The number system is ridiculous. Most reviews feel like it's just fluff, making awful jokes, talking about a whole genre as opposed to the game, or being extremely vague. "If you look pass it's short comings, it's a great game" - but you failed to mention what those short comings are!

It feels like it's just a big roller coaster ride of nonsense leading to what we've all been waiting for, the number. I mean, I don't even read IGN's reviews anymore, I just cut straight to the summary at the end and then look up videos of the game in action.

Kanik

@catpope

This is why I should preview my comments.

formerlurker

I don't read reviews anymore. I pretty much just buy games from word-of-mouth passed by friends, or if they are in a series I liked. What with all the series being continued and not started in this generations, I'm set on the games I want to buy.

It does piss me off when people just give things scores and don't think twice about it. I'm also pissed off when reviewers who usually review games from a certain genre review games of another genre.

I've read too many reviews of the various Ace Combat games wherein the reviewer expected it to be the next Halo or another Half-Life or simply cater to their twisted whims.

Which is why I really don't give a damn about reviews now.

RPharazonius

All game reviews should end with one of the four following conclusions:

1) Buy it
2) Rent it
3) Ask Santa for it
4) Steal it

Case closed.

Caseus

I love numbered reviews.

I love reviews that disagree with my opinion.

I hate misspelled words, bad grammar, and no justification for a point of view.

I hate "exclusive" reviews obviously bought with cash money.

I don't enjoy reviews written by fanboys who give 100% scores before they even take the game out of the box.

Snokie

@Islandkiwi: More or less like your average reviewer, then? Remember, reviewers actually review the MULTIPLAYER on titles that haven't even had a retail release at the time of writing. Hell, some don't even support split screen or system link.

obonicus

@formerlurker: garb head, remove from ass.

Haha. All I could think about was, how does one dress a head while it is in an ass. Maybe you could put some earrings on it or give it a scarf, but a hat is entirely out of the question.

CatPope

I am going to be the devil's advocate on this one, I personally don't mind scores, as long as the scale is true. I used to subscribe to a mag called Game Informer, and I would enjoy reading about the games that scored 20% just as much, if not more, of the games that were 90%+.

The real problem is that gamers got lazy. Its easier to look at a Metacritic score and say yay or nay to than find a reviewer who has opinions that match your own. That would involve reading multiple reviews, and probably getting burned once or twice. This increased the developer/publisher focus on said Metacritic reviews, and now we find ourselves with the problem that review scores don't mean shit, because no one (general consumer) buys a game that gets a lower than stellar average score. Pressure from the publishers for a good "score" can (and does) influence business results. Bad review = bad sales = bad advertising dollars = no more review site/mag.

That being said (which has been probably beat to death by now), I think an individual reviewer's score is important. It should stack up to whatever else he/she has reviewed in some way. There are friends that I trust to recommend me movies I would like, and friends that love complete swamp ass crap. That is all personal preference, reviewers are the same way. If you are in agreement with the reviewers' previous scores, chances are if that person recommends a game, bet your ass it is going to be a game you enjoy, and visa-versa.

negativexer0

IMO it's not the reviews that are the joke, it's the loyal fanbase.

People can't accept that a better game like halo/half life/cod4 get better scores. Honestly

Pesonally, after playing through mgs4 I returned it, I thought the game was absolute junk and the story abismal, controls were bad, ai was more a then i, and with little to no replay value. Production values high but everything was just too fake, and boring for me. But then again, i play videogames for an original story, something which mgs lacks considerably. Specially compared to games like half life and halo.

eunoia

Scores a silly, looking at numbers will tell you nothing. Reading a well thought out review/opinion will give you a good idea whether you share similar views on gaming with the reviewer and if you'll enjoy the game.

That's why I like Kotaku reviews.

Monkeez

I hate reviewers who are to be unbiased, yet start their review with "I don't like these types of games". Sure, its a problem the website or magazine created by making that particular writer review it, but eh, you don't mention that.

drbutchevil

@Luke Plunkett:
I see what your saying but while I understand reviews are subjective yadda yadda what I don't get and I asked myself this afterI beat the game is;

"How the HELL did they give THIS an 8?!?!"

Cuz halo and gta4 got a lot more 10's and 9's than MGS4 but it seems to be a unanimous decision for anyone who has played all 3 that MGS4 is by far the best. It just.. I dun get it..

Personally, I recon they went the controversial route to get page hits and street cred or maybe they arez teh bias! But whatever, 8's, 9's or 10's that was the most incredible game I have ever played...

spargo_1

@TheIrishNinja: Exactly my point; scores aren't tinted red for fighting fans, blue for strategy fans. There's only one score. What if I'm a fan with the money for one game and no preference when it comes to either genre? All this 'reviews are subjective' nonsense just seems to mean 'reviews are useless, make up your own mind'.

obonicus

I give this post an 8.8

Seriously, though... I do think ratings are silly. I think the best way to review a game is make a list of pros/cons about the game (like what Kotaku does now, and what Nintendo Power used to do in the past).
See if the pros are what you're looking for in a game, and/or if the cons are bad enough to deter you from the game.

And, yeah, reviews are highly subjective. Because it's how one person views the game. So, if you don't agree with one person, that's fine, you don't have to. For example, the reviewer for Game & Watch Gallery 4 in Game Informer gave it a 3/10, which I greatly disagree with. But, that's because I love the G&W games. All a matter of taste and opinion.

BPMκ

@hotdamn: When dishing out a 10/10, 100/100, or hojillion/hojillion, I would hope that the number reflected the cinematic quality, which is a majority of the game. In that regard, the game is not perfect.

Also, Iron Man is good for what it does. Cinema critics have had longer to come to terms with this concept (they also vary a lot more). When judging a movie (or game), one should judge what it attempts to do. Iron Man is simple, but it does not pretend to be more. MGS4 attempts to create a commentary on a number of issues. It is attempting a lot. It weighs the viewer down with a plethora of diologue and philosophy. It does a decent job, but in comparison to other war-philosophical writing, it is simply mediocre.

That said, is that a fair comparison? I don't know if it is really fair to compare a video game to Apocalypse Now or Hemingway.

Of course, despite my ramblings, I always liked the "less is more" concept in writing.

CatPope

Advice to reviewers: garb head, remove from ass.

IGN is the best for scores because they are the least pretentious. Not good writers but honest. Also, reviewers should finish the game before scoring it.

formerlurker

The cardinal sin of the game reviewer is not immediately deleting comments that bitch about the opinion presented or the score given. The most tiring thing about the Internets these days are the pathetic mewlings of fanboys and children that a reviewer's opinion didn't match their own. So much crap to wade through in order to find the interesting comments.

