Doesn't matter where you read a review, be it on IGN, Gamespot, a Totalbiscuit video or something posted by a player in the MMORPG.COM forums. They are essentially all valid, because they ALL reflect the view of a player. Find a particular reviewer that matches your personal likes and dislikes, and stick with them, then you will most likely get good value.
Expecting a reviewer to play to endgame before publishing a review is a good idea in theory, but then you must also be happy to wait 1-2 months AFTER launch for the review to be posted. In that case, you must also be happy to not to be "first" into the game. For the average gamer, that is heresy.
The bigger an internet game site gets, the more money it costs to run. To make that money, the site sells advertising. If all its competitors publish "reviews" of "new MMO X" two days before launch, which site will get the eyeballs ? And those page views generate advertising revenue.
If you are a game publisher, would you spend advertising money with a game site that posts a terrible review of your current product ? And when you publish the next game (which may be awesome), do you favour those review sites that "supported" you in the past ? We are all human.
Just stop buying unless they offer a trial, you play the trial, and you enjoy the trial. Of course, you'll still need to figure out if the trial is an accurate representation of the game.. That and most people have no patience at all. "FIRST!#$@$"; *sigh*
On a side note, I do NOT like the new ad this site has started. Throwing it in a cell/table second from the top when you are not logged in. The image is easy enough to block, but the rest is a little trickier. But not impossible. On a site already plastered with ads, it's a little over the line. I log in to post. I don't need to be logged in just to read.
Doesn't matter where you read a review, be it on IGN, Gamespot, a Totalbiscuit video or something posted by a player in the MMORPG.COM forums. They are essentially all valid, because they ALL reflect the view of a player.
They obviously are not all valid, if only because a lot of them do not represent true views.
A lot of them are fake views bought and paid for to advertise a product.
You seem to contrdict yourself in your post btw... first you tell us that all views are valid and then you tell is it's 'human nature' that those views are influenced (at the least) by the dollar of the maker... the very thing that makes the 'opinions' you read invalid
Of course that have some impact as well, but we are talking about a time when several thousands of very different games released every year compared to maybe 100-200. And the new games are way more similar to eachother than they generally were back then.
Sure, there were copying back then as well as know, but just look on FPS games or MMOs right now, almost all of them are very similar.
Games are more complex to make now and are big business, which mean that gaming companies nowadays are run by business people instead of a few dedicated gamers.
Business people looks on what makes money, gamers makes games they themselves want to play, so it is no wonder that most games are so similar.
I think you're looking at the genre way too narrow. The games scene has exploded compared with what came out in the past, you have games on iPhone, consoles, indie games, Steam games, big blockbuster games, Facebook games, mods, and so on and so on in a wide variety as well. Only looking at the top games that are produced by the top game companies would be a mistake, because there's so much more being released than that.
But even then, I think that games like Skyrim, Minecraft, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock, Left4Dead, Ruse, Flower, Journey and Amnesia to name a few popular or wellknown ones show quite enough variety in gameplay styles.
Bottomline is, that yeah, if you only look at the top 10-20 games that come out of the big game companies then sure, you'll find enough copying. But the gaming scene has become so much more vast than that and so much more diverse.
Of course that have some impact as well, but we are talking about a time when several thousands of very different games released every year compared to maybe 100-200. And the new games are way more similar to eachother than they generally were back then.
Sure, there were copying back then as well as know, but just look on FPS games or MMOs right now, almost all of them are very similar.
Games are more complex to make now and are big business, which mean that gaming companies nowadays are run by business people instead of a few dedicated gamers.
Business people looks on what makes money, gamers makes games they themselves want to play, so it is no wonder that most games are so similar.
I think you're looking at the genre way too narrow. The games scene has exploded compared with what came out in the past, you have games on iPhone, consoles, indie games, Steam games, big blockbuster games, Facebook games, mods, and so on and so on in a wide variety as well. Only looking at the top games that are produced by the top game companies would be a mistake, because there's so much more being released than that.
But even then, I think that games like Skyrim, Minecraft, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock, Left4Dead, Ruse, Flower, Journey and Amnesia to name a few popular or wellknown ones show quite enough variety in gameplay styles.
Have to agree, I actually think there is more diversity out there then ever before... it's a bit of a myth that gaming has narrowed imo.
