I like to think the worst about game reviewers, but some of the accusations are pretty bad, too.
Mass Effect 3 review thread
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
I like to think the worst about game reviewers, but some of the accusations are pretty bad, too.
That is what I meant. Publishers do not give money to sites or give access to promotional material with the promise of a great review score.
EmCeeGramr
Member
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/01/mass-effect-3-review
That is pretty goddamned bad. Not outright "EA GAVE THEM MONIES" bad but wow. It's like one of those overbloated GAF |OT|s in review form, complete with "Buy Now From GameStop."
Ventilaator
Banned
I don't want to think the worst about them. I honestly, legitimately do not want this. I'm often the only person in a group defending something that the entire group is hating on, just because they are doing it without enough information and I absolutely hate that. Honest to god.
And here I am reading these reviews and being completely baffled that apparently Bioware didn't write them.
You are repeating yourself. As I already said, it is possible for one statement to be more valid and sound than another, right? Therefore, a well-argued valid and sound statement is more epistemically valuable than one which isn't, despite being unable to be determined as factually true or false. Hence it is possible to maintain the position that statements within the knowledge domain of aesthetics (or entertainment as you call it) are not able to have the same value. To provide an everyday example of what I am hinting towards: There's a motivated reason for why we'd rather listen to Roger Ebert rather than a layman film critic.
Keep in mind that I am not refuting that 'truth' is an inoperable concept within the type of knowledge we are talking about - I am only adding the notion of validity and soundness as basis for why some aesthetic statements are better than others.
DangerStepp
Member
Great to see good scores! I feared the worst.
I'm so glad you brought back this avatar. What a classic.
Frankenstrat
Member
Beaten like a rented mule. Man oh man is there going to be a turnaround.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I don't disagree with this. Over generalisation on my behalf, in my original statement, may have implied I thought otherwise.
I suppose the reason for my statement was in response to the usual onslaught of review discrediting, which too often consists of "this review sucks 'cos it is badly written", without explaining why it is badly written, followed by the usual accusations of hyperbole, blind fanboyism, and payoffs.
I think the problem many have with the so-called hype-manipulable reviewers is that the easiest rational explanation for why a reviewer would disregard any form of critical engagement and reflection on the product they are reviewing (aka. you know, doing what they are supposed to do) is being paid-off. I know it isn't true in almost all cases, but it's more of an expression to indicate how ridiculous the amount of unprofessionalism and bias these fangirls and -boys are showing. Note that I am not defending the knee-jerk accusations, but trying to understand what's motivating these type of reactions.
I should probably clarify that I was trying to add to your original post, rather than being in opposition to it. At least that's what I retrospectively think
chickdigger802
Banned
Has there been any reviews from someone that hasn't played 1 or 2?
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Maybe they actually do believe such things? There is no particular reason why that could NOT be the case, especially when we take the time difference into account.
What objective measure do you have that would say that ME3 could not be, for this day and age, what OOT and Halo were for theirs?
Now, I don't buy into the statement that it would be the case, but I see no reason why someone could not form that opinion.
The only thing that is weird about it, is that the statement is made by people as old or older than me, who are just as biased by nostalgia as I am, and they show it often, yet also contradict themselves often with statements like these. That is the element that suggests a lack of honesty to me (and you, I imagine), but that doesn't mean the statement itself could not be formed by someone who doesn't share our nostalgia. And for the sake of criticism, it might not be all that bad to just pretend we don't have it. How else will we know to acknowledge a classic of times not our own?
That really goes to the heart of criticism: what actually defines a classic, and what does that mean?
Baconsammy
Banned
This is just sad. We're now arbiters of what people can and can not think?
Ventilaator
Banned
What objective measure did the reviewer have to say that? I'm not saying that it can't in no way go down as a classic, I'm saying that claiming Mass Effect 3 goes right alongside Halo and Ocarina right after you've just finished it is like saying "I will never eat again" after the thanksgiving dinner.