Intelligent, fact-based, rational debate is always interesting reading. 99% of the comments on the Internet don't fit this description.

freakout

The only reason I read reviews is to make sure a game isn't going to be an abomination.

That usually boils down to technical limitations - terrible graphics, horrible loading, boring gameplay/level design, etc. Because aside from those issues, it's mostly down to personal taste.

We all need to spend more time praising the good games instead of bickering over whether THIS good game is incrementally more "gooder" than THAT good game.

V1L3

In discussing reviews, I'd like to add to the discussion the problem of user reviews...and more specifically, those who review the game within 24 hours of release.

These users fall into two categories, the already-sold fanboy (OMG IT'S A 10 WHY DON'T YOU HAVE IT ALREADY?!?) , and the knee-jerk cynic ( I played it for ten minutes and got bored, it is totally lame). Let's face it, neither has played the game enough to review it.

Islandkiwi

@Grimmjow Jeagerjaques: You have to realize that reviews are ultimately opinions. In this case you are probably dealing with three opinions: yours, the Halo 3 reviewer's, and the MGS4 reviewer's. While the publication agrees with the final review and score, it's still the opinion of the reviewer. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

Personally I'd rate Halo 3 higher than MGS4. I haven't liked any MGS since 2 got stupid retarded. That doesn't mean that I think IGN is wrong for giving MGS4 a 10.

agies

@obonicus: that sentiment, i dont get. halo 3 and mgs4 are different genres of game. if kotaku gave lumines a 9 and SF IV an 8, i dont think that's telling fighting fans "between the two, youd dig lumines better."

TheIrishNinja

@Grimmjow Jeagerjaques:

I could not possibly disagree with you on that issue any more strongly. I don't want to hear avid fans of MGS/GTA/Halo/etc review a game because their opinion is absolutely worthless to anyone who is not in that category. I don't want to read in a review that Kojima is a god among men that should be idolized for his incredibly insightful views on war. I don't want someone telling me that the vitriolic drivel of a story in GTA4 "revolutionized the way (crappy) stories will be told in games for many years." I don't want to hear from people that think Halo is even in the top 200 games that has ever come out.

Like someone said up there, a troll review is a much better picture of a product than a fan review will ever be, as I can count on a troll to tell me when a game is 60% cutscenes, or that the driving mechanics suck and that the missions are just as boring and repetitive as ever, and that the only reason Halo took off at all was because it was the only console shooter doing what it was at the time. A fan review, as we have seen with all of these 10/10 OMG AWSOME GAM3Z, chooses to gloss over flaws with personal biases.

usfslacker

This entire comment section show the problem with review scores.
No one will EVER agree on scores.

I think scores are good, they can give at-a-glance info. Say what you want, having a neat little score is good, and can give you a hint of how the reviewer wrote the review (Did he like the game, love it or hate it?), so you don't have to read the X amount of pages and try to figure out where he is going with the review.

That said, I think reviews have too big of a spectrum. Personally, I love the star system (4-star, 5-star, either one). It provides a score range that isn't too unwieldy.
4 out of 5 stars is a whole lot easier to interpret than a 8.63 out of 10. It doesn't even have to be stars, as long as it's a compact scale ( i.e, Skip it, Rent it, Buy it).

Having scores (with decimals, no less!) is way too excessive for games. Heck, even for any media.

Coquiton

@Luke Plunkett: Buck the hype-train all you want! PLEASE do it. But do it all-round, be consistent.

Don't tell me GTA 4 has an awesome story, because when I buy the game based on your opinion and thinking 'oh, wow, finally a GTA with a good story' and it DOESN'T have a good story, I'll come to the conclusion that I'm better served reading gamefaqs forums for opinions on games.

obonicus

@excel_excel: you know, i honestly cant say; i dont read too many of their reviews. i can appreicate them being more commonly critical than praising, though, personally; i mean, we got enough gamepros.

i havent followed 1 reviewer since uh, chris slate of game player's magazine (man showed me suikoden, of many others). i personally find most of yahtzee's complaints might echo my own, but im just as guilty as the next of going more on metacritic scores. i dont think 70-80 means a bad game, especially if you like the series or style of play. if its a franchise game, like uh, Scarface, and you're a scarface fan, id give it a rental all the way down to 50%, personally. sometimes i like things that others might not, to be fair.

but yeah, if edge is on the money for you, id stick with it. i should prolly check them out more often.

TheIrishNinja

Everyone seems to want to do away with scores. I rabidly disagree.

When I get a new monthly, I'll leaf through the review section. I'll stop to read the reviews of titles I'm interested in, but I'll also stop to read any review with a score that's particularly high for the publication, as it's probably something worth checking out that I've just never heard of. I'll also stop for particularly low scores, 'cause they're funny.

I apply the same filtering when I'm browsing sites like Eurogamer or looking on GameRankings/Metacritic. If a reviewer can fall in love with a game, maybe it's worth my time - but there's far too much dross out there to read everything.

Kotaku not providing scores, I can live with. No offence, but you've done so few reviews that you don't have to cover the unhyped and mediocre. Your review backlog isn't broad enough to cover any meaningful cross-section of gaming, so essentially each and every review comes with a recommendation. Anywhere with a serious number of reviews and I want to be able to skim through them, filtering them into highly recommended/recommended/average/hilariously terrible categories so I can skip over the dross. A score out of ten seems to do the trick - five might not quite do, as the boundaries shift a bit by genre.

I can understand the desire to do away with numerical scores, but reviews are rarely interesting reading purely on their own merits unless (as with Kotaku, Zero Punctuation, Action Button, etc) the reviewer gets to call their targets. Comprehensive review sites/magazines are primarily buyer's guides and need *some* blanket way to distinguish recommended games in order to serve that purpose efficiently.

randomnine

@Luke Plunkett: Then don't give scores! Kotaku's reviews aren't my favorite, because they're too terse, but when game x gets a 10/10 and game y gets an 8/10 you are saying that one game is better than the other. That's why the scores exist; between MGS4 and Halo 3, you're telling me I should get Halo 3. If that's what you really mean, fine. Otherwise, I'd like to reiterate my point: reviews that do a poor job of helping buyers make informed decisions are useless!

obonicus

@Bones_Jackson: I've always loved the cutscenes. it always show's off the game's graphics engine. especially at the end of that Europe part.