I think the only guys that might think games have suffered this way are the ones that just focus on the massively advertised mainstream product.
I remember a time when Beat 'em Ups dominated, and before that scrolling shooters... I don't see any difference between those eras and the FPS dominated one now. Variety existed below the crust then and it does now.
Doesn't matter where you read a review, be it on IGN, Gamespot, a Totalbiscuit video or something posted by a player in the MMORPG.COM forums. They are essentially all valid, because they ALL reflect the view of a player.
They obviously are not all valid, if only because a lot of them do not represent true views.
A lot of them are fake views bought and paid for to advertise a product.
You seem to contrdict yourself in your post btw... first you tell us that all views are valid and then you tell is it's 'human nature' that those views are influenced (at the least) by the dollar of the maker... the very thing that makes the 'opinions' you read invalid
And you know this to be true, because some reviewer gave a fair to good rating to a game that YOU considered complete rubbish ?
So if someone posts a good review of a game like "The Sims" or "Farmville", that must be a false review, right ? Regardless if there are 20M+ people playing the game ?
I think you're looking at the genre way too narrow. The games scene has exploded compared with what came out in the past, you have games on iPhone, consoles, indie games, Steam games, big blockbuster games, Facebook games, mods, and so on and so on in a wide variety as well. Only looking at the top games that are produced by the top game companies would be a mistake, because there's so much more being released than that.
But even then, I think that games like Skyrim, Minecraft, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock, Left4Dead, Ruse, Flower, Journey and Amnesia to name a few popular or wellknown ones show quite enough variety in gameplay styles.
Bottomline is, that yeah, if you only look at the top 10-20 games that come out of the big game companies then sure, you'll find enough copying. But the gaming scene has become so much more vast than that and so much more diverse.
Well, I was talking about PC games and similar systems of home computers. Portable devises suchs as phones, IPADs and similar actually have plenty of releases that vary a lot.
As for facebook games I admit that I am partial, I just don't like them for some reason.
But stillif you take away games for phones there were a lot more produced before. That does not mean there still isn´t a few good games being made but right now it seems like most of the creativety moved away from the PC and that is a shame.
Doesn't matter where you read a review, be it on IGN, Gamespot, a Totalbiscuit video or something posted by a player in the MMORPG.COM forums. They are essentially all valid, because they ALL reflect the view of a player.
They obviously are not all valid, if only because a lot of them do not represent true views.
A lot of them are fake views bought and paid for to advertise a product.
You seem to contrdict yourself in your post btw... first you tell us that all views are valid and then you tell is it's 'human nature' that those views are influenced (at the least) by the dollar of the maker... the very thing that makes the 'opinions' you read invalid
And you know this to be true, because some reviewer gave a fair to good rating to a game that YOU considered complete rubbish ?
So if someone posts a good review of a game like "The Sims" or "Farmville", that must be a false review, right ? Regardless if there are 20M+ people playing the game ?
You are actually asserting to me every review on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way?
The bottom line here is that you are saying that ALL game reviews are valid because they are ALL built on the reviewers personal uninfluenced opinion. I am saying that simply is not true.
and, btw, your whole response is built on silly assumption and a transparent attempt to put words in to my mouth. Please don't.
There have been more and less interesting MMOs and some good ones have turned into garbage over time, but I don't regret any MMO purchase. I liked SWTOR too when I played it for 2,5 months. If someone could come up with objective reviw recipie then he should take patent. Every single review is subjective. Like some posters here are saying that TSW animations are awful but I personally don't mind them at all. I don't like Tera at all but many do and that's ok with me. Who am I to day that the game they are playing is shite because I don't like it?
Star Wars: The Old Republic has a MeatCritic score of 85. Personally, I don't think this is horribly inaccurate. It is actually a very good game. Would I give it an 85 of 100? No, probably not but I'd give it a solid 80. In the last couple of years, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better MMO that's been released with the exception of Rift.
Different people have different opinions. For example, I absolutely adore Diablo 3. However there are a lot of people who think the game is junk. They are entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to mine. It doesn't matter because if everyone else calls a certain game crap and you love it and you're having fun with it... then nothing else really matters, right?
You are actually asserting to me every review on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way?
