Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 30609]

That's a crazy scenario, though...no offense. Let's say you felt Mario 64 deserves a 10. But then a day later, they come out with an improved version with a completely perfect camera, better swimming controls, and sharper graphics. Is that first 10 a mistake then?

Bottom line...a game can have problems. It can have a LOT of problems. But just like how much you like a game is a subjective thing...so can how much the problems bother you. All those negatives in that review are issues I felt obligated to write about. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a responsible reviewer, and I'd be ignoring any faults just so I can justify the 10 that I want to give it. I really don't think anyone would agree that approach.

So for example...stuff like the matchmaking problems didn't make it a less fun multiplayer experience for me, cause I can still get most of the same experience with just my friends. I loved co-op. I loved single-player. It had issues, but I still thought the game was completely awesome.

Trying to reason with [some of] GAF and their inability to understand simple concepts is really admirable Shoe, but the people you're trying to defend yourself against are all but impervious to logic when they feel they're right.

 

[yurinka]

1up's 4.5 review of Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins.

Never forget.

Someone in 1UP must be punished. This game is a fucking masterpiece. I seriosly doubt the reviewer never played in a PSP.

 

[Kukuk]

X-Play's Crisis Core Review.

http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1749/Crisis_Core_Final_Fantasy_VII.html

 

[shoe]

This whole idea of a "game can't get a 10 with that many flaws" suggests that Dan calculated the score with some actual arithmetic.

I can’t speak for Shoe, but I assume the scores are a product of a game’s gut feeling it can give you. I know I LOVED Gears of War, and it would take some serious game breaking (ok, the online is trash, but I’m talking singleplayer) shit to knock me down from one of the highest scores.

Yes, 100% that was my train of thought. Thanks.

 

[Private Hoffman]

This whole idea of a "game can't get a 10 with that many flaws" suggests that Dan calculated the score with some actual arithmetic.

I can’t speak for Shoe, but I assume the scores are a product of a game’s gut feeling it can give you. I know I LOVED Gears of War, and it would take some serious game breaking (ok, the online is trash, but I’m talking singleplayer) shit to knock me down from one of the highest scores.

And besides, thats not even the full text.

The problem is, he lists tons of flaws in the single player too. It's not just the multiplayer that is pretty flawed. The single player by itself is a pretty short campaign on your first go through. Co-op is obviously a blast. But it simply didn't have the longevity because the single player was so short and the multiplayer was pretty broken.

My gut feeling playing Gears 1 back in the day is that it was a good game with great graphics, but certainly not deserving of the perfect scores. There was enough wrong with the title that prevented it standing alongside other great titles with perfect scores.

At least with halo 3, you had very compelling features all around that could have justified the higher score. Sure, Halo 3 has its flaws, but at least the online play is far superior to Gears, it has more features, and the single player is longer with (arguably) better mechanics.

IMHO, perfect score games should be those that you can hardly spot a flaw, and when you do spot a flaw it sounds more like nitpicking than an actual "game breaking" problem. I suppose Hsu has a different standard by which he judges and scores games, but I think most people objectively see the text of his review, and the subsequent score, as being disconnected. It just doesn't match up.

 

[soothe.]

Someone in 1UP must be punished. This game is a fucking masterpiece. I seriosly doubt the reviewer never played in a PSP.

You do realize that you would have to be really, really tiny to actually play inside a PSP?

I don't even know why you should play in a PSP to review a game. Can't you just. . . play the PSP instead?

 

[McBacon]

My gut feeling playing Gears 1 back in the day is that it was a good game with great graphics, but certainly not deserving of the perfect scores.

But thats YOUR gut feeling. Shoe's the one doing the review.

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm bumping this thread. Another year nearly over and another year of IGN running unchecked!

Let's look at their Group Review for New Super Mario Bros. Wii:

This isn't the "next big Mario game" in any real way. Instead, it's the Four Swords of the Mario world, mixing multiplayer into the classic formula to a point where the actual stage-to-stage progression takes a backseat to snagging 1UP mushrooms from buddies, tossing friends into pits, and then trying to temporarily mend friendships long enough so you can get their help in grabbing a giant coin or above-level bonus. In that more chaotic "party" sense of it all, Mario is awesome.

