Wii U

[Anouleth]

For me, the prime example of not being able to trust paid reviews comes down to this:

Gamespot's infamous Twilight Princess 8.8

The Wii review was lower scored despite the higher scoring GCN review calling the Wii version superior. This is the point where you have to shake your head and admit some "pro" reviews just pull arbitrary numbers out of their ass.

Or Radiant Dawn, where some "pro" reviewers were not fans of the genre, cried about the game being too hard, and proceeded to give the game a crummy score. Shadow Dragon is rated significantly higher by "professionals", but how many fans actually prefer Shadow Dragon? It's the perfect example of how user reviews can be of benefit to someone, because you're getting the impression of the average person who shares your interests and isn't bowing down to the companies whose ads pay the bills on their website. Obviously you can't really trust user reviews when people are review bombing a game, but if you removed all the ridiculously biased negative reviews, then you'd get a pretty good impression of the game.

I think that reviewers in general for vidya games are way too generous with high scores. Sonic '06 has a 46 on Metacritic. FORTY-SIX! What a bunch of jokers. Film critics are a lot fairer in this department, I think. When a film sucks, they let you know.

[Samias]

I wasn't even getting at score inflation. I'm just pointing out what games have bizarre ratings relative to other, similar games.

[BrightBow]

For me, the prime example of not being able to trust paid reviews comes down to this:

Gamespot's infamous Twilight Princess 8.8

The Wii review was lower scored despite the higher scoring GCN review calling the Wii version superior. This is the point where you have to shake your head and admit some "pro" reviews just pull arbitrary numbers out of their ass.

Or Radiant Dawn, where some "pro" reviewers were not fans of the genre, cried about the game being too hard, and proceeded to give the game a crummy score. Shadow Dragon is rated significantly higher by "professionals", but how many fans actually prefer Shadow Dragon? It's the perfect example of how user reviews can be of benefit to someone, because you're getting the impression of the average person who shares your interests and isn't bowing down to the companies whose ads pay the bills on their website. Obviously you can't really trust user reviews when people are review bombing a game, but if you removed all the ridiculously biased negative reviews, then you'd get a pretty good impression of the game.

Lowering the Wii score seems fine to me. I bet the logic was, that the Wii as a next-generation console should be held to a different standard.

And as for Radiant Dawn, I blame the localization.

After all, they baited you into playing "Hard" mode by renaming it into "Normal". No wonder people thought it was insane. But how could they possibly have known any better? It's not like this decision made any sense.

Edited November 26, 2012 by BrightBow

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes, I have less trust your claim that Persona 4's online isn't that great because of the auto combo, because the general consensus (from EVERYONE, not professional reviews) says it doesn't hurt it. Is that simple enough?

Google "Persona 4 Auto Combo". Search "auto" on GameFAQs' relevant boards. EVERYONE doesn't think it's a good mechanic. There are people on both sides that thought it was good or bad. But even someone who wasn't there --like you-- can easily tell that a game whose online participation has decreased can be easily attributed in part to this divisive situation.

Again, I didn't say I say professional reviews are better because the writers are paid, I prefer them because they're generally more informative and insightful.

Whether this is true or not in the first place is entirely irrelevant, since the sources I posted gave information that showed clear insight as to their opinions. There was literally no difference in terms of depth of expression.

I do not prefer professional reviews because they're more popular, but because they're much more insightful about the stuff they're reviewing. I view opinions that don't reasonably explain why they have that opnion less. Is that a problem? Should I base my judgements on deciding whether or not to buy Diablo 3 on individual opinions that say it's one of the best games ever because it's pretty and plays well? Should I consider that equal to professional reviews that ALSO state other, more important stuff about the game? Stop thinking I prefer professional reviews because they're more popular. The reviews you brought up I already read, and I said that they're not good because they simply look at the mechanics from the surface, and how the game was only DIRECTLY impacted by it, without finding out what else changed because of them.

Are you fucking with me right now? They state plainly that the mechanic nullifies the implementation of death and as a result make the game a huge cakewalk. There is absolutely no need to go anymore in-depth than that explanation. That's all there is to it. A paid reviewer could have just as easily made the exact same evaluation. It's insulting that you devalue the individuals I linked to as though their opinions are substandard because they didn't have diarrhea of the keyboard.

Sure there may be some review sites that do that, but to say that means no professional review should be trusted because of that is ridiculous. My original words of "paid reviewers" may have been a bad choice of words, considering Esau's argument has been nothing but riding my ass about that, but I meant reviewers that play the game with criticism/analysis in mind and entertainment second, which just happen to be most professional reviewers. Generally, user reviews don't do that.

...Because user reviews are either recommending the game be played or not based on, wait for it, whether it was entertaining or not. Fucking crazy right? Apparently if they don't go into the game thinking they're going to write a review on it they're not able to do it well right?

[Constable Reggie]

This is seriously getting nowhere, so I'm just going to stop here. We've both made our points, no one's convincing each other, there's really no reason to go on about it.

So, about that Wii U.

[BrightBow]

For me, the Wii U isn't on the plan any time soon.

I actually think the Launch lineup is pretty impressive. Especially compared to the N64/GC/Wii. Lots of games here, that I would like to give a shot.

But so far there is no game I really "have" to play.

The 64 had StarFox 64, GC had Melee, the GBA had Golden Sun, the Wii had the sequel to Path of Radiance (which ended up taking it's sweet time, especially in Europe), the DS had Shadow Dragon and the 3DS had Awakening... hmm, funny how Fire Emblem is the reason for my three latest console purchases.

Speaking of Fire Emblem, well we know that IS wants to have Fire Emblem on the consoles so with Awakening being as successful as it is, I would say that a Wii U Fire Emblem isn't too far off... well, unless they planned ahead for several games like they did during the GBA era.

Still, things being like they are at the moment, there is no such game. So far I would rather spend the 300€ to play all those awesome games on the Virtual Console which I missed back in the day because I kept buying glitchy PC games instead of a Console.

Edited November 27, 2012 by BrightBow