Except for the part where neither of those dudes reviewed the game, and both games were praised highly by those sites, to the point of featuring prominently on ?Best of ? lists.Dreiko said:
It?s manufactured outrage all the way down
Sekiro review embargo is very peculiar
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It?s manufactured outrage all the way down
Again. How often is this actually a problem?Dreiko said:
Here's the thing though, it means they have more expertise on "gitting gud," more than anything else. They are not experts on how the game feels, the quality of the story (you seem to be having a bit of a tunnel vision on fighting games) if it's fun to play, which is what a reviewer is supposed to actually talk about. Thinking that you're more qualified to talk about a game in general just because you're better at it is pretty darn elitist considering that reviewers are suppositories on gitting gud.
And what about people like me who give a damn about story and atmosphere? Can we all go and eat shit? Most gamers want to sit through a half hour analysis...PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one. No, seriously good one. With half of the reviews out there, you can see evidence that the people reading it just skimmed to the bottom to read the number, but gamers want half hour videos from reviewers? HA! Pull the other one.
The baggage clock ain't right here. This is pure, selfish interest on Activision's part, and the gaming industry has a knock on effect where other AAA companies will adopt shitty practices if they can see their fellows getting away from it. Do not encourage shitty business practices just because someone you don't like got flipped off in the process. It's short sighted.
It's because people tend to lose their shit when their precious game gets an eight, and I'm pointing out it isn't an isolated incident because gamers lose their shit all the time, therefore you can't really blame the anger on games journalists. Because gamers are always angry. Oh, and citation needed on most decent games getting 9+, I've been seeing plenty of 7s on some game review sites for AAA games, same goes for the never below 5 thing. Yes, it is the same thing as hating on CoD because it's popular. That includes hating on the people who can play it. That can fuck off. It being a human tendency in general doesn't make it excusable. Gaming is a house I've lived in since I was three and I want this big pile of shit off the floor.
And I'm going to be blunt here man, I think you've been grabbing the wrong end of very the wrong stick ever since this conversation started. My problem with fake gamer girls was how gamer swam up their own assholes about the sanctity of their media being "invaded" and you respond by talking about how some women play games, using a term that directly means whore. Thank you for proving my point about the gaming community and how unwelcoming and elitist it is.
Which outlets don't have it early? Kotaku does https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=O7VnsZHhBqo and Giant Bomb has said they have it in a podcast. We know streamers and SoulsYoutubers have it. I believe Angry Centaur Gaming has it already. So which outlets don't have it?altnameJag said:
Ign? Gamespot? Or some of the more minor game sites?
Fact of the matter is, people have this game already. The embargo lifts 24 hours early on the game for people to gather information about it well before committing to a purchase. So I honestly don't really know to what people are referring too.
Perhaps when this original article came out, that's what Activision had told them but later they changed their mind and decided to provide copies anyway? Maybe that's what happened?
My background is Jrpgs and I actually most often will play games for story or aesthetics (okami being one of my all time favs) I got into fighters seriously only within the last decade or so. The tunnel vision you describe is imaginary. I just understand what's the core engagement in a game. Some games are about story and atmosphere, others are about mechanical engagement. The desire you fulfill by playing something like a fighter is completely different than the one you're satisfying by playing an rpg.erttheking said:
If you got good, you've experienced so much more of the feel and aesthetic of the game that the insight you can provide will be inherently deeper. You have to be all kinds of dense to not be able to describe how something you've played for 2000 hours feels or the themes of the characters or story involved. Being competitive doesn't mean not caring about other themes. In fact caring about them can make one want to be competitive.
I'm referring mostly to video reviews here. But yeah that's another reason not to have scores, that way those uninterested in a review who just wanna see a score won't have to skim it. I think most of the people who do that are folks who wouldn't have read a review anyhow. Out of those who would, if the content is good I see no reason for them not to sit through it. It may be more of a quality issue at place here.
And thot in this context means "deceptively flirty" not "whore". Though when someone auctions off dates to patrons I guess you may have a point. Either way, pretending someone is taking an "issue with how some women play games" in the context of them being naked and having their boobs painted over and streaming that is...not quite the elitist exclusionary stance you seem to think it is lol. I've never heard of a dude wearing a tribal codpiece and streaming himself as he played some games just because that's "his style", know what I mean?
