• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Worst reviews EVER

Uncle AJ

Member
Y2Kev said:
Why do you think games usually start at Metacritic with a 95 or higher and eventually get dragged down over time? It's because people actually have a chance to COMMUNICATE and CONVERSE and they discover that the hyperbole of the first (OMG FIRST!!!) review made a number of claims that went completely unchallenged because nobody could challenge them.

I sort of get what you're saying, but I don't agree that all reviews for the same game should be indirectly referencing one another. If one guy enjoyed/hated the game, the expression of that enjoyment/hatred in a review shouldn't be curbed by others' opinions on the same game. One person's review should represesnt that person's take on his/her experience, not his/her relative stance in an unspoken debate. At least that's how I've come to see reviews after all these years.

If they want to get together and discuss relative merits after-the-fact, that's fine (and also encouraged - I quite enjoy listening to and reading such discussions), but I've always enjoyed the "finality" of a written review.
 
Private Hoffman said:
I realize a '10' isn't necessarily a perfect game. I never suggested it was. However, there are enough significant flaws in Gears 1 that prevent it from having a perfect score in my view, and while Hsu does a good job of articulating all of those flaws, it seems as though he was able to shrug them of when it came time to give it a score.

The netcode prevented almost any legs the game could have had in terms of serious online play, and the main campaign mode was extremely short. By all means, it's a good game, but it definitely doesn't warrant an A+ given how serious the flaws are.

I always see people say this, but Gears was the #1 LIVE game until Halo 3 came out, and the #3 LIVE game until Gears 2 came out. 2 years with one of the larger communities of any shooter on any platform = legs, it's not really arguable.

Most people really enjoyed Gears of Wars online play, or loved the campaign enough to replay it over and over again, offline or online.

It's the same thing with Halo 3 and GTA4 (and now, Gears 2) - though there is a very vocal population that were turned off from the experience right away, the numbers don't lie. If everyone was trading their copies in or playing more sporadically other games would be rising up to take their place, but they're not.

That being said, anyone who had the foresight to give a "10" to a game that he/she realized that a large number of people would still enjoy daily a year after they plunked down $60, is probably doing their job well.
 

Yaweee

Member
jarosh said:
most of the contributions in this thread are garbage (including the op's).

you can't just post a link to a random youtube or unknown gaming blog containing a review you disagree with. if you want this thread to be interesting and insightful then post quotes that contain factually wrong statements, poorly written fluff, hyperbole, laughable comparisons, pretentious anecdotes, horrible analogies, cringeworthy clichés and so on. and then explain WHY the things you quoted are stupid, wrong, embarrassing etc.

the simple act of scoring a game too high or too low (in your opinion) doesn't exactly warrant anything the title of WORST REVIEW EVER.

random gaming blogs and youtube videos should be disqualified. what's the point? might as well link to gamefaqs user reviews. there's millions of barely articulate morons with stupid opinions out there. giving them any kind of attention or even arguing about their inane rambling is tedious and futile.

This. There are plenty of reviews here that I strongly disagree with but don't consider to be 'Worst' reviews (like the God Hand one). Most of this thread has been shameless point whoring, where nothing matters at all except the numerical score relative to the text. There might be dozens of complaints that barely influence the reviewer's final impression, or one complaint that completely tanks it, and I sure as hell can't see why one approach is better than the other.

Tim Rogers, though...
 
Classic_Gs said:
Wow that 1up review of Gears is horrible.

I love how the person who made that pic conveniently lops off the second half of the review, where he goes on to explain why he does give it a 10:

1up said:
You can always find reasons not to give a game a 10. But can the good stuff overwhelm the bad by such a wide margin in order to reach our highest rating possible?

I'm not going to talk about the graphics. You've seen the screenshots and trailers -- you already know how sick this game looks -- and yes, it really looks like that. Most of the game that's underneath is just as awesome, with a well-paced campaign mode (for the most part -- the middle drags just a teeny tiny bit) that's a little bit Halo 2 military sci-fi, a little bit Doom 3 frights, and a little bit Resident Evil 4 boss fights.

