Support NeoGAF

[plagiarize]

I'm not referring about how believable is Famitsu, but rather at the fact that there's a considerable fanbase that judge a review based on the score alone rather than, you know, read the review itself.

And I think it also applies regarding the western media as well, to an extend. But then again, scores and the reviews themselves don't always go on the same boat (see: Dan Hsu's Gears of War 2 review)

it was his Gears 1 review, and let's not bring that fucking nonsense up again.

his text and his score do not in any way contradict. i'm sure you've had this explained to you more than once if not by Dan himself. you can't tell him what kind of game he should or shouldn't give full marks to.

why not read his latest take on that review, from last summer, in which he directly addresses neogaf.

http://www.bitmob.com/articles/inception-is-my-gears-of-war

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Didn't Nintendo Power have each reviewer list their favorite genres in order of most preferred to least preffered? I thought that was a pretty neat system. It gave you an idea of the reviewer's tastes without requiring months of studying their reviews.

 

[elektrixx]

But who reviews the reviewers reviewing the reviewers?

Coastguard.

 

[bernardobri]

it was his Gears 1 review, and let's not bring that fucking nonsense up again.

his text and his score do not in any way contradict. i'm sure you've had this explained to you more than once if not by Dan himself. you can't tell him what kind of game he should or shouldn't give full marks to.

why not read his latest take on that review, from last summer, in which he directly addresses neogaf.

http://www.bitmob.com/articles/inception-is-my-gears-of-war

Did I say that the score and the review contradicted themselves? In fact, I agree with him that a flawed game does not necessarily constitute an imperfect score, nor a game with a perfect score is free from negative aspects. My whole point has been so far that people are focusing too much on single and arbitrary point-based system, rather than a whole essay.

 

[Curufinwe]

Along with Gamespot (or maybe they cleaned up their act recently?) they're about the only mainstream review source that the "moneyhat" objection can be thrown at with conviction.

You really think Gamespot has inflated review scores for games in exchange for cash but other sites like IGN haven't? Whatever actually happened with Gerstmann, Kane & Lynch still only got a 6/10, and you'd have to be incredibly naive to think the exact same pressures don't happen at other sites.

 

[Rolf NB]

A lot of reviewers are paid and bribed. There's nothing difficult about lying about a high profile title.

I don't think it's actual bribes as much as plain old manipulative salesmanship. Much cheaper, too.

 

[Duke Togo]

I am reviewing this thread.

 

[jluedtke]

I think people take this shit too seriously.

 

[exwallst]

He's worried about the Kinectimals reviews? Could metacritic matter less to its target market?

 

[plagiarize]

He's worried about the Kinectimals reviews? Could metacritic matter less to its target market?

yeah, i thought the same thing. he lists that, and Nintendogs and Animal Crossing and Rollercoaster Tycoon as games that didn't get 'fair' reviews from the core gaming press and it kind of made me scratch my head.

cause, somehow, those games still found their audience, and sold much better than similar but inferior competiting titles.

even without a fair review from IGN! how is that possible?

the message reached the right audience that Nintendogs was the one to get. that audience aren't using metacritic or gamerankings to figure that stuff out, and it would appear that however they're doing it, it works for them.