Then why are you bringing up competitive games? Most games aren't competitive, and as a result you don't need to be a super in depth player to comment on the quality of a game. I don't play fighting games and I only have ten hours in DB Fighter Z, and even then I could still use my experience to write a review on how responsive and accessible it is.Dreiko said:
Uh, what? Citation needed on getting good at a game allowing you to experience more of the aesthetic of the game. To go back to my earlier example, I've played ten hours of DB Fighter Z. What have I not experienced in those ten hours that I would in another hundred or thousand? And I'm ok at it, my W/L ration is 1:2, and I'm struggling to think of any insight that someone who played it longer than me would have that I wouldn't that isn't directly related to playing the game better. And what are the connections between caring about themes and being competitive?
I still have a seriously long time visualizing someone sitting down for half an hour just to listen to a review when you're talking about a mass audience. Clearly the people who skimmed for a number still want to see if a game is good or not, a lot of them do that, and there's a reason sites like Metacritic carry so much clout. Clearly people want easily digestible ratings. Also that's logistically screwed. Solo reviewers that I follow on the internet that do video reviews that length take around a month to put it together.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/thot
Begging your pardon, if you have to stop and tell someone when you actually meant when it came you use a word because you're not using the actual definition, you may want to consider using a different word. Yeah, except the problem is that those women weren't the only ones who got bashed with the fake gamer girl label, mainly because this whole mess started before Twitch really took off. I was there when it happened, and it was shocking how up their own ass gamers could be about this.
I honestly waver on whether I feel this action is inherently anti-consumer. The argument seems to be that consumers are a herd of sheep, unable to make personal decisions without the benevolent guiding hand of a game journalist to save them which seems to elevate game journalists and reduce consumers without real justification. This argument weakens when we simultaneously have journalists who are not good at certain games or do not like them providing commentary on them. If cuphead is that bad of an example (although I think it is useful as a demonstrative discussion) we can find any dozen of other reviews exhibiting terrible ability and lackluster analysis. And yet we apparently need these people to make an informed decision, and not letting them go hog wild before everyone else even gets to hold the game is a major anticonsumer act.altnameJag said:
That in particular bothers me because in this very thread I am reading that journalists should not be held to a higher standard in terms of game skill or analysis, and yet I am told I require their input to be able to purchase a game. I'm sure you can empathize that hearing "this person, who is not as good at games as you, and does not like the same things as you, must have their say in order for you to make an informed buying choice" is very frustrating. We wouldn't let any other field get away with this - movie reviewers have to know movies inside and out (and actually be a fan of a genre SISKEL. MANIAC.) to have valid input. Truck reviewers better know how to drive a truck and actually like them before giving an opinion. A food critic who has never eaten mussels before and doesn't like seafood is not getting sent to review a red lobster even if we all know its terrible anyway.
My other complaint is that we are getting upset because the publisher isn't letting the reviewers release a review early, or on day one. If the game journalists have such useful opinions then I expect people would actually be willing to wait for them of their own accord. If they aren't, who is the outcry against this practice intended to help? The actual consumers don't seem to care, apparently having already made up their own minds. The journalists dont seem to care - I took a look through google to try to find sources slamming activision on their anticonsumer policies and there were slim pickings related to this event.
If the consumers, the people, are unperturbed by this, and the journalists, the peoples champions, aren't fighting anyone about it, who is left to be upset?
There you have it. Your own ending sentece supports the argument. Just because you are unperturbed by getting conned doesn't mean you aren't being conned. We have laws against false publicity because how easy the consumers can be manipulated. Consumers are more likely to defend inferior products if they are loyal to the brand.EvilRoy said:
Well, no it doesnt, but you raise a further interesting point. Apparently consumers need to be saved from being conned - who is currently doing the saving? Because there really aren't any journalists fighting activision to the death over this. If this is such a problem, and we NEED journalists to protect us, why don't they just rise up? We need them after all, so if all the reviewers stand up together to defend us, surely we will stand behind them, and the publishers will buckle, won't they?CaitSeith said:
Unless the journalists don't actually care to help us, we have learned not to trust them anyway, and the publishers know both of those facts...