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

@Lovestationzero: Because most feel you can't buck the hype train. It somehow aggrieves them that a game they as a fanboy/consumer would award a 10 to now (and a 7 in 6 months time, when theyre over the hype) was given an 8.8 by a single man they've never met.

Luke Plunkett

@excel_excel: Mid-Bo....Dark Adonis. I trust IGN...most of the time....I can't remember the last time they've disappointed me.

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

@CatPope: The writing is poor and the scenes are full of overwrought melodrama. For long cinematics, they are nowhere near the "A+" movies out there.

people keep saying that.
also, suggesting to me to go read a book if I enjoy Hideo's drivel to find out about real good story telling.

I am fairly well read, I have watched my share of movies, yet I fail to find what about MGS4's story makes people think it's "overwrought melodrama" or nowhere near A+ movies.

It's no Lost In Translation or Juno, that's for sure, but it makes Iron Man look pretty basic.

hotdamn

Reviews are about your experience of the game. If you didn't like it, say so and why. Its not about what other people may hypothetically experience it, its about what you experienced. The only thing that you know for sure.

Dragonis

@Does Not Equal:

You can always rent games...or you can do what I do and live with crappy purchases. Its not the end of the world if you by a bad game or even one that is enjoyable but highly flawed. If you strictly purchase what reviewers list as great games you are bound to miss out on some great experiences.

Bones_Jackson

I haven't played MGS4, but I've played the others, and I always thought they were great games burdened by terrible melodrama and ridiculous plot twists. If forced to, I would score them around the 7-8 mark. Why is it that no reviewer can share my opinions?

Lovestationzero

@TrjnRabbit:

There is no way that 2/3 of MEtal Gear Solid 4 is cutscenes. It took my 20 and half hours to beat and I would be shocked if I watched more than 4-5 total hours of cutscenes.

Make no mistake about it the game is cutscene heavy, but it still has tons of gameplay. I would venture to say its 3/4 gameplay, 1/4 cutscene.

Bones_Jackson

I'd hate to say it, but in this age of the internet and game blogs, there's really no need for "professional" game reviewers. As someone mentioned before, with word of mouth, demos, online clips of gameplay made by fans and whatnot, a person can get a pretty good idea of whether a game is worth buying or not within a week of the release. The problem is that gaming media is pretty much just a hype machine right now which gets people to buy as many copies as they can on launch day and then be left behind with something unsatisfying that they sell to the shop a week later.

AlKusanagi

The strange thing about games is that they are now being held up to dual standards. On one hand they are being judged for their gameplay, which is a more traditional approach. This is how games have always been judged. On this, MGS4 gets high marks.

The other aspect, which is new, is that games are now being judged based on their ability to tell an engaging story well. This has normally been the domain of novels and movies. In this regard, MGS4 would get lower marks. The writing is poor and the scenes are full of overwrought melodrama. For long cinematics, they are nowhere near the "A+" movies out there.

There lies the problem. Do you punish a game for average writing when there are games out there with no story at all? How do you really compare something that is entirely different?

CatPope

@Bones_Jackson: That'd be great if most retail stores didn't allow opened returns of games, no matter how crappy they might be.

Does Not Equal

You guys don't review on what the genre is. More like for your opinions...

Bad dog..

ultimate920

@obonicus: Okay I agree that Edge are pretty selective when it comes to hype, but when they aren't they always critique a game fairly, but I mean I'd rate MGS4 above Halo 3 and GTA IV as would a lot of other people, and I loved MGS3 and would have put that above those two as well

Its still a bit much though the people who wanted MGS4 to be reviewed on its own terms as a 'metal gear solid game' are comparing the scores it gets to radically different games

excel_excel

@budash2: that wasn't very constructive at all

Nihon no Purin

@TrjnRabbit: pieced together of course.

You know, to me, watching a 30 minute MGS cutscene is totally cool. I felt that the end, esp. after the credits was rather anti climatic but oh well.

some people hate that stuff, which is totally cool to, there's enough games that cater to those gamers already, let metal gear have it's cutscene escapades, that's what I was after and now that I am done with it I can enjoy the fantastic gameplay on the new difficulty I unlocked and skip the cutscenes I don't feel like watching.

hotdamn

@obonicus: Halo 3 and GTA IV were more like a 9/10. IMO Halo 3 was a good game but disappointing. and GTA IV while a great game, didn't have that WOW factor that San Andreas had.

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

@hotdamn:
Are you counting a cutscene as one scene (interrupted by a loading screen or some gameplay) or a period between gameplay?

Because I didn't bother timing any, but if you use the latter definition there were MULTIPLE times where you could go a ridiculous length of time without needing to touch the controller.

From what I've been able to work out, about two-thirds of the game is cutscenes, typically longer than the gameplay segments that are used to break them up.

The game was still good, and the 90 minute cutscene comment may not be true, but it definitely FELT true and a rather generous statement at that.

TrjnRabbit

@Silent Predator: Actually thats a great idea, show what kind of games the reviewer likes, they do that in Ngamer its something more media should actively point out

excel_excel

Who even cares about reviews at this point? All they do is cloud your own judgment of a game before you even pop it into your system. Do yourself a favor and ditch them altogther, you will be a much happier gamer without them. I know I am.

Take chances on stuff and form your very own opinion instead of following someone else's checklist of a game.

Bones_Jackson

@obonicus: "... that they gave GTA4 and Halo 3 a 10/10. In other words, it's not that they don't buy into the hype, but they're more selective when it comes to the hype they buy into."

amazing, thank you for mentioning that.

hotdamn

@excel_excel: Honestly, the problem with Eurogamer's and EDGE's 8/10 to MGS isn't the score, but that they gave GTA4 and Halo 3 a 10/10. In other words, it's not that they don't buy into the hype, but they're more selective when it comes to the hype they buy into.

Not that those aren't good games, not that MGS is a 10/10 game, but neither is GTA4 or Halo 3. For reference, CoD4, also a better game than either of the last two (and with far longer-lasting appeal to its MP offering), got a 9/10 from these publications.

It's not asking too much to expect consistency, especially when these publications are somehow the apex of gaming journalism (when the apex of gaming journalism means 'sometimes we're tougher on popular games' you know things are bad). The defense I hear is that it's different reviewers, which is, of course, idiocy. I wasn't aware I was reading Eurogamer featuring Oli Welsh, is there somewhere I can get the same review featuring Rob Fahey?

obonicus

@Luke Plunkett: No one fails to grasp anything.
You can give an 8/10 to a game if you make valid points.
you can't tell a dog he's sub-par just because he smells like one.

hotdamn

Yeah, having integrity is SO hard.

