cartographer
Member
This thread is so long because nobody cares and Videogamer didn't touch a nerve.
Please believe me.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Videogamer issues apology over Uncharted 4 review
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
This thread is so long because nobody cares and Videogamer didn't touch a nerve.
Please believe me.
So then just read reviews from publications that meet your exacting criteria. Simple enough. Not sure why you think that every game publication should approach reviews exactly the same.
You're saying you don't want biased reviews, but your suggestion for addressing that bias is to assign reviewers who are predisposed to liking the games they're reviewing. How is that unbiased?
For someone who's only found Uncharted 13 kinda OK but am interested in Uncharted 4, it's valuable for me to see reviews of the game from people who may not have been crazy about those games. Just because it's not valuable to you doesn't mean anything.
partyphone
Banned
at first I thought this thread would doe quietly as we all had a sensible chuckle. surely there won't be anyone dense enough to obliviously argue against the point of the satire, I thought to myself. but then I remembered I was on the internet.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Yes, fans there are. And fans they behave. But this is some mild breeze shit compared to 8.8 or FFXIII coming to 360.
I have limited income, so reviews could help me decide between game A or B or spend my money elsewhere. And I think that is why publishers also care about them.
I think it can exist to a degree. We are far from it though.
If you know a review is 'biased' you have context and reference. As you very well said you could benefit from reviews with a certain approach, because that gives you a context and an opinion similar to your situation.
There's something in between black and white. Objective points + subjective opinion with context on reviewer's preferences for example.
I mean, how do you objectively review a game in a way that makes the review meaningful?
Take Uncharted 3. How do you objectively state that it is good but falls down in certain areas that means it doesn't quite reach the highs of the preceding game, notably in some frustrating encounter design seemingly placed only to artificially slow progress.
Oh wait you can't because that is my subjective take on the game
An objective review of that would be like
Uncharted 3 is a sequel to Uncharted 2. It has many locations. In these locations you fight people.
Take Uncharted 3. How do you objectively state that it is good but falls down in certain areas that means it doesn't quite reach the highs of the preceding game, notably in some frustrating encounter design seemingly placed only to artificially slow progress.
Oh wait you can't because that is my subjective take on the game
An objective review of that would be like
Uncharted 3 is a sequel to Uncharted 2. It has many locations. In these locations you fight people.
GinoFelino
Member
We all have limited income. What could a bland feature list tell me that would make me choose game A over game B?
notworksafe
Member
...but Sony fans were the ones mad about FF on Xbox
I'm afraid they are absolutely right and you likely need to adjust your expectations or stick to analysis and forget about reviews. Certainly harping on about professionalism and bias should be completely out of your mindset now that it has been explained.
We are talking about opinions that are aggregated into meta-CRITIC. Note the emphasized word
partyphone
Banned
that has literally nothing to do with your ridiculous desire for game reviews to be objective
Ghost Slayer
Member
Are we allowed to call "Sony clowns" now? Rules must be softer around here
notworksafe
Member
uh huh, time to leave this thread and go back to reality I guess
GinoFelino
Member
Or so he claims.
To be fair, that Sony clowns post is so ridiculous it can't possibly be real either.
You are talking about the Muppet, Square Enix shot themselves in the foot post right
Yeah, that was a joke.
partyphone
Banned
the great thing about this particular troll post is that the more you tell people it is a troll post the more they don't believe you.
notworksafe
Member
No I'm talking about the entire internet reaction from Sony fans in response to the FF13 news
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
What's on trial here is if Sony fans are worse. Worse than other clowns, I guess. I'm not sure if it's just limited to console allegiance and not gaming as a whole, because that would mean we'd have to bring up the doxxing, threatening and terrorising aspects of gaming. To me all fans are all equally stupid in their narrow understanding of reality.
Well, why would Xbox fans get angry that the game was coming to their console?
You need to find something that hit both fanbases equally to test whether one is worse than the other I think.
God knows what that is.
