Not to be an ass (I sincerely apologize if this comes across like that) but let me paraphrase what you are saying he did:
He reviewed Age of Conan in the context of AO's launch and for past issues with Funcom and not simply for the game that Age of Conan is? Now I am not defending Funcom or trying to say AO's launch was not disastrous (I think it will be the story of legends), but I do not think a game should be reviewed for anything but for what the game is.
its like movie reviews...I hate them. Apparently to most movie reviewers, the movie most be a life-changing experience and change the world. if it fails to do that, its a bad movie. It seems like movies that want to be fun and simply have a good time are BAD movies! Now I ask you: Does that make it a bad movie or is it the reviewer's predisposition of what a movie should be that is the problem? Just a thought....
It all depends on how you look at it. A review is someones opinion and you might not always like what he/she said or how they go about saying it. Once you have read said review you are supposed to form your own opinion, not take thier word as the truth of god.
A review is a critique and people tend to forget that. A critique is meant to pick out points that the person making said critique doesnt agree with. In doing so they are allowed to use previous work as well as the work of others as a comparison and are not under any obligation to be unbiased in doing so. That is the reason there are usually more than one review on a subject, to allow the reader to decide for themselves.
In reality some critics are more harsh than others, but in no way are they wrong. Just as some critics are way too lenient and will give an OK review to something you find to be utter trash.
To answer your question, it all depends on your take on the movie and the reviewers take. Roger Ebert can make the context of his review seem like hes shooting a movie down but in the end give it 4 stars...
Edit: and no, you dont come off as an ass
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Comments
It all depends on how you look at it. A review is someones opinion and you might not always like what he/she said or how they go about saying it. Once you have read said review you are supposed to form your own opinion, not take thier word as the truth of god.
A review is a critique and people tend to forget that. A critique is meant to pick out points that the person making said critique doesnt agree with. In doing so they are allowed to use previous work as well as the work of others as a comparison and are not under any obligation to be unbiased in doing so. That is the reason there are usually more than one review on a subject, to allow the reader to decide for themselves.
In reality some critics are more harsh than others, but in no way are they wrong. Just as some critics are way too lenient and will give an OK review to something you find to be utter trash.
To answer your question, it all depends on your take on the movie and the reviewers take. Roger Ebert can make the context of his review seem like hes shooting a movie down but in the end give it 4 stars...
Edit: and no, you dont come off as an ass
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"