Yea a reviewer does tell you if it's good or not at the end thanks to ratings, but it's mostly based on the qualities of the game, and you could already guess the rating by reading the review alone. I agree with this completely. And you seemingly agree with me that "the reviewer is supposed to give an objective opinion of the product", and finally "telling the audience if it's worth it or not". So let's put an end to this shall we? A reviewer is supposed to stay objective (staying clear of the word unbiased here) until the end, where he slaps a rating, or a few lines, which are based on this objective read. Do you agree?
If you could tell what the rating would be just by reading the review, then you already know if the reviewer is say the game is good or not. Obviously, he's saying it's not.
The second highlighted part IS the bias. He's telling you if it's worth it or not. That's SUPPOSED to CREATE the bias.
The dif. between a good reviewer and a bad one is in thier ability to CREATE a sence of something. In the case of a review it's the bias. If he doesn't create a sence of bias one way or the other, either by making you feel that the game is or is not worth the money, then he's not very good at his job.
But yes,
I do agree that a review should be objective. They shouldn't go in already knowing what they will write before they actually try the game.
This is what people are saying when they say he's being unbiased:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
What I'm trying to get across is that the reviewer should go into the review being objective, and the reader should come away with a bias.
I'm talking about a bias, as aposed to being unbiased.
The ones yelling the reviewer was unbiased just don't understand that the reviewer did thier job. They created a bias; that's what the people yelling felt; because THAT is the reviewers job.
In the case of this review, that bias was negative, and they don't like it.
That doesn't mean he wasn't unbiased or objective. He was.
Nice, another wall of text!
I wanted to finish this, you could have said "yes" or "no", as it's getting incredibly boring.
We do agree on some stuff apparently, so let's leave it at that. Have fun!
Yea a reviewer does tell you if it's good or not at the end thanks to ratings, but it's mostly based on the qualities of the game, and you could already guess the rating by reading the review alone. I agree with this completely. And you seemingly agree with me that "the reviewer is supposed to give an objective opinion of the product", and finally "telling the audience if it's worth it or not". So let's put an end to this shall we? A reviewer is supposed to stay objective (staying clear of the word unbiased here) until the end, where he slaps a rating, or a few lines, which are based on this objective read. Do you agree?
If you could tell what the rating would be just by reading the review, then you already know if the reviewer is say the game is good or not. Obviously, he's saying it's not.
The second highlighted part IS the bias. He's telling you if it's worth it or not. That's SUPPOSED to CREATE the bias.
The dif. between a good reviewer and a bad one is in thier ability to CREATE a sence of something. In the case of a review it's the bias. If he doesn't create a sence of bias one way or the other, either by making you feel that the game is or is not worth the money, then he's not very good at his job.
But yes,
I do agree that a review should be objective. They shouldn't go in already knowing what they will write before they actually try the game.
This is what people are saying when they say he's being unbiased:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
What I'm trying to get across is that the reviewer should go into the review being objective, and the reader should come away with a bias.
I'm talking about a bias, as aposed to being unbiased.
The ones yelling the reviewer was unbiased just don't understand that the reviewer did thier job. They created a bias; that's what the people yelling felt; because THAT is the reviewers job.
In the case of this review, that bias was negative, and they don't like it.
That doesn't mean he wasn't unbiased or objective. He was.
Nice, another wall of text!
I wanted to finish this, you could have said "yes" or "no", as it's getting incredibly boring.
We do agree on some stuff apparently, so let's leave it at that. Have fun!
I'm sorry.
Articulate less?
Or do I just not like loaded questions.
Maybe it's the later, but I won't do the former.
Thanks for participating in my thread.
Bumps appreciated.
Did I insult you by this? I'm sorry, didn't mean to, just that I was expecting a word or 2, but got a few paragraphs lol.
You're good at writing, you should make a career out of it!
I loved ultima online pre-UO:R and thought trammel was the worst thing introduced to the game. I wish that a real game came out to fill that gap, but Darkfail is not the answer. This is absolutely one of the worst games I have played, and wish it wasn't compared to UO as that makes the original UO look bad which it was nothing but amazing. Crappy darkfall and terrible developers trying to save face for their terrible pile.
$OE lies list http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0 " And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
Did I insult you by this? I'm sorry, didn't mean to, just that I was expecting a word or 2, but got a few paragraphs lol. You're good at writing, you should make a career out of it!
Not insulted.
I tend to write a bit when I write.
I type really, really fast so it's easy to type a lot.
Did I insult you by this? I'm sorry, didn't mean to, just that I was expecting a word or 2, but got a few paragraphs lol. You're good at writing, you should make a career out of it!
Not insulted.
I tend to write a bit when I write.
I type really, really fast so it's easy to type a lot.
