Reviews are someone's opinions about a game. This is influenced by player preferences and context. By context I mean what the player has played before and other similar products which are currently in the market competing for your money and, more importantly, your time.
The issue I have with Patrick's response, albeit well articulated, is that is does not address the fundamental point of discussion. That is, whether or not reviews should exist at all. He instead dismisses the issue by saying that regardless of anyone's opinion, they exist and will continue to exist.
I would like to address that issue AND metacritic. I might not agree with Edge's review of Skyward Sword and I might not agree with Patrick's review either. But, if 9 out of 10 gamers liked Skyward Sword does this not give me a good indication that I might. Statistics say it does.
Regardless of the science of metacritic one can argue that it provides some indication of what the reviewing community thinks on average about a game. Comparison between scores are not as meaningful given the population is not homogeneous. That is, the sites considered change from game to game and the reviewers within each publication also change, however, considering this as an indication of the opinion of a number of gamers about a game is valid.
I find all this information super useful, we should always want more tools to make our purchasing decisions instead of fewer. I like to read reviews of each site to understand the likes and dislikes of each reviewer and give the number some context. But once I know the individual I am no longer interested in the detailed description of why a game was given a particular score, regardless of how fulfilled the reviewer might be with what he has written. I want to know whether he liked it and in five words why. If I can get this without reading the review, this is even better.
Log in to comment