Any game with a fail state is competitive. It's just about whether it has depth or not, that's what determines if it's fertile ground for a competitive scene to form around it. The lack of depth doesn't make a game uncompetitive. As long as someone can be better at it than someone else it's competitive. Only something like visual novels with no dialogue choices or games like Flower can be said to be uncompetitive.erttheking said:
With just 10 hours you've not even seen how half the mechanics are supposed to interact and how their interaction looks in fighterz. That is part of the spectacle. You also haven't scratched the surface of whatever character you were using and haven't seen how their mechanics translate into action. Tech gets discovered all the time and being on the cutting edge of creating competitively viable approaches is incredibly fun but someone who just played for 10 hours will be a hundred hours short of doing that and won't get to experience that type of fun the game offers. One of the things I came up with was eventually patched out even so trust me on that. (Gotenks assist restanding on the first hit). You've also likely not had half of the dramatic finishes happen in a real match if at all and those are the most spectacular not player-generated moments of the game. If you think you know what players find enjoyable without having spent a good day and a half practicing stuff like this: <YouTube=yFviN53PoWs>
you've not had the experience people seek out of fighting games. You've also not seen most of the most spectacular stuff that the game has to offer. At best your opinion will be one that needs a huge asterisk as being overly amateur and a first look at the game, at which point it's practically useless in the context of what other content about the game would have been available for fans at the time.
And I didn't just use the term thot, I used the qualifier of twitch. That changes the meaning, you just didn't know of it so I had to explain. In any case, if you wanna protect female gamers from being doubted, condemning these opportunists should be something you find agreeable. By defending them you come off as conceding them all being twitch thots and you being cool with that which I'm sure they'd object to.
Competing is defined to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest. Sorry Dreiko, you don't get to randomly change the definition of words to better suit your argument.Dreiko said:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/competing
Question. Do you think someone should know about EV training to write a review on Pokemon? Because this is coming off a bit like saying you need to know about EV training to write a review on Pokemon. Because you're bringing up highly advanced techniques that would get passing mentions in reviews, even ones done by youtubers. Oh great, thanks for letting me know that my opinion isn't as good as yours. Seriously Dreiko, are you trying to deny the accusations of gamer elitism or are you trying to wear it like armor? Because you need to decide. And yes I do think I know what players like despite the fact I haven't spent an entire day practicing one move. Because, shock of all shocks, I found the game to exist beyond that one move, high end exploits, and I didn't need to see literally every dramatic finish personally to get the idea of it. Let me repeat myself.
"Here's the thing though, it means they have more expertise on "gitting gud," more than anything else. They are not experts on how the game feels, the quality of the story (you seem to be having a bit of a tunnel vision on fighting games) if it's fun to play, which is what a reviewer is supposed to actually talk about. Thinking that you're more qualified to talk about a game in general just because you're better at it is pretty darn elitist"
Also you said that your background was in JRPGs but then you went right back to talking about fighting games. Or are you saying that someone can't give their opinion on Persona 5 in a review if they didn't figure out the Reaper Flu Season exploit?
Yup it sure does change the definition. A thot could be any thot, but a Twitch thot is...a thot on twitch. Drieko, can I just say that as someone with a degree in English, I find your arguments related to language to be beyond underwhelming? And no. I think I'll stick to condemning you thanks, I've no tolerance for anyone who wants to condemn people for not being a real gamer and feels that the thing that they need to emphasize about them is the fact that they lack a Y chromosome. I objected to you calling people whores and showed my disdain towards the idea of fake gamer girls in general, which, I pointed out, started long before Twitch streaming was popular. Pay attention to what I actually say. Respond to my actual arguments and not the ones you imagine in your head.
I see what you did there! Also agreed that it would be a good start if there was more accountability and criterium in place for the title of ?Professional Game Journalist?. These people are broadcasting their critiques as an assessment of a product?s value which in turn can affect the public?s perception of it let alone sales.Dreiko said:I may be naive about this but I fully believe if someone makes their name as being a hardcore gamer journalist, they can earn the credibility they need to get access to reviews even when the overall climate is against such people. Similar to how you have youtubers who are given review copies due to making a name for themselves and having an audience.erttheking said:I?d be more willing to buy these complaints if there wasn?t an overwhelming hate boner against game journalists in general. You don?t even need to leave this thread to see that. Seriously, people decrying the very point of them because of thing that happened years ago. These incidents are few and far between and yet we get hate boners all around saying there?s no reasons for game reviews to exist. It?s throwing the baby out with the bath water and I am so glad I didn?t pursue that career because I would not be able to handle that elitist horseshit being thrown my way because some other guy fucked up on Cuphead two years ago. Let me tell you, I?d be pissed if I was still reviewing games and got told I couldn?t review Sekiro because I ?wasn?t gamer enough? and saw people crowing about how righteous it was.Dreiko said:erttheking said:Gamers were never a welcoming or open community. It?s been elitist since day one.Neurotic Void Melody said:Dreiko said:
You do require a level of competence at gaming in order to get to the core experience and be able to gauge it, yes. I don't think I'm breaking new ground here.