What does this game have in common with Four Swords at all? That it supports four players and that it is also a video game? Is this really the best comparison?

I beg you, fair Nintendites: Remember the list. One is boring, two is cool, three is dysfunctional, and four should come with free family counseling sessions.

I remember my counseling sessions after playing Four Swords.

But the game's function as sort of a series "best of" is undeniably cool -- I was especially smitten with the incorporation of elements from less-canonical Mario games like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.

Super Mario Bros. 3 is not a less-canonical entry in the series. And I don't think calling it a best of is really a great way of articulating what you mean, considering the other reviewers are all praising its creative and imaginative level designs.

We also have the Tony Hawk Ride review that tears the game apart and then awards it a "meh" rating. Don't feel too strongly about anything, kiddos-- it makes the sponsors angry.

Oh, and this isn't new or from a review, but it's definitely my favorite IGN line ever:

"There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person," says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Non-game review of Endless Ocean by the non-magazine EGM.

 

[Doubledex]

All EDGE scores

Spoiler

bring the heat. It's true

 

[ethelred]

Oh, and this isn't new or from a review, but it's definitely my favorite IGN line ever:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/135/135304p1.html

That is brilliant self-parody. :lol

 

[Peronthious]

A while back on Out Of The Game, the crew spent a while discussing a terribly written Tales Of Monkey Island review. I can't recall who wrote it, where it was, or any other specifics, other than it being hilariously bad. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

 

[Ceebs]

A while back on Out Of The Game, the crew spent a while discussing a terribly written Tales Of Monkey Island review. I can't recall who wrote it, where it was, or any other specifics, other than it being hilariously bad. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Wasn't that written by the same guy who was busted for plagiarism at Gamepro?

 

[Peronthious]

Wasn't that written by the same guy who was busted for plagiarism at Gamepro?

Yea, I think the last name started with a V. I found the review after it was mentioned, but didn't bookmark or save it.

 

[-tetsuo-]

I just have to point out again the Army of Two review:

Army of Two is a decent third-person shooter that unfortunately sticks its boot in its mouth. It does so by belittling volunteer armed services and selling a power-but-no-responsibility mercenary fantasy, part of which takes place in the modern-day Iraq war. It mostly plays fine. The Aggro system works well (whereby your partner can hold your enemies' attention while you flank), and the online multiplayer is hectic fun. But the way it broaches and then mishandles such a controversial modern day issue is far from army strong.

Neither Rios nor Salem engages in any dishonorable behavior, aside from making fun of the Army for being so slow and ill-equipped. That would be fine if the Army they were making fun of were the Venusian Army. Or conversely, if Blackwater mercenaries in the real world hadn't been asked to leave Iraq for flipping out and massacring its civilians. But in Army of Two, there's no such thing as a civilian. If they aren't good guys, they're terrorists.

he says:

The game itself is a lightly tactical third-person shooter

then a few sentences later:

Sure, you can stop, aim, and quickly kill a stationary target with a headshot. But if you're trying to run and shoot, you won't do nearly as much damage with that pimped-out AUG as you'd like.

no shit, dude :lol

It features cool co-op mechanics and is fun to play online, with or against friends. But even its title mocks the Army, literally one-upping its slogan while glamorizing a sector that, if anything, deserves scrutiny--not macho fantasy.

Ughh

 

[theluma]

The thing about this is that setting aside the hilarious disparity between review content and score, it's a pretty poorly written review IMO, purely from a expression point of view.

 

[BoloTheGreat]

IGN's football manager reveiw was so god awful it was Actually pulled. It pretty much confims every sterotype about IGN (and the wider US.). It was a feckless romp through everything that is wrong with that overbloated slackjawed bloated corporate whore that is the mainstream (and mainly amaerican) gaming press. Sure they pulled it but it just shows you can trust a word IGN says. just take a look.

“There is no traditional gameplay to speak of. I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.”

This is like reveiwing an RPG as an FPS.

