@Coreymw: Well I won't argue too much with you, because it sounds like we come to reviews for different things. I find "objectivity" a boring concept in general. At its core, an objective review could be just a series of check boxes and numbers evaluating the overall quality of a game. Knowing how well-made a game is can be useful to me, but there are plenty of well-made games, even in genres I like, that I have just hated, because the mechanics are not for me, and so I seek out reviewers who have similar tastes to mine. That is also how I approach movie reviews, because an "objective" review of a movie review is completely useless to me if I want to know whether the movie is compatible with my taste.
I will also say that, by your account, if you don't want prior games referenced at all in a review of a sequel, the game could be an exact copy of a prior game in the series, and the review would not mention that. Having played the prior game, you would probably be disappointed to play an identical sequel for 60 bucks, and would have like to know that you've basically already played the same game. Although this is an exaggeration, having played prior games in a series often makes people want something new and different, and so a game can suffer if it doesn't innovate.
As an example. Assassin's Creed Revelation was a real disappointment, because although it was basically the same game as Brotherhood with some new mechanics, it was also basically the same game again, which was tiresome to many people. A review of that game that doesn't mention the other Assassin's Creed game would be a failure in my eyes.
Finally, I would submit that almost every review on GB is fairly subjective. I have learned over time that I disagree with Brad's assessment of many many games, and his good reviews of games don't count much for me, while Jeff and Ryan tend to like more things in games that I enjoy, and those all come through in their reviews.
Log in to comment