Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums
WazerWifle

A few questions about Phil's reviews.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pochomex said:

I had to chuckle at that little disclaimer. Y'know, things can still be insulting/disrespectful even if they aren't intended to be. You just shit all over Angry Joe and Jim Sterling right here and ended it with "no offense btw".

Yeah you gotta wonder if he purposely does it to generate a reaction/buzz. I'm pretty sure if someone said "DarkSydePhil's commentary and content is uncreative, boring dribble for thoughtless morons. DISCLAMER: None of that was meant to be insulting, us reviewers have our own styles."

Out of all of us, He'd be the most offended still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilkyEnigma said:

Yeah you gotta wonder if he purposely does it to generate a reaction/buzz. I'm pretty sure if someone said "DarkSydePhil's commentary and content is uncreative, boring dribble for thoughtless morons. DISCLAMER: None of that was meant to be insulting, us reviewers have our own styles."

Out of all of us, He'd be the most offended still.

Of course I'd be offended, because you didn't actually describe anything I do; all you did was blatantly insult. My descriptions of other reviewers were actually accurate. The things I reference are actually their "catches" with the exception of the "mainstream," and everyone knows what my issue is with them. If you think Angry Joe would have 1/10th the audience he has WITHOUT the cosplay/skits, or that Jimquisition would have anyone watching him if he DIDN'T talk like some kind of hyper-intelligent elitist hipster (bring a dictionary if you want to read his written stuff), you'd be wrong. Those are their styles, and you have your own ability to judge whether they're "valid" or not. Personally, I think just being myself and not acting/pretending or needing a "hook" is enough to warrant interest. But there's obviously an insanely huge audience out there looking for characters/spins that I don't provide. And that's perfectly OK as long as I continue to provide a service that some people find merit in.

Considering I've now stopped around 12k people from buying Homefront: the Revolution with my video about it, I'm quite happy with the results of my work. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to split hairs, but you're assuming that every person that watched your video was going to buy the game and your video stopped them. There's no way to know how many views represented that person.

Edited by Vrifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Phil said:

Of course I'd be offended, because you didn't actually describe anything I do; all you did was blatantly insult. My descriptions of other reviewers were actually accurate. The things I reference are actually their "catches" with the exception of the "mainstream," and everyone knows what my issue is with them. If you think Angry Joe would have 1/10th the audience he has WITHOUT the cosplay/skits, or that Jimquisition would have anyone watching him if he DIDN'T talk like some kind of hyper-intelligent elitist hipster (bring a dictionary if you want to read his written stuff), you'd be wrong. Those are their styles, and you have your own ability to judge whether they're "valid" or not. Personally, I think just being myself and not acting/pretending or needing a "hook" is enough to warrant interest. But there's obviously an insanely huge audience out there looking for characters/spins that I don't provide. And that's perfectly OK as long as I continue to provide a service that some people find merit in.

Considering I've now stopped around 12k people from buying Homefront: the Revolution with my video about it, I'm quite happy with the results of my work. 

This is great point. I am one of lucky few who saw your review. I was on fence about it but now I know the game is crap. Me and 11,999 others saving our hard earned money.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil said:

Of course I'd be offended, because you didn't actually describe anything I do; all you did was blatantly insult. My descriptions of other reviewers were actually accurate. The things I reference are actually their "catches" with the exception of the "mainstream," and everyone knows what my issue is with them. If you think Angry Joe would have 1/10th the audience he has WITHOUT the cosplay/skits, or that Jimquisition would have anyone watching him if he DIDN'T talk like some kind of hyper-intelligent elitist hipster (bring a dictionary if you want to read his written stuff), you'd be wrong. Those are their styles, and you have your own ability to judge whether they're "valid" or not. Personally, I think just being myself and not acting/pretending or needing a "hook" is enough to warrant interest. But there's obviously an insanely huge audience out there looking for characters/spins that I don't provide. And that's perfectly OK as long as I continue to provide a service that some people find merit in.

Considering I've now stopped around 12k people from buying Homefront: the Revolution with my video about it, I'm quite happy with the results of my work. 

I've received your warning Phil, but I'd like to say something.