Each stage is memorable. Even as I write this a week after beating the campaign, I can recall dozens of "oh wow" moments, like the first time I encountered the shrieking wretches (that horrible noise they make will haunt you for days). Or when the blind, hulking berserker was stalking me by sound and smell alone. Or the part where I was defending my old home from a Locust onslaught (it felt like a smaller scale, more domesticated version of Lord of the Rings' Battle of Helm's Deep). Or when I looked at the face of an apartment complex, and dozens of drones were firing at me through the windows, their muzzle flashes strobe-lighting the darkness like we were on a CNN newscast, live from some war-torn third-world country. Or the parts where I have to blow up propane tanks because staying in the light will keep the flesh-tearing Kryll at bay.... They all combine for an unforgettable adventure through 36 hectic, desperate hours of a group of soldiers' lives.

You won't see any epic, you-against-an-entire-army battles that the end of the last trailer hinted at, but it doesn't matter because each individual kill is so damn satisfying. When you run into the first bunch of enemies, you'll be surprised at how many bullets each guy will take and how much blood he'll spill before keeling over -- it takes work and a little bit of strategy to take out even the lowliest of Locusts. Later, you'll drop drones to their knees just as they're running across a patch of darkness, so the Kryll can instantly swoop in and finish the job for you in a very violent, wet-sounding manner. And you'll probably never tire of redecorating a Locust's bodily interior with your vicious chain saw.

Even in multiplayer, the limited modes seem to be less of an issue when so many encounters are so rewarding. I've literally jumped up from my seat in fist-pumping "yeah!!"-out-loud victory at least twice during our test sessions. One was when I caught three enemies at once in a single Hammer of Dawn orbital laser beam, making three bodies simultaneously blow up into bloody chunks to end the match -- another when someone had me pinned down with a turret, and I snuck around until I found a sniper rifle, poked out just far enough, then pop! It sounds awfully childish and/or shallow, but a sniper headshot is so much more gratifying when the target's melon explodes like...well, a melon.

I can go on and on, but you really need to play this visual and visceral masterpiece for yourself. When you do, you'll find plenty of minor problems, just like I did...but you can always find reasons not to give a game a 10.

And while I was playing Gears of War, all I kept running into was reasons to give it a 10.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Mo the Hawk said:
I sort of get what you're saying, but I don't agree that all reviews for the same game should be indirectly referencing one another. If one guy enjoyed/hated the game, the expression of that enjoyment/hatred in a review shouldn't be curbed by others' opinions on the same game. One person's review should represesnt that person's take on his/her experience, not his/her relative stance in an unspoken debate. At least that's how I've come to see reviews after all these years.

If they want to get together and discuss relative merits after-the-fact, that's fine (and also encouraged - I quite enjoy listening to and reading such discussions), but I've always enjoyed the "finality" of a written review.
I'm not going to suggest that two reviews need to explicitly comment on each other (in fact this would be impossible without some kind of editing), but I find it hard to believe that one person penning a review would not have something someone else said weighing on his or her mind. Again, to use GTA4 as an example, if you were writing a review 2 weeks after reading the IGN review, the claim that its story is Oscar worthy would have to weigh in your mind. In assessing the story, you are entering into that conversation unless you really think you can review in a vacuum.

I don't ever expect to see an IGN review call out an EGM review or an EGM review comment on a GameInformer review-- the medium just isn't there yet. But we see it in literary criticism and political dissertation all the time.

I understand why it's difficult to do so. In one of my writing classes we were asked to describe and enter two articles written by two different authors that at first glance I thought had absolutely nothing to do with one another. Sometimes just commenting on form is interesting enough, though, just as kind of a side note.
 

itsinmyveins

Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Why are people complaining about that 1UP score for Gears of War? He clearly writes about what's wrong about it, and then focuses on the good stuff which makes the game an A+ for him -- inspite of the game's issues.
 
Kotaku's review for Silent Hill: Homecoming was pretty stupid. The reviewer complains about how the puzzles are so hard, it puts him off from the game.

Those puzzles were the easiest I've ever seen in a Silent Hill game. This guy would probably shoot himself in the head if anyone sat him down in front of Silent Hill 3's puzzles with the puzzle difficulty maxed.
 

AlexMogil

Member
IGN's Steel Battalion: Line of Contact Review

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/496/496501p1.html

They didn't play it. They looked at the back of the box, and only used marketing photos for the review pics. No one claimed responsibility for the game's review.

Here's a couple section samples:

Gameplay
Line of Contact is like having the multiplayer portion of Steel Battalion put on a separate disc and sold at full price. This game really is nothing more than Steel Battalion, but with online play.