We can't even assert that every PLAYER on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way.
But what percentage of the public needs to be criminal before the justice system is changed to assume guilt first?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Your best bet is to look for a reviewer that has similar tastes as yourself.
I've seen reviews I've agreed with and disagreed with on this site. Obviously. Some inspire me to look at the game. Some confirm my fears. Some leave me scratching my head.
They are not a BUY or PASS grading. Use them as another tool to forumlate your opinion. Another opinion.
You are actually asserting to me every review on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way?
We can't even assert that every PLAYER on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way.
But what percentage of the public needs to be criminal before the justice system is changed to assume guilt first?
I don't know, I find the whole 'reviews are paid for' thing often being used as an excuse to dismiss reviews that don't reflect the personal opinion and viewpoint of people themselves. It's like other excuses that are often used like 'she must've been in her period' or 'yeah, but he's not a true patriot' or stuff like that, with which people try to diminish or dismiss the opinion of other people.
Besides that, gamer reviews often aren't honest themselves even if it's their own opinion and viewpoint: fanbois will look and review the game they're fan of in the most positive light, while haters will look and review the game they despise in the most negative light. I've noticed there are very few people who can rise above it all, and be able to objectively look at the pros and cons of a game and judge features fairly without letting their liking or disliking color their review.
Star Wars: The Old Republic has a MeatCritic score of 85. Personally, I don't think this is horribly inaccurate. It is actually a very good game. Would I give it an 85 of 100? No, probably not but I'd give it a solid 80. In the last couple of years, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better MMO that's been released with the exception of Rift.
<snip>
A great many posters in the MMORPG forums would strongly (and violently) disagree with your "review score" of SWTOR. Who is "right" ?
The OP accuses the gaming media of leading us astray, by publishing poor quality game reviews. But what would be a "good quality" review of SWTOR ? For those that value MetaCritic scores, a "good quality review" would give SWTOR 8.5/10. But thousands of others would say that such a review was "obviously bought and paid for by EA", because to them the game rates no more than 2.5/10...
Hundreds of thousands of SWTOR players would agree with the MetaCritic score. Hundreds of thousands would disagree completely. Where does that leave the reviewer ?
You are actually asserting to me every review on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way?
I don't know, I find the whole 'reviews are paid for' thing often being used as an excuse to dismiss reviews that don't reflect the personal opinion and viewpoint of people themselves.
Not in my case, but I can't speak for others.
I simply don't trust any opinion I read on the internet that is not from someone I know because I have seen first hand how the industry works behind the scenes.
You are actually asserting to me every review on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way?
We can't even assert that every PLAYER on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way.
But what percentage of the public needs to be criminal before the justice system is changed to assume guilt first?
I don't know, I find the whole 'reviews are paid for' thing often being used as an excuse to dismiss reviews that don't reflect the personal opinion and viewpoint of people themselves. It's like other excuses that are often used like 'she must've been in her period' or 'yeah, but he's not a true patriot' or stuff like that, with which people try to diminish or dismiss the opinion of other people.
Its a tactic that is, itself, of dubious "honesty" or fairness, putting you in a "which of these people is really worse?" position.
And essentially back to square one, when trying to decide if a review (or a game) is "good" or not.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I simply don't trust any opinion I read on the internet that is not from someone I know because I have seen first hand how the industry works behind the scenes.
ah, but I do the same. I don't trust any 1 opinion that's given as a review: what I do is take a look at a host of reviews, positive as well as negative ones, professional as well as amateur, preferrably also from people with different stances and tastes in gaming.
Taken these altogether, I'm old and wise enough to glean enough about a game to have a general impression, and how the gameplay is regarded by people with different tastes from eachother. I usually combine that with what I know about the things that I like in games, and this combined works for me to make my choices.
On top of that, for MMORPG's I keep in mind that the review will always be only about the first 50-100 hours, and that how entertaining an MMO will be after the first 150-200 will still only be an educated guess.
RipperX is the only reviewer I trust. I know sexy voice would NEVER mislead us.
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
Ah, so that's how that tactic is called. Interesting link, thanks
Now--Person A mentions that Reviewer B may not be perfectly honest.
Is person A mistaken, deliberately muddying the waters, a raving paranoid, or other?