Erm Bayonetta 2 reactions maybe?
Ghost Slayer
Member
Street Fighter V?
GinoFelino
Member
So now this thread is about deciding which fanbase is the worst one?
Wut.
Wut.
pelicansurf
Needs a Holiday on Gallifrey
I was reading this thinking it seemed super snarky, lo and behold it was satire. It was funny.
partyphone
Banned
vita, probably.
Oh. Already did and I do not read reviews. Just giving my opinion on the matter and scores. Which is as valid as any others' including those who find my pov ridiculous or funny , kinda interesting because they are all about defending subjectivity here
That said metacritic includes 'reviews' from many languages, including spanish ones that are called differently, so some of those could not be considered a critic after all.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
The question is about you. Do you need every reviewer in the whole world to write to you? Just analysing what little information you've given I'd say you're a low priority consumer. I have few concerns or restrictions when it comes to how many games I could buy if I wanted to. I'd argue that I'm far more valuable as a consumer. So, given your limited value as a consumer: how much can you demand of a very in-bed-with-the-industry review scene?
And there it is. You want to dictate something you're not even participating in.
Which is as valid as any others' including those who find my pov ridiculous or funny , kinda interesting because they are all about defending subjectivity here
Are you... Being facetious? I can't tell.
I just give my opinion on a subject I am interested. Because budget or time is a limitation factor I wish reviews (or analysis of you wish) gave me useful information.
I do not dictate any more than others. This is an opinion forum or I am not allowed just because I do not agree with how are most reviews these days?
depends on the context and my previous reviews about reviews
Considering tzare is seemingly interested in reviews but doesn't read them, but wants/needs them to help purchasing decisions, but then misses the point of what reviews are the majority of the time, but then starts using quotations calling into question the professionalism of reviewers of whom he doesn't actually have any experience reading their work....I don't know anymore.
This thread has thrown me through a loop of completely misunderstanding poster's meanings and intentions
When you put it like that, it sounds like he just wants to complain about low scores, like an 8 out of 10, for his favourite game franchises.
I used to read them. Not anymore. Just wish they were as objective as possible and when not being able to have context on the reviewer to see where are they coming from.
I think most reviews today are just safe, or the opposite, to generate clicks or for some kind personal bias.
oh. Of course I want my favourite games to score as high as possible .. so they sell enough to get sequels. Too bad Motorstorm is dead though.
Then it might be smart to do some groundwork yourself in looking at what said reviewer has reviewed previously (or even reading said review to start with) before throwing around accusations of corruption.
I basically truly trust only a handful of reviewers as I know who they are and what they like. I don't see why it is so hard for you to do the same...unless your feelings are being hurt by specific scores that don't match your own judgement..which is ludicrous.
I implore you to read this;
http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml
Tell me if this is the sort of thing you would want
(obviously this is satire to an extent, but the point is still made effectively)
AHA-Lambda
Member
Christ look at this thread, Videogamer laughing away to itself I'm sure
I used to do that years ago but is tiring and hardly have time to play so I won't spend more time on reviews. I read forum users who have similar tastes than me or that I have some background on them and are consistent over time.
And yes. My review on reviewers is 3/10. I most of them and not professional, for different reasons. Just accept my opinion is different than yours.
I do not post very much, today it just happened I had some spare time on my phone so I just gave my opinion
Hi. Game developer here.
While I can't speak for Naughty Dog, I can tell you that a review gushing praise about my game, while nice, isn't that useful, if there are flaws to be addressed. I would much rather a reviewer discuss issues with a game, if there are truly issues, rather than all of them gushing praise just because diehard fans don't like seeing any criticism. Not to mention that the review being discussed is still positive, while pointing out flaws, so it serves both purposes: it will probably still sell well, and the developers can learn about what they can improve.
So while it would be nice for a game to sell enough to get a sequel, an even more important thing for me as a developer is that my work is constructively criticized so that any sequels that might get made are even better than the last game. You just want a sequel to get made, I want any sequels to be made to be even better than the last game. And it's always possible for the next game to be better, since no game is perfect and I as a game developer am always striving to improve.