“Yes, the depth of management in this game is impressive. But, it’s not impressive enough to make up for the fact that you aren’t actually playing soccer.”

Yeah guys, godforbid somone makes a game called football MANAGER

They criticise Football Manager for limiting the player to simply managing a football team. Which is just as retarded as critising Mario for not having any guns, boobs or nukes in it :

“As far as traditional gameplay goes, there really isn’t any in Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009. Apart from managing your roster and coaching your team, there really isn’t anything to do at all.”

MANAGER!!!! BRITISH RAAAAAGGGE!!!!




I also felt that Gamespot's Assasins creed reveiw was written whilst smoking some crack riding the hype train into sillytown. They just payed the first 5 minutes and were like "Yeah its ded good".

 

[ShockingAlberto]

But the game's function as sort of a series "best of" is undeniably cool -- I was especially smitten with the incorporation of elements from less-canonical Mario games like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.

Does anyone else get the feeling the writer really just wanted to use the word canonical without fully understanding what it meant?

It's not even really a hard concept.

 

[Milk Lizard]

IGN's football manager reveiw was so god awful it was Actually pulled. It pretty much confims every sterotype about IGN (and the wider US.). It was a feckless romp through everything that is wrong with that overbloated slackjawed bloated corporate whore that is the mainstream (and mainly amaerican) gaming press. Sure they pulled it but it just shows you can trust a word IGN says. just take a look.

“There is no traditional gameplay to speak of. I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.”

This is like reveiwing an RPG as an FPS.

“Yes, the depth of management in this game is impressive. But, it’s not impressive enough to make up for the fact that you aren’t actually playing soccer.”

Yeah guys, godforbid somone makes a game called football MANAGER

They criticise Football Manager for limiting the player to simply managing a football team. Which is just as retarded as critising Mario for not having any guns, boobs or nukes in it :

“As far as traditional gameplay goes, there really isn’t any in Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009. Apart from managing your roster and coaching your team, there really isn’t anything to do at all.”

MANAGER!!!! BRITISH RAAAAAGGGE!!!!




I also felt that Gamespot's Assasins creed reveiw was written whilst smoking some crack riding the hype train into sillytown. They just payed the first 5 minutes and were like "Yeah its ded good".

They really did that ? You really cant spell ignorance without ign.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

I can't find the comparison of the UK and US reviews but yup, they really did
IGN apologise for US site's Football Manager review.
It caused quite a storm over this side of the pond and much hilarity ensued

 

[Darklord]

Oh yeah that review. :lol I remember making a thread about it. Someone copied the whole review I'll post it.

Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 Review
This game gets a red card, and possibly a lifetime ban.
by Avi Burk

December 5, 2008 - What sports fan doesn't want to take control of his favorite team and guide it to a championship, or, better yet, a long string of championships? Well, if it means playing Worldwide Soccer Manager, you can count me in that number.

Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 gives gamers the chance to manage and coach 5,000 soccer teams from 50 countries around the globe, giving them the chance to manage every aspect of their team's roster, field questions from reporters at their team's press conferences, and coach their teams in real time as each simulated game unfolds. What it doesn't do, more importantly, is provide any compelling reason to keep "playing."

Although the game's database of more than 350,000 real-life soccer players is certainly impressive, only the most diehard fans of the sport would be able to appreciate having such a massive pool of talent to sift through, and the casual fan would almost certainly find the task overwhelming – I did.
This is a game solely intended for hardcore soccer fans.

The game's incredibly complex menu system is very difficult to navigate, even with the on-screen help box directing you through the process. In short, this game is extremely difficult to simply pick up and play. If you're unfamiliar with the franchise expect to spend a significant amount of time simply trying to figure out how to navigate the menus.

Worldwide Soccer Manager's presentation problems don't end there though, once you finally make it to your team's first game you'll find that the player renderings and animations are awful, and the stadiums you play in lack any kind of personality or detail. Each field is bordered by fences and what appear to be unfinished stands, which don't have any fans in them. And, when the ball is kicked off of the pitch, it passes smoothly through the surrounding fences, right through the stands, and disappears from view only to return to the field in the same fashion, appearing magically from the stands and passing through the fences (and goals) on its way back into play.

