Unfair reviews - In your opinion of course

[parkinho]

I don't think they need overhauling. More like consigning to the grave.

For the more discerning gamer a far better way of determining if a game is worth your hard earned cash is to find a First Play style forum like the one here and work out which people you have similar tastes to and those that give honest feedback.

I have my own "little black book" of forumites here who if they rate a game highly I'll rush out and buy it.

I am the same, in that I will listen to the opinions of people who have a similar taste in games to myself when deciding upon game purchases. Reviews from magazines and websites are worthless to me as they have no impact on what I buy. However, this isn't the case for everyone, and as such a score out of 5 is most appropriate (a la CVG circa 95-99). A score out of 100 is ridiculous, how the **** can you differentiate between 90 or 91 out of 100? And more to the point, does it matter? Clearly the reviewer rates it highly.

[muse hunter]

i mentioned it before but CVG's old high 5 scoring system was perfect, it was casual enough that you didn't need to take it seriously yet enough to give an accurate reading of a game combined with a column next to the score giving a second opinon from another reviewer and you have the most perfect and balenced scoring system ever created. Of course the barstards who decided to completely ****ed the magazine up (changing a perfect design, taking away freeplay, changing the scoring system, ruining the layout, ****ing up the logo, basically raping what was a brilliant mag) should be hunted down like witches.

on the subject of unfair review scores (all edge):

halo - 10/10 (should have been 8/10)
gran turismo - 10/10 (ha, as if)
GTA san andreas - 9/10 (never in a million years, 6 or 7/10)

shenmue - should have got a ten

Also GTA3 6/10 was on the ball in my opinion

[marcus]

I think thers a lot of confusion here as to the difference between an 'unfair' review, and one you dont agree with. The former matters, the latter - who cares.

[moonwhistle]

Pretty much every PN03 review I've read have been somewhat harsh and seemed to miss the whole point of the game. The NTSC-UK review is one of few I actually agree with infact.

PN03 was one of the first games that to sprang to mind when thinking of unfair reviews. Gamespot's review of it was one of the worst I've ever read, I won't bother going into the reasons, just go and read it and marvel and the level of ignorance displayed.

Gamespot are usually pretty decent reveiwers imo, better than IGN anyhow,but they really got it very wrong with PN03.

[Emir]

Some stuff for P.N.03 was definitely unfair.

As for Killer7 reviews, I avoided almost all of them 'cause it's a 10 in my eyes and that's all that matters.

[EvilBoris]

Is that the hideous blur effect that could be turned off in the options menu?

It was, but it was the one that when turned off revealed a chronic framerate :P

[PeteJ]

I think thers a lot of confusion here as to the difference between an 'unfair' review, and one you dont agree with. The former matters, the latter - who cares.

Totally correct

PN03 was an interesting one - generally first opinions from early adopters was very negative, but about two weeks later it suddenly became really popular.

It annoyed me greatly that sites were missing the point of what the game tried to achieve (and did achieve), hence the reason the review on ntsc-uk is written the way it is. Reading back now it doesn't actually make for a particularly good review imo, but I've never written anything before that has provoked such a reaction.

[TheForce]

I can remember an issue of a CD32 magazine..... Rise of the Robots 95% !! WTF ??!
I bet after that review the nobody could thake that magazine serious ....

and I still can't understand why the hell EDGE gave Turok2 back then 9/10.... damn it , with all that back tracking and getting lost half of the time the game annoyed the hell ot ouf me, I loved the first Turok but the 2nd was crack IMO.

and CrazyTaxi getting an 7 ... CrazyTaxi is the game I played and enjoyed most on the DC !

for the rest I can agree most of the time with the scores in EDGE...

[EvilBoris]

I remember being quite disgusted with smash brothers DX score of 6.

I was bitter that week

[MonkeyWrench]

I can remember an issue of a CD32 magazine..... Rise of the Robots 95% !! WTF ??!
I bet after that review the nobody could thake that magazine serious ....

I used to work with a guy who worked on that game, some of the stuff he told me about the development of it was hilarious

[MattyD]

What did Stuart d00der give PGR3?

Hi didn't. He just spent almost 1,700 words berating it for being sterile and soulless.

Funnily enough though he did use the tagline: "Project Gotham 3? Sounds like a fair score."

[Strider]

Marcus has hit the nail fully on the head.

We're always going to disagree with scores, that's horses for courses. I think the biggest problem is when you have a score that is totally at odds with what's written within the actual review. That's when you have an unfair review.

If you look at the Edge Mario Kart and gamesTM Burnout 3 scores (and I'm only bringing them both up because other people have mentioned them) the actual text on both reviews perfectly reflects the final score they were given. Thinking about it, even NTSC-uks Outrun text reflects the score. So in a sense all three reviews are technically correct.

[Dogg Thang]

Technically correct? Maybe but, like I said earlier, a review can be technically correct and still be entirely misleading. If a review is misleading it is, in my opinion, an unfair review.

With that said, quibbling over scores says more to me about the people quibbling than it does the reviewers. Yeah, sometimes it is interesting, and sometimes baffling, to see why a given score was so different to what I expected but that's just reviews. But if review content misses whole areas of a game (either positive or negative) and chooses to only highlight certain parts to rant or rave over, then I would call that a misleading review.

Personally, I enjoy opinions in reviews regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them. But I also expect to be given a broad spread of what that game has to offer me as a player or indeed what it lacks. That's where duty and responsibility comes in to it. It is irresponsible for a reviewer to leave out points of interest because he or she hated the game. It is irresponsible for a reviewer to leave out bugs or gameplay problems because he or she enjoys the game. They can say they love it or hate it but I want to hear the whole story.

[Ish]

Personally, I enjoy opinions in reviews regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them.

Me too. That PGR3 review my Stuart Campbelll was a very entertaining read. The trouble with taking opinions out of reviews and going for a more objective piece of writing is that it becomes dry to read.

I don't find reviews any good at all for evaluating games anymore - and that given I'd rather read something opinionated and amusing!

[Kaladron]

This is exactly the reason why I liked MAXIMUM. 10 - 20 pages of in-depth info on the game followed by a one page review of personal opinion. The trouble is that it isn't financially viable and, as others have pointed out, has the potential to be a dull read unless handled well.