For every reviewer criticized for sucking there's dozens of reviews making up idiotic complaints such as the aforementioned "I skipped the cutscenes so now the game doesn't make sense any more and it's the game's fault!" as well as countless of reviews of something like a fighting game where the reviewer never actually played the game normally but rather relied on the easymode controls that are implemented for young children and the disabled. Suffice it to say that the balance of criticism is way off.
This just happens to result in some random guy being the straw that breaks the camel's back like that doom reviewer from IGN who couldn't walk and shoot at the same time (or the cuphead dude) getting the amassed resentment that everyone had piled up over the course of years which is of course unfair and seems excessive but when you examine its origin and context it actually makes sense to be there.
Also, being welcoming is not something you determine by how you treat your journalists. It's not the same standard you'd expect from some newbie joining a community the one you ought to expect by the guy whose job is to know about games and be able to tell you the necessary information you need to know. Usually these people are cloaked in a mantle of authority and credibility so the expectations placed on them are higher. No matter how tired you are you should be able to play a platformer above a 3-year-old's level (and yes there is a video of an actual 3-year-old passing this much faster), I've done 24 hour charity marathon streams at my locals and even at the end stretch I was beating the people I could beat fresh too (and the losers had gone to bed the last night! XD).
You're acting like this climate is in place through osmosis. I'm explaining there's a reason for it to be present. You're focusing on how unfair it is to be the straw and I already agreed with that point but if you don't address the reason why the camel is being overloaded in the first place you'll only get more straws down the line and just shifting the blame to the consumers who have no actual motive to hate journalists in a vacuum is willful ignorance.
The reason you'd not get your copy would be the same one as the one that lead to the guy who sucked at cuphead getting railed on. It wouldn't be that guy but the series of crappy showings from a bunch of journalists before and after him.
If a 600 pound guy has a heart attack it's not always the heart that has something wrong with it, it's just the first thing to give when a bunch of issues have been amassing over years.
erttheking said:
Any game with a fail state can have people competing in it. Whether enough people care to compete in a game or not is not a showing of it being competitive or not but rather of it being deep enough where the competition is interesting and worth the effort it takes. There's competitive tetris out there and that's a single player game (in most formats anyhow). In your quoted definition, this "supremacy" is what's mainly fought over when a game isn't having organized tournaments with prizes. There's a constant, ever-present competition for supremacy over the game's mechanics among all of the people playing any game, at all times. Everyone wants to be supreme to both the game's AI and other players.
Any good review would break down EVs in a short paragraph but I wouldn't consider it a necessity before gen 6 since the games themselves don't natively acknowledge EVs. After gen 6 however, the game does offer you a minigame system to enhance EVs in an intentional way and not as an esoteric sideffect of fighting certain pokes so that being the case I'd definitely break them down for the sake of anyone wanting to understand why their foes online have stronger pokemon than them despite all being the same level. Same with the inclusion of hyper training affecting IVs in gen 7.
Core mechanics included in a fighter's tutorial are nothing like EVs or like the grim reaper exploit in persona 5 and so on. They're more like utilizing the type advantages in pokemon or fusing stronger demons in persona 5.
In any case, your likening of the proper (not exploitative) use of those mechanics to hacks or tricks or things in any way not fundamental to the basic thought process one needs to go into playing the game with illustrates your ignorance and showcases what I was talking about. You will literally get people to stop reading and laugh as they go look at something else when you call basic stuff like that "exploits" or talk about practicing a combo as though it's about learning how to use one move and so on (when you're practicing a combo you're looking at permutations of combinations and move properties and how their interactions give different results, it's kinda like composing music, what you just said is something akin to "I hit all the keys on a piano once so now I know all there is to know about piano music"). It's at the level where you know so little that you don't even have an idea of all of the things that are out there to be learned, yet you presume to try and tell people who know all this stuff whether they'll like a game or not. It's kinda silly.