In the end, does it matter? The further you digress away from the Game trying to judge the motives of the People...you get lost far away from your basic goal of reading a review. Ad Hominem is a fallacy, but do we really understand why?
Because the truth/falsity of a statement is independent of the qualities of the person making it. You may not like Jimbo because he's a "rabid fanboy" (or whatever), but that doesn't mean some aspects of his review won't contain some glimmers of truth.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I simply don't trust any opinion I read on the internet that is not from someone I know because I have seen first hand how the industry works behind the scenes.
ah, but I do the same. I don't trust any 1 opinion that's given as a review: what I do is take a look at a host of reviews, positive as well as negative ones, professional as well as amateur, preferrably also from people with different stances and tastes in gaming.
Taken these altogether, I'm old and wise enough to glean enough about a game to have a general impression, and how the gameplay is regarded by people with different tastes from eachother. I usually combine that with what I know about the things that I like in games, and this combined works for me to make my choices.
On top of that, for MMORPG's I keep in mind that the review will always be only about the first 50-100 hours, and that how entertaining an MMO will be after the first 150-200 will still only be an educated guess.
+100
I do exactly the same.
In fact, I've even given up pre-ordering in favour of waiting a month or 2 after launch to see the opinions of the "endgamers"
Ah, so that's how that tactic is called. Interesting link, thanks
Now--Person A mentions that Reviewer B may not be perfectly honest.
Is person A mistaken, deliberately muddying the waters, a raving paranoid, or other?
In the end, does it matter? The further you digress away from the Game trying to judge the motives of the People...you get lost far away from your basic goal of reading a review. Ad Hominem is a fallacy, but do we really understand why?
Because the truth/falsity of a statement is independent of the qualities of the person making it. You may not like Jimbo because he's a "rabid fanboy" (or whatever), but that doesn't mean some aspects of his review won't contain some glimmers of truth.
absolutely. an intelligent person can gleen what useful information there is from a review(independent of the reviewer), whereas someone less analytically inclined may simply read the score and say THAT GAME RULEZ DERP!
there really is no amount of reasoning or posting that is going to remedy the problems of that second person.
I can't trust the reviews with normal games any more to.
I mean Call of Duty get's a 9 every year.
For what? Boring cliche single player with a retarded bad written story and a broken multiplayer.
Another part of the problem is a lot of reviews don't provide enough information.
For instance with COD Black ops I found out AFTER I bought the PC version of the damn game (my first and last COD game) they upped the number of players on a map but didn't increase the map size! That coupled with a flawed spawning system made the game crap in my opinion. But none of this I read in reviews.
Another example is t he interface with Skyrim on PC. It is a mess and in my opinion broken. I didn't read that on any review! In fact they all hailed the new interface system!
I simply don't trust any opinion I read on the internet that is not from someone I know because I have seen first hand how the industry works behind the scenes.
ah, but I do the same. I don't trust any 1 opinion that's given as a review: what I do is take a look at a host of reviews, positive as well as negative ones, professional as well as amateur, preferrably also from people with different stances and tastes in gaming.
Taken these altogether, I'm old and wise enough to glean enough about a game to have a general impression, and how the gameplay is regarded by people with different tastes from eachother. I usually combine that with what I know about the things that I like in games, and this combined works for me to make my choices.
Cool, if that works for you it's a reasonable approach.
Like I say I just disregard them all, whether I want to like the game or not. They are all equally as worthless to me.
If a game has features and theme to it that I find attractive I just buy it and play it. If my RL friends have played it I will ask them first for their opinion and take that on board.
Most review sites are flat out paid or promised advertising deals. Your an idiot if you beleive any score on the 'major' sites and you need to take reviews with a grain of salt on the the smaller sites/blogs as they contain alot of personal bias.
The best way is to stop buying into the marketing hype take a few hours and research the title yourself and make your own decision if the game is worth your money. Then and only then will we see decent titles be released. However its unlikley to happen since the vast majority of 'gamers' these days are cancer.