 I stand by what I said in my previous post. You cannot prove that you have stopped 12k people from buying Homefront. So you cannot state that as fact. The only thing you can prove is that you have 12k views on that video. 

That being said, I apologize for the tone of my previous post and won't be bringing the subject up anymore.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone else have anything constructive or at least on-topic to say?

Tired of hiding the posts of the same 2 people who come here just to disprove everything I say, which has nothing to do with the topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil said:

So does anyone else have anything constructive or at least on-topic to say?

Tired of hiding the posts of the same 2 people who come here just to disprove everything I say, which has nothing to do with the topic.

Yes, can you please answer the questions I started the thread with? It's much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Phil said:

So does anyone else have anything constructive or at least on-topic to say?

Tired of hiding the posts of the same 2 people who come here just to disprove everything I say, which has nothing to do with the topic.

.......

Well, I guess we can call it even since it took me roughly 10 minutes to type what you just hid and I skipped roughly 12 minutes of rambling in your Doom review

Plus,  @Hazz3r pretty much summed up my opinion.

10 hours ago, Hazz3r said:

Please reply to the OPs questions too. I don't want to have hijacked the thread.

"The problem with mainstream reviews is JUST that: they TELL you how to think about a game without actually showing justification of anything."

That's how I would describe your reviews.

Notice how when I make a critical point, I show it in video form to back it up?"

You show examples when you describe a feature. Just because you say in the video that you like the feature (which you rarely even do) doesn't mean that you're making a critical point that you're backing up.

"Notice how I give FULL background on the DOOM series in my review, so that you'd understand what the game devs were going for? You know, UNLIKE the mainstream IGN reviewer who I basically rip a new asshole for saying the game is "repetitive and derivative" because the idiot didn't know how the original DOOM games played, and how they literally created a HUGE genre in FPS gaming for the mainstream? And THAT's What ID was looking to recreate here?!"

You mean where you came across like an angry fanboy in the Youtube comments? That bit?

As I said previously, what id are going for has nothing to do with the quality of the game. If I intend to make a game that comes to life and takes a shit on your living room floor, and I successfully make that game, that doesn't make the game good. It makes it a game that comes to life and shits on your floor.

"doesn't have ANY bias towards anything"

I couldn't disagree more. The DOOM review reeks of bias.

"These are questions more for a REALLY in-depth analysis of a game (a-la TotalBiscuit) or a strategy guide. I wouldn't expect every single question to be answered in a review that's trying to explain the basic premise and experience of playing a game for the first time."

Yes, because what you're describing would be a first impressions video, not a review.

"And the things you've criticized in my review, if left out,"

There's nothing that really needs to be taken out (apart from the incessant bashing) just actually critiqued. 

"would leave the review WITHOUT the proper frame of reference to understand where I'm coming from"

Your frame of reference is, "I really like Arena Shooters and the DOOM IP". There. Done. 4 seconds tops.

"much like most of the crap out of mainstream media, completely worthless."

The ones that actually critique the game.

"I'm different."

You've certainly got that bit right.

 

Listen, you do you. I hope you enjoy it, because from my point of view your reviews (especially DOOM) are of poor quality at the moment. I write this kind of stuff because I enjoy it. It's a good brain exercise. I'm gonna keep writing this kind of stuff and you can feel free to ignore it.

Thanks for not jumping down my throat. I was fully expecting it given how cheeky I was in my post.

Thanks for replying and enjoy Far Harbour! It's excellent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SilkyEnigma said:

.......

Well, I guess we can call it even since it took me roughly 10 minutes to type what you just hid and I skipped roughly 12 minutes of rambling in your Doom review

Plus,  @Hazz3r pretty much summed up my opinion.

 

You didn't watch the Doom review in full though, so how can you agree? At least Hazzer did before commenting.

Edited by hardcoreparkour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Phil said:

 If you think Angry Joe would have 1/10th the audience he has WITHOUT the cosplay/skits, or that Jimquisition would have anyone watching him if he DIDN'T talk like some kind of hyper-intelligent elitist hipster (bring a dictionary if you want to read his written stuff), you'd be wrong.

