Mount Everest is the tallest mountain in the world... It is the pinicle of tall mountains. Kilimanjaro is tall, and also usually looks better, but Everest is the tallest, and therefore holds the record. But people will still prefer Kilimanjaro, and will ignore the fact that everest exists.
In the future, however, the tectonic plates may shift, and create a new higher peak, and we will marvel at it, and it will now be the tallest in the world. And it will now be the pinnicle. There will still be people though who will argue that Kilimanjaro is the best, and ignore the existance of the other mountains.
There is nothing wrong with this, it is personal choice. We are quick to judge the mountains for the obvious factors, the height or the girth, without looking at the overall package. Kilimanjaro may not be as high, but it still holds the number one spot in many peples hearts, because it made the impression on them...
Now replace the mountain metaphore back to games. (No idea why the metaphore came into my head, but hey, when life gives you lemons, just roll with it!) DAII may not have the best graphics, or the best fighting, but it still won that number one slot in Gregs perception. No game is perfect, but that doesnt stop them being good to certain people.
Perfect scores are given to games that, at that time, are something special and stand out to the reviewer. If the reviewer enjoyed and gave a game a high score, and then the company improved the game, and released a sequel, then its obvious that the rame reviewer is going to enjoy that game too, and give it as just as high score. This is not being subjective, it is saying it how it is... They enjoy that game.
People are very quick to jump on the internet and look for anyone who has the same views as them. And they are also very quick to jump in and criticise decisions that they do not agree with, usually in an accusing and condecending manor, as though they could do better... yet they do not offer there own 'objective' review in return, no, they just tend to *****, and be aggressive.
Thats another thing, objectivity... There isn't objectivity in game reviews, because its a community driven thing. It's pinion based. When you read magazines you will tend to have a journalist who will review certain types of games, ie the same guy will tend to do all the sports games. This is because he is the one who plays them the most, and therefore has more of an understanding of the genre, and what makes a good game in that genre. That cuts the objectivity out of the game, as the human mind will naturally compare those games with other similar games. Giving a game a score as well, instantly compares the game to others, which came before, and thefore would have been a factor in the scoring of the new game, which means it cannot be objective...
Personally I read revies because I want to hear some honest opinions of the game. And if someone honestly has high opinions of the game, then so be it. I would then seek the opinions of someone who has the opposite view (and expresses themselves in the correct manner, not just poating bitchy comments on the original review) and compare and contrast those. That is how I would use a review to see if the game is right for me... which is something I have been doing since I started reading gaming magazines in 1999 when I was 11 and have carried on since then!
Greg, Thank you for your views, the game sounds positive, and I sounds worthy of checking out sometime...