Do I smell sarcasm?
Nah, your posts are very articulate and easy on the eye, I enjoy reading them.
Give up Fariic.. Its clear what you are saying is going over the heads of a few people. I do agree with you however.. If a review didnt create bias in the reader one way or the other then there would be no point in a review.
Comments
If you could tell what the rating would be just by reading the review, then you already know if the reviewer is say the game is good or not. Obviously, he's saying it's not.
The second highlighted part IS the bias. He's telling you if it's worth it or not. That's SUPPOSED to CREATE the bias.
The dif. between a good reviewer and a bad one is in thier ability to CREATE a sence of something. In the case of a review it's the bias. If he doesn't create a sence of bias one way or the other, either by making you feel that the game is or is not worth the money, then he's not very good at his job.
But yes,
I do agree that a review should be objective. They shouldn't go in already knowing what they will write before they actually try the game.
This is what people are saying when they say he's being unbiased:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
What I'm trying to get across is that the reviewer should go into the review being objective, and the reader should come away with a bias.
I'm talking about a bias, as aposed to being unbiased.
The ones yelling the reviewer was unbiased just don't understand that the reviewer did thier job. They created a bias; that's what the people yelling felt; because THAT is the reviewers job.
In the case of this review, that bias was negative, and they don't like it.
That doesn't mean he wasn't unbiased or objective. He was.
Nice, another wall of text!
I wanted to finish this, you could have said "yes" or "no", as it's getting incredibly boring.
We do agree on some stuff apparently, so let's leave it at that. Have fun!
I'm sorry.
Articulate less?
Or do I just not like loaded questions.
Maybe it's the later, but I won't do the former.
Thanks for participating in my thread.
Bumps appreciated.
If you could tell what the rating would be just by reading the review, then you already know if the reviewer is say the game is good or not. Obviously, he's saying it's not.
The second highlighted part IS the bias. He's telling you if it's worth it or not. That's SUPPOSED to CREATE the bias.
The dif. between a good reviewer and a bad one is in thier ability to CREATE a sence of something. In the case of a review it's the bias. If he doesn't create a sence of bias one way or the other, either by making you feel that the game is or is not worth the money, then he's not very good at his job.
But yes,
I do agree that a review should be objective. They shouldn't go in already knowing what they will write before they actually try the game.
This is what people are saying when they say he's being unbiased:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
What I'm trying to get across is that the reviewer should go into the review being objective, and the reader should come away with a bias.
I'm talking about a bias, as aposed to being unbiased.
The ones yelling the reviewer was unbiased just don't understand that the reviewer did thier job. They created a bias; that's what the people yelling felt; because THAT is the reviewers job.
In the case of this review, that bias was negative, and they don't like it.
That doesn't mean he wasn't unbiased or objective. He was.
Nice, another wall of text!
I wanted to finish this, you could have said "yes" or "no", as it's getting incredibly boring.
We do agree on some stuff apparently, so let's leave it at that. Have fun!
I'm sorry.
Articulate less?
Or do I just not like loaded questions.
Maybe it's the later, but I won't do the former.
Thanks for participating in my thread.
Bumps appreciated.
Did I insult you by this? I'm sorry, didn't mean to, just that I was expecting a word or 2, but got a few paragraphs lol.
You're good at writing, you should make a career out of it!
I loved ultima online pre-UO:R and thought trammel was the worst thing introduced to the game. I wish that a real game came out to fill that gap, but Darkfail is not the answer. This is absolutely one of the worst games I have played, and wish it wasn't compared to UO as that makes the original UO look bad which it was nothing but amazing. Crappy darkfall and terrible developers trying to save face for their terrible pile.
sounds like a fair score
$OE lies list
http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0
"
And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
Not insulted.
I tend to write a bit when I write.
I type really, really fast so it's easy to type a lot.
Do I smell sarcasm?
I often wonder if AV never used the word "hardcore" that they would get nearly as much grief.
I think most of this insanity is more about "no my game is hardcore,not yours and here is why"
then it is an honest look at what I feel is the best MMO in a very long time and I am the biggest NON 'hard core" gamer around.
as a side note, gamers refering to ANY game ha "hard core' really need to get a grip. I think doing my laundry is more hardcore than a video game.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not insulted.
I tend to write a bit when I write.
I type really, really fast so it's easy to type a lot.
Do I smell sarcasm?
Nah, your posts are very articulate and easy on the eye, I enjoy reading them.
Took me by surprise, that's all.
Another review so Tasos go angry again and make another comic , nothing new.
Give up Fariic.. Its clear what you are saying is going over the heads of a few people. I do agree with you however.. If a review didnt create bias in the reader one way or the other then there would be no point in a review.