/dumbasses.

thezman

@obonicus: I agree. I think one way to further that goal is to have something like a profile for each reviewer of what games they like and don't like. That way you can get a better idea if their tastes and opinions will match your own. It would at least give it some perspective.

Silent Predator

The man is right! Say what you think about a game, and say it like you mean it!

ODLdragonjoe

@TheIrishNinja: are Edge losing ther touch?!...who can I trust....WHO......oh! Giant Bomb! my preciiioouusss

excel_excel

Ah, the number of people still failing to grasp that reviews are a subjective experience.

Why the fuck would you want to read a review that does nothing but agree with what you already think of a game? Are you that short on confidence in your own convictions?

The best reviews are (if, for example, you're an MGS fanboy) ones like Edge giving MGS4 an 8, because they present a different view/take on the game to that of your own.

Luke Plunkett

The most accurate way I've found to decide if I'll like a game is to read venomous diatribes from people who loathe a given game. People with that level of vitriol pull no punches, and attack even the most trivial aspects of a game. Armed with such a voluntary review, I can see an outline of everything I might not like in a game and decide if I can live with the problem.

Numerical scores exist to demonstrate the weight a particular reviewer places on the strengths and weaknesses of a game. Unless I place the exact same weight on the same assets, the score is worthless as far as determining whether I will like a game. Taken in aggregate on a site like Metareview, the scores cannot possibly mean ANYTHING USEFUL to ANYONE.

I disagree with the idea of a review as entertainment reflecting the game. I don't actually view reviews as a means of entertaining myself, but as a way of informing myself about the nature of a game I may consider buying. I don't ask for them to be anything but informative. If space is limited (as the article mentions), entertainment and eloquence should be cut. An informative list is worth more to me than an essay that fails to touch on points I, as the consumer, may want to know...

Balius

@Grimmjow Jeagerjaques: I AM NOT MIDBOSS! Dark adonis if ya please!

*ahem* Well if I have to explain an 8/10 from Edge is generally a 90+ scoring game in other video game media, as for there Halo 3 review....well I don't know what to tell ya, your right MGS4 is way better than Halo 3

excel_excel

@LowerHouseMember: I like the Numerical Scores, but the Letter Grades (1up/EGM) has to go. it's so mind-boggling.

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

@spargo_1: yeah, that was indeed shitty. offsetting scores is weak, and you saw it with halo and gta just to get noticed.
which isnt to say you cant give any of those 3 games the score you want to, but be honest.

@hotdamn: exactly. i personally dont argue as much with edge's review, and can certainly see why they gave it, but i myself noted the absence of 90 minute cutscenes. mind you, 30+ minute briefings could be rought, too.

TheIrishNinja

"So, Kotaku readers, what do you think are the worst things reviewers do - and how can we do better?"

the worst thing a reviewer can do is review a game based on a franchise they despise. like what Edge and Eurogamer did on MGS4.

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

Numerical and even letter grade scales need to go. Thumbs up/thumbs down is all you need.

LowerHouseMember

@budash2:"I've played plenty of games that got bad scores that I like more than games that got higher "scores."
Yeah we all have, but the number to a lot of people is important, its not to me I love Kotaku's reviews and Yathzee will always get love for not putting a score at the end of his 'reviews'

excel_excel

@excel_excel: actually Mid-Boss, some of the European reviewers are really pushing it. it's those 3: Edge, GameRadar, and Eurogamer. I have MGS4 and Halo 3. and MGS4 obliterates Halo 3 in every possible way. I think it was Edge that gave Halo 3 a 10/10 and MGS4 an 8/10. but at least they're not Gamespot (Kane & Lynch).

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

Gamedaily's 'review' of MGS4 was some of the worst writing I have seen for a review in a very long time. I was truly appalled by it. After reading their "justification" of there low score for MGS4 by saying reviewers who gave it a high score just gave it a free pass and are fanboys, I am not going their ever again. Terrible terrible review for a game that blew me away like no other game before it.

Kinda off topic but gamedaily annoys the hell outta me.

spargo_1

Most publications forget that practically the only reason the gaming press exists is to give readers an idea of whether a given game is or isn't worth their money.

So this nonsense of reviewing games without while being sequestered, without actually experiencing games has to end. Buy your own games, buy them retail, write a GOOD review, rather than a quick one. Respect the fact that while you play games for free, your readers actually have to pay for them.

obonicus

@excel_excel: Well the sad part is, that there aren't even two cutscenes that are almost 90 minutes long. The longest one, to be more specific, the ending was an hour.
everything before that ended well before reaching the 30 minute mark.

other than that I think there is enough here to justify an 8/10 for someone who disagrees with some of the choices kojima pro made, but I think an 11/10 is just as reasonable with MGS4.

hotdamn

@excel_excel: Whatever dude. That may be true at times, but scores are still stupid. I've played plenty of games that got bad scores that I like more than games that got higher "scores."

It's not really about the number, different people like different things in their video games. Some stuff the people hate other people enjoy.

Hence giving a game a numerical score is useless. It's like telling a kid that's really good at math that he got a 3/10 because he sucks at basketball. But, he's really good at something else. Right?!

budash2

I always like Game Revolution's scoring system, which is based on grades. They are very serious about games and what grade they get. To get an A, which I've only seen rarely, the game has to be superb. But they don't lambaste a game completely, even if it has major problems, they still point out the good parts in a +/- column at the bottom to sum it all up. I think more reviewers should have a clearly defined description for what kind of games receive an A, or a 10, or whatever the hell they are using.

SapphireC

What's wrong with a balanced review? Anyone who knows the internets knows that expressing a strong opinion = FLAME

skullkid

@g8or8de: It was baised?? care to point out where?? I've got a nice quote from it here that isn't baised
"Nor is it one that seeks to appease the critics, specifically those who lost consciousness during hour two of MGS2's finale. The cutscenes here are sure to invoke that thousand-yard stare, two in particular coming perilously close to the 90-minute mark. But that's the price of admission - they can be paused and skipped now, but at the cost of half the experience - which for fans will seem more like a gift. If you've sat in lockers while footsteps came and went, basked in the glow of Codec chats without once checking your watch, or taken time to learn the difference between patriots and Patriots, MGS4 is your just reward."

excel_excel

Heck if most people bothered to read the reviews rather than the number tacked on the end maybe they'd be happier!
For example Games TM gave MGS4 8/10, cue angry fanboys who haven't read the review brandishing their pitchforks

excel_excel

lol point system has always been dumb i read the reveiw i could give to craps about the 1.0-10.0 crap.