Graphics
Like the gameplay, almost nothing has changed in regards to the graphics. But that's not a bad thing by any means.

Sound
Sound in Line of Contact is great. The sound of the guns and missiles are huge.

Closing Comments
Line of Contact is a tricky game.



The review just repeats the same thing over and over. Game is online, game has a big controller, game is expensive.

They didn't play it.
 
EschatonDX said:
No 8.8 yet?

C'mon GAF, you can do better than that!
Why? I'd rate Twilight Princess lower, but I'll admit, Gamespot really didn't do a good job at pointing out Twilight Princess's major flaws (incomplete story, all dungeons act as tutorals, enemies still lack AI, bosses like Morpheel don't even attack, the hand-holding, etc. etc.).
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Link1110 said:
Any Tales game review in Game Informer. I've seen Final Fantasy 7 fanboys give SaGa Frontier fairer reviews than those.

Sorry, but when you're in a printed medium that costs money, I expect better than I do from internet trolls.

I find that tons of Tales reviews are pretty bad. Seems like every once in awhile some outlet tries to compare the series to Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest and yet every other JRPG does not get compared.
 

jooey

The Motorcycle That Wouldn't Slow Down
Darklord said:
Is this real or really some horrible, horrible old reviews? I never found out.
You have to decide for yourself. But the right decision is "fake."
 

jay

Member
Is this a critical writing analysis or a "someone disagrees with my opinion and is therefore wrong" thread?

If the former, Nintendo IGN stuff is consistently poorly written. I'll quote some of Bozon's NMH review but it's generally not any one specific thing as much as the overall amateur fansite feel:

"On a system now home to a ton of uber-casual experiences and lots of "me too" shovelware products, it can be pretty rare to find something made specifically for the more hardcore, mature gamer."

"Uber" is a stupid word that was funny 5 years ago, "lots" isn't actually a word, and mature and hardcore aren't synonymous.

"Since the very beginning, Wii has had a wrap for being a family console, and while games like Godfather, Scarface, and Manhunt 2 beg to differ, the more serious products out there are still outshined by the wave of Wii Sports clones and Mairo Party look-alikes."

And god said - "Let there be a family friendly console named Wii." Also, games are inanimate objects and are unable to beg to differ.

"While No More Heroes is published and distributed by Ubisoft here in the states, newcomers to Suda's designs will quickly find that the abstract creator himself is pretty far from anything Ubisoft has done in the past."

Suda himself is far from what Ubisoft has done? What?

"You've got the GTA free-roaming that is used for doing individual missions, exploring the city of Santa Destroy, and hitting up a few shops and training areas, which leads the way for the action-oriented story."

I haven't got anything, though NMH may include a free roaming section.

"If the game was based only on the open world style, it would have been a pretty sizable disappointment as far as we're concerned, as there are constant frame issues, pop-in everywhere, very little NPC activity, and a huge overall lack of polish."

Should be "were", not "was."

"What it all boils down to is about 10 or so stores and buildings to go into, a handful of mission points that bring you into new loading zones, and some mini-game jobs which are fun, but hardly necessitate an entire open world."

"It" what? It's a bad idea to begin a new paragraph using a pronoun.

"And while the combat is pretty simplistic in its design, we really can't stress how fluid, intuitive, and rewarding it is, as the game stays extremely fast, the camera work and pacing of battles is almost cinematic, and the situation-based motions help to keep the tightness of combat you get with button-based games, while still being extremely rewarding with motion worked in."

This is a run on typical of gamefaq reviews. And who is "we", is Bozon royalty? Keep helping to keep the tightness, dude.

I know this stuff i probably anal retentive nitpicking to most people but these guys are paid to write. While each offense is minor it all adds up to a crime against the English language.
 
InterMoniker said:
The only bad thing is it might just be TOO GOOD!!! o_0
ryan.jpg
 
on the mega under-rated batch side: ign's review of God Hand is the worst review ever.

on the mega over-rated batch side: ign's review of WWF RAW on Xbox1 is the 2nd worst review ever

considering maintstream websites
 

truly101

I got grudge sucked!
I don't think the GTAIV reviews were an attempt to thwart the Wii nor do I think it was an issue of Take 2 moneyhats like many here insinuate. I think a lot of gaming sites, mags, whatever got caught in the hype because there was so much mainstream attention for the game at the time. Here's a game that's important enough for even mainstream news to take notice and it shines a spotlight on the industry. The gaming media got swept up in it, puffed up their respective chests because this was their shot to say something profound about a big time game and thus you get "oscar winning story" and other broadsweeping lionizations.

