Search Results

I wouldn't say that the company-paid reviewers account for the majority anymore, both because of the ease of reviewing a game yourself through various services and, as you briefly mentioned, the rise in popularity of independent reviewers through such things as Youtube. Regardless, all of those reviews are afflicted by the flaws in the system; even reviews from ostensible peers in the gaming community can be unreliable, hard to follow, and just plain murky. And yeah, people could try harder to take reviews with a grain of salt, but we could also try to lay some real, serious ground rules for how reviews are made. If one side gives, the problem lessens; so who cares which side it is?

Part of the reason that we can't properly gauge how much we'll like a game from a review is because no one's really sure how a review is meant to be done. Should they be talking about the game as if their observer has never heard of it, or should they assume we all know the mechanics and skip to the evaluation of them? Should the reviewer's emphasis be upon rating their own experience, or providing an objective quality assessment, and what's the ratio on that? For what elements should they be looking out? Of what should they warn their observers?

The answer to most of these varies wildly with genre, demographic, the developers' goals, so on and so forth, but absolutely none of it is accounted for by a flat 1-to-10 rating. There is no room for variation, no clarification as to what type of reviewer this is or what sort of review they're giving, none except to study them carefully and form one's own conclusions - and even then, some reviewers can be erratic! With no rules or guidelines to tie them down, they can take radically different approaches to the games they review and produce skewed ratings as a result, to the point that no one can really be sure if their 8/10 last week means the same as their 8/10 this week. Add to it the fact that some reviewers are too generous to rate below a 5 or too stubborn to rate above an 8, and the convolution reaches critical mass. Not all of this goes away if you change the rating system, but it becomes more manageable if all you have to do is figure out the reviewer's personal quirks, and not also discern what type of review they're giving.

If we were to restructure the way reviews work, to take them more seriously, then they'd be harder to fake. Reviewers paid to praise games may actually be caught in a lie now and then. And those on the up and up could communicate more clearly to those interested which games are for them and which they should pass up. Yes, reviews are biased, and maybe they never will be 1:1 with playing the game yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not as good as they could be and no one's doing anything about it.

Listen man Generations was arright

Oh yeah, obviously not. Otherwise that one little shit wouldn't have spit in your nachos at Taco Bell. But when you're on the clock you're at least expected to try.

But all of these are simply naming the obstacles to a task that must, in the end, still be attempted. You say them like I'm not aware of them. I am. But it needs to be done regardless. And if there's a more efficient way, let's find it by knocking out the bad ways.

Be careful with that 'we.'

That's a bold assumption that I'm absolutely not party to. Most reviewers have room for improvement; furthermore, the current system of reviews is flawed, in such a way that it makes reviewers seem bad, because the goals are muddy.

Then the problem is double-fault. Simple as that.

Again, speak for yourself please.

My folks have a party every year, so I guess that's what I'm doing. Don't have many friends left in the area to invite, but I think my roommate will still be here at the very least. We'll probably just chill in my room and play games, poke our heads downstairs now and then to snag some grub, the yoozh.

I'm not even going for a damn Mawile this time until I start compiling my postgame team

Feel better :'c

Jim can

But that ceases to be an excuse when you are paid to explain why you like or dislike a game. Yeah, it is hard to figure it out sometimes. Do it anyway. Otherwise nobody learns. You don't get a pass out of doing something because it's hard. You get some sympathy if you fail, maybe, but if you want to be understood, you have to keep trying to understand yourself.

Here ya go, buddy

In the same way as World of Warcraft: It hits buttons in the player's head. It keeps you playing for a shallow reward that manipulates you into thinking it's valuable, and furthermore makes itself feel both like work and play at the same time so that all you ever want to do is that; when you stop playing it you feel lazy, and when you are playing it you feel like you're having fun.

I fucked up ok

Y'know, Charmander, Evander

Grinding is for sweaty nerds alone with their dakimakura on a Saturday night

TOO FAR + WASTE OF A HEART SCALE

Part of it does

Can't Megavolve that one 'til the postgame either, to my knowledge

Consider me educated

sry dint kno we had a Jafarian on the boards

Maybe this is a bit extreme, but I've begun to think the main Pokémon franchise should split into two distinct series: one more adventure-oriented, where the player catches and raises a team of trusty allies to take on the evils of the world, and a sort of Stadium-esque challenge series with absolutely zero hand-holding, where creating sophisticated and competitive teams is a breeze and the challenges are intense and engaging even up to lv100. I think it would do much to satisfy both parties; while I still enjoy the main storyline of the games, I'm often frustrated by the number of useful yet gated features that require you to beat it to unlock, and even with the concessions made it's still very difficult to build an optimized, tourney-level team (unless they've added some miracle that makes getting max IVs less time-consuming, in which case holy sh█t Game Freak you did it). If two sets of games were each allowed to narrow their focus, it might improve the baseline experience for casual players as well as streamline the more competitive aspects and maybe - just maybe - cash in on some of that simulator crowd.

I think you mean CHABBLE GOBBLE DOBBLE AHH

...

No I mean

that they'll reunite and finish it the right way

s o m e d a y . . .

You gotta cheer up

AND NEVER EVER GIVE UP HOPE