Raziel Dune

Talking about biased reviews, Edge's score for MGS4 (8 out of 10) completely undermines the efforts of the game developer and utterly fails to give an appropriate explanation for the score.

g8or8de

Doing away with numerical values would be a start. Edege did an issue where all the reviews' numerical results were in the back. It was a good issue

Fishballs

Get rid of scores all together, or over simplify it to thumbs up or down. With demo's, the internet, word of mouth, most people make there decision about buying a game way before the review comes out anyways. The main reason most people go is to justify their purchase or if they played through the game already to see how what the reviewer says about the game compares to there own opinion.

IIGrayFoxII

Metal Gear Solid 4 sucked cuz I say so! I give it a 54.312810 out of 155 silver nuggets.

Lovestationzero

Top 5 List:

1) Be a Gamespot review
2) Be a IGN review
3) Be a GamePro review
4) Be a EGM/1UP review
5) Give a game a numerical score that is ultimately meaningless dribble.

budash2

This Kotaku post gets a 1 out of 1.

archibaldleech

points, no points, handing out of donuts, or ounces of weed, whatever...The reviewer just needs to point out a short bit about the plot without giving anything away, whats good and whats bad, and wether in the end they liked the game and would play it more and/or reccomend it to someone else.

sirsonik

@Caseus:
i agreed

i think the greatest sin that reviewers have is worrying about how it's going to be received.

the second sin is when a reviewer doesn't give his background on a high profile game. If someone is reviewing a Gran Turismo sequel but prefers Project Gotham Racing; that's fine as long as I know that before hand.

jp182

I agree with Tycho on the MGS4 boiled-down statement. I am not liking MGS4. I never had an interest in the series. Just came with the 80GB Playstation 3 bundle because I thought "Hey, free game!" I find myself getting stressed more than Snake, and that's no good. I'm getting more out of the free PSN game PAIN that came with the tricked-out Blu-Ray player. But it's obvious that not everyone feels this way, and from those who I've heard that the game is the bee's knees, they like the past incarnations just as well. So from what I see, it's a sequel that appeals to the existing fanbase. Nothing wrong with that, just not going to bring that many newcomers into the fanbase.

ViewtifulJason

@hotdamn: Iron Man might be of the medium as Lost in Translation or Juno, but any comparison is tomfool or superficial. The latter two are cathartic original works, whilst the former is a product through and through (not trying to diminish Iron Man, I absolutely loved it).

Unlike music or film reviews, I completely disregard game reviews for anything beyond my own amusement; if I am interested in something, I'll get it off GameFly. If I really like it, I may pick it up. The only time I eschew that step is if I am a genuine fan of the developer or I've seen oodles of prior media that have left me impressed.

Most Metal Gear fans pre-ordered the game without even weighing preview judgments, so a review of Metal Gear Solid 4 should be aimed towards the average gamer who is determining whether or not to shell out $60 on the game. It should be no different than the newspaper review that the typical person will read the before deciding whether or not to see Get Smart.

alitcofsky

This is a BAD article. Horrible. There is one deadly sin of a reviewer. Him not giving you his opinion. That is a reviewers only job. Influence or not his job is for him to tell you what HE thinks nothing more nothing less. So there is no deadly sin and if you ask the best Critique's that they will tell you that's what they're job is. This article is crap. And has no actual merit. I hate it when people think they know what a reviewers "job" is. This is more saying what good and bad writing is than it is what a game reviewers job is. Reflect colorful world in writing? It doesn't have to do anything. If a reviewer wants to point out a bunch of crap is bad and all of that then it's fine. It's a subjective topic not something you can just say "this is how you do it".

NessD12

@Monkeez: Right: do them right, or don't do them.

@LORDofDANCE: It doesn't help that previews are like PR fluff with a thin veneer of actual experience with the game snuck in.

obonicus

@Lovestationzero: Because they are your thoughts and opinions basically..

Anyway haven't played MGS4 yet but the problem with a game like this so story heavy is that if you enjoy this particular type of narrative then the cutscenes and story are awesome and an integral part of gameplay, if you dont like them they are long bouts of non-play which are ridiculous.

They say it's a cop out to say, "if you like past metal gear games, then you will like this", that is bullshit, a review is supposed to give you information that will tell you if a game is worth your money, they are supposed to be as objective as possible (a review is after all an opinion piece), so even if a reviewer didn't specifically liked something because it was not up to his tastes, he should not descount the fact that there are people out there who might enjoy it. A reviewer should tackel this elements in the sense "do they work, are they executed correctly?" so if say a cutscene flows from the gameplay without problems then, even if the narrative is not to your liking, then you should say that it works, if on the other hand cutscenes jump out and interrupt gameplay in a stupid and illconceived manner then yeah, it sucks.

I personally like the review style of kotaku, where the review takes a more bullet point style approach to the features of gameplay, its fairer and it allows you to say "Well I even if they didn't like that the style of the cutscenes I do, so I will check it out".

If it were me I would add a score at the end, but the method would change constantly and the score would not mean a thing, so after I review a game super favorably I would put in the end, say, 5 golden monkeys out of a possible 7 twisted apples (or maybe a 8.53694 out of 12pi or something), just to screw with the assholes that instead of reading just lash out at a number.

Soleyu

@obonicus: But that very reason is why review scores don't work. Someone I know was saying, "If GTA4 is 10/10 then MGS4 is 12/10!" That's why it doesn't work, if the reviewers are going to throw around tens, what do they give to games that are better?

That's why I think it's silly to do scores, you just cant rank games based on opinions.

Monkeez

What I respect in a review is you make a statement and you back it up.

CyberSkull

Most game reviews today are like previews with a thin strip of opinion sneaked in. They are usually not helpful enough to make purchasing decisions easier.

LORDofDANCE

This has been said up and down this thread, and for good reason: Numbered reveiws are a stupid bullshit idea. And what really makes things worse is when you start to add decimals to the mix.

What's the difference between a 9.3 and a 9.8? A lot, if you round the numbers, which I'm guessing you'd rather we didn't do. What's so wrong with just a straight 1-to-10 scale with 1 being the worst score and 10 being the best score a game can get while 5 is the middle ground when a game is utterly average with no redeming qualities and no damnable ones. Decimals make that middle ground murky and hard to find, which in turns strips the reveiw of any weight it may have carried.