That's just a side effect of the kind of schedules these guys work under. It's not something that happens only in gaming.
Baconsammy
Banned
So we should negate every single review of Ocarina that came out on or around the release date. How long is the acceptable timeframe before I can decide what I love and what I don't love? And your Thanksgiving analogy is flawed. It would be the equivalent of saying "I will most likely never eat that well again."
EmCeeGramr
Member
Yeah that's a perfectly logical response that follows what he said
Baconsammy
Banned
How is my statement any less idiotic than his? What's the amount of time required to reflect upon your experience with a game before you can decide that it was one of your most favorite games you've ever played?
Let me just say this. While game reviews are almost uniformly worthless crap and it's impossible to take them seriously, to say that because a reviewer feels ME3 is better than Ocarina of Time or Halo makes it so is absurd.
This is just sacred cow worship bs. Ocarina of Time is not this flawless masterpiece beyond compare; people hate to say it, but there are many games that have taken its groundbreaking foundation and ran further with it. Halo similarly has the same issue.
The problem is bothering to throw the comparison around at all. These games are nothing alike, so it's worthless pandering.
Ventilaator
Banned
Every single review? Just the ones that claim that they don't need to play another videogame ever again and it's safe to burn their consoles because they neverever want to take this game out and your grandchildren are gonna sing songs praising the developer.
I have written reviews right after finishing games. I can go back to the reviews now months later and agree with everything that's written there. The key is to think before you write. Not that hard.
The time it takes to create and write down coherent, well-balanced, critical, reflexive thoughts about the experience you just went through.
EDIT: Or what Ventilaator just wrote:
EmCeeGramr
Member
You're right, it's not less idiotic.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I have no idea how good or bad ME3 is going to be until it launches in Australia at midnight tonight. But son, there ain't no such thing as an objective measure of game quality. I'm sure whatever review this is at least makes an attempt at breaking down the game and explaining what parts were great, what parts were just OK, and so on.
Baconsammy
Banned
If you had followed that practice we wouldn't be engaged in this conversation.
Interesting that the sites with the (currently) two lowest reviews scores are the only ones you find credible. Funny how that worked out, eh?
You're not helping yourself. Stop with the personal attacks. Reply properly or admit defeat.
Baconsammy
Banned
What's a proper reply to someone that says you can't like a game as much as or more than Ocarina and Halo? And we have one guy (cant remember his name) who got banned (rightly) for saying Edge is useless because they gave a game an 8. How is doing the opposite of that any better?
I can tell you it definitely isn't using abusive ad hominem arguments.
Ventilaator
Banned
Claiming that the game is gonna go down in history right next to Ocarina and Halo isn't the same thing as liking the game as much, but both of those things are dumb. Saying that you like ME3 as much as Ocarina doesn't mean anything because they are completely different games. Saying that it will go down in history as a classic and one of the greatest games of all time is also dumb, because that just smacks of being overhyped and full of hyperbole. Just going too far to the extremes. It's okay to say "It's really really great." You don't have to say "the greatest thing in the history of the world in any medium combined" for it to register to readers that they should pay attention to a product.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Perhaps. But "staying power" of a classic can be predicted if we feel to know that something is a classic. Furthermore, we can only give an non-mediated aesthetic response to something once, which is during or just after experiencing it.
I'm also not entirely convinced that the passage of time is a very good way to determine 'classics' altogether, since each and every object is measured / perceived against the collection of all available objects at that particular time. If we can't tell that something deserves to be a classic at the time of its creation or release, why should we assume we are going to be able to say so later on? It doesn't make much sense to me.
So I don't think it is wrong to claim such a thing, but whether it remains a tenable statement remains to be seen. The reviewer simply takes it on faith (in part on his own ability to predict such a thing).
I also don't agree with going back on our own statements, as if we are rewriting those. If I say today that game X is a classic, a hindsight article should not be a re-review, but rather an inspection into why my statement was untenable. And I could review it with my current understanding, but that usually just turns to circlewanking or making up reasons to like it.
