Sentences with phrase «why game reviewer»

There's a lot of reasons why game reviewer's opinions often differ: they tend to play a lot more games and therefore have a broader experience of mechanics.

Not exact matches

I'm not sure why reviewers are giving this game low scores (maybe they expect something more).

The negative reviewer clearly doesn't have the smarts to customize the game - which is why I give this a 10.

Thank you for being one of the few reviewers who understood the brilliance of the early games as well as the reason why the film fell so short.

It garnered an 8/10 from Destructoid: «I really enjoyed it the first time around eight years ago, and replaying it today reminds of why it was the ideal game to introduce me to the Shin Megami Tensei franchise,» claimed their reviewer.

No matter what you do you're never exactly sure why your latest game succeeded or failed, what made it work or not work in the eyes of the reviewers.

I think a reviewer's opinion is obviously a part of whether they like a game or not, but they have to be able to objectively qualify why they think the way they do and then weigh that against some sort of criteria that should be set down by the editors (where applicable) to come to a final conclusion on the game's score.

Reboots are indeed dangerous territory, and sadly there's no manual that tells reviewers how they should tackle them, which is why it's wonderful that so many talented writers can voice their views on the Internet, providing a range of ways to look at a single game.

Why should reviewers and preview event attendees be the only ones that get to go hands - on with big - name games before they hit store shelves?

I am saying this because, at launch the PSVITA will be put to the test of reviewers so if the console features online gaming, reviewers will ask «why its flagship launch title game does nt has it».

Now it needs to be noted that I never played this game alone, I always had a friend play with me offline, split - screen or online, and I think that is why the game passed through my console without to much annoyance as I have heard from other reviewers that playing this as a solo campaign just isn't that much fun.

In a licensed project, perhaps no application of story is more important, and when reviewers state Arkham Asylum really brings Batman's world to life, or that Force Unleashed captures the far reaches of the Star Wars universe, you have a good understanding why these games succeeded.

I remember RPS reviewer was also puzzled why everybody claims game is 2 hours long when it took him about 5 or 6.

Instead of making strange distinctions for skill - based games or creating a theory as to why reviewers can only handle games that they're already familiar with, I think it's more accurate to say that reviewers don't really evaluate gameplay well at all.

There are some slight balance issues, but I really don't see why the reviewers are bashing this game?

It's easy to understand why both reviewers and gamers love this game.

This is why some reviewers will always score action movies low or PlayStation exclusive games high, for example.

Remember: in both cases nobody but the reviewer had played the game at the point the reviews came out - why then were people so quick to damn each respective score (for opposing reasons) if they've no hands - on experience?