As for Jrpgs, something in concert with the above is that I don't think any reviewer who hasn't actually completed the game is capable of giving it a fair review. These games are like books and if you don't read to the end and don't get to the point where the things you might initially dislike about a story get remedied or get shown in a different light that makes you now appreciate them you're not giving it a fair shot. A great example is Luke from tales of the abyss who starts out as one of the most annoying protagonists ever but grows a lot during the story. It takes about half the game or a bit under that for him to fully grow, however, so someone who quits on the game due to disliking him early on will miss out on the cathartic moments of his reformation and will go on to hold an unfair view about the game which was actually intentionally making you hate the protagonist up to that point.
A fail state does not a competition make. I pointed out the definition of competition to you, and the core tenant of it is the involvement of another person that you're competing against, to prove yourself better. The definition mentioned competing against others, you cannot simply cherry pick parts of the definition that you like. Arguing that you're competing against the mechanics is like arguing you're competing against randomness itself when playing solitaire.Dreiko said:
You do think a reviewer needs to cover EV training to be a good one, even when it's not ones where it obviously is pushing your face into it (in which case obviously a reviewer should cover it). You'll forgive me if this just proves to me that you have a poor understanding of what makes a good review. I wrote reviews for my college newspaper, I wrote reviews for independent websites after college for six months. Spending time on superfluous crap like EV training in pre-gen 6 is a waste of text space.
A basic element that you apparently have to spend a day and a half practicing to be good at. Yeah, sounds real basic. You know, all I've gotten out of this conversation is that the community surrounding fighting games is cancer and I was smart to keep it at arms length. And once again, you are not responding to the points I'm making. I referred to that as that one move and high end exploits. That one move, comma, high-end exploits. In other words, I considered them to be different things. So that whole little spiel about my ignorance is pretty ironic.
Actually I need to stop the argument right here. Drieko, I need to ask you something. Are you going to actually pay attention to what I write or are you just going to keep making shit up about me? I have neither the time nor the patience to argue with someone who can't be bothered to take the time to read what I'm actually writing. So, going forward, are you actually going to read what I'm writing? Because if not, I have other things I could be doing with my time right now.
I don't know how to break it down more. When two people play the same game, even if it's single player, they're competing to see who does better at it. That's it, that's all you need to have it be competitive. As long as there's a metric and someone can do better by that metric than another, it's competitive. Any game that has that potentiality within it is by definition competitive, since even the most competitive fighting game or RTS can still be played by one person without another person for them to compete against. If that possibility renders games noncompetitive than no game is competitive lol.erttheking said:
My disagreement with your (or the popular) opinion about what makes a good review could be useful in explaining why I dislike reading reviews for their intended purposes and go into them for comedy. Doesn't really do much to undo any of my points or make the case why it would hurt the review if you had more info about the game in it and had a tldr version for the lazy folks either way.
Nah, you just spend a day and a half practicing it to comprehend it at a basic level. Takes a good month or so to be good at most things. I was talking about knowing what it feels like to practice for that day and a half, never said that was all it took. Also, nothing in anything I mentioned could be called an exploit. That term is just out there. No matter what it was referring to my description of going to that term fits like a glove. Fighting games have basic mechanics that require you to memorize every property (startup, recovery, frame count on block and on hit) of practically every move every character has as a starting point and then adding interactions of multiple moves or situational variants of some moves (different bounces near the corner, dash momentum affecting range, meaty timing altering advantage) and being able to make choices based on this knowledge in a split second. It has nothing to do with the community, if you wanna get good at a game with all these factors flying around, it will take time. Trying to blame the community which has mastered all this for the games themselves being complex is all kinds of silly.
And I've been addressing the things you said, you just don't seem to like it or what have you lol.
More like you've been addressing the things you THINK I said. (When you didn't decide to just not respond to it, hence the parts about Sekiro and fake gamer girls getting dropped) But if that's gonna be your attitude, I don't think we have anything further to discuss. I ain't beating my head against a brick wall.Dreiko said:
P.S. My comment on fighting game communities had nothing to do with what was considered basic or advanced. It was all based on your smug attitude.
Gamers don't want anything, they just have no respect for those who have defined themselves as the informers. The informers don't care to try to fight to inform anyway so the argument is DOA. There would be a point to discuss if gamers were fighting against reviewers who oppose embargoes, but reviewers don't care about the embargo and gamers don't care about the reviewers.CaitSeith said:
Nobody is on the consumers side - you can blame gamers for that but they didn't make reviewers this way.
