Modeps
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 17,254
- 44
- 91
Originally posted by: R Nilla
Regardless of my thoughts on your reviews, I've always respected your right to share them with the community. In fact, I've always thought that you contribute far more to ATCG than the jackasses who crap on your review threads. Even if your reviews are just flat out wrong. :beer:
this!
This 'review' is not very good, much like your others. It's not even because you don't like the game, it's just poorly written, it doesn't focus on anything a gamer even cares about (your character runs like the terminator? you suck at driving and navigating the map at the same time?)
For example;
"Controlling the character is cumbersome because of the camera, which is always recentering itself, and because he moves on a pivot. When driving, the camera is at a low position, making it hard to see what?s in front of the car. Changing the camera can help, but since it?s always recentering itself you?ll need some steady and precise thumbs to hold it still. If you?re shooting people while in the car, getting out of the car to continue shooting gets rid of your weapon, which you may not instantly realize and get killed. The targeting system is out of whack and has gotten me killed during firefights."
"I also don?t like the small map on the HUD because, while trying to get to a location, I am continuously looking at the map instead of the road."
"It makes the graphics go underappreciated and it makes it easier to get into accidents, which can get annoying during missions."
HUH? To me that means you just suck at the game. LEARN the controls, THEN review the game.
"The volume level is so weird. The cutscene volume is very low. The vehicle engines are very loud. The music sits somewhere in the middle. The radio has a few hits here and there, otherwise I didn?t find it very pleasurable listening to the radio."
HUH? What the hell are you talking about? There are no audio issues whatsoever in this game, why are you just making shit up? And the radio stations are almost the most entertaining part of the game.
This article is amateur at best - but more like something written by a bored kid in middle school.
Whatever, it's actually kind of funny to read your reviews, they're just so damn bad.
For example;
"Controlling the character is cumbersome because of the camera, which is always recentering itself, and because he moves on a pivot. When driving, the camera is at a low position, making it hard to see what?s in front of the car. Changing the camera can help, but since it?s always recentering itself you?ll need some steady and precise thumbs to hold it still. If you?re shooting people while in the car, getting out of the car to continue shooting gets rid of your weapon, which you may not instantly realize and get killed. The targeting system is out of whack and has gotten me killed during firefights."
"I also don?t like the small map on the HUD because, while trying to get to a location, I am continuously looking at the map instead of the road."
"It makes the graphics go underappreciated and it makes it easier to get into accidents, which can get annoying during missions."
HUH? To me that means you just suck at the game. LEARN the controls, THEN review the game.
"The volume level is so weird. The cutscene volume is very low. The vehicle engines are very loud. The music sits somewhere in the middle. The radio has a few hits here and there, otherwise I didn?t find it very pleasurable listening to the radio."
HUH? What the hell are you talking about? There are no audio issues whatsoever in this game, why are you just making shit up? And the radio stations are almost the most entertaining part of the game.
This article is amateur at best - but more like something written by a bored kid in middle school.
Whatever, it's actually kind of funny to read your reviews, they're just so damn bad.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
I tend to never take gamer/player reviews seriously. Well, I don't really take critic reviews seriously either, but they serve a better function.
Player reviews tend to be too biased and laced with too much opinion. Player reviews are all about opinion, but for me, opinion shouldn't be in a review, at least, as very little as possible. It's impossible to dodge opinion, but player reviews are dripping with personal opinions, while professional/critic reviews are more geared towards simply comparing points with other things, and less about opinion. Makes it more possible for an individual to judge whether they want that game or not. At least, for me it does.
Point: Reviews from places like IGN are something I love to read. Now, I won't often take the final score to heart, because a little bias tends to get wrapped up in that, usually simply from the overall taste the game left in their mouth, so the score is the least honest portion of a game review. But the meat of the review, all the information included. While there can be a lot of bias/spin in the written portion of the review, a careful reader can still point out all the information that is actually important. The more technical aspect of the game is covered.
I just find professional reviews have a far more critical eye, and appeals to the masses more readily than player reviews.
+
Player reviews tend to be too biased and laced with too much opinion. Player reviews are all about opinion, but for me, opinion shouldn't be in a review, at least, as very little as possible. It's impossible to dodge opinion, but player reviews are dripping with personal opinions, while professional/critic reviews are more geared towards simply comparing points with other things, and less about opinion. Makes it more possible for an individual to judge whether they want that game or not. At least, for me it does.
Point: Reviews from places like IGN are something I love to read. Now, I won't often take the final score to heart, because a little bias tends to get wrapped up in that, usually simply from the overall taste the game left in their mouth, so the score is the least honest portion of a game review. But the meat of the review, all the information included. While there can be a lot of bias/spin in the written portion of the review, a careful reader can still point out all the information that is actually important. The more technical aspect of the game is covered.