I somewhat agree with the OP that people should be angry and voice their opinions more over the state of bad MMOs. In the 80s professional game reviewers existed just like today. I know I had a subscription to Nintendo Power monthly in the late 80s. I was a smart kid even back then I knew it was more about advertizing than honest review material as no article ever gave a bad review. But I knew what "I" liked and was given enough info reading between the lines and looking at the pictures what game suited my personal tastes. I rarely got caught holding the bag with a bad game like "Ninja Turtles." I opted instead for the indie knock off "Battletoads" which was a way better game by 1980s standards.
I am simply amazed that adults today fail to pick up the educated savy consumer skills I learned when I was 8 or 9 years old. Do a little bit of homework, learn to read between the lines, and make a descision based on your own tastes. No one can tell you what you like. That is up to you to figure out for yourself.
Here are some mini reviews from where I am come from recently. I played AION and RIFT betas but passed on buying both games. I passed on warhammer due to news that it was being rushed out incomplete with an entire player faction dropped. I did not even consider TOR because I was big fan of the old SWG and I knew from articles written three years ago TOR would be nothing like SWG. Did not pay much attention to GW2 until right before it came out because I didn't like GW1. When I did catch some video reviews on youtube the start sequence looked cut and paste out of RIFT. I got into the TERA closed beta but ultimately gave it the thumbs down because the combat was way to slow and clunky compared to Vindictus. Now Vindictus now that is a game worth playing if you are into action combat.
Comments
ALL game reviews are subjective.
Doesn't matter where you read a review, be it on IGN, Gamespot, a Totalbiscuit video or something posted by a player in the MMORPG.COM forums. They are essentially all valid, because they ALL reflect the view of a player. Find a particular reviewer that matches your personal likes and dislikes, and stick with them, then you will most likely get good value.
Expecting a reviewer to play to endgame before publishing a review is a good idea in theory, but then you must also be happy to wait 1-2 months AFTER launch for the review to be posted. In that case, you must also be happy to not to be "first" into the game. For the average gamer, that is heresy.
The bigger an internet game site gets, the more money it costs to run. To make that money, the site sells advertising. If all its competitors publish "reviews" of "new MMO X" two days before launch, which site will get the eyeballs ? And those page views generate advertising revenue.
If you are a game publisher, would you spend advertising money with a game site that posts a terrible review of your current product ? And when you publish the next game (which may be awesome), do you favour those review sites that "supported" you in the past ? We are all human.
Just stop buying unless they offer a trial, you play the trial, and you enjoy the trial. Of course, you'll still need to figure out if the trial is an accurate representation of the game.. That and most people have no patience at all. "FIRST!#$@$"; *sigh*
On a side note, I do NOT like the new ad this site has started. Throwing it in a cell/table second from the top when you are not logged in. The image is easy enough to block, but the rest is a little trickier. But not impossible. On a site already plastered with ads, it's a little over the line. I log in to post. I don't need to be logged in just to read.
[edit]
##div.notuserforumblock
[/edit]
They obviously are not all valid, if only because a lot of them do not represent true views.
A lot of them are fake views bought and paid for to advertise a product.
You seem to contrdict yourself in your post btw... first you tell us that all views are valid and then you tell is it's 'human nature' that those views are influenced (at the least) by the dollar of the maker... the very thing that makes the 'opinions' you read invalid
I think you're looking at the genre way too narrow. The games scene has exploded compared with what came out in the past, you have games on iPhone, consoles, indie games, Steam games, big blockbuster games, Facebook games, mods, and so on and so on in a wide variety as well. Only looking at the top games that are produced by the top game companies would be a mistake, because there's so much more being released than that.
But even then, I think that games like Skyrim, Minecraft, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock, Left4Dead, Ruse, Flower, Journey and Amnesia to name a few popular or wellknown ones show quite enough variety in gameplay styles.
Bottomline is, that yeah, if you only look at the top 10-20 games that come out of the big game companies then sure, you'll find enough copying. But the gaming scene has become so much more vast than that and so much more diverse.
Have to agree, I actually think there is more diversity out there then ever before... it's a bit of a myth that gaming has narrowed imo.
I think the only guys that might think games have suffered this way are the ones that just focus on the massively advertised mainstream product.
I remember a time when Beat 'em Ups dominated, and before that scrolling shooters... I don't see any difference between those eras and the FPS dominated one now. Variety existed below the crust then and it does now.
And you know this to be true, because some reviewer gave a fair to good rating to a game that YOU considered complete rubbish ?
