Don Bradman Cricket 2014: Official Reviews

Disagree Chief. Review scores are important in the sense people generally look at the scores to get an idea of how good or bad the game is.

But if it says in the critique of the game "this is the best game ever made in this genre by some distance" then does that not do the job?

I feel the score is nonsense because it encourages people to compare apples with oranges. They are all just opinions anyway: why not explain your thoughts without attaching a number to it?
 
I feel the reviews of the game will be like:

Ok,let me play and give a review....Starts the game plays a match gets all out for 20 then review "Not to its hype ,the game is unplayable 2.5/10":p

Another guy..Should give a review for the game after playing for few days...And then plays a match get 160 in 20 overs and review "Best game ever, has a lot of variety,surely has longevity, must buy 9.5/10"...:D

The reviewer surely needs to take some time with the game to enjoy it....Then only the review will be worth reading or taking into consideration for those who want to buy it...:yes
 
The reviewer surely needs to take some time with the game to enjoy it....Then only the review will be worth reading or taking into consideration for those who want to buy it...:yes

Agreed. I like Polygon's policy of updating their reviews over time: they add stuff and re-review after updates are done/more time has passed. Especially important if a major gripe ("this bug/no multiplayer") is patched in a few weeks later.
 
Last edited:
I particularly like "It?s refreshing to see a win for the little guys, much like The Netherlands beating England in the world t20, sometimes you want the underdog to pull it off, Big Ant were certainly the underdogs but boy have they pulled it off." :)

Don't kick us while we are down Ross! :noway
 
"While there are no official licenses for any venue, brand or player in the game the ?Academy? circumvents this"

Hang on, did the reviewer even read the game title?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But if it says in the critique of the game "this is the best game ever made in this genre by some distance" then does that not do the job?

I feel the score is nonsense because it encourages people to compare apples with oranges. They are all just opinions anyway: why not explain your thoughts without attaching a number to it?

Scores are something objective whereas verbage on the lines of "it's a good game" is subjective. Anyone would understand that a score of 8/10 or 9/10 means it's a great game no matter what the frame of reference whereas a "good game" could be 6/10 or maybe 8/10. Scores help in making the reviews, which are opinions anyway be it movies or games, objective and a score does help folks get an idea whether the game is worth buying or not at a glance.
 
Scores are something objective whereas verbage on the lines of "it's a good game" is subjective. Anyone would understand that a score of 8/10 or 9/10 means it's a great game no matter what the frame of reference whereas a "good game" could be 6/10 or maybe 8/10. Scores help in making the reviews, which are opinions anyway be it movies or games, objective and a score does help folks get an idea whether the game is worth buying or not at a glance.

If I've spent a lot of time weighing up the relative pros and cons, and written a detailed explaination of what I thought, the last thing I really want is people deciding to buy the game "at a glance" based on a score, which is open to their own interpretation, and then blaming me if they don't like it. A score gives it a degree of officialness that opinions have no place carrying.
It does, however, allow people in the comments to argue that although it was a 7, it read more like an 8. Or suggest that the publisher paid for the 9, when the game was clearly an 8. Which makes those people's lives worth living I guess.

My favourite review of all time about one of my games was a UK magazine who scored each different aspect with numbers, including the brilliant:
"Graphics: Pushes the DS to its absolute technical limits - 7/10".

----------

Scores are something objective whereas verbage on the lines of "it's a good game" is subjective.

I don't agree at all with this: subjective means influenced by your own personal opinion, objective means something unbiased and fair-minded. If a journo's personal taste influences the write-up it will affect the number you stick at the bottom in exactly the same ways, but without the context.

Example:
I hate eggs and review an omelette. In the review I explain that I hate eggs, so if you, like me, hate eggs, you probably won't like it either.
I review an omelette, and give it 2/10.

So long as you understand the context, a subjective opinion becomes objective.
 
^A 6.8 :eek:. The runouts, absence of fielding radar and superhuman fielding is the only glitch they could come up but it does not justify this kind of score. It deserves 7.5 at least. Screw you IGN.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top