Re: What really is the problem with these gaming sites.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
You're obviously very deluded. First off, you already admit that games can't completely emulate reality. So why would game reviewers even pretend to think that the games CAN? A game reviewer has to INFORM his readers about the game: both good and bad points, and then provide a personal opinion. That's what a GOOD reviewer should do. Very few reviewers do it, though. I can understand why to some extent: limited staff, limited amount of time. But then, what is the point of reviews if not to inform the readers of what the game's qualities are? And yes, sliders are very much a part of the game and NEED to be mentioned, ESPECIALLY to note how effective they are in resolving issues.
By the way, people have very different conceptions about what constitutes good D, how good should shooting percentages be, and people have different playing styles. Sliders ALLOW for that latitude, and while I was initially against sliders, now I'm for them. I actually like the fact they're there, as long as they work properly and aren't arbitrarily designed to provide more of something just because a slider is set to it.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Nailed
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
By this same extent, even if a game has various difficulty settings, it should only be reviewed on it's default setting
So if a game is by default set to its easiest level, then reviewers should mark it down for being too easy instead of noting that you can change this.
It is the exact same thing with sliders in sports games. If you can change it, then they can't say that it's a bad point of the game. No two people are going to want the game to be exactly the same, so sliders are a necessity.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Nailed.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
You're obviously very deluded. First off, you already admit that games can't completely emulate reality. So why would game reviewers even pretend to think that the games CAN? A game reviewer has to INFORM his readers about the game: both good and bad points, and then provide a personal opinion. That's what a GOOD reviewer should do. Very few reviewers do it, though. I can understand why to some extent: limited staff, limited amount of time. But then, what is the point of reviews if not to inform the readers of what the game's qualities are? And yes, sliders are very much a part of the game and NEED to be mentioned, ESPECIALLY to note how effective they are in resolving issues.
By the way, people have very different conceptions about what constitutes good D, how good should shooting percentages be, and people have different playing styles. Sliders ALLOW for that latitude, and while I was initially against sliders, now I'm for them. I actually like the fact they're there, as long as they work properly and aren't arbitrarily designed to provide more of something just because a slider is set to it.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Nailed
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
By this same extent, even if a game has various difficulty settings, it should only be reviewed on it's default setting
So if a game is by default set to its easiest level, then reviewers should mark it down for being too easy instead of noting that you can change this.
It is the exact same thing with sliders in sports games. If you can change it, then they can't say that it's a bad point of the game. No two people are going to want the game to be exactly the same, so sliders are a necessity.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Nailed.
Comment