So if someone posts a good review of a game like "The Sims" or "Farmville", that must be a false review, right ? Regardless if there are 20M+ people playing the game ?
Well, I was talking about PC games and similar systems of home computers. Portable devises suchs as phones, IPADs and similar actually have plenty of releases that vary a lot.
As for facebook games I admit that I am partial, I just don't like them for some reason.
But stillif you take away games for phones there were a lot more produced before. That does not mean there still isn´t a few good games being made but right now it seems like most of the creativety moved away from the PC and that is a shame.
You are actually asserting to me every review on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way?
The bottom line here is that you are saying that ALL game reviews are valid because they are ALL built on the reviewers personal uninfluenced opinion. I am saying that simply is not true.
and, btw, your whole response is built on silly assumption and a transparent attempt to put words in to my mouth. Please don't.
There have been more and less interesting MMOs and some good ones have turned into garbage over time, but I don't regret any MMO purchase. I liked SWTOR too when I played it for 2,5 months. If someone could come up with objective reviw recipie then he should take patent. Every single review is subjective. Like some posters here are saying that TSW animations are awful but I personally don't mind them at all. I don't like Tera at all but many do and that's ok with me. Who am I to day that the game they are playing is shite because I don't like it?
Star Wars: The Old Republic has a MeatCritic score of 85. Personally, I don't think this is horribly inaccurate. It is actually a very good game. Would I give it an 85 of 100? No, probably not but I'd give it a solid 80. In the last couple of years, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better MMO that's been released with the exception of Rift.
Different people have different opinions. For example, I absolutely adore Diablo 3. However there are a lot of people who think the game is junk. They are entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to mine. It doesn't matter because if everyone else calls a certain game crap and you love it and you're having fun with it... then nothing else really matters, right?
We can't even assert that every PLAYER on the internet is honest and not paid for in any way.
But what percentage of the public needs to be criminal before the justice system is changed to assume guilt first?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Game reviews are subjective? Duh.
Your best bet is to look for a reviewer that has similar tastes as yourself.
I've seen reviews I've agreed with and disagreed with on this site. Obviously. Some inspire me to look at the game. Some confirm my fears. Some leave me scratching my head.
They are not a BUY or PASS grading. Use them as another tool to forumlate your opinion. Another opinion.
I don't know, I find the whole 'reviews are paid for' thing often being used as an excuse to dismiss reviews that don't reflect the personal opinion and viewpoint of people themselves. It's like other excuses that are often used like 'she must've been in her period' or 'yeah, but he's not a true patriot' or stuff like that, with which people try to diminish or dismiss the opinion of other people.
Besides that, gamer reviews often aren't honest themselves even if it's their own opinion and viewpoint: fanbois will look and review the game they're fan of in the most positive light, while haters will look and review the game they despise in the most negative light. I've noticed there are very few people who can rise above it all, and be able to objectively look at the pros and cons of a game and judge features fairly without letting their liking or disliking color their review.
A great many posters in the MMORPG forums would strongly (and violently) disagree with your "review score" of SWTOR. Who is "right" ?
The OP accuses the gaming media of leading us astray, by publishing poor quality game reviews. But what would be a "good quality" review of SWTOR ? For those that value MetaCritic scores, a "good quality review" would give SWTOR 8.5/10. But thousands of others would say that such a review was "obviously bought and paid for by EA", because to them the game rates no more than 2.5/10...
Hundreds of thousands of SWTOR players would agree with the MetaCritic score. Hundreds of thousands would disagree completely. Where does that leave the reviewer ?
Not in my case, but I can't speak for others.
I simply don't trust any opinion I read on the internet that is not from someone I know because I have seen first hand how the industry works behind the scenes.
Exactly. There's even a term for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Its a tactic that is, itself, of dubious "honesty" or fairness, putting you in a "which of these people is really worse?" position.
And essentially back to square one, when trying to decide if a review (or a game) is "good" or not.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
ah, but I do the same. I don't trust any 1 opinion that's given as a review: what I do is take a look at a host of reviews, positive as well as negative ones, professional as well as amateur, preferrably also from people with different stances and tastes in gaming.
