Poll: The System Works. Skyrim vs. COD: MW3

[The Wooster]

A review is an opinion, it is biased by its very nature. It's possible to make objective statements about technical issues such as "X runs better/has less bugs/has higher resolution textures than Y" but when you start talking about design or art issues, which make up the majority of a review - you're giving an opinion.

Not really, as you pointed out and I already said, you can do a review just pointing out what exists. Games are very detailed, so theres a lot to talk about. Even when covering art issues, you can still make objective points, it's really the way you word it.

People keep saying this is impossible, and I find that as silly as fanboy's comparing quality through sales and the majority. When you become really good at something, you'll notice at how ignorant most people are when you discuss that specific thing you're good at. This goes for every hobbie and job (not for most people unfortunately). It's a state of mind to be biased and it can be controlled.

A piece that only covers measurable information isn't a review, it's a summary. Unless the thing you're "good at" is becoming a mind-reading representative of all people everywhere, then there's always going to be subjectivity in your reviews. A preference for what you perceive as good design decisions is still a bias.

 

[Nazulu]

A piece that only covers measurable information isn't a review, it's a summary. Unless the thing you're "good at" is becoming a mind-reading representative of all people everywhere, then there's always going to be subjectivity in your reviews. A preference for what you perceive as good design decisions is still a bias.

You can be objective when making points Carter, even on art, I've seen it before. You can't even prove that it is impossible to have an objective view on art. I keep hearing the words bias and subjective like there is no point at all for reviews, but it really is a state of mind you can control if you think about it. Unfortunately, not many people think and just say things like the majority equals good and it's impossible to do this when they have no idea.

There are colours that don't work with other colours as well as poor lighting in certain situations, and that's where the people who have studied that type of thing succeed and just instinctively know that it doesn't work. Art is flipping complex, but it's not impossible to decipher. Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[J3bba]

the only real problem with game reveiw scores is that game reveiwers have to take technical things into account and then adjust the score accordingly. User scores can just be straight from the heart as to wether it's worthy or not

 

[Zaik]

You guys all know that /v/ or somebody annoying just organizes a group of people to dump 0's and 4's on games they don't like with throwaway email accounts generated at guerrillamail or some equivalent, right?

Any moron with too much time on their hands could do 10 negative reviews an hour easily.

 

[Zeh Don]

If I want to know if a game is good I do two things:

1. Wait for the wave of initial professional reviews. Read them, ignore the score.
2. Wait one day. Hit the game's offical forums.

When doing 2, I'm looking at the 'General' forum, and the Technical Support forum.
If the game has a lot of technical issues, wait for patches that fix them.
If the 'General Forum' is filled with raging morons on launch day, then the launch was bad. This means the game doesn't function, or it simply terrible. If the 'I'm loving it!' threads are on parity with 'THIS GAME NEEDS TO BE MORE LIKE CALL OF DUTY OR ITS GOING TO DIE AND YOUR COMPANY WILL GO BANKRUPT' threads, than it's generally a pretty sound game. See: Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Skyrim's forums.

If one of my gamer friend plays it and recommends it, that recommendation over-rides both of the above: I trust their opinions. Doing this bought me the brilliant Terraria, a game I'd have other wise passed on.