Redface

Ouch. I have to agree with eunoia that it is the fanbase(s) that pisses me off most.

I haven't played either Halo 3 nor MGS4, but why the fuck are people so intent to rate a stealth game over a shooter? Apples and oranges need to rain down on fanboy's heads till it knocks some sense in there.

I read reviews to get an idea of what a game is like, see what the reviewer may compare it to, and go off that. Just because they rate a game highly, doesn't mean I'll like it. Indeed, you can give Football Manager 200X as many 10/10's as you want and I still wouldn't accept it's presence in my house.

So on that list, Diplomacy would be the biggest gripe of mine. When my favourite reviewers gave MGS4 an 8 for being an awesome experience, though an acquired taste, I was happy to know that it wouldn't be for me, though something to try when I have some free time and it was cheaper. They highlighted it's flaws (everything they disliked about it) and praised it's good points. They gave it a high score, which they pointed out was all but useless if you didn't read the review for such a game as MGS4.

In the days of backlash for the score, they stood by their OPINION and I respect them more than ever.

Game reviewers: be honest. That's all I want.

Krondonian

Get rid of number scores. Just use five stars, or letter grade it.

NoFunShogun

If it wasn't for the internet, I probably never would've known about this whole massive review debate. I have no problems when a review is justified. When things go south, however, is when the review becomes a dumping ground as a writer's attempt to stand out and be noticed. Even though EGM came out shining through the whole "Ubisoft advertising" scandal, I was completely offended by EGM's nonsense(even as a 10+ year subscriber). When you actually read that assasin's creed review, the majority of the article is spent creating witty quips on how much the game sucks than discussing it's faults at length.

Go ahead and give the reviews a numbered score. As long as they can give me an idea of where this review is coming from, I don't mind. I think something that needs to be addressed more than the actual reviews at times, is the commentors that like to review the reviews. If you disagree with what they've written, you've probably played it... and if you've played it, you don't need to know other people's opinions on it!

eastshore4

How often have you watched a movie and liked it, only later to read a critic panning it in the paper on online? Did you change your opinion to match the critic's review? Or did you instead read the review to see if the points the critic made were valid? Ideally, you did the second, and it helped sharpen your judgment, whether the points made were relevant to your experience or not.

Reviews are opinion pieces, and a professional critic's review must be the educated opinion. That doesn't mean it's the final word, however, the final word is, ultimately, the reader's. Critics have no true authority over what you decide to do, which means a critic should really be concerned over making his review a good read, accurately capturing HIS experience of the game, over trying to be "right".

Take Crispy Gamer for one. It has no scores, only a 1-of-3 recommendation: Try It, Buy It, or Fry It. MGS4 was a "Fry It", with Tom Chick's review hitting many quite valid points about what playing the game would likely be for someone who isn't a series devotee. Did it change my own opinion of the game? No, but it DID manage the best thing a critical review can do, which is to raise relevant points to back up the critic's opinion, and through it deepen and diversify the conversation.

And that's it. Diversity. For movies there are often as many bad reviews as good ones, often even for the biggest titles. For games the environment should be the same.

unangbangkay

Mr. Mastrapa is reading my mind. Basically, the counterpoints of each "sin" he discusses are what I wish game reviewers would improve on. Imo, the decrease of dullness should be emphasized a lot more; or in other words, game reviews should vary on a more widespread scale, from one press company to the next. I feel a lot of these reviews are monotonous, and while being straightforward in the context of a review's purpose helps the reader to better understand the opinion being stated, it tends to be a bit boring sometimes. I've seen a bit of experimentation with EGM's reviews, but I'd like to see it with other press as well.

Br00klyn-Grenade

@Lovestationzero: Best review EVARRRR!

ChiChi_BBQ

@obonicus: Even if you are a fanboy of one genre or another it still becomes subjective. You just said you thought COD4 had a more fun longer lasting multiplayer experience than Halo 3 and I would totally dissagree. COD4 to me is a stripped down simplified version of what Halo 3 has. Between standard matchmaking, Forge, the Double XP weekends, and vehicles thrown into the mix as well as more variety in the types of multiplayer maps and better weapon balance, I can make a good argument that a lot of people would agree with, that Halo 3 had far better multiplayer, but it wouldn't matter, because it's still subjective for one to have a higher number than the other. I'd think just listing pros and cons of a game as is done here on Kotaku is a much better alternative.

fearing

I kind of wish game reviews were a bit like test drive articles in car magazines. What's the experience like? What things does it do well? What things don't work like they should? Was anything better than expected? How does it compare to competitors in its particular segment? Wrap things up with a few pros and cons, and skip the score altogether. Kotaku does a pretty good job of this, and I wish other outlets would follow the example.

I'd also like to get more than one person's opinion in a magazine or web review. In particular, I wish review mags and sites would make an effort to get a review from someone who likes the particular series/genre/game type, etc. and one from someone who wouldn't normally like that sort of thing. I don't care what an MGS/Madden/Halo lover thinks of the newest game. I want to know what someone who doesn't automatically worship the sacred cows thinks.

notoriousEIC

@budash2: And meaningless drivel is even worse than "meaningless dribble."

Dirk Dorkelson

@Bones_Jackson: I don't base my decision to buy a game solely on reviews. Still, there are some games that look great on the shelf and just befoul a system when inserted. I don't keep bad games, and trading them in is a huge loss. If I had more money, I might be less discriminating.

Does Not Equal

@budash2: Epic truth. Add 'bribes' to that list.

And yet... I still like to read them. I wonder why that is?

sir_carrot

@randomnine:
I couldn't agree more. I don't have time, inclination, or cash to read every review on the internet, and in every game magazine start to finish just so I have an answer to "is it any good?" Numeric scores are opinions usually expressed with an attempt to be objective, and I actually understand that so I don't need it hidden or abolished. It is a fast, concise, language independent gauge of about what a given reviewer thought of a game. If I'm not looking for an in-depth analysis of a game, even before Metacritic (which I think people still put too much faith in anyway) I could still load 5 or 6 of my favorite gaming sites and check the scores they each gave to give a fairly good feeling of whether it warrants a closer look. I already check out what a game is like just so the title means something to me - if it interests me from that, I'll check it out anyway. Quite honestly though, if I'm hyped for a game that gets an average 4/10, chances are my fandom isn't going to smooth over the deficiencies others have found in it.

