surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Frankly, I find our current review system seriously flawed. Probably because we have a bunch of children that either don't want to work in video games, or have only really read video game reviews. So it often falls into two camps of mediocrity.
Camp A: The graphics are good and stuff, and you press buttons to make things happen. Essentially a 2nd graders essay on a summer vacation.
Camp B: This is my opinion and that's what a review is. Well, no... it's not. For example, I hate car sims with every fiber of my being. Yet I would have to be an idiot to claim Gran Turismo is a terrible game.
The review you're talking about sounds like it's from Camp B. Meaning what he wanted and what it is was two entirely different things and because opinions are the excuse of assholes, (because they fail to back up said opinions) legitimacy granted. Ironically enough, this Camp B has gathered legitimacy simply because normally what they pick on (JRPGs, licensed games) have very few defenders.
Camp A: The graphics are good and stuff, and you press buttons to make things happen. Essentially a 2nd graders essay on a summer vacation.
Camp B: This is my opinion and that's what a review is. Well, no... it's not. For example, I hate car sims with every fiber of my being. Yet I would have to be an idiot to claim Gran Turismo is a terrible game.
The review you're talking about sounds like it's from Camp B. Meaning what he wanted and what it is was two entirely different things and because opinions are the excuse of assholes, (because they fail to back up said opinions) legitimacy granted. Ironically enough, this Camp B has gathered legitimacy simply because normally what they pick on (JRPGs, licensed games) have very few defenders.
I read a bit of the reaction to this review and I think that it should have been written as an editorial and not part of a review. As you've noted, a review has to be based on the game's merits, not the reviewer's preferences.
I have to disagree with this one.
Think of it this way, you are a movie critic and you go watch a movie and review it. Do you review it based on "it was well put together movie" or "I enjoyed this film." I think it's a mixture.
Jim Sterling reviews games on his own merit, if he enjoys them. If you find something un-enjoyable in a game, why should you not point it out?
And I think their complaints are merited. If you alert a guard, they all know where you are...NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO. There is no hiding. Now compared to Metal Gear Solid, a game arguably in this same genre, handles this situation better.
Also, AN 8 IS A GREAT SCORE.
Think of it this way, you are a movie critic and you go watch a movie and review it. Do you review it based on "it was well put together movie" or "I enjoyed this film." I think it's a mixture.
Jim Sterling reviews games on his own merit, if he enjoys them. If you find something un-enjoyable in a game, why should you not point it out?
And I think their complaints are merited. If you alert a guard, they all know where you are...NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO. There is no hiding. Now compared to Metal Gear Solid, a game arguably in this same genre, handles this situation better.
Also, AN 8 IS A GREAT SCORE.
@Sheppy
That's my issue, that Camp B is apparently considered as a creditable way of writing criticism. It's a critics job to vocalize their lack of enjoyment in a product. If he didn't want to play a blockbuster game like Uncharted 3, make that point as to why it just isn't the right type of game or why it doesn't work citing the blockbuster action.
@dimmujed
I agree, 8 is a good score for games. I'm not arguing scoring. I'm arguing that he copped out the review by pointing out little flaws while arguing against the blockbuster experience. He essentially breaks down the game as a blockbuster while not giving a clear example of why a blockbuster is bad. Breaking the game down to it being a fun, but mindless ride that is gorgeous, fun to play and has some real drama to it. It's the mindless that doesn't clear up anything. Specifically:
"But the result is that safe thrills and awe-inspiring spectacle are all that remain, sugar-rush gaming that sends your mind into repeated spasm but does little to reward beyond the immediate high"
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN??? Isn't that a good thing? It's so awe-inspiring that it sends your mind in to spasm? That doesn't sound like a bad metaphor.
I agree the psychic guards is a valid point (though it's a small one), but only 1 of 4 real points he made against the game. If the section is unplayable because these guards don't lose you, then make that point. To put it simply, your example was much better than his.
Jim also gives very specific reasoning (in most the reviews I've read) as to what exactly blew him off. I've made this argument for Jim before, he doesn't get reamed because his review doesn't reflect the experience he had. He gets reamed because of the verbiage and the score at the bottom. One very specific time it was because of his personality alone that he gets criticized.
I think you should be judged on the words you write and I wasn't convinced that he presented his argument well. Once again, I could care less about the score. I know the game's good because Chad told me and I can usually rely on him. I don't like the way the review was presented.
That's my issue, that Camp B is apparently considered as a creditable way of writing criticism. It's a critics job to vocalize their lack of enjoyment in a product. If he didn't want to play a blockbuster game like Uncharted 3, make that point as to why it just isn't the right type of game or why it doesn't work citing the blockbuster action.
@dimmujed
I agree, 8 is a good score for games. I'm not arguing scoring. I'm arguing that he copped out the review by pointing out little flaws while arguing against the blockbuster experience. He essentially breaks down the game as a blockbuster while not giving a clear example of why a blockbuster is bad. Breaking the game down to it being a fun, but mindless ride that is gorgeous, fun to play and has some real drama to it. It's the mindless that doesn't clear up anything. Specifically:
"But the result is that safe thrills and awe-inspiring spectacle are all that remain, sugar-rush gaming that sends your mind into repeated spasm but does little to reward beyond the immediate high"
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN??? Isn't that a good thing? It's so awe-inspiring that it sends your mind in to spasm? That doesn't sound like a bad metaphor.
I agree the psychic guards is a valid point (though it's a small one), but only 1 of 4 real points he made against the game. If the section is unplayable because these guards don't lose you, then make that point. To put it simply, your example was much better than his.
Jim also gives very specific reasoning (in most the reviews I've read) as to what exactly blew him off. I've made this argument for Jim before, he doesn't get reamed because his review doesn't reflect the experience he had. He gets reamed because of the verbiage and the score at the bottom. One very specific time it was because of his personality alone that he gets criticized.
I think you should be judged on the words you write and I wasn't convinced that he presented his argument well. Once again, I could care less about the score. I know the game's good because Chad told me and I can usually rely on him. I don't like the way the review was presented.
Nope, Jim hides behind, "that's what a review is, an opinion" quite often. In fact, I was fearing Jim would get the uncharted review and fill it with "Wasn't quit as good as the last one" hipsterism he's had on a few recent blockbusters.
Yeah I can see both sides of this argument. As I said in the forums, you're playing Drake's adventure, not your own and you are only tagging along for the ride. To me, that's the draw of the game, the cinematic experience. I get that it won't please everyone since some people just need to play as "their self". The Eurogamer review is very analytical, breaking the game down to its basics and grading it from there. You definitely get the impression that the reviewer came into the game with a preconceived dislike for the game and he just tried to find anyway to justify it.