I take a tad bit of issue with this. Not so much the Jim Sterling part because although Jim brings up good points he does talk out of his a lot of the time (which is the "character" he goes for but it doesn't make it any less arrogant) but with Angry Joe i'm almost certain if the little cosplay skits where not in his reviews they would still be doing just as well or close to it at least since the reviews themselves are well written, researched and delivered.

2 hours ago, hardcoreparkour said:

You didn't watch the Doom review in full though, so how can you agree? At least Hazzer did before commenting.

You clearly never read the post he quoted then since Hazzar clearly outlined things that were said and issues that were raised and it is possible to agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Nation said:

You clearly never read the post he quoted then since Hazzar clearly outlined things that were said and issues that were raised and it is possible to agree with that.

because clearly Hazzer isn't biased at all.  :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bailey_Dakota said:

because clearly Hazzer isn't biased at all.  :rolleyes:

If we are discounting all bias then should we discount Phil's review since he was very bias towards the game?

Having a "biased" view on rambling in a review isn't exactly a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2016 at 2:29 PM, WazerWifle said:

I've been watching Phil for a little while now and I'm just a little perplexed by some aspects of his reviews and his feelings towards other people's reviews. I guess I'll start with the first thing that confuses me.

The Scoring System

The scoring system is a point of confusion for me. I understand the "out of ten" scale for the most part, but there a couple things I don't quite understand. How do you come to a decision on what the score of a game should be? That seems like a a fairly general question but let me elaborate. I can understand giving something, say, a 6.5 or an 8, but how do you come to a decision like 9.75 or 7.25? What determines what gets that extra quarter of a point? And why have an "out of ten" scale if nothing will ever get a 10? Being completely honest I think the "out of ten" scale is inherently flawed and should dropped in favor of something like: Terrible, Bad, Okay, Good, Great, Amazing. But that's just my own opinion.

Making comparisons

Why compare a game to any other games at all? I mean, I can understand comparing a sequel to it's predecessors or, to a lesser extent, a reboot/remake to it's predecessors. Though with a reboot or remake the previous games don't really need to compared to it. What I don't understand is comparing a game to every other game that came out recently. What sense does it make to compare, say, DOOM to Uncharted 4 or Star Fox Zero to TWD: Michonne? I don't get it.

Other Reviewers

I don't understand the disdain you have for other reviewers Phil. Especially after the rant you went on today about IGN's score for DOOM. They gave it a 7.1. They said it was good and worth picking up. They just didn't brush over the flaws it has from being so old school. And in the end, what does it matter what score someone else gave a game? It just doesn't seem worth the effort to get angry because some other reviewer gave a game you loved a 7 or game you hated a 5. I dunno, maybe I just don't see things the way you do.

Thank you for taking the time to read this Phil. I hope you can clarify these things for me.

Scoring: been explained before. Weight of tons of factors: gameplay (quality and quantity), art/graphical design, story, replayability, cost, etc. Then weighing that with fun factor (a game could have tons of content, but it's all boring) and comparison to other games of the genre, franchise as well as other games available for sale at the time. Quarter points allow me to differentiate between games that may be close in quality but have small factors setting them apart. Giving two games an 8 when I slightly liked one more than the other wouldn't be fair. Lots of reviewers use too broad a scale, leading to their scores not being scaled properly (I really liked this game but it's a 7.5, but this game sucked and it's a 7, for example; I've seen this TONS of times at IGN, sadly). The actual number scoring is just something I picked up when I started and doesn't really have a purpose behind it. Honestly, if people just watched my reviews and ignored the scores, they'd be just as good; sadly, people have short attention spans and demand numbers.