Taste in gaming is subjective, so comparing scores for two games that are not totally alike is irrelevant anyway. That does not mean that numbers are bad for all purposes though. To me a scoreless review IS what they're calling the sin of diplomacy. Unless the reviewer is a very good writer, then not assigning a score just seems like a way to keep the review vague and neutral to avoid criticism. Who can complain if they don't actually know what you think?

Now for me an entertaining reviewer like Yahtzee doesn't need to give a score because his reviews are funny to watch and very short. To me, it is important to know who is writing a review because if you know the person, you know generally where your interests overlap and how their scores of different genres may skew. His reviews are useful because he makes it very clear what games he's into normally, so you know his biases a bit. One thing I love about his reviews that I'd like to see a few more reviewers do is how he mercilessly mocks his internet detractors then completely dismisses them. Because it's a personal impression regardless of how objective they want it to be, a reviewer should not fear the readers. By all means gauge them to see if you're remaining popular, but a few percent of passionate screeds devoid of logical arguments, punctuation or proper spelling really aren't worth the effort it takes to address them.

So basically, numeric scores are the signpost that leads to your review. Introduce yourself so your opinion has a frame of reference. Work for, but don't dote on your fans - some people can't take criticism, yet many read reviews!

fuchikoma

@Defenestrated: Totally agree with you there bud, Reviews are more of an opinion than a final word. so people shouldnt take it personal when a game gets anything less than a perfect.

BryanGuitarDude

I think that another version of these seven game reviewing sins needs to be written up, but this time it should apply to the people who are reading the reviews. My personal list would go something like this:

1) Stop taking reviews so personally.

2) Stop taking reviews so personally.

3) Stop taking reviews so personally.

...well you get the idea. Come on guys, just because a reviewer disagrees with you doesn't mean you should get all up-in-arms over it. Someone on the internet has a differing opinion from you, get over it. Now this is no excuse for bad or sloppy game journalism, but if the piece is decently written and supported there's no reason that you should go crying to mommy about it.

Defenestrated

@hotdamn: It's mostly people who haven't or can't play it. It's a pretty good yarn on par with the top quarter of action flicks.

kingmanic

any game with hardcore nerd following = 10. everything else = 7

baccardi84

@unangbangkay:
After reading your comment, I had to go and check out Crispy Gamer. It is now my favorite game site.

notoriousEIC

Oh jeez, is it 2004 again? New Games Journalism, redux. To quote Tycho from an old piece:

"I visit gaming sites primarily to be enraged.

I'm constantly saying that this or that review has minute flaws, as though I had expected them to be produced by stern men under hermetic conditions. I examine the scores they produce like a jeweler, squinting, snorting at the base materials which remain in the finished product. Yet I keep going back, craving it, exhorting them to provide me with evidence of my superior intellect. I'm pawing at the teat, demanding that it produce. And I am rarely disappointed."

[www.insertcredit.com]

I wish readers of reviews didn't see reviews -opinions, consumer reports, whatever- as THE ANSWER TO LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING and just took them at face value: one man's opinion about a certain game.

And, just like Tycho sighs at the end of the article, "I'd like them (the reviewers) to act as though they knew that."

Gaff

@Dirk Dorkelson: Lol. Touche. That hurts.

Meaningless drivel. Garsh dangut!

budash2

Ah yes I knew it was coming. As gaming becomes more respected as an art form, the narcissist art critic is sure to follow.

Measure: Scores are statistical. Like statistics they are not exact or absolute. Name a game you think is awesome, I can find somebody that hates it.

Stats aren't exact but still useful. They're an approximation to try to sum up their recommendation. The problem aren't the scores themselves, the problem is how people choose to interpet them.

They are not abolute measures of game to be used as ammo in fanboy wars. They are not a absolute objective measure of the quality of the game. They are not a substitute for a complex opinion. They are not a reason to ignore what's said in the review.

They are a summation of the opinion as best be represented in a number which can be useful. Which says more about the review better in one sentence: "EGM really liked the Orange Box" or "EGM gave the Orange Box a 10, 9.5 10"?

Dullness: I find it incredibly irritating a when reviews become at outlet for reviewers to show us how witty they think they are. We don't need more of that.

Doubt: This I agree with for the most part. I do get a feeling that too many reviewers fall into hype or the hate of the masses. If you would ever dislike a game because you think it's "overrated" you have no business being a reviewer.

But sometimes doubt is good. There have been games that I hated at first and ended up loving. Sometimes you need the benefit of the doubt.

Diplomacy: I agree with this point. You don't compromise your opinion for fear of fanboy rage.

What I don't agree with is ignoring a game's target audience. You need to review a game for people who would buy it, not for every possible person that could ever exist. A stereotypical fratboy Madden fan isn't going to like FFXII, so there's no point in trying to review it for them.

Forgiveness: Apparently this guy never saw the Bioshock review. Yahtzee knows people watch his e-show to watch him hate on games. Zero Punctuation is entertainment. I don't think anybody watches ZP to get recommendations about games. Yahtzee nitpicks because he can make jokes from them. Hell he typically hates on gmaes so much it becomes a complete surprise when he says he likes them at the end.

It would be flatout stupid if a magazine spent an entire GTASA review focusing on lack of checkpoint system, glitches, the fact that nobody notices your car is dented, some of the side quests are obnoxious, or other nitpicks in an otherwise excellent game. I don't read game reviews to hear somebody whine.

Obsession: This is a pretty pointless. You can tell this was tacked on so they could call the article "The seven deadly sins of blah blah".

Purposelessness: This is my gripe about this article. He completely forgets what reviews are for.

People read reviews to help decide what games they should buy from somebody that played them. Whether it's finding out if a game lives up to the hype or learning about a hidden gem, reviews can be very useful.

What reviews should not be is some guy lecturing you about game design. Most people don't care, and a lot of the time reviewers simply aren't qualified.

It's better to do one thing really well than to do a bunch of things poorly. Reviews should be an overview of a game within the context of a recommendation. Crowbaring in legthy game design discussion and needless nitpicking will not make reviews better.

I would like game mags to do more in depth game design, but it should be done separately from the review. It would be awesome is game magazines started including "Game Analysis" along with game reviews. After the writers have had time to digest the game, they could go deep into game design discussion. Talk about what worked, what didn't, how things could have been better, what designers could learn from it, and yes, nitpicking the little details that could have been done better.

Game reviews should not be an argument. The should be what people read them for.