I Think GTAIV is a great game, but I didn't think it was better than GTA:SA and fell short of the hype, its kinda like Halo 2 in that regard.
 

truly101

I got grudge sucked!
Rektash said:
IGN - Shadow Hearts Review 5.5

Maybe the one review I ll never be able to digest. No matter what you criticize about it, in the end it was awesome fun.

A lot of the initial hate SH received was because it looked a shade better than FFVIII. In September 2001 when Okage Shadow King was the only other JRPG available for the PS2, Sh was a godsend.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
truly101 said:
I Think GTAIV is a great game, but I didn't think it was better than GTA:SA and fell short of the hype, its kinda like Halo 2 in that regard.
Got nothing to say about Halo 2, but GTAIV does what it does better than GTA:SA by a long shot. GTA:SA is more badass feature-wise, but whether that makes it a better game in the end is purely subjective.

I'm fine with the GTAIV reviews as long as they didn't overhype the story and weren't trying to sell it as oscar-worthy. Also, from my PoV, the MP was highly overrated. Others may feel different entirely.

What I'm trying to say is calling the GTAIV reviews the worst ever is questionable, to put it mildly.
 

theultimo

Member
Darklord said:
Is this real or really some horrible, horrible old reviews? I never found out.
From their site:
The opinions expressed are those of the original 90's writers and not the narrator or NAVGTR Corp., which was incorporated in 2001. Acquired "as-is" to digitally preserve the images therein (narration is original to the time and not the opinion of the narrator, editors, directors, or producers), these videos pre-date and thus are unrelated to the NAViGaTR Awards, for which the ubiquitous narrator does not and never did determine (or vote upon) the outcome/recipients.

So yes, but kinda, most of them came from one guy doing a public access show.
 

Kilrogg

paid requisite penance
jay said:
[IGN No More Heroes review]

I know this stuff i probably anal retentive nitpicking to most people but these guys are paid to write. While each offense is minor it all adds up to a crime against the English language.

You're not alone. The most telling thing in my case is that English isn't even my mother tongue and I'm in my twenties —I only have an English major—, yet I could point out all the mistakes you pointed out yourself.

As you said, they're paid to write. They're so-called professionals, and yet, all we get is poorly-written, run-of-the-mill reviews like Bozon's.
 

truly101

I got grudge sucked!
wmat said:
Got nothing to say about Halo 2, but GTAIV does what it does better than GTA:SA by a long shot. GTA:SA is more badass feature-wise, but whether that makes it a better game in the end is purely subjective.

For my money, GTA:SA was pretty much the ultimate GTA experience. I liked the characters, the three cities and surrounding areas, the wierd extra stuff you could do, the character customization and leveling up (yes some of it was wonky and unbalanced) and it also had the best soundtrack of all the GTA games. Not everything in GTA:SA was flawless but I felt it really tried to bring new things to the table.

For GTA:IV I think the idea of building friendships with the other characters was well intended but sloppily implemented. by about the 20th call from Roman or Little Jacob (characters I like otherwise) I just hung up on them because going to go eat or whatver didn't really do anything.

The worst thing GTAIV did was it tried to shoehorn the experience to fit the story. I know the previous ones did this on occasion but almost every mission in IV seemed taylored towards one solution and no improvision, no planning or tactics changing was going to interfere with that. That was the biggest problem because it allowed for no clever plans or schemes to get past a mission.
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Andrex said:
"You see, while there are 12 fat-heads to play with, four of which are hidden characters like Luigi or Captain Falcon (from StarFox)"

That whole review is bad...but the dude goes out of his way to tell you about the hidden characters and doesn't even know which game the dude is from... :lol

SSB was easily my most played and loved game on the 64, alongside GoldenEye.
 
In his review for Flying Dragon in EGM #2, Donn Nauert wrote "Just another karate game." This is not an excerpt. This was the entire review. He gave the game a 4 out of 10.