 

Comparisons: are VERY necessary. I'm not just reviewing a game for me; I'm reviewing it for the common gamer/consumer. If you can only buy one game this month, and I review 4, I want you to know which one, overall, is the best value for your dollar. If I didn't consider other games currently available, this would be hugely unfair. For example: although many people might actually LOVE the gameplay of StarFox Zero, considering we've had tons of games lately with great gameplay and about 10 times more content, it would be ridiculously irresponsible of me to NOT make that comparison when considering my score. If you're putting down the same/similar amounts of money for a purchase, you want those games to be of equal value; in MANY cases today, they are not. So this comparison is critical, and it's something few outlets actually do; they like to "isolate themselves in the moment" when playing a game and just pulling a score out of their asses without any kind of scale; they then say "it's only an opinion!" when they get called out for scores that make no sense when compared with each other (for example, StarFox Zero gets 7.5 from IGN, DOOM gets a 7.1, but when you read the reviews it's blatantly obvious the reviewer for DOOM thought the game was better than the reviewer for StarFox Zero thought that game was). When you DO NOT COMPARE/SCALE REVIEWS you end up with meaningless numbers, but the common consumer (with no attention span) just sees that number and says "oh, so StarFox Zero is better than DOOM! I'll buy that then" and ends up disappointed.

 

Other reviewers: You may not realize this, but IGN/Gamespot reviewers hold TONS of merit JUST BECAUSE they work for IGN/Gamespot. Hundreds of thousands of uninformed gamers don't realize that the people who write reviews for these outlets are 1. inconsistent (not always the same people writing/reviewing, sometimes even calling in "freelancers," 2. unprofessional (not held to any kind of a standard, and can literally score things however they want without any checks/balances), and in a lot of cases 3. not even well-versed gamers. I've seen them review games INTENDED to be retro (i.e. Double Dragon NEO) and saying "they weren't modernized enough." I've seen scores incredibly out of scale with each other, being blatantly obvious that different reviewers don't have the same kind of ratings systems. 

Why does it irk me? Because GAMERS BUY/SKIP GAMES BASED ON THESE SCORES. It's like, once you get to IGN/Gamespot you can just do whatever the fuck you want, be as wrong as you can possibly be, but you're somehow "protected" and your opinion is lauded as one of "the big ones" that people care about. I seriously don't get it, and it's obvious that the INFORMED gamer knows better; but sadly, not many mainstream consumers are actually informed. They just go to IGN, read a number, and judge their purchases based on it. 

So when I play an incredible game like DOOM, which IGN gave a 7.1, and then I see they gave Star Fox Zero 7.5 (which is barely functional, light on content and sadly not a game worth retail price in 2016), I want to walk into IGN's offices and physically kick their reviews editor in the balls. They seriously DO NOT REALIZE the weight that what they say has on purchasing. DOOM WILL SELL LESS and Star Fox Zero WILL SELL MORE based on those reviews. Yet the numbers make absolutely no fucking sense when you actually look at the games compared to each other. And THAT pisses me off. Especially when truly uninspired games like COD/Halo etc. get GLOWING scores from these outlets almost every single year, then sell tons, while other games that are struggling to get any kind of attention and are far better go "under the radar" because these outlets are so damned irresponsible/unprofessional. I CARE TOO MUCH, I guess!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Phil said:

So when I play an incredible game like DOOM, which IGN gave a 7.1, and then I see they gave Star Fox Zero 7.5 (which is barely functional, light on content and sadly not a game worth retail price in 2016), I want to walk into IGN's offices and physically kick their reviews editor in the balls. They seriously DO NOT REALIZE the weight that what they say has on purchasing. DOOM WILL SELL LESS and Star Fox Zero WILL SELL MORE based on those reviews. Yet the numbers make absolutely no fucking sense when you actually look at the games compared to each other. And THAT pisses me off. Especially when truly uninspired games like COD/Halo etc. get GLOWING scores from these outlets almost every single year, then sell tons, while other games that are struggling to get any kind of attention and are far better go "under the radar" because these outlets are so damned irresponsible/unprofessional. I CARE TOO MUCH, I guess!

That's just your opinion though and your opinion isn't better than anyone else's. You played Doom on an incredibly easy mode and basically walked through the game while in starfox you struggled and yelled at the game. If you had played Doom on Ultra violence I have feeling you would have bitched about it. You're essentially the 2016 gamer, easy mode is made for you. Maybe this IGN person is an oldschool gamer so they wish doom was a bit harder? Nothing I said should be taken as insult you are the 2016 gamer it's a FACT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cheesecurls said:

That's just your opinion though and your opinion isn't better than anyone else's. You played Doom on an incredibly easy mode and basically walked through the game while in starfox you struggled and yelled at the game. If you had played Doom on Ultra violence I have feeling you would have bitched about it. You're essentially the 2016 gamer, easy mode is made for you. Maybe this IGN person is an oldschool gamer so they wish doom was a bit harder? Nothing I said should be taken as insult you are the 2016 gamer it's a FACT. 

