Game reviews that subtract because of . . .

[The Black Wolf]

I know a lot of you on PSU read and watch videos of game reviews. I have a question for you guys.

How do you feel about a review that "subtracts" or "deducts" from the game's overall score because of repeating things in its predecessors?

Examples include God of War 3 and Uncharted 3. Both games were good, but some reviews decreased the review score because of things that repeated or were featured a lot in GOW2 and Uncharted 2.

I've always believed a good game is a good game and that things that repeat throughout the series is what makes it a series. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

What are YOUR thoughts?

[Joe Zombie]

Seems we're in the same boat.

Another thing that bothers me is when reviewers don't review the game for what it IS, such as if it doesn't have multiplayer, or if the biased reviewer thinks that certain features could have been added.

They need to review the games for what they are. Not what they think they should be like, or could have been.

[Naxi]

It's justified if the sequel doesn't evolve enough. Repetition always degrades quality, so their predecessors definitely deserve higher scores. While still great games, i found GoW3 and U3 worse than their prequels.

Another thing that bothers me is when reviewers don't review the game for what it IS, such as if it doesn't have multiplayer, or if the biased reviewer thinks that certain features could have been added.

They need to review the games for what they are. Not what they think they should be like, or could have been.

If the game doesn't feel whole then it's a valid point. There can be missed opportunities.

[TRF]

If a game repeats elements within the game, then deduct points. If something is a staple of the series and works, then there's nothing to complain about. If it doesn't work, deduct points.

If a game is really lacking in standard features, deduct points. If it's missing one minor thing or you think something could be added, mention it but don't deduct points.

That's just how I would do it.


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

[rbrtchng]

I disagree with the review process that judges a game based on other games, of any sort.

[gangsta_795]

Yup if the sequel hasn't made much viable progress or developed new elements, it's a valid point.

[efs5030]

Deduct from cod...the same god awful game engine with some new guns, new maps(sometimes), and 1 new feature sometimes...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Equinoqs]

I no longer trust game reviews. Once upon a time they would give you some idea what to expect from a game, and you could usually figure out if the game was something you'd be interested in. Now game reviews are just the opinion of one biased writer who only talks about the things (usually negatively) that they want to talk about.

[rbrtchng]

The problem with reviews is that it's based on features. It's a check off list. So game designs have also become a check off list.

Critics need to recognize things that are interesting or things that are mundane or things that are highly critical. And that's where critics fail.

[RaY_210]

I agree. Because most reviewers do this, using just scores is pointless. You really read a review to get the better picture. It would be up to the reader to decide which points are valid or not

[TDbank24]

It killed me when IGN tried to downplay Uncharted 2 because 'it wasn't anything really new' or whatever they said in their review. Despite the fact that they gave it a perfect 10 or whatever.

Every game copies off of another game or is inspired in some way. Rating down a game because it's a sequel and reuses the things that brought the original or a past entry to the dance is just lame. Of course they're going to be similar. It wouldn't make any sense at all to completely change the formula of a game just for the sake of change.

[Suzano-O]

Yeah, I never understood when reviewers deduct points from sequels just because the game hasn't turned into a completely different game...

Or the fact that it doesn't have some features the reviewer THOUGHT it should have...shouldn't they be judging what they played, rather than what they wanted to play?...

[TOM2x]

I think some features or ideas which are reused in a sequel are indeed what makes the game stand out. You know, in other words, like if someone was trying to mark down GOW for replacing the Chains of Olympus with The chains of Athena or something like that. The use of a weapon like it is a series hallmark and shouldn't be marked down in my opinion. I also think that Uncharted 1/2/3 were all fantastic, although my favorite was part 2. Plus people need to realise that there are only so many tricks you can pull in games before they begin repeating. They couldn't possibly always make everything new and never been done before. It would be impossible, especially in games with three installments. I don't mind if I see the same tricks over again as long as the story is there and keeps me interested. And NO, everything doesn't need friggin' move support and 3D and multiplayer. I am starting to think that they are a part of what ruining many of our favorite franchises.

[mooninites]

Game reviewers have become so unbelievably nit picky. They complain about the smallest things and its insane. They really need to start focusing on the game they review and put their biased bs to the side.

Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2