My reviews for Bionic Commando and Velvet Assassin went up recently over at NTSC-UK.
As ever, writing with those guys was a great experience.
I also want to point you to the review we recently put up of Rainbow Six Vegas and the ensuing comments thread.
Many people questioned why a review of a (nearly) three year old game went up now and why it criticised the game so much. Pretty much everyone in thread disagreed with the text and score with one person saying that because because it goes into Metacritic we should be embarrassed about putting a review up that so many consider 'wrong'.
Rather than being considered an embarrassment, it should be considered a celebration. NTSC-UK publishes reviews that have something to say, no matter the game or the release date. When reading them I tend to look at reviews as a discussion between myself and the reviewer and that reading their critique I inform, enforce and explore my own feelings and views on the game.
I will go ahead and say that I disagree with many of the points in the R6V review but it is a fascinating read because the reviewer's view point is so opposed to my own. He came at the game from a totally different angle to me and that is super interesting to me.
When we are subjectively reviewing a subjective piece of art, can someone be wrong?
I would argue not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oooh, look at you being all controversial.
ReplyDelete4 out of 10 sounds okay to me, I always thought R6V was a bit rubbish ;)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, review scores are a flawed concept blah, blah, blah, but if we are going to score I've always liked the idea that reviewers disclose there own genre preferences and then give a rating that reflects their own enjoyment of the title. This way the reader can apply their own compensation to the score (positive or negative). This avoids reviewers trying to come up with a score that reflects the "average" reader who doesn't really exist.