I played both games on the DEFAULT difficulties. You cannot blame the player for a game developer either making their game too easy/too difficult on what's set to be the default gameplay experience. In addition, I yelled at Star Fox because the controls were utterly terrible and, in fact, the ONLY thing that made the game difficult. If Star Fox had gamepad compatibility, it'd be super-easy to run through it on a first try. Entire boss fights were made artificially difficult because of the mandatory use of the gyroscopic Wii U Pad controls and looking between 2 screens at the same time, which WAS NOT my choice.

If I'd played DOOM on Ultra Violence difficulty and raged, that WOULD have been my choice and therefore an unfair criticism. That's a HUGE difference from the criticism I gave Star Fox.

If you don't see the difference here, that's completely and utterly on you. Seems you'd prefer to insult me over actually using your brain to figure out the logical difference between the two situations. OH WAIT, just checked your IP and you're predictably a sock account from someone who was already banned for insults. Bye! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate how you judge a review based on another review. If the points and the score are logical it shouldn't matter that a review they did in the past was illogical. You're also forgetting that different people have different expirences, different perspectives, and play different genres.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TraditionalGames said:

I hate how you judge a review based on another review. If the points and the score are logical it shouldn't matter that a review they did in the past was illogical. You're also forgetting that different people have different expirences, different perspectives, and play different genres.

I highly disagree, the casual viewer is not gonna be aware each genre has a completely different reviewer within the site, they are just gonna look at the number and pick their purchases based on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, onorub said:

I highly disagree, the casual viewer is not gonna be aware each genre has a completely different reviewer within the site, they are just gonna look at the number and pick their purchases based on that.

This is an assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil said:

Scoring: been explained before. Weight of tons of factors: gameplay (quality and quantity), art/graphical design, story, replayability, cost, etc. Then weighing that with fun factor (a game could have tons of content, but it's all boring) and comparison to other games of the genre, franchise as well as other games available for sale at the time. Quarter points allow me to differentiate between games that may be close in quality but have small factors setting them apart. Giving two games an 8 when I slightly liked one more than the other wouldn't be fair. Lots of reviewers use too broad a scale, leading to their scores not being scaled properly (I really liked this game but it's a 7.5, but this game sucked and it's a 7, for example; I've seen this TONS of times at IGN, sadly). The actual number scoring is just something I picked up when I started and doesn't really have a purpose behind it. Honestly, if people just watched my reviews and ignored the scores, they'd be just as good; sadly, people have short attention spans and demand numbers.

If the scoring serves no purpose just get rid of it. Switch to just recommending or not recommending a game instead.

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Comparisons: are VERY necessary. I'm not just reviewing a game for me; I'm reviewing it for the common gamer/consumer. If you can only buy one game this month, and I review 4, I want you to know which one, overall, is the best value for your dollar. If I didn't consider other games currently available, this would be hugely unfair. For example: although many people might actually LOVE the gameplay of StarFox Zero, considering we've had tons of games lately with great gameplay and about 10 times more content, it would be ridiculously irresponsible of me to NOT make that comparison when considering my score. If you're putting down the same/similar amounts of money for a purchase, you want those games to be of equal value; in MANY cases today, they are not. So this comparison is critical, and it's something few outlets actually do; they like to "isolate themselves in the moment" when playing a game and just pulling a score out of their asses without any kind of scale; they then say "it's only an opinion!" when they get called out for scores that make no sense when compared with each other (for example, StarFox Zero gets 7.5 from IGN, DOOM gets a 7.1, but when you read the reviews it's blatantly obvious the reviewer for DOOM thought the game was better than the reviewer for StarFox Zero thought that game was). When you DO NOT COMPARE/SCALE REVIEWS you end up with meaningless numbers, but the common consumer (with no attention span) just sees that number and says "oh, so StarFox Zero is better than DOOM! I'll buy that then" and ends up disappointed.