I just find professional reviews have a far more critical eye, and appeals to the masses more readily than player reviews.
+
Originally posted by: destrekor
I tend to never take gamer/player reviews seriously. Well, I don't really take critic reviews seriously either, but they serve a better function.
Player reviews tend to be too biased and laced with too much opinion. Player reviews are all about opinion, but for me, opinion shouldn't be in a review, at least, as very little as possible. It's impossible to dodge opinion, but player reviews are dripping with personal opinions, while professional/critic reviews are more geared towards simply comparing points with other things, and less about opinion. Makes it more possible for an individual to judge whether they want that game or not. At least, for me it does.
Reviews are always going to be subjective. I actually don't like professional reviews because they look for things that I don't care about and they miss things that I do care about. For example, a game called XIII was given a terrible score because it didn't offer new gameplay elements. However, it did offer a kick ass story which I enjoyed significantly. Professional reviewers also ignore bugs most of the time. I don't because Battlefield 4 felt like it was still in beta mode when it was released being that crashes were keeping me from playing the game. Some professional reviewers also think that if the multiplayer is awesome, the single-player can be ignored -- Halo 2 was torture to finish.
How a game feels is essential when rating a game because a gamer will get a feeling for the game as well. Even if the review was completely objective, the feeling received by the gamer may not match the score. Everyone is an individual, which is why I believe the most valuable scores are in sites like metacritic.com because they average everyone's rating together.
I'm not trying to be objective with my reviews, I rate them subjectively on purpose. I am not telling you that a game is good or bad. I'm telling you that this was my experience; this is what I liked and what I didn't like; and this is my conclusion based on my experience. I don't expect you to take my word as truth. All I can expect is that there will be people with similar tastes as mine and they will enjoy reading my reviews.
As you can see on my reviews, I focus on Story and Gameplay. Everything else is put into Other Thoughts because they generally aren't important when it comes to me enjoying a game. Even if the gameplay isn't stellar, the story could make up for it if executed well. Introduction is there to give you a background to the review. For instance, in the GTA4 review, I told you how I felt about the series. That lets you know where I'm coming from. Finally, the conclusion is there to state main points for all those people who can't bother reading the details, same with the grade.
They reply only to mock you, so you still lose.
Honestly, no one seems to like your reviews...and I laugh at that lolz.
Originally posted by: VIAN
Originally posted by: destrekor
I tend to never take gamer/player reviews seriously. Well, I don't really take critic reviews seriously either, but they serve a better function.
Player reviews tend to be too biased and laced with too much opinion. Player reviews are all about opinion, but for me, opinion shouldn't be in a review, at least, as very little as possible. It's impossible to dodge opinion, but player reviews are dripping with personal opinions, while professional/critic reviews are more geared towards simply comparing points with other things, and less about opinion. Makes it more possible for an individual to judge whether they want that game or not. At least, for me it does.
Reviews are always going to be subjective. I actually don't like professional reviews because they look for things that I don't care about and they miss things that I do care about. For example, a game called XIII was given a terrible score because it didn't offer new gameplay elements. However, it did offer a kick ass story which I enjoyed significantly. Professional reviewers also ignore bugs most of the time. I don't because Battlefield 4 felt like it was still in beta mode when it was released being that crashes were keeping me from playing the game. Some professional reviewers also think that if the multiplayer is awesome, the single-player can be ignored -- Halo 2 was torture to finish.
How a game feels is essential when rating a game because a gamer will get a feeling for the game as well. Even if the review was completely objective, the feeling received by the gamer may not match the score. Everyone is an individual, which is why I believe the most valuable scores are in sites like metacritic.com because they average everyone's rating together.
I'm not trying to be objective with my reviews, I rate them subjectively on purpose. I am not telling you that a game is good or bad. I'm telling you that this was my experience; this is what I liked and what I didn't like; and this is my conclusion based on my experience. I don't expect you to take my word as truth. All I can expect is that there will be people with similar tastes as mine and they will enjoy reading my reviews.
As you can see on my reviews, I focus on Story and Gameplay. Everything else is put into Other Thoughts because they generally aren't important when it comes to me enjoying a game. Even if the gameplay isn't stellar, the story could make up for it if executed well. Introduction is there to give you a background to the review. For instance, in the GTA4 review, I told you how I felt about the series. That lets you know where I'm coming from. Finally, the conclusion is there to state main points for all those people who can't bother reading the details, same with the grade.
Whether or not people agree with your opinion or grade, expect to be mocked when you post a very poorly written criticism that is based upon things that the vast majority of people simply didnt experience (bugs) or don't agree with at all. Its simply not the kind of review that you can appreciate and yet disagree with, despite how bad you want it to be.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter