Godyofwar wrote:If you really think you give it a 1 star, you fail...you have to at least give spore a 3/5 if you didn't like it...the idea made it to 3 stars...its an amazing idea and no other game is like it. 1/5 stars? Wow...that is just stupid. Spore deserves more than that. I would give spore plus GA a 4/5 stars. I'm 14 and love art, and love to create things.

I am thirteen, and I like the idea, evolution. But they did it terribly. It was so shallow, instead of making a thoughtful game they appealed to the uneducated masses the only thing I ever liked was the creature creator. But that was still a meh.

game= 1/5
concept=5/5
GA=2/5

Hated GA, even more buggier.
That was the worst part though, the bugs were terrible.

Godyofwar wrote:Where did it get a 4/10? Anyways, reviews are retarded. They are peoples opinions...on amazon, there are 2k ppl that gave spore a 1 star...what do you think of spore? Awesome..yeah..wow...reviews really show what a game is about, sure...not. Unless the game has a huge problem with it.

Ordered the game, receiving it tomorrow, will write a huge review after i play for 3 hours.

so....you find reviews retarted...yet your going to write one.....

what the hell kind of logic is that

Yeah your basically doing everything the professionals are doing, except no offence, but they probably do it better. And double posting is looked down upon here.

MKCSTEALTH wrote:what the hell kind of logic is that

I am afraid that is the logic of the Sporum. Do not try to argue with it, for your arguments are in vain!

MKCSTEALTH wrote:

Godyofwar wrote:Where did it get a 4/10? Anyways, reviews are retarded. They are peoples opinions...on amazon, there are 2k ppl that gave spore a 1 star...what do you think of spore? Awesome..yeah..wow...reviews really show what a game is about, sure...not. Unless the game has a huge problem with it.

Ordered the game, receiving it tomorrow, will write a huge review after i play for 3 hours.

so....you find reviews retarted...yet your going to write one.....

what the hell kind of logic is that

I just corrected myself and please don't use that kind of language...lol. wow.

I said critic reviews...there has been 46 player reviews that bought it at gamespot and it leads to a 8.5 out of 10 all together.

Godyofwar wrote:

MKCSTEALTH wrote:

Godyofwar wrote:Where did it get a 4/10? Anyways, reviews are retarded. They are peoples opinions...on amazon, there are 2k ppl that gave spore a 1 star...what do you think of spore? Awesome..yeah..wow...reviews really show what a game is about, sure...not. Unless the game has a huge problem with it.

Ordered the game, receiving it tomorrow, will write a huge review after i play for 3 hours.

so....you find reviews retarted...yet your going to write one.....

what the hell kind of logic is that

I just corrected myself and please don't use that kind of language...lol. wow.

I said critic reviews...there has been 46 player reviews that bought it at gamespot and it leads to a 8.5 out of 10 all together.

uneducated masses key words.

critic reviews are way better than a normal persons review. I only believe reviews from normal people in masses, like Spore. And retarded isn't a nice word either

Professional reviews are pretty much just influenced by the incentives they're given by publishers, are swayed far too much by common opinion, and can't be relied on whatsoever.
Common consumer opinion tends to go towards extremes than anything else, so a single one is unreliable, but looking at the bulk weight of positive vs negative you'll get a general idea of what the game is like.

I can back up my point on magazines pretty much being paid shills, but don't want to derail the topic.

Tarcin wrote:critic reviews are way better than a normal persons review.

I am curious as to what makes you think this, as often critics are nothing more than "normal people" elevated by a title and then sometimes bound by the views and biases of the publications for which they work.

OneBlackbird wrote:

Tarcin wrote:critic reviews are way better than a normal persons review.

I am curious as to what makes you think this, as often critics are nothing more than "normal people" elevated by a title and then sometimes bound by the views and biases of the publications for which they work.

They do it for a living.

Tarcin wrote:

OneBlackbird wrote:

Tarcin wrote:critic reviews are way better than a normal persons review.

I am curious as to what makes you think this, as often critics are nothing more than "normal people" elevated by a title and then sometimes bound by the views and biases of the publications for which they work.

They do it for a living.

Correcting*

They do it for money.

Godyofwar wrote:

Tarcin wrote:

OneBlackbird wrote:

Tarcin wrote:critic reviews are way better than a normal persons review.

I am curious as to what makes you think this, as often critics are nothing more than "normal people" elevated by a title and then sometimes bound by the views and biases of the publications for which they work.

They do it for a living.

Correcting*

They do it for money.

Basically for a living

people work at macdonalds for money,
thus they work at macdonalds for a living.

Tarcin wrote:

Godyofwar wrote:

Tarcin wrote:

OneBlackbird wrote:

Tarcin wrote:critic reviews are way better than a normal persons review.

I am curious as to what makes you think this, as often critics are nothing more than "normal people" elevated by a title and then sometimes bound by the views and biases of the publications for which they work.

They do it for a living.

Correcting*

They do it for money.

Basically for a living

people work at macdonalds for money,
thus they work at macdonalds for a living.

Yeah, but do the McDonald people care about their costumers? No..they care if there gonna get paid or not. Basically, critic people review things, and still know their going to get paid. So they don't care. They don't get paid on how the review is or what opinions about the game. So they just slop down stuff and wala.

Godyofwar wrote:

Tarcin wrote:

Godyofwar wrote:

Tarcin wrote:

OneBlackbird wrote:

Tarcin wrote:critic reviews are way better than a normal persons review.

I am curious as to what makes you think this, as often critics are nothing more than "normal people" elevated by a title and then sometimes bound by the views and biases of the publications for which they work.

They do it for a living.

Correcting*

They do it for money.

Basically for a living

people work at macdonalds for money,
thus they work at macdonalds for a living.

Yeah, but do the McDonald people care about their costumers? No..they care if there gonna get paid or not. Basically, critic people review things, and still know their going to get paid. So they don't care. They don't get paid on how the review is or what opinions about the game. So they just slop down stuff and wala.

Nope, it depends on how the magazine sells. If people don't like the reviews and don't buy the magazine, wala, no money. If people like the reviews, they keep on subscribing, then wala, money.

First, its spelled viola. Second, I never listen to game reviews, or any review for that matter. They are only opinions from different people that are nothing like me. If the game looks interesting, I try it out. If not, then I don't. My opinion is the only one that matters in the end.

gojiraeval wrote:First, its spelled viola. Second, I never listen to game reviews, or any review for that matter. They are only opinions from different people that are nothing like me. If the game looks interesting, I try it out. If not, then I don't. My opinion is the only one that matters in the end.

But certain magazines appeal to ones opinions, which someone who wants the biggest bang for their buck, will seek out. And by saying wala, I was copying god of war. Anyways, wala and voila, it doesn't really matter.