What your saying is you want reviews to be based on other peoples opinions? What good is this? Why do I need to know that someone might find this game enjoyable? I want to know what the reviewer thinks, not some random person who may or may not exist. For example, take Big Rigs. That game is trash and no one should ever like it. Therefor it gets a 10/10. I mean it's shit and should never be played by anyone but because there might be someone, somewhere that might possibly like the game I gotta take that into consideration.
If I wrote that Halo 3 review, it wouldn't be worth reading. It would be like me reading a Halo fanboy's review of Halo 3. Hell, I may as well read any fan or anti-fan review of a game, they are just opinions as well. Reviewers should be above that and have objectivity. Many don't. Of course reviews can be negative. That is a spurious point. The negativity must be contained that objectivity. He doesn't like the story, make the point but don't present it as fact. He doens't like the characters, make that point but don't present it is as fact. Acknowledge that others may and give it a score based on its playability, not some ridiculous preconceived dislike or bias. It is like reading Wii reviews these days. You have to assume the bias and stupidity of many reviewers and learn to ignore all the low scores and look more at those somewhere in the upper middle range to get a fair indication of intrinsic value. "
As far as I can tell he took in the whole game and disliked it. It was a buggy mess, in his experience, and therefor got a terrible score. Why you seem to think it deserves a better score simply because you or someone else may enjoy it is baffling.
Log in to comment