Taken these altogether, I'm old and wise enough to glean enough about a game to have a general impression, and how the gameplay is regarded by people with different tastes from eachother. I usually combine that with what I know about the things that I like in games, and this combined works for me to make my choices.
On top of that, for MMORPG's I keep in mind that the review will always be only about the first 50-100 hours, and that how entertaining an MMO will be after the first 150-200 will still only be an educated guess.
Ah, so that's how that tactic is called. Interesting link, thanks
RipperX is the only reviewer I trust. I know sexy voice would NEVER mislead us.
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
Now--Person A mentions that Reviewer B may not be perfectly honest.
Is person A mistaken, deliberately muddying the waters, a raving paranoid, or other?
In the end, does it matter? The further you digress away from the Game trying to judge the motives of the People...you get lost far away from your basic goal of reading a review. Ad Hominem is a fallacy, but do we really understand why?
Because the truth/falsity of a statement is independent of the qualities of the person making it. You may not like Jimbo because he's a "rabid fanboy" (or whatever), but that doesn't mean some aspects of his review won't contain some glimmers of truth.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
+100
I do exactly the same.
In fact, I've even given up pre-ordering in favour of waiting a month or 2 after launch to see the opinions of the "endgamers"
absolutely. an intelligent person can gleen what useful information there is from a review(independent of the reviewer), whereas someone less analytically inclined may simply read the score and say THAT GAME RULEZ DERP!
there really is no amount of reasoning or posting that is going to remedy the problems of that second person.
I think the problem is not just with MMORPG's..
I can't trust the reviews with normal games any more to.
I mean Call of Duty get's a 9 every year.
For what? Boring cliche single player with a retarded bad written story and a broken multiplayer.
Another part of the problem is a lot of reviews don't provide enough information.
For instance with COD Black ops I found out AFTER I bought the PC version of the damn game (my first and last COD game) they upped the number of players on a map but didn't increase the map size! That coupled with a flawed spawning system made the game crap in my opinion. But none of this I read in reviews.
Another example is t he interface with Skyrim on PC. It is a mess and in my opinion broken. I didn't read that on any review! In fact they all hailed the new interface system!
Cool, if that works for you it's a reasonable approach.
Like I say I just disregard them all, whether I want to like the game or not. They are all equally as worthless to me.
If a game has features and theme to it that I find attractive I just buy it and play it. If my RL friends have played it I will ask them first for their opinion and take that on board.
That's as complicated as I get really...
Most review sites are flat out paid or promised advertising deals. Your an idiot if you beleive any score on the 'major' sites and you need to take reviews with a grain of salt on the the smaller sites/blogs as they contain alot of personal bias.
The best way is to stop buying into the marketing hype take a few hours and research the title yourself and make your own decision if the game is worth your money. Then and only then will we see decent titles be released. However its unlikley to happen since the vast majority of 'gamers' these days are cancer.
I somewhat agree with the OP that people should be angry and voice their opinions more over the state of bad MMOs. In the 80s professional game reviewers existed just like today. I know I had a subscription to Nintendo Power monthly in the late 80s. I was a smart kid even back then I knew it was more about advertizing than honest review material as no article ever gave a bad review. But I knew what "I" liked and was given enough info reading between the lines and looking at the pictures what game suited my personal tastes. I rarely got caught holding the bag with a bad game like "Ninja Turtles." I opted instead for the indie knock off "Battletoads" which was a way better game by 1980s standards.
I am simply amazed that adults today fail to pick up the educated savy consumer skills I learned when I was 8 or 9 years old. Do a little bit of homework, learn to read between the lines, and make a descision based on your own tastes. No one can tell you what you like. That is up to you to figure out for yourself.
Here are some mini reviews from where I am come from recently. I played AION and RIFT betas but passed on buying both games. I passed on warhammer due to news that it was being rushed out incomplete with an entire player faction dropped. I did not even consider TOR because I was big fan of the old SWG and I knew from articles written three years ago TOR would be nothing like SWG. Did not pay much attention to GW2 until right before it came out because I didn't like GW1. When I did catch some video reviews on youtube the start sequence looked cut and paste out of RIFT. I got into the TERA closed beta but ultimately gave it the thumbs down because the combat was way to slow and clunky compared to Vindictus. Now Vindictus now that is a game worth playing if you are into action combat.