On the very same page, in his review for Hydlide, Ed Semrad wrote, "I can't remember what this game was about. That's about all I can say about Hydlide." Again, this was his entire review. Despite not being able to remember the game, he gave the game a 6 out of 10.
 

otake

Doesn't know that "You" is used in both the singular and plural
matt cassamamierdas' wii sports review. No one was looking for a graphical show piece or an in depth baseball game.
 
Wilsongt said:
I'm going to have to say X-Play's "review" of Shining Tears. I'm a fan of the Shining series, but the game wasn't nearly as bad as people X-Play made it out to be. It wasn't unplayable by any means, but it was decent.


This, a million times this. They didn't even talk about the game, they went off on a tangent about how you should be playing Resident Evil 4 instead. Cause they're totally the same, right? "Why are you playing Gran Turismo? You should be playing Ninja Gaiden instead." Fucking ridiculous. Last time I ever watched an X-Play review. Their skits aren't bad, but anytime they voice an opinion on a video game do yourself a favor and change the channel.
 

Volcynika

Member
Anyone mentioned the Gamespot Metroid Prime: Hunters review (pre-edited)?

That was pretty bad to miss an obvious part of the online game mode. And calling Trace's invisibility a glitch. :lol
 

sonicmj1

Member
People need to learn to differentiate between subjectively disagreeing with a score and an objectively poorly written review.

I have read IGN's 3.0 score for God Hand, and as someone who has played the game to completion, I disagree with it. But many of the criticisms present in the review are accurate. If those issues bothered the reviewer to such an extent that they disliked the game (the environments are bland, the game is very repetitive, and the experience as a whole really does feel very much like a B-movie), then I'm glad he's being honest about it.

Meanwhile, with something like Tim Rogers' review of Super Mario Galaxy, I don't care that he gave the game a 2.5 out of 4. I care that the review is about 6,000 words too long, and spends ages rambling about completely irrelevant things. I don't care what his ideal Mario game looks like, but he feels like telling me anyways.
Tim Rogers said:
Call it Super Mario Acid. Here’s Mario, on a sphere made of acid, floating in space. He’s standing on a block. The block is being eaten by the acid. Where’s he going to go after the block completely sinks into the acid? you wonder, just as another block, sucked in by gravity, slams into the acid planetoid. This repeats for eternity — sometimes the blocks have flagpoles on them, sometimes it’s ladders, sometimes they’re long enough to get a running start so you can do a long jump or a triple jump, sometimes they have little overhangs to get caught under if you’re not careful. As you play, the speed of the blocks’ appearance gently increases, though the goal never changes: get to the high ground, whatever the high ground is.

Or maybe it’s just Super Mario standing on a block, floating in space around a black hole. Yeah, maybe that’s better — that way, you’d be able to see all of the orbiting platforms at once. Platforms keep entering the orbit of the black hole, and you have to keep jumping on them. You know a block is about to get sucked into the black hole because it starts shaking, faster and faster.

There’d be no way to win; like in Tetris, the only way to “win” is to be still playing the game. The existential dread and lack of a story didn’t stop Tetris from becoming the most popular videogame of all-time, you know, even among housewives. (Maybe it had something to do with the lack of a human protagonist. (Though in a way, we can say that the player is the protagonist, and GAME OVER represents their failure to live forever, which is kind of a lot more creepy than merely witnessing third-person the torment of a cartoon character. (Especially one with a mustache and overalls.))

The game would, ultimately, be a celebration of Mario Physics: the only true goal would be to enjoy existing in the world.

I don't need him to spend seven paragraphs talking about what his expectations of Mario Galaxy were before he started playing. I don't care about his theories of game design and showing instead of telling in the Legend of Zelda series, and its psychological impact upon our youth but it seems that he believes I care, and would like to inform me. At length.
Tim Rogers said:
I took Miyamoto’s “No Licking” stance to mean that he was against the source of the licking as well as the act of licking itself. Maybe he’d stopped and asked himself two questions, regarding the keys in Zelda: number one, why can’t the game show you what a key does? When you use a key to unlock a door, maybe we could just see the key hover up above the hero’s head, fly into the lock, click, turn, and vanish into a puff of smoke as the door rumbles open? Then we’d know, deep down, “Hey, that key’s gone now.” Number two: why does the key have to disappear after we use it? The answer to the second question has something to do with how the key isn’t a “key” so much as it’s just “something to do” in order to progress deeper into a dungeon. On a deeper, weirder psychological level, the key is imprinting our children with obsessive urges to always look for the solution to the problem before their eyes in the most far-flung place. In this way, it can be construed that games aren’t running parallel to real-world logic so much as they’re scribbling poisonous crayon circles anywhere they please.

