This is why game reviews fail...

[Sheleigha]

Ah yes, the world of game reviewers. We already know some are TERRIBLY biased (IGN), but sometimes, some are just plain bad and explain nothing. I was browsing Metacritic (yeah yeah I know...) and came across MK2's super low meta score of 54... And yeah, all the reviews for it were super low... However it's reviews like THIS that show that some people shouldn't review games at all:

Playstation: The Official Magazine (US)
Mar 5, 2012
40 (/100 rating)
"If you're into the cartoon 12-year-olds, adjust the score up a few points. Otherwise, avert your eyes and move along." [Apr 2012, p.77]

Yes, that's right. That's the whole review. One of those reviews where they didn't bother to review it, and had a quick blurb on it on a page. Thanks Playstation magazine for making EVERYONE who plays the game sound dirty -_-; NOTHING about the game but just judging it upon the moe factor, that's all they had to say about it.
Now, (how should I put it...) I'm not into moe, but it depends on the series. Like, I won't actively look for a moe anime to watch or game to play, but if the story/game is good/fun and whatnot then sure I'll check it out! And yes, I LOVE the art for Neptune, thus I find the characters adorable! But, I'm not one who will actively look for moe-specific games to play... I hope this makes sense?

What I'm trying to say is, that I hate when reviews like that make EVERYONE out that they are just playing a game FOR the moe, as if there is no other reason. The whole thing is just stupid, and there should be some unwritten internet law, where ONLY JRPG sites are allowed to reviews JRPGs... It's just getting ridiculous, and it makes me sad when people read and trust terrible reviews, as their buying factor :/

Of course, the REAL fans of Neptunia would look for the user score on a site like Metacritic, seeing as they are ALL POSITIVE. One negative, but since they didn't write a review, could just be a troll vote. Also fans know how BOTH versions of the game flew out of Nisa's warehouse, and out of Gamestops. Knowing this for me, is satisfying enough^^


And here's a bonus 'review' from the first game:

PSM3 Magazine UK
Mar 13, 2011
37 (/100 rating)
"It's just perverted." [Apr 2011, p.91]

Wow! That told me everything I needed to know about the game!!

[CrimsonLight]

Meh, it's what people think the first time they see it.
CARTOON BIKINI TEEN GIRLS!? Porn people. Nothing to see here.
1/100
They don't want to see anything past the cover.

[AutomaticMaiden]

Not defending them or anything, but do you think what's shown may just be blurb from larger review? Maybe metacritic is not allowed reprint the full article because ps mag is paid subscription? Still, 40/100 almost seems like the reviewer didnt actually play the game.

So, would they review Gears of War 3 as: 50/100 Add a few points if you like doo-rags, sleeveless t-shirts and muscle-bound "bromance."

[raspberrylicious]

If that's all they wrote, I don't think they played the game. They reviewed it based on the cover alone.

[Ghaleon]

It's just part of the perception people have towards anime/JRPGs. They stereotype all its fans as basement dwelling pervy pedos. Kinda like most anime/JRPG fans like to assume anybody who enjoys a call of duty or halo game as being a soulless sheep who blindly follows society. It's a bit more annoying on the JRPG fan's end though because they have to deal with "professionals" (such as reviewers) who also pick on them. whilst the other "group" (I use quotes because anime/jrpg fans seem overly quick to judge anybody who may like one of those games, when the person may not even like them at all, just one in particular) doesn't exactly have to deal with any kind of authority or professionals or whatever ragging on them. Though I suppose they have to deal with annoying little @#%@%#s during multiplayer.

Personally I think reviewers who allow themselves to jump on the "oh hey, it's anime-esque, lets bash it" bandwagon for no reason other than being anime-inspired are a disgrace to their profession, even if it seems to be the norm in it (in NA at least). They're pathetic individuals who think people like Glen Beck are cool, and think they can be like him by taking shots at fans of some of the more "nerdy" games.

[kanade2]

I'm sure the review goes more in depth if you buy the magazine ,but I doubt it's worth reading .

[Sik]

If that isn't the whole review then begs the question: who decides to pick what part to quote from the review? =P

The best of all is that in both games the very first scene involves women who are definitely not underage, period. Not even apparent age =/

[AutomaticMaiden]

Could be the original reviewer. They try pick a tagline/header to put at the top of their review to draw readers and attention to get people to read the rest of the review. Since as I speculated before that ps mag is paid subscription, metacritic may not have the ability to post anything beyond that initial header/tagline...which is unfortunate because the reviewer(s) chose very poorly in terms of what to use for HDN and HDN mk2.

[Sheleigha]

It may not be the whole review (I sure hope they actually have MORE to it...) but I do know that with Game Informer, there do write up short blurbs. If it's not a big game to have a 2-page, 1-page, or even half-page spread for a review, they'll have half a page at the end with about 10 reviews of ones they didn't go in depth with, writing up a quick sentence and the review score. So, I guess I figured that it was something like that, which it just may be, sadly...

[Shizuka]

Come on, there are people that just don't like it, and they just happen to be reviewers.

[Sheleigha]

Yes, but a review should be objective, covering many different aspects of the game, not JUST necessarily what the reviewer liked about it or not. I mean, writing a non-biased objective review could be tough I'm sure, but it's how reviews should be done, I believe.

[Ghaleon]

Aye, if they dislike it and think there are more bad qualities than good, fine. But it's extremely unprofessional to bash a game's fanbase, or question their motives for disagreeing.

[Shizuka]

I mean, writing a non-biased objective review could be tough I'm sure, but it's how reviews should be done, I believe.

I don't see anyone complaining when a biased reviewer gives 8.5+.

[Sik]

I don't see anyone complaining when a biased reviewer gives 8.5+.

Read what Ghaleon said, it isn't a matter of the reviewer disliking the game as it's a matter of the reviewer actively trying to be insulting.

[Shizuka]

I don't see anyone complaining when a biased reviewer gives 8.5+.

Read what Ghaleon said, it isn't a matter of the reviewer disliking the game as it's a matter of the reviewer actively trying to be insulting.

I know that, and I did read it, I thought we were past that when I told that I don't see anyone complaining when a reviewer praises a fanbase or a specific genre/sub-genre. If s/he bashes, the fanbase complains, but if it's been praised, everybody's agreeing with the guy. Either way, they're both far from neutral.