Leaderboard

At GTW, we're starting a new project. This is a whole load of of gaming wikis joining together to make a new independent network. We're making a wiki about games, and having an article for every game, including basic information but also having reviews. Now, instead of 1 person giving the game an arbitrary score out of 10 for the wrong reasons, we're letting the whole community give their opinion, and essentially producing a set of justified recommendations based on that. For a simple example: "FPS fans will love this game because it gets straight to the action, but those who prefer deep storylines and side-quests probably won't feel very satisfied. This is a game you can just pick up and play, without having to spend months building up your character, great for casual gamers but the MMORPG player might find it a bit simplistic." What do you guys think of that?

Aside from a very restric group, I dislike most reviewers. They are retarded, they have double standards and they fail to judge a game fairly if it is a low profile one, but let he new Mass Effect game they'll get a huge boner and forget about all the shit that Mass Effect has in it and just give it a 9+/ 10. Honestly, I think reviews shouldn't have scores attached to them, just let people judge the review by the written information the reviewer passed along, you put a score and suddenly no one gives a shit about the wall of text you just wrote. But seriously, I don't even read reviews anymore, I just buy games on impulse, I read about what they are and who are the developers and I get a sense that I'll like the game, more people should do that.

(I couldn't understand some of your post). I think it is wrong to call games good/bad, or even to rate them. For every game, someone somewhere is going to love it; and someone else is going to hate it. Reviewers should concentrate on telling us what the game is like, what it is trying to be, whether it succeeds at what it's trying to be, and who it is best suited for. For example, a review on Battlefield might say it's a good shooter but the storyline is light and there's not much else to do. That means that people who just want to run around killing will like it, and people who prefer deeper, more involved games won't. A review on GTA IV might say it's realistic and has an extensive storyline, but it doesn't feel as fun or wild as GTA VC or GTA SA. The car handling is a lot more realistic, but the combat is not great, and it looks gritty and depressing. That means people who like racing cars or just doing missions will like it, but people who enjoy doing crazy things (blowing shit up, jetpacks, breaking into army bases, going on killing rampages in tanks) will get bored. I think that would be a LOT more useful.