To make it personal, my board game journey began 5 years ago, what I consider good now compared to then has changed dramatically, some games I thought were amazing are now just OK and I can explain why. I'm not saying things have to be objective either, subjectivity is a big part of this, but someone who has trained their 'critical' skills can better contextualise their opinions to give a balanced look at something. There is genuine criticism to be had obviously but a game is far more than its story and characters so everything needs to be taken as a whole. People without this skill can't detatch their emotions either, look at TLoU Part 2, regardless of what you think of the story, its a very well put together game, it has merits and talented people clearly worked hard. To most people something they enjoy could be 10/10 amazing, to the reviewer it could be fine but they've played a lot of other things like it and this game does it better in this way, thie one in another etc Most people don't develop this skill, and that's fine. Then you have to put that into a wider context, comparing to its peer which requires a broad knowledge of the area that you're criticising. We might know what we like or dislike but knowing why takes development, it requires you to learn the language of what you're criticising. Simply because criticism is a skill that needs to be developed. Really helps narrow down these types of reviewers and their way of thinking
Thank you all for the amazing input so far. Review bombs are another story, this is strictly about basic reviews you find from gamersĮdit: review bombs actually do fit into the same category of thinking upon reflection. What do you think drives this way of thinking? People place their subjective opinions right in front of the basic qualities of the game and in turn give it a 0 or a 10 So why does the gaming community have this way of thinking? A lot of the time even when the game is pretty good. It has to be completely unplayable, horrific themes, story and acting, perhaps game breaking bugs. So how would that merit a 0? If you like parts of a game but dislike a few other things, surely that's higher than 0. Some of the 0s have a few complaints with some good things as well. I noticed on metacritic, user scores rarely tread in the medium numbers. r/CoOpGaming - A community for co-op gaming r/xboxone - Xbox-specific subreddit for general Xbox news and discussion r/playstation, /r/PS4 & /r/PS5 - PlayStation-specific subreddits for general PlayStation news and discussion
DIE YOUNG GAME METACRITIC PC
r/pcgaming - PC gaming-specific subreddit for general PC gaming news, discussion and gaming tech support r/nintendo - Nintendo-specific subreddit for general Nintendo news and discussion r/shouldibuythisgame - Find out what's worth getting. r/gamingsuggestions - Go here to help you find your next game to play r/gaming4gamers - Discussion, bar the Hivemind Top-level comments must be at least 100 characters in length.Accounts must be at least one month old.External Links must follow these guidelines No topics that belong in other subreddits This subreddit shouldn't be used for advice of any kind. Use sufficient detail and examples from multiple sources.Clearly define the purpose of your post.Engage in good faith with the points the person you're replying to is making.No discrimination or “isms” of any kind (racism, sexism, etc).Discuss GamingĪll discussion must be about gaming 2.
0 kommentar(er)