I've seen a few videos of both of them so far so good.CritialGaming said:
There's like always a general consensus for every game. IGN and GameSpot are always around 0.5 away from each other on every game. FFXIII, a love/hate game, has 1 negative review (0 if you take out Jim Sterling who was/is always on the fringe of typical game journalism/reviews) and has a higher average score than the beloved classic Ghosterbusters or this year's Best Picture winner Green Book. People used to think Jim Sterling just gave low scores for website hits because he was rating games that are "objectively" at least 7-8/10 below 5 because, you know, he didn't like them *gasp*. User scores don't really tell much because it's overloaded with 10s and 0s, but at least there's more differing opinions. For example on The Division 2, only 5% of critic scores are negative (which will greatly lower once more and more sites post reviews) while 19% of user scores are negative. Same thing for FFXIII, with 1% negative for critics and 22% negative for users. So just because critic and user average scores are close that doesn't mean there was a consensus either.erttheking said:
Game reviewers think games are objective. How else to you explain how close just about every game reviews? Most games nowadays are basically movies to be critiqued since so many games have scripts longer than movies, not to mention RPGs that probably have scripts longer than a season of TV. Then, of course, you have the game portion of the game, that is also critiqued. Are you going to tell me games that score 80+ are both 8/10 quality movies in regard to narrative and 8/10 in game mechanics? Because that's what it should take to score a game that high. With games so story heavy as say Kingdom Hearts 3 or MGS4, how is there not more mixed/negative critic reviews for them because the narratives can be so very picked apart? Thus, how are games that have so many more components (movie + game) to be critiqued score an average higher than movies (that are beloved or Oscar winners) that only have the movie part and only have to be good for about 2 hours? It's so much easier to find stuff wrong with games because they are attempting so much more.
Coming back to critics review games as "objective" goods. Just because a game mechanic functions and works doesn't mean you have to like it. For example, I hate grenade buttons in shooters because it removes any premeditation from throwing a grenade. No mechanic is objectively good or bad but we almost never see such disagreements between game critics. Basically, if it functions, it's good and that's really about it. Board games have far more difference of opinions with regards to their critical reviews and board games are pretty much nothing but game mechanics (and far far better than the shit that passes for mechanics in video games). I'd say the small but vocal majority of gamers feel games are objective goods. How else do you explain the millions of posts you can find of someone saying something like 'no way game XYZ is a 7/10, it's at least an 8/10 at worst, that review is wrong' when said person hasn't even played the game?
Uhh... game journalists are predisposed to like a game too. It's quite an accomplishment for a dev to make a AAA game so shitty, it gets less than an 80/100 Metacritic score (see Fallout 76, Anthem, etc.). While the beloved original Ghostbusters scored an average of 8.1/10 from movie critics.altnameJag said:
Just ran into the jp characters for the game's name in a newish trailer and the name is actually a creative pun. It means "sole wolf" or "single wolf" but the term for single is one you'd use to say someone has one arm. It's a creative way of calling the hero a lone wolf while also hinting as his having lost his arm. Depth is oozing from even the title~
(also this was the first trailer I saw of this game in forever and wow does it feel a lot like a mix of tenchu and otogi with some bloodborne grit mixed in, can't wait~)
(also this was the first trailer I saw of this game in forever and wow does it feel a lot like a mix of tenchu and otogi with some bloodborne grit mixed in, can't wait~)
No offense, I don't find your X, therefore, Y argument to be particularly compelling. Because it involves a lot of leaps in logic. Also it generally involves some form of conspiracy or enforced policy on the parts of the reviewer in order for them to all be in on "objective" reviews. The world of game reviewers exists outside of IGN and Gamespot.Phoenixmgs said:
And I'm going to point out something I find kind of hilarious. You complain that game reviewers think games are objective. And then you complain that they don't review games in certain ways. You say that reviewers need to focus more on the story in story heavy games. In other words, it kind of seems like you think game reviewers are too subjective.
Also, scores suffering because of disliking one button is petty. Like. Really goddamn petty. I've seen a reviewer or two remark how they didn't like the way the camera screwed with them when they had to push the stick "back." Because instead of pushing down they had to push in the opposite direction of whatever direction their character was facing
I think your arguments would make more sense to me if you didn't say "Game reviewers think games are objective" and instead said "game reviewers are too easy on the games they review." I can actually follow the logic on that one, and it seems to be a conclusion your arguments are more well structured to support.