I notice that three of those are by Arthur Gies. My understanding is that he just doesn't seem to care all that much about "always online" games, because that's the way they were designed. Judging by the reviews I've read that he's written, he seems to come at things from a "does it work as intended?" point of view, then follows that up with "does it work well?"
This isn't necessarily a bad way to review, but... hm. As an example, when I read his Dishonored review, I found myself left cold. I couldn't tell whether or not Arthur actually had fun playing the game. I've played plenty of mechanically sound games that still lacked a certain
something that meant I didn't find them worthwhile, and Arthur's reviews tend not to give me a good idea of whether or not I'll actually
enjoy them.
When I read reviews (especially those by Kollar, Plante, and Justin McElroy), I get a sense not only of how well the games work, but also how much personal enjoyment the authors derived from a game. This, to me, is valuable in a review.
I hate dissing anybody, especially someone I'd actually murder to work for, but yeah, just a thought.
That said, the way he and Pitts were talking on twitter yesterday was really off-putting. I get being irritated at assholes on the internet, but I feel like they went too far.
Funny, I usually get yelled at by GAF people for rating games too low!
Yeah.
I'll
never let Forza Horizon go.
--
Personally, I wish people would review games some time after release, rather than rush to review them right away. STALKER, for instance, was eviscerated (and rightly so) upon release, but after patching, it's now one of the greatest video games of all time. Games like Diablo 3 have severe problems (my hardcore Diablo II brethren can explain them better than I can) that most reviewers didn't seem to notice because they didn't play it the way most reviewers played.
I also tend to find that my thoughts on a game change significantly after release (I liked Dead Space 3 when I played, now, I don't think so kindly and regret having spent $40 on it). If I had to burn through a game quickly, like Gies was tweeting about last fall (I think he did three in a week or something crazy like that), I don't think I'd be able to provide an accurate assessment of the game's quality. Going to go out on a limb here and say that I think this is where a lot of reviewer/gamer disparate scores come in. I know reviewers like to blame the grognards, and they're often right to do so, but I think some of them play through in genuinely unhealthy ways that might negatively impact their ability to provide a good review.
Chill. Relax. Let the game breathe. Mull it over for a few days. Maybe go back and play a section or two. Then talk about it.