Triple8

I'm surprised how heated it's getting about the MGS4 reviews. It's a great game, I won't deny it that, but to get worked up over it getting an 8 somewhere is a little silly. Now if there were a couple of "6" or "7" scores floating around, I'd see why people are upset. The game isn't flawless. If anything, one of MGS4's coolest features is the most debatable flaw: Cut-scenes. I personally love the cut-scenes in the game and view them as a reward and respite from the gameplay. However, the fact that there is so much hands-off time in the game can be seen as a downside despite the excellence of the scenes. Can you blame people for wanting to "play" the game instead of "watch" it?

I think we tend to forget when reviewing games that a feature doesn't have to be classified as good or bad, sometimes it's both. "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Lastly, we all have to remember reviews are opinions in this nature, and that you have to take from the review the game elements presented and decided whether they appeal to you or not.

Ryodestined

We should do away with review scores!

Heck, why stop at that? Let's just do away with reviews altogether!

Hell, why stop there? Let's just do away with games!!

Seriously.

dowingba

Very simple. Have 3 categories

1. Game is trash: Something like "World Championship Cards" which garnered a 3.4 score at ign

2. Rent it first: Something like LEGO Indiana Jones or Star Wars.

3. Spend grocery money on: GTA IV, Twilight Princess, MGS4.

I realize that most games (60% or so) will fall in category 2. But that's the way it should be. Most games are average. Only a few should you drop money on before you hold it in your hands once. Very few are completely irredeemable. This type of system would allow for nuances in gradation. For instance, a reviewer could push LEGO hard, but still reserve that some are going to detest the camera functionality or the strange physics. We can be fanboy and critic at once.

mortalum

This is why if you're gonna read reviews, read more than one. Get different perspectives on the game. If you have doubts, give it a rent or a demo try.

Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.

Well, I only buy games that get a 9/10+ because I let publishers dictate what I buy. I also like when they publish something I completely agree with because I don't have enough self-esteem where I can feel smart without someone telling me I am smart.

I guess I'll just have to skip MGS4.... >.>

ImCrying

I didn't know that the word "wishy-washy" existed in the English language.

lumpi

After playing so many games, I've come to a stage where I decide if I want to buy it or not by seeing previews and stuff.

If the review lists some major issues like bugs etc (ex lair) then its useful as it will save me from purchasing a badly done game.

I dont care what the reviewer thinks of the story or gameplay etc, as I have my own opinion on them.

It seems like review scores are now only used for System war bettings, and by companies to decide how much bonus they should pay to the developers

Reetesh

I love how all MGS4 reviews that didn't give the game 95%+ are called badly written and biased. I'd say the exact opposite is true, especially when it's the big game sites that depend on publisher advertising money. Pissing off the publisher loses you money and pissing off the fanboys loses you readership. So just bung out a 95% and be done with it. I've stopped believing MGS reviews since MGS2 was hailed as "teh best thing evar" by the review sites. Same goes for the Halo games.

photoboy

It's a challenging idea.

Does the reviewer try to touch on everything and be forgiving?

Or does the reviewer wrangle the few things about the game that shouldn't be there.

I think, with the correct backing up of facts, a review can piss someone off and still resonate with well. They're mad, but they know it's true, and the review doesn't fall under assault.

I just don't think you can be too passionate, because even if it's a more entertaining read, it's less objective.

For instance, 1UP reviews passionately and they have a letter score that represents that. It's not measured, and it's very much the stuff you hear from friends -- if it's passionate the reviewer will probably feel more convincing.

I usually agree with the sentiment, do I like it or not, but the metrics are never really considered...

Snake726

LoL so many people arguing over MGS4 review. I can't wait for Yathzee to review it. Its gonna be a bigger shit storm than SSBM. :D

2SBs

Getting rid of the number system is really not the main issue in my mind. Much like anything it is how you use it that really matters and it's been abused more times than not. Personally I really enjoy the reviews (like they do here) where they tell you all the pros and cons of the game, or at least the major ones, but it is more because they seem to sort out why they like or dislike a game more rationally, while in many cases the number scores seem plucked out of space somewhere.

The absolute worst thing with scores is when they give separate scores for each section and the final score isn't even an average of the scores, I'm looking squarely at you Game Trailers. To sum up though I think that I enjoy reviews that clearly give what was liked and disliked about a game and if they give a score than have a score that reflects that. At the end of the day it is truly up to the gamer. I've played games given critical acclaim and high ratings, and really not enjoyed them much. Then I've played good to mediocre rated games and loved them. It depends on how well you know what you like and what aspects of games don't make or break a game for you. That's my two cents though.

Dullshimmer

Wow. Check the people getting indignant over Edge's 8/10 for MGS4. You can tell they usually read sycophant mags that give 14/10 or whatever. From Edges point of view 8/10 is a very good score, as it should be across the review industry. Seems fair to me, MGS4 is mostly excellent, but occasionally bloated and self important. 8/10.

Badben

It drives me crazy when I buy a game based on a certain review and then later find out that the score was based on something entirely different than the game itself. A prime example is my purchase of Lunar Knights for the DS.

When the game came out it was on my radar but i didn't decide to grab a copy until Jeremy Parish over at 1UP gave it a good score/review. Upon playing it I was a little surprised it wasn't better than it was. Then a week ago I'm listening to 1UP's Retronauts podcast and Jeremy mentions that his old score for Lunar Kights was actually based more on his fondness for past Boktai games and not this game itself.

Made me feel a little tricked. I mean, if you're writing a review I'm a firm believer that the game should be reviewed on it's own merits above all and then consider how it works in relation to a series it may be a part of.

ultra_balexbot

I'd actually like to see more reviews from the perspective of that particular game, rather than compare it to it's past iterations. For instance, I've never played a Metal Gear game. I'd like to know how I'll like it, what the experience will be like for me, how 'out of the loop' I'll be, etc.

ThisCharmingMan

I still think its funny that people go on about the Edge 8/10 review of MGS4 because they rated Halo 3 and GTA4 with 10/10. Here's a thought...maybe, just maybe, they found Halo 3 and GTA4 to be more enjoyable to play. Not as polished or as epic as MGS4 but simply more fun. Added to the fact that both have seriously enjoyable and popular mulitplayer modes, maybe some people just dont have as much fun playing MGS4 as they do playing Halo3 and GTA4, which is fair enough. Hell i've watched the movie Spaceballs a 100 times but Saving Private Ryan (an oscar winning epic) only once, and why? Because i find Spaceballs more fun.

Deadpool101