You have access to the entirety of every writer's history of posted articles on their website, unless they have been taken down. That should be enough context, I would think.
I'm a big fan of Giant Bomb, for example. I think Jeff Gerstmann is a great..well, I don't know if you would call him a critic or what. Games coverage is weird nowadays. Anyways, I don't think I have the same sorts of tastes in games as him. That's fine. He lays that out in clear detail all the time - if he likes a game, but you usually don't align with his tastes, you probably won't like that game he just reviewed well. The inverse is true as well.
Scientists take objective data and then use logic and human judgment to make meaning of them for others.
You could count the enemies and encounters in Uncharted 3 and Uncharted 2 and determine when the combat scenarios occur over the course of each campaign, and run some statistics.
Armed with these numbers, you could objectively state the trends. Then, someone could judge the possible implications of these data, hypotheses for the differences, and questions for further testing. That's how scientists work.
But many reviewers don't follow a refreshingly logical critical rhetoric like that. Some say they just don't like thing because reasons
That's hard for people to agree or disagree with without playing it themselves.
Then again, they're not scientists. Their job is to play a game and tell people if they liked it. So really, that fundamental reason is why I take reviews with a grain of salt.
I think it is fine too criticise but with arguments. Sorry but I do not find valid, in a review, especially on popular sites, the 'it is just my opinion' thing. Because that validates everything just for the sake of being an opinion.
And I didn't read this review , I just gave my opinion based on an score vs other ones. I also did not read the apology. Maybe in a year I will when I play U4.
The validity of that opinion is very low if you refuse to read reviews, I'm not trying to dogpile on you or try and win an argument, I'm trying to show you that their may be a flaw in your reasoning and that insinuating reviewers are wrong or unprofessional is misguided at best and inflammatory at worst.
I don't want you to feel you can't share your opinion, merely that it feels biased and insulting to people who are doing their job, and a decent job as well.
Edit: You haven't read the review, and you haven't read the satirical apology letter?...ffs
Then ignore reviews. They are not what you want. Reviews are opinion.
The thing I LOVE about game design is that it is this nebulous, subjective thing. Every person experiences games differently. That is fascinating to me. I love hearing about each person's own experiences - how my life experiences, channeled through the creation of this piece of media, is interpreted differently by each person. Ultimately it is a conversation. I create something, people experience it, and then they can tell me about it, and I can continue the conversation. Videogames (and art in general) are interactive - not just in the sense that I can push a button to make a thing react on screen - but also in the way that each person that plays a game (or experiences a piece of art) brings their own set of life experiences to it, and can interpret my messages differently.
Boiling it down into wanting a non-opinion-based review is basically destroying the entire point of the medium, and art in general. If everyone experiences art exactly the same, what's the point? One person could see the Mona Lisa one time, and then you could burn the painting and just have that one guy sum up the experience for everyone else.
But, I expect a response along the lines of that you want it to be a product review and not a critique of art, to which I say: good luck. Games media has told us for years that games are products to be hyped for and then consumed, but the games industry is starting to realize that critique makes games better in the long run. Treating games in a review like a laptop or phone can exist, sure, but I just don't think it's very useful for most people.
TL;DR art is interesting partly because every single person that experiences it experiences it differently.
brickarts295
Member
GameAddict411
Member
you should watch this video to see how an objective review would be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMU1_-_4WKg
in other word, useless.
this review and most reviews are not just "this game is good/bad/whatever, that's my opinion GET OVER IT number/10". everyone backs their opinions up with arguments.
the fact that you didn't read any of the writing referenced in this thread but decided to argue against something that didn't happen for no reason is shitty. stop crapping on this thread.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
That's a description, not a review.
yeah a summary of the story and what you do in the game would also be in it but it would still be a description and not a review. I just dont see objective reviews for games working at all.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
A synopsis and a technical description. Yup.