It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
KneeTheCap: Reviews are opinions, no? How is a review that states a game is 9/10 worse than one stating the game is poor 3/10?

Two opinions, both are correct.
avatar
granny: Wrong.

1) If the information upon which an opinion is based is incomplete or inaccurate, then the opinion can be disregarded. Despite popular belief, an opinion can be wrong.

2) Calling something 'an opinion' does not magically protect it from criticism. If an opinion, certainly in the form of a review, fails to take into account aspects (or issues) that are apparent to everyone else, then the opinion and its author can be taken to task.

3) Professional reviews are held to a higher standard than non-professional reviews. Fanboy gushing and tales of a games lack of flaws are fine from amateur bloggers who just want to spout their view. If a professional does the same, they had better be right.

When a glowing review of a game fails to mention or point out issues that are apparent to everyone else, then the foundation upon which the review is built becomes suspect, and the review itself can be considered at best 'wrong', and at worst 'dishonest'.

More so with games, there are some aspects that are not subjective. For example: excessive reuse of the same map, ropey AI, low res textures, missing or incomplete animations etc. If these things, which are likely apparent to everyone else, are not mentioned in a review, then the review becomes suspect, and the reviewer can be considered incompetent.

So, no. You can have two differing opinions, you can have a hundred differing opinions, but not all of them will be right, or valid, or in any way useful. And the argument of "it's only their opinion" is an invalid one, as it exists solely to try and stifle debate, and to attempt to protect the incompetent reviewers from critique.
Fine, you guys win. There's no point continuing this as you cannot see this the way I see it. Is my viewpoint correct? To me it is, to you it's not.

I yield. Have fun.
Haters gonna hate.Potattos gonna potate
avatar
tinyE: I don't mean to be a smug asshole but I love it when a game that I have nowhere enough of a system to play turns out to be shit. It makes me smile when I go back to my fossil PC, rev up the AOE 1, and play play play, enjoying every second of it.
Yeah feel the same way about most shooters these days: boring throwaway fastfood. You play it once and you never look back. THank god they have not the same addictive quality games used to have because otherwise we would finish our overpriced game in one small afternoon. Shooters stopped beining really fun at the end of last gen.... not saying that they are bad or that none of them have any worth but 99% of them are disposable commodities.
I'm sure all the ads for the game plastered over the site had absolutely nothing to do with the good review score.

Nope. No revenue bucks swaying opinions here at all. Honest!
http://penny-arcade.com/comic
avatar
Qwertyman: *Snip*
avatar
KneeTheCap: I am -still- saying reviews are opinions. Is there some rule that dictates how one can rate his/her review?
Reviews are indeed most of all opinions, but opinions can be wrong. No seriously. If there are 99 people who taste a rotten taco, and say it tasted bad, but 1 guy who tastes it and says he thinks it's okay, it is safe to assume that person is wrong and should be beaten with a stick.

Out of curiosity (and a little off-topic): have you watched Total Biscuit's "Should you preorder games" (or something like that) video? He said something that I think is the reason why you're defending the game (actually, I assume you are; I only read like two posts)
avatar
KneeTheCap: I am -still- saying reviews are opinions. Is there some rule that dictates how one can rate his/her review?
avatar
DProject: Reviews are indeed most of all opinions, but opinions can be wrong. No seriously. If there are 99 people who taste a rotten taco, and say it tasted bad, but 1 guy who tastes it and says he thinks it's okay, it is safe to assume that person is wrong and should be beaten with a stick.

Out of curiosity (and a little off-topic): have you watched Total Biscuit's "Should you preorder games" (or something like that) video? He said something that I think is the reason why you're defending the game (actually, I assume you are; I only read like two posts)
And how does that make his OPINION wrong? If he says it's okay, it's okay. For him. That makes his opinion valid and correct. Why can't no one see what I am trying to say here?

I did watch TB's video, and I am getting very annoyed by the guy. He used to be more, uhm, enjoyable, but nowadays I cannot stand his videos. I don't even know why..
http://www.videogamer.com/videos/aliens_colonial_marines_what_the_hell_happened_to_aliens_colonial_marines_2.html

Demo vs final version .
Post edited February 13, 2013 by ne_zavarj
Oh... My... God...

Well, something is definitely fishy. "Work in progress" indeed!
Most of the opinions I have read state that the game was rushed, and sloppily put together. RPS has a pretty good single player Wot I Think on it. What I don't understand is that publishers can games all the time before release. Why didn't they smell the stink on this one and flush it down the drain? Beside the obvious: Cold Hard Cash.
After comparing the final release with the E3 demo, no one can deny the quality in the final has regressed by a stellar margin. I have seen the 360 version, very choppy with visible tearing as if the game wasn't tested properly. Very much reminiscence of Duke Nukem Forever (graphically and performance)
Interesting comparison between the demo and the final game. Any ideas what happened? The two reviewers in the video are speculating that the demo may have been fake, but that seems like a _lot_ effort.

Were they afraid that the Xbox version might look too bad compared to the PC graphics, and reduced the quality of the latter, perhaps with plans to release a HiRes pack later on?

Were they afraid that the dark, foggy visuals from the demo, while looking great, wouldn't work well in the game, and ripped the dynamic lighting out in a last-minute effort to prevent criticism like Doom 3 received ("It's just too dark, I never see what I'm doing")

Did they run a playtest, find out that the dark/disorienting atmosphere of the movies just didn't gel well with the preferences of today's audience, and changed the art direction in the middle of the project, running out of time to do proper lighting in the end?

Thoughts?
avatar
wormholewizards: After comparing the final release with the E3 demo, no one can deny the quality in the final has regressed by a stellar margin.
Which, in any normal sort of development process should be impossible. It does raise the question of whether the "gameplay demo" was actually doctored to Hell and back.

I'm reminded of Spore at this point. I really want to play the 2005 development version of Spore, because that looked like a fantastic game. The final version... was not. Of course, in that case, they really did spend the intervening time removing features from the game and generally dumbing it down.
I.....I actually like the game quite a bit....

*ducks*
Well I sure am glad I didn't plonk down the $80 Sega wants for it in the steam store.