Then there's the sound, or lack thereof. There is no soundtrack that plays while you work in the game's menus, which you'll spend the vast majority of your time in this game doing. There is no audio narration to accompany your participation in press conferences, even though your options for how to respond to each question is incredibly limited. There is no audio commentary to accompany the action in the simulated game's you watch/coach. In fact, the only sound we found in the entire game was the tones of fans cheering as each simulated game played out – which only detracts from the game's feel of authenticity seeing as there are no fans rendered in the stands.
Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 deserves a bicycle kick into the circular file.

As far as traditional gameplay goes, there really isn't any in Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009. Apart from managing your roster and coaching your team, there really isn't anything to do at all. So, unless you really enjoy clicking on menu buttons, you'll find your interaction with this game extremely disappointing.

However, if you're a big footie fan and big fan of sports simulation, you'll be extremely impressed with the depth of Worldwide Soccer Manager, which allows you to control just about every facet of your team and draw from a player pool that is simply mindboggling.

Closing Comments

This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast. The menus are complex and difficult to navigate, graphics are terrible, the sound is non-existent and there is no traditional gameplay to speak of. I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.


Ratings
4.0 Presentation

Although the menus are extremely involved and tough for beginners to navigate, the game’s depth is amazing.
2.0 Graphics

While I appreciate that the introduction of 3D in-game graphics is a step forward for the franchise, those graphics are simply terrible.
0.5 Sound

The only sound you’ll find in this game is the roar of the non-existent crowd… Absolutely worthless.
4.0 Gameplay

Yes, the depth of management in this game is impressive. But, it’s not impressive enough to make up for the fact that you aren’t actually playing soccer.
2.0 Lasting Appeal

This game is aimed at a very specific audience, and it’s inconceivable to me that anybody outside of that audience could play even an hour of this game before turning it off for good.
2.0

Terrible OVERALL

(out of 10 / not an average)

(Yes, that's the entire review, pretty big, huh?)

 

[BananaBomb]

My contribution: Tim Rogers' Super Mario Galaxy review.

"Banal one-note score."

BURN THE HERETIC

 

[MikeE21286]

"Banal one-note score."

BURN THE HERETIC

whoa...2.5..yikes

 

[Davey Cakes]

At this point the Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 review is pretty much legendary as far as bad reviews go. It's seriously untouchable.

 

[JB1981]

omg that is hilarious

 

[WreckTheLaw]

As noted on some episode or other of Out of the Game.


"Visually the game is very impressive. Showing off some very nice environments and characters that both look good and animate well in the way they talk and interact with you. Backing it all up with some great background music and wonderful voice work, you can tell this title definitely had some time and work put into it so that the sound and visuals are engaging."

Ugh. And it's by Andrew Ramsey. Yeah, this Andrew Ramsey.

 

[Regulus Tera]

whoa...2.5..yikes

2.5 out of 4

It's the write-up that's hilarious, not the score.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Gametrailers is the most guilty website of being inconsistent in their reviews. They'll have a whole set of logic when reviewing one game, and not apply it at all when reviewing another. It's ridiculous.

 

[Subliminal]

Any Review for Warriors Orochi 2, Its probably one of the best games in the franchise..

"Why? Just why are these games getting released? Warriors Orochi may be big over in its homeland of Japan, but we can’t imagine it selling ten copies over here. Yet here we are with the sequel to the Dynasty Warriors/Samurai Warriors crossover, a sequel nobody wanted, but was pretty much inevitable. We could just copy and paste the text from the last game and nobody would be any the wiser, but alas we won’t do that, instead we’ll chop up what Koei have served us and try our hardest to get at least a little bit of enjoyment from this hack and slash title."

"I guess you’ve got to give Koei some credit I suppose. They’ve made a career out of repackaging and renaming the same game they made many years ago and remarkably, it still continues to find an audience that lap it up, much in the same way some gamers are chastised for doing so with sports games every year. Warriors Orochi wasn’t exactly a master-stroke in marketing really. Koei milked Dynasty Warriors until it was too sore and diluted to fool anyone anymore, so they moved onto Samurai Warriors - and when that ran its course, Koei decided why not just mash them both together and call it something else?"