I don't care about his stupid idea for a survival horror game scenario that he came up with while writing his review, and felt like putting in anyways even though it is completely irrelevant.
Tim Rogers said:
(Spur-of-the-moment game idea: survival horror story where the main character is locked in a solid granite room just before what would be the final boss; the room very slowly begins to fill with water. The character screams at the top of his or her lungs while the player tries in vain to escape. An hour later, the main character is dead.)

In fact, I don't need two separate paragraphs of him apologizing for the score he's giving. But it's there.
Tim Rogers said:
And now here it is, and I don’t like it. I mean, I really, really, really, really don’t like it. It just about makes me nauseous how little I like it. What went wrong? Really? Oh no — I’m not asking these questions about the game’s development process. I’m asking them about myself. Why does disliking this game depress me so much? When I at first emerged on the other side of Super Mario Galaxy, feeling deflated, I thought, if I write a review of this on Action Button Dot Net, people are going to accuse us of being controversial, of hit-whoring, of attention-cravery. People are going to accuse us of trying to fuck up the Metacritic score (even though we don’t submit scores to Metacritic) or trying to drum up ad revenue (even though we don’t have ads). More importantly, I’m going to get literally thousands of greasy-fingered hate mail from people telling me that I’m not human, that I have soul cancer, that I’ve forgotten how to have fun.

And maybe these things are true. Maybe I have forgotten how to have fun, though I’ll be damned if I can’t still see some flickering shadow of fun on my bedroom wall late at night, just before I fall asleep. It is the Rosebud of my every barely-waking moment. When I close my eyes, I can see the shape of how, exactly, I selfishly wanted Super Mario Galaxy to be. It would have been miraculous. At least, for me, it would have been.

I mean, if it weren't for the above, I might be able to look past his repeated declaration that Super Mario Galaxy only uses one button, and it might be merely a decent review that I unfortunately disagree with. As you may be able to tell, that is clearly not the case.
 

LCfiner

Member
Blu_LED said:

:lol

that image is great but at least he explains himself right away. He meant that it makes it very hard to go back to Gears 1 after paying Gears 2. which is understandable.
 

jay

Member
sonicmj1 said:

Roger's reviews are often painful to read and easy to disagree with but they're also unique. It's a matter of personal taste, but sometimes I prefer wading through thousands of words of shit in order to find an interesting idea he had over reading generic Consumer Reports style "objective" professional reviews.
 

Gilgamesh

Member
vireland said:
Buuut, he didn't see the real twist coming - that in Gears you're actually the BAD GUYS who invaded the Locust's planet - at all. One of my favorite game twists of the 21st century.
I don't think this can be topped in the category of "most obvious fact that completely blindsided someone".
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
I love how the person who made that pic conveniently lops off the second half of the review, where he goes on to explain why he does give it a 10:


That doesn't make any sense though. A 10 should be for a perfect or near perfect game. You can't say "The game has flaws but is overall still very good." and then give it a 10. That's what a 7 or 8 is for. If you're just handing out 10s like that you need a new scoring system. Perhaps one that goes to 11.
 

webrunner

Member
rainking187 said:
That doesn't make any sense though. A 10 should be for a perfect or near perfect game. You can't say "The game has flaws but is overall still very good." and then give it a 10. That's what a 7 or 8 is for. If you're just handing out 10s like that you need a new scoring system. Perhaps one that goes to 11.

Some games have something special that, you feel that if it WAS perfect, then it'd deserve more than 10.

To put it another way: The game may be an 8, but the entire experience is a ten. It was able to work past it's flaws and get 'extra credit'.

Half-Life deserved the 10s it's got.. but you can't say it was perfect or even near perfect. Glaring flaws like the NPC models and voice quality were there, but since everything ELSE was so much better nobody cared so they didn't factor into the score.
 

sonicmj1

Member
jay said:
Roger's reviews are often painful to read and easy to disagree with but they're also unique. It's a matter of personal taste, but sometimes I prefer wading through thousands of words of shit in order to find an interesting idea he had over reading generic Consumer Reports style "objective" professional reviews.
I can respect the desire for something different, and there are interesting ideas contained within that review. But that doesn't make it a good review. In terms of performing the fundamental task of informing the reader about the game's quality, it fails utterly.