Okay, I read both reviews and I have to disagree with you. The reviewer for Star Fox Zero enjoyed that game just as much as the reviewer for DOOM enjoyed that. Another thing, DOOM and Star Fox are targeted at VERY different audiences. I wouldn't expect someone who has an interest in DOOM to have any interest in Star Fox and vice versa. And to be fair, you have a very negative bias against Nintendo in general these days. I can't name a single thing they've done in the past year that you've liked. On top that, to my knowledge, you have never been able to quite get the hang of any kind of motion controls. So I wouldn't have expected you to like Star Fox Zero anyway. I have seen far more people say it was good than say it was bad so I'm more inclined to believe it's decent game with a learning curve.

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Other reviewers: You may not realize this, but IGN/Gamespot reviewers hold TONS of merit JUST BECAUSE they work for IGN/Gamespot. Hundreds of thousands of uninformed gamers don't realize that the people who write reviews for these outlets are 1. inconsistent (not always the same people writing/reviewing, sometimes even calling in "freelancers," 2. unprofessional (not held to any kind of a standard, and can literally score things however they want without any checks/balances), and in a lot of cases 3. not even well-versed gamers. I've seen them review games INTENDED to be retro (i.e. Double Dragon NEO) and saying "they weren't modernized enough." I've seen scores incredibly out of scale with each other, being blatantly obvious that different reviewers don't have the same kind of ratings systems. 

Why does it irk me? Because GAMERS BUY/SKIP GAMES BASED ON THESE SCORES. It's like, once you get to IGN/Gamespot you can just do whatever the fuck you want, be as wrong as you can possibly be, but you're somehow "protected" and your opinion is lauded as one of "the big ones" that people care about. I seriously don't get it, and it's obvious that the INFORMED gamer knows better; but sadly, not many mainstream consumers are actually informed. They just go to IGN, read a number, and judge their purchases based on it. 

So when I play an incredible game like DOOM, which IGN gave a 7.1, and then I see they gave Star Fox Zero 7.5 (which is barely functional, light on content and sadly not a game worth retail price in 2016), I want to walk into IGN's offices and physically kick their reviews editor in the balls. They seriously DO NOT REALIZE the weight that what they say has on purchasing. DOOM WILL SELL LESS and Star Fox Zero WILL SELL MORE based on those reviews. Yet the numbers make absolutely no fucking sense when you actually look at the games compared to each other. And THAT pisses me off. Especially when truly uninspired games like COD/Halo etc. get GLOWING scores from these outlets almost every single year, then sell tons, while other games that are struggling to get any kind of attention and are far better go "under the radar" because these outlets are so damned irresponsible/unprofessional. I CARE TOO MUCH, I guess!

1. Of course they use multiple reviewers. It would be insane to demand that a single person review every single game that comes out. They'd have to do nothing but play video games all day every day, not everyone wants to do that. Also, not everyone likes every genre. It would be stupid to put me on a review for DOOM because I just don't like FPSs in general. But hey, it would be consistent because I'm the only person reviewing everything.

2. Well yeah, it's the reviewers job to, well, review and score games. To put things into perspective, say you were paying someone to edit your videos. You would be very unhappy if your editor changed your score on DOOM from a 9 to an 8 because of you admitting it's repetitive. It is not the editor's job to score anything. 

3. Phil, it's 2016. IGN and Gamespot are going to hire younger people to review games because the target audience for most video games is people in their teens to 20s. It's incredibly unfair to call someone an idiot and say they didn't do their research because they didn't play a game that came out when they were 4.

Again, Star Fox Zero and DOOM have very different audiences. I highly doubt someone who would buy SFZ over DOOM would've bought DOOM even if IGN gave it a 10/10. It just wouldn't happen.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, onorub said:

I highly disagree, the casual viewer is not gonna be aware each genre has a completely different reviewer within the site, they are just gonna look at the number and pick their purchases based on that.

But hows is that fair? According to Phil a perfectly reasonable and logical review has to have it's score boosted because a completely separate review was reviewed poorly or reviewed under different conditions. So now the original review would be lying about the true quality of the game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...