Jump to content
IGNORED

Latest gamesTM scores


Swainy
 Share

Recommended Posts

You want to argue over the semantics of objectivity and I really can't be arsed. I consider what I said to be practically objective, given that true objectivity is completely impossible. If you don't, fine, but I don't want to hear about it.

As to your second point - yes, exactly. That's why magazines are aimed at a specific group of people. You don't have to be one of those people to 'get' the review. I've already said this, I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you must have missed the part where the bloke from GTM said that they were only joking when theys said that ollie shouldn't give it a 9, as in, 'we know what you're like!' etc.

So is someone lying or am I missing something?

And, still, no one else even bothered to try the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is someone lying or am I missing something?

And, still, no one else even bothered to try the game?

Read the thread.

Or search for Cacky, Strider, Mart TM.

There's no value for everyone else in *repeating what has already happened* and *arguing about it all over again*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the thread.

Or search for Cacky, Strider, Mart TM.

There's no value for everyone else in *repeating what has already happened* and *arguing about it all over again*.

Ok when I get time (in a couple of days).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to argue over the semantics of objectivity and I really can't be arsed. I consider what I said to be practically objective, given that true objectivity is completely impossible.

No it isn't, that just wasn't it.

If you wanted a completely objective 'review', you would simply list the facts and not draw any conclusions from those. Essentially, you'll then have something which is informative and should (in theory) provide anyone with enough information about the game to help them draw their own conclusions. But it would be a bastard to read, and very difficult to draw conclusions yourself when you only have bits and pieces to go on, or it'd be about 50 pages long and probably spoil everything for you anyway.

But, that aside...

As to your second point - yes, exactly. That's why magazines are aimed at a specific group of people. You don't have to be one of those people to 'get' the review. I've already said this, I'm sure.

It wasn't made quite clear what you meant, exactly. But I can now appreciate why you might want to do what you do, seeing as...

I think an alarmingly high number of people do actually [want to be told what to like and just look at the score]. Even if they don't admit it or try to dress it up as something else.

But it all just seems so terribly self-defeating! I mean, if you're given something to write about, you're given a 'voice', do you not want to give your honest-to-god true opinion of something? Don't you find it a bit frustrating? If you're just altering your opinion to attempt to match it to one that your reader might share (which would be very hit-and-miss, anyway) aren't you just perpetuating the initial real 'problem' of people not paying attention to what you write in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I was right, you really aren't worth the time.

:rolleyes:

I've made perfectly valid points. I'm mostly agreeing that there's nothing wrong with doing things that way anyway, but I've just raised some other issue of perpectuating a deeper problem.

Do you have so little argument that you can't address these?

It's a discussion for christ's sake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an alarmingly high number of people do actually [want to be told what to like and just look at the score]. Even if they don't admit it or try to dress it up as something else.

But it all just seems so terribly self-defeating! I mean, if you're given something to write about, you're given a 'voice', do you not want to give your honest-to-god true opinion of something? Don't you find it a bit frustrating? If you're just altering your opinion to attempt to match it to one that your reader might share (which would be very hit-and-miss, anyway) aren't you just perpetuating the initial real 'problem' of people not paying attention to what you write in the first place?

That's why I'm not a gaming journalist. It's bloody difficult! Seriously though, I think a lot of people want to be told what to like (hell, only recently did I stop automatically adding all games featured in Edge most played or which got more than 7 to my 'to play' list) but this is different from wanting to read opinions they agree with. I think a lot of people use magazines as a reassurance that they're playing the right games and as a guideline as to what games to play. The first half of that is people following a game's hype up to release and refusing to agree when a reviewer thinks it's crap (eg. MK: DD) but the second half is people playing something like ICO which they never would have played otherwise because of a good review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..but the second half is people playing something like ICO which they never would have played otherwise because of a good review.

Which I think raises another point; if you're constantly second-guessing your audience, you not only run the risk of 'getting-them-wrong' but this could lead to them not being made aware of something that they might actually like!

Would The Sun print a review of Ico (or indeed, did they?). Would they praise a game like that or would they predict what most of their readership would probably think of it, thus potentially alienating it from those (presumably few, if you're going by perceived/predicted audiences) people who would have liked it, but didn't give it a chance because of that review? When does predicting become 'dictating'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think publications like the Sun don't bother reviewing something that they think is really off the radar of their readership. I don't know much about the Sun (because I'm too much of a snob to read it) but they don't print many reviews of Arthouse films do they? Non-specialist press don't generally do a review specifically to say 'this isn't worth your time' if, without that review, the reader wouldn't know about it anyway.

It's an interesting issue about writing reviews based on what the writer thinks the reader wants. I don't know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;)

I've made perfectly valid points. I'm mostly agreeing that there's nothing wrong with doing things that way anyway, but I've just raised some other issue of perpectuating a deeper problem.

Do you have so little argument that you can't address these?

It's a discussion for christ's sake!

Come on, you know what he gets like ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.