If he wants to ramble about a game, a review is not the place to do it.
 

jay

Member
sonicmj1 said:
I can respect the desire for something different, and there are interesting ideas contained within that review. But that doesn't make it a good review. In terms of performing the fundamental task of informing the reader about the game's quality, it fails utterly.

If he wants to ramble about a game, a review is not the place to do it.

You're just arguing semantics though. And being bad reviews doesn't make them bad articles. If Hamlet were offered to the world as a recipe and not a play it would still be good, although I can see how some people would be confused and the work wouldn't get the audience it may deserve.
 

Eric Hall

Member
rainking187 said:
That doesn't make any sense though. A 10 should be for a perfect or near perfect game. You can't say "The game has flaws but is overall still very good." and then give it a 10. That's what a 7 or 8 is for. If you're just handing out 10s like that you need a new scoring system. Perhaps one that goes to 11.

Does it really matter what score a game gets? Are reviews even a factor for people when buying games still?
 

minus_273

Banned
This thread is a disgrace. How on earth has no one posted this:
http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/message?board.id=games&thread.id=499685

Cudgel of Xanthor
By Jeff Green
May 2007

Standing outside the offices of Copenhagen-based Braak Studios, developers behind the acclaimed Xanthor fantasy strategy games (Blade of Xanthor, Sword of Xanthor, Dagger of Xanthor), I had to take a breath of air. As the first journalist to see their new game, Cudgel of Xanthor, revealed here for the first time in this exclusive first look, I was literally shaking with excitement. And that was before I even saw the game. Afterward, when I was certain that what I had just seen was not only well on its way to being a certifiable masterpiece, but, more important, the likely recipient of our coveted “RPG of the Year” award, I was more than shaking: I was literally foaming at the mouth. It’s not often that a computer game makes you feel that way, but, then, not every game is as amazing as Cudgel of Xanthor.


“This is the best game I’ve ever seen,” agreed Braak’s PR and marketing director Hans Schok. “It is simply astounding in terms of what it brings to the party for PC gamers. I look at this game and think, World of What?” High praise indeed.


While Braak Studios has cut its collective teeth on strategy games, Cudgel represents a giant leap forward into serious envelope pushing, expanding the series into the fertile yet deep waters of RPGs. It’s not the first time the company has taken a risk, nor will it be the last. “Last night I ate an entire block of cheese,” boasted creative director and team leader Vet “Slap” Billen, as if to illustrate the point.


With a staff of 50 full-time employees working hard on Cudgel, the effort is obviously paying off in copious spades, as the hands-on time I had with the game more than amply proved. You being the game in standard RPG fashion by creating your character from a variety of interesting classes, such as rogue, and then customize your look with a robust set of sliders and buttons to put a unique spin on things for such details as eye color. Choosing a character class further adds to the customization by letting you play as, for example, a fighter, who would use melee weapons to “hit enemies” according to lead designer Helje Bendt. This is just one example of the many different ways you can play the game, all of which will affect how you interact with the game’s unique world.


And what a world it is! Thought I don’t really want to spoil too much, I will say, as the first journalist in North America to get to play the game, it is one of the most unique fantasy settings I’ve ever seen, bar none. The first time I gazed upon the gorgeous water effects on display in the waterfall outside the starting area, my eyes literally popped out of my head. And that was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Around every corner in this stunning open-ended fantasy world is yet another jaw-dropping splendor to behold, be it a magical bean field or something similarly awe-inspiring of a magical bent. It’s the type of world you wish you could just jump through the monitor and be part of, rather than living in the mundane world of today the way we are now.


Sound is another of the game’s many strong points. At times when I was playing, some of the sounds in the game seemed so “real” to me that they were more real than “real life.” I would turn around quickly to see if something was behind me, like a goblin, only to realize it was in the game all along! To make this kind of magic happen, Braak is using all the latest sound drivers and cards technologically available today, which puts them right on the cutting edge, which is exactly where they want to be. “Last year my brother was skewered by a moose,” said Billen, as if speaking to the company’s determination to move forward. To further highlight this, the game will also naturally support physics cards, which will only add to the game’s realism on yet another plane—the physical one.