Cognitive bias is something that should be reflected in our applications of theory, imho. In particular in this highly dynamic field of aesthetic and writing theory, where nothing remains true for very long.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
Good gravy, that IGN review is pretty much an extended ad. The "buy at gamespot" button...SMH
Baconsammy
Banned
Unless you believe it.
Its actually more like saying "That dinner was just as good as last year!"
GTFO HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
It makes sense to compare them as breakthrough games for periods of time.
That said, I don't see ME3 having that same type of impact regardless of how good it is.
GOOD! The shooting in the previous 2 games were not good.
Apophenia Overload
Member
Once again, it is up to Eastern Europe to save video gaming.
jesus christ.
first thing they teach you in school:
REVIEWS ARE... SUBJECTIVE.
They are written in an carefully argued and constructe manner and the better written a review is the more likely the reader will agree with them.
Maybe the concensus is, when a game receives altogether good or bad scores, YOU, the reader, might feel the same way.
SHouting blasphemy and pulling your hair about reviews NOT BEING OBJECTIVE just makes you a bloody fng idiot.
first thing they teach you in school:
REVIEWS ARE... SUBJECTIVE.
They are written in an carefully argued and constructe manner and the better written a review is the more likely the reader will agree with them.
Maybe the concensus is, when a game receives altogether good or bad scores, YOU, the reader, might feel the same way.
SHouting blasphemy and pulling your hair about reviews NOT BEING OBJECTIVE just makes you a bloody fng idiot.
I'm really liking 3 and you'll be hard pressed to find someone who was more negative on this game and Bioware in general up to the release than me. Of course there's still plenty of time for the game to completely fall apart on me. I'm probably not even half way through yet.
The auto dialog complaints are accurate though. That's my single biggest complaint so far, there should be more options and less of Shepard talking on his own.
PrinceOfApathy
Banned
What school did you got to by chance? That taught you that rubbish?
I dont get all the uproar. Its his/her opinion. I've played a game or two since OoT and thought that said game was better. If I was talking to a friend about that game, I may say that in order to get across how much I enjoyed playing the game.
Isnt that what reviewers are doing? The reviews are there opinion on the game. They write shit to let us know what they thought about it.
I've never understood why people get so upset about high or low scores. The game is what it is. Regardless of the metacritic rating, I'm buying this. It just lets me know if its worse, on par or better than the second.
Isnt that what reviewers are doing? The reviews are there opinion on the game. They write shit to let us know what they thought about it.
I've never understood why people get so upset about high or low scores. The game is what it is. Regardless of the metacritic rating, I'm buying this. It just lets me know if its worse, on par or better than the second.
I rather save Space Nazi than 'what's his name?'
the human companions are the worst in every ME game (Zaeed is a honorary Elcor)
WeAreStarStuff
Member
I have just one question.
I loved the ME3 demo, but have never played a ME game. Can I go ahead and just buy ME3 or will I be lost?
I loved the ME3 demo, but have never played a ME game. Can I go ahead and just buy ME3 or will I be lost?
shinobi602
Member
I have only experienced more autodialogue in the first hour or so. I honestly have no clue where people are getting this from. The conversations seem perfectly in line with ME1 and ME2 after you get the Normandy, visit the Citadel, etc.
"Investigate" options galore.
Baconsammy
Banned
Play them all. It's the absolute best series of games I've ever played, and the decisions you make in the first two start to show themselves almost immediately in 3. You can play 3 without playing the other 2, but why would you? Buy the other 2 for about 40 bucks, enjoy them and by the time you're ready for 3 it will probably have dropped in price 20-30 bucks.
shinobi602
Member
I would not begin a trilogy by playing the final act in that trilogy. Just my advice. It makes no sense.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
OK OK. ME1 isn't for PS3?? Guess I'll just have to start with ME2.
shinobi602
Member
I guess, if you don't have a 360 or even a semi-decent PC, get ME2 on PS3, unfortunately. ME1 shouldn't be missed.
Similar threads
- Poll