It seems, like Eli says, if someone gives a game a review score people don't like, all they do is bash the reviewer. This is also a problem, in my opinion, with game sites in general, espically for say IGN. If the masses don't like the review score, they have a humongous fit and bash the reviewer and don't even talk about the game at all... So, I personally think removing scores is a good thing but that's just me. What do you all think?
I like the scores no matter if it coincides with mine. I like the reviewers. I like their haters. It's fun to read through comments. Tons of idiots think the reviewer should eat only food and drinks they like and not food and drinks the reviewer likes. No matter... They are all entertaining to a certain extent. I guess it's human nature. It's like religion. "You better change your religion into mine or we go to war."
agree 100% with EP above. I love the love and love the hate. Makes for a blooming good read when I'm brushing my teeth of an evening.
If someone rates a game as a 5, there's more chance I'll read about it than if it scored a 3. The rating score is just another factor, along with the title, genre, screenshots, thread popularity, trailer etc. Since TA tags games by their star ratings, it also makes it easier to browse back through older games that were well-rated. That said, reviews are all personal opinion and people have different tastes, so games with low scores can be gems.
IGN gave Alien : Isolation a 5 out of 10. A really awesome game too! Possible reasons why: 1.They weren't payed to boost dat score. 2. It's not Call of Duty, not enough guns! 3. Too much water.
They also gave Wolfenstein: The New Order a 7.8, my GOTY because 'unremarkable gunplay' rly?!? Double wielded automatic shotguns aren't remarkable? Is CoD gunplay remarkable? Now that I ended with my rant... I think that reviews, specially of games are not 100% accurate, see there are subjective aspects of a videogame like the music or graphic style that are things of personal taste and that sometimes the reviewers are just hyping and giving an unfairly high score to a game, again Titanfall, Assasin's Creed: Unity and yes, Call Of Duty are prime example of that (I was massively dissapointed with Titanfall TBH) and sometimes I think that a review without a score but rather with OBJECTIVE good and bad aspects of a game could be better as a consumer's guide as most people just scroll down to were the score is and decide based on a probably unfair score. Here in TA I haven't seen a lot of unfair scores, just scores that I disagree (MC5) but I think that at least Eli and the rest of the TA reviewers give good points on their reviews, specially Shaun. But again is just my opinion on the matter.
A reviewer have personal preference, and taste. You don't have to always agree with them. Sometimes I read some reviews on games that I tried, and I asked myself if did played the same game. ( confusion) And why bashing reviewers? That's how we got corrupted reviews. The critics need to be sincere, that's all.
I like that the reviewers have personal tastes and express them through their reviews. However, i want to point out that following this, in my opinion 1) noone who hates sports games should review sports, noone who hates rpgs should review them etc. People relevant to the game type should give a review., ie we know that if Shaun sais it's a damn good Kemco game, that he is THE Kemco expert. If Carter, Eli, or someone else reviews for example a kemco game, no matter the score it gets, i will not even look at the review. This leads me to my second point: 2) Since reviews are personal opinions (and well they should be, otherwise we can read the app descriptions) each reviewer should have a point of reference, ie. this reviewer likes and plays rpgs, that other reviewer is an expert in arcade games etc. and mention a n objective all around selection of the games and ratings he gave, in every review as a reference and comparison to other similar games. what i mean: an example of a new RPG review, could start by : "Review by: John Smith Other games played and rated: rpgs X Y and X, rated 2,4, and 5 respectively. " With this base reference, immediately everyone can know if they find the reviewer relevant to the game that he is reviewing, and see if they agree or disagree with his ratings/opinions. This, i believe, with one more simple text line and some links, would help people decide if they want to read the review, how much importance they will place on the reviewer's opinion, and avoid unnecessary flamings, bashings and arguments, while saving everyone's time, money and good mood.
^Er... No. Bad games could get ok reviews because the reviewer may actually like it just coz it's his favorite genre. It's actually great to see a review regardless of a reviewer's genre forte, just so we can see different angles at looking at these games. For example, if one reviewer doesnt like clickers at all, then suddenly gave a decent 3.5 on one, it makes the game worth a look. Or if one person really hates Infinity Blade suddenly gave a good score on a somewhat an IB clone, i'd definitely check that out. Another point is that the general reader doesnt actually know what the reviewer's preferences are, coz accusations of bias will then be the issue that'll start another bashing. LOL It's just about a reviewer putting a game up with how he sees it, and up for the readers to decide whether to get the game or not. The sad part is that people forget this. A good fraction of the readers are actually fans of the games already, and they are getting ready to go apeshit on the reviewer if the reviewer didnt like the game they love. Nonetheless, it's pretty entertaining to see them throw words at the reviewer.
As a longtime iOS gamer, longtime gaming publication reader, and recent game reviewer myself, here are my thoughts: Hundreds of games and updates appear on the App Store every single day. Very few of these games will ever be reviewed, or even mentioned. It's a lot longer and a lot harder to actually write a review than it is to read one. A writer has to to spend several hours dedicated to playing a game, then composing thoughts on it, then writing those thoughts out. It requires careful selection, deciding which games are even worth the time. Only a select few of the games to hit the App Store will ever receive this level of attention. If a reviewer dedicates that much of their time to an iOS game, that game is already far above the upper echelons. Someone has already decided that the game is worth spending a significant chunk of time with. Merely having a major website talk about a game provides an immense boost to any indie developer. Now if the review is positive, it's icing on the cake. A glowing review on the front page of a major gaming site is worth real money to any indie developer. However, the thing is, even if the review is mixed, the indie developer gets a SECOND immeasurably useful thing: feedback. Indie devs don't get professional QA and beta test teams. When a professional reviewer spend hours playing your game, thinking critically about it, and writing about it, indie developers have an opportunity to actually take in that feedback and use it to improve their games. If they DO improve the game, they can contact the reviewer with details, and they might just get another article about it - reviewers love it when their feedback gets directly incorporated into a game! Lastly, reviews are written by humans. Sorry, that's just how it works. People bring their own thoughts and opinions to a piece. Readers will find reviewers they agree with and reviewers they disagree with; that's the nature of the beast. This is one reason I despise number scores and star ratings - they attempt to normalize an inherently opinionated process.
