work.
Because some people dont have the time or motivation to search out what reviewer has similar tastes as yours. Especially a new gamer who never reads reviews normally.
So when such a person sees a 2... he must think that the game is broken and doesnt work.
again, what good comes of that? literally every review would be the same and the scores would be homogenised. a press release is objective, should all reviews just simply be press releases stating the facts about the game?
Because some people dont have the time or motivation to search out what reviewer has similar tastes as yours. Especially a new gamer who never reads reviews normally.
So when such a person sees a 2... he must think that the game is broken and doesnt work.
Only here, son.
It's one of the best games ever made. Anyone who hated Resident Evil 2 is damn wrong and shouldn't be getting paid to review videogames.
You have a very juvenille point of view on opinions and how they work, so I doubt it's just here.
I do have to agree that scores are meaningless. I think the fact that a game can score a 2 from one outlet and a 9/10 from another outlet easily proves that.
There is no universally agreed-upon scale, so the number has no merit except in comparison to that reviewer's previous reviews.
Also, when sites start giving games like 6.7 or something, that is just weird and obnoxious. Why not 6.5? Why not 7?
Juvenile.
But let's not get personal. I understand opinions just fine, but they are not equal when professional criticism is concerned. That is my point, I think I've laboured it enough.
Read what i said clearly
"it is important to be objective. You can find a balance for being objective and opinionated."
"professional criticism" is still subjective thoughts, mate.Juvenile.
But let's not get personal. I understand opinions just fine, but they are not equal when professional criticism is concerned. That is my point, I think I've laboured it enough.
Juvenile.
But let's not get personal. I understand opinions just fine, but they are not equal when professional criticism is concerned. That is my point, I think I've laboured it enough.
I never liked in-between scores honestly. What the hell is the difference between an 7.5 and 8, like what constitutes it to be an in-between of 7 and 8?
2 (Bad): A 2 represents a straight-up bad game. A thorough disaster, there is no hope of a positive experience ever shining through all the broken features and atrocious ideas. Only the truly desperate will be able to dig through the mire and find something passable.
Reviews are an opinion. By definition, an opinion is always subjective. The objective review does not exist and neither should it.Read what i said clearly
"it is important to be objective. You can find a balance for being objective and opinionated."
Define professional criticism, because you definition and my definition of what that entails are clearly two different things, so it's subjective... like reviews.
it's most people's logic apparentlyFallout 3 was one of the most medicore to bad games of all time ever made. Anyone who loves it is damn wrong and shouldn't be getting paid to review videogames.
This is your logic, and it's dumb.
A friend of mine said he saw Switch footage and the people in the video claimed the game runs absolutely fine on it. I told him as far as I know there is not a single video or screenshot of the Switch version. Any truth to this? It would surprise me since the X1 version isn't exactly fantastic performance wise according to several sources.
Yea, but then the same people would try to outlaw using a 1 or 2 on a 5 point scale unless the game kills your family. So we'd end up in the same situation regardless.