"Hilariously the developers believe there is an element of strategy involved and like the original Warriors Orochi, before entering the battlefield you’re treated to an overview of the battle ground. Various positions of enemies are highlighted, as well as your starting position, but really what is the point when all you’re going to do is running from one end constantly hammering the X and Y buttons? The only scrap of ‘tactics’ that comes into play is running back to defend your base when enemy reinforcements appear."

-

ARGH
AGRH
ARGJHFB

Fuck everyone.

Half of these reviewers don't even play the game, or at least more than one mission on easiest. The game is fantastic on chaos mode!

Its just some shitty fad to call dynasty warriors bad instead of playing it..

 

[shuyin_]

IGN's review of Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009.

This review was completely retarded. IIRC the reviewer complained the game doesn't play like FIFA :lol :lol :lol must you be not to be able differentiate two genres? Imagine the same reviewer's take on Halo Wars: 'I can't control my characters in 1st person view like in Halo. This game sucks. 2/10' :lol

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Gametrailers is the most guilty website of being inconsistent in their reviews. They'll have a whole set of logic when reviewing one game, and not apply it at all when reviewing another. It's ridiculous.

I definitely see this on GT.

But they are not the worst reviewers.

 

[McBacon]

I once read that you can lop off the first paragraph of most video game reviews, and they'll still make sense, just more to the point and enjoyable to read.

It's astounding how true that is. Especially with IGN.

 

[Jay Sosa]

Pretty sure it's been posted before but IGN's God hand review takes the cake for me.

 

[Gravijah]

Any Review for Warriors Orochi 2, Its probably one of the best games in the franchise..

"Why? Just why are these games getting released? Warriors Orochi may be big over in its homeland of Japan, but we can’t imagine it selling ten copies over here. Yet here we are with the sequel to the Dynasty Warriors/Samurai Warriors crossover, a sequel nobody wanted, but was pretty much inevitable. We could just copy and paste the text from the last game and nobody would be any the wiser, but alas we won’t do that, instead we’ll chop up what Koei have served us and try our hardest to get at least a little bit of enjoyment from this hack and slash title."

"I guess you’ve got to give Koei some credit I suppose. They’ve made a career out of repackaging and renaming the same game they made many years ago and remarkably, it still continues to find an audience that lap it up, much in the same way some gamers are chastised for doing so with sports games every year. Warriors Orochi wasn’t exactly a master-stroke in marketing really. Koei milked Dynasty Warriors until it was too sore and diluted to fool anyone anymore, so they moved onto Samurai Warriors - and when that ran its course, Koei decided why not just mash them both together and call it something else?"

"Hilariously the developers believe there is an element of strategy involved and like the original Warriors Orochi, before entering the battlefield you’re treated to an overview of the battle ground. Various positions of enemies are highlighted, as well as your starting position, but really what is the point when all you’re going to do is running from one end constantly hammering the X and Y buttons? The only scrap of ‘tactics’ that comes into play is running back to defend your base when enemy reinforcements appear."

-

ARGH
AGRH
ARGJHFB

Fuck everyone.

Half of these reviewers don't even play the game, or at least more than one mission on easiest. The game is fantastic on chaos mode!

Its just some shitty fad to call dynasty warriors bad instead of playing it..

You're a fan of Dynasty Warriors, I'm a fan of JRPGs. Just accept the fact that most gamers are sick of both (reviewers included) and that they're going to get low scores.

 

[Smash88]

I love the part where Hsu is rambles about knowing how the story will end and talks about how this and that took place

Spoiler

on EARTH.

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.

Cliffy B and crew rocked the house - twice in a row, and schooled Resistance on in-game narrative done right.

And yes, it was a crap review.

Holy crap, I played the game (both games) and this blew my mind. I had no idea that was what had happened.

Spoiler

I thought it was on Erf.

Consider me shocked that after so many years, I found out from someone who posted almost a year ago. This is sad. :lol

 

[Massa]

The thing about this is that setting aside the hilarious disparity between review content and score, it's a pretty poorly written review IMO, purely from a expression point of view.