Combat is similarly impressive. Different weapons will have different effects, depending on which ones you choose. Hitting with a sword, for example, will not, as in many other games, feel the same as hitting with a staff. Both will be different, in totally unique ways. In all the hours I played, almost every battle felt different depending on whether I used a different weapon or not. It’s yet another of the small details that define Braak’s ambitious approach to a genre well-worn with standards and clichés at this point in time.


Truth be told, not everything functioned perfectly during my visit. Enemy A.I. was still spotty, with most monsters usually standing around defenseless as I killed them, or more often than not disappearing from the screen altogether. Performance still needs to be tweaked, as the game came to a halt numerous times, even crashing the machine at one point and forcing Bendt to reformat his hard drive. Still, minor niggles aside, Cudgel of Xanthor looked and felt to me like nothing short of a miracle, and proof once again that the PC is the best gaming platform in the world. Hopefully, the kinks will be worked out when the game ships this winter, because I for one can’t wait to wield this Cudgel once again!
 
rainking187 said:
That doesn't make any sense though. A 10 should be for a perfect or near perfect game. You can't say "The game has flaws but is overall still very good." and then give it a 10. That's what a 7 or 8 is for. If you're just handing out 10s like that you need a new scoring system. Perhaps one that goes to 11.

If your criteria for a 10 is that the game can have no flaws, no game should ever get a 10, as every game has flaws, and even some of the greatest games of all time have glaring flaws. Without exception, every game that has been held on a pedestal as someone's "greatest game ever" has been torn to shreds as someone else's pile of "most overrated shit on the planet".

Much in the same way that a 4 star movie or a 5 star hotel still has flaws. 10 does not = perfect, but merely, a transcendent experience that is that much better than everything else offered at that time (I put that in bold, because it's extremely easy to look back and nitpick games that were released 5, 10, and 15 years ago, or games that received sequels that were better).

The question is, as Hsu put it, "does game X's strengths greatly outweigh its occasional framerate stutter, it's lack of orchestrated music, the poor voice acting, the tacked on multiplayer, sprite flicker, goofy ragdoll model, the lack of multiplayer, the blurry textures, the simplistic art style, the hackneyed plot, the forgettable soundtrack, the fetch quests, the rubberband AI, the escort missions, or the exorbitant price tag?"

If the answer is yes, the game is better than the sum of its parts, then a 10 is warranted IMO.

Edit: I must admit though, that the game review community was fairly embarrassing in their coverage of GTA's open-world flaws versus similar open-world games. There are flaws that are inherent to the genre, and flaws that are unique to each game (mostly referring to Crackdown, Assassin's Creed, Saints Row, and Far Cry 2 this generation), and I appreciate the GTA has the best storytelling out of all of them. However, to not point out that GTAIV's tech is VERY far behind the stuff being done in either of Ubi's games or Crackdown is a disservice to those games.
 

sonicmj1

Member
jay said:
You're just arguing semantics though. And being bad reviews doesn't make them bad articles. If Hamlet were offered to the world as a recipe and not a play it would still be good, although I can see how some people would be confused and the work wouldn't get the audience it may deserve.

1) I think that sort of debate makes some sense in a thread entitled "Worst reviews EVER". The article I posted was presented as a review. It is a poor review. Just like Hamlet would make a poor recipe, even if it's a classic play.

2) Even as an article, that was certainly no Hamlet.
 

Mar

Member
Flakster99 said:
Originally Posted by Mar_:
1up's 4.5 review of Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins.

Never forget.

Yup. To put it mildly, a fucking disgrace. Thank the Lord Shane did not not review MM 9.

Indeed. Rating a game low just because it beats your balls in with it's difficulty is a disgrace and a joke to gamers the world over.

Originally Posted by Mar_:
1up's 4.5 review of Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins.

Never forget.
The graphics are neither gorgeous nor detailed this time around.

A big WTF here. I mean did they play the same game?

He was too busy dying to notice that it had the best graphics in a 2D platformer up to the date of its release. He couldn't see through the tears of anger. This is the only conclusion I can make.
 

JdFoX187

Banned
I was reading IGN's review of Rise of the Argonauts earlier. Granted, the game isn't perfect, there are a lot of flaws, but the reviewer says you can play through it in 10 hours on the easiest mode and skipping the dialogue, so there's no reason to get it. Okay...that's like playing Halo on easy, running through the levels and never firing a shot. Stupid shit.
 
Top Bottom