That isn't the full review.

 

[Virro]

That isn't the full review.

I agree, this particular review has already been beaten to death in this thread. Do we really have to rehash it, years after it took place, basically a year since Shoe himself came on here and tried to clear up any confusion? I don't see why people are still making a big deal out of it.

 

[andymcc]

the ultimate ghouls n ghosts one is embarrassing especially considering that the reviewer is on retronauts.

Pretty sure it's been posted before but IGN's God hand review takes the cake for me.

the game just doesn't have an academy award winning script.

 

[Snipes424]

Gametrailers is the most guilty website of being inconsistent in their reviews. They'll have a whole set of logic when reviewing one game, and not apply it at all when reviewing another. It's ridiculous.

This

 

[tokkun]

What does this game have in common with Four Swords at all? That it supports four players and that it is also a video game? Is this really the best comparison?

Actually, I was having a discussion about NSMB Wii with some friends yesterday and I compared it to Four Swords with pretty much the exact same rationale IGN was using there. It's the social dynamic of the co-op. Normally in co-op we are pretty good at working together to get to the goal. But there's something about the co-op in NSMB Wii and Four Swords that causes us to spend more than 50% of the play time lighting each other on fire and throwing each other into pits. It always takes some sort of negotiated truce to actually get to the level goal.

 

[theluma]

That isn't the full review.

Ok then half of the review is poorly written.

 

[faridmon]

Edge reviews are really terrible. even if your writing is good, bad comments always bad

 

[tebiro boy]

Nothing beats the legendary 6.8. Except for GameSpot's NiGHTS review, maybe.

And has no one mentioned GameFan's FFVIII review? :lol

 

[J-Rzez]

This review right here, basically single handedly withered any respect videogame "reviewers" get from me. I can't read anything without thinking there's some ulterior motives behind said review. I learned just to talk to friends with similar tastes rather than stuff like that review.

Edge is also a great monthly source for bad reviews. No matter how many pretty words they throw in there, you can't cover up the bullshit final message they all have.

 

[faridmon]

This review right here, basically single handedly withered any respect videogame "reviewers" get from me. I can't read anything without thinking there's some ulterior motives behind said review. I learned just to talk to friends with similar tastes rather than stuff like that review.

Edge is also a great monthly source for bad reviews. No matter how many pretty words they throw in there, you can't cover up the bullshit final message they all have.

that's what I've been trying to say all this time. But no one listens to me

 

[theluma]

And holy crap at the Galaxy review, that is way too long for me to read. As far as I got though, it seemed all right. Sure I completely disagree with the guy opinion but up to that point he hadn't said anything that seemed stupid.

But then again things change...

 

[MC Safety]

Edge reviews are really terrible. even if your writing is good, bad comments always bad

People who have turf to defend will invariably find Edge's reviews not to their liking.

Bad reviews are poorly written, self-indulgent, non-critical, or hyperbolic. A bad review oftentimes has a score that does not reflect its body text.

You incorrectly assume a bad review is one published in a magazine you don't like.

 

[Virro]

This review right here, basically single handedly withered any respect videogame "reviewers" get from me. I can't read anything without thinking there's some ulterior motives behind said review. I learned just to talk to friends with similar tastes rather than stuff like that review.

Edge is also a great monthly source for bad reviews. No matter how many pretty words they throw in there, you can't cover up the bullshit final message they all have.

So what's the ulterior motive behind Shoe's review? Enlighten us.

 

[Ihya]

Gamespot's review of Savage: Battle for Newerth, which was frankly a brilliant game, that became the victim of the lowest form of journalism a game can suffer. Now when I mention it was Gamespot who did this, why are so many of you not surprised?


Basically the Gamespot reviewer only put a couple of hours into the game before slapping a paltry 5.4 review score on it. The developer, S2 games however checked said reviewers playtime on their servers, and called bullshit to the internet at large. It forced a re-review and a higher score.



Tycho goes into detail over it here http://www.penny-arcade.com/2003/9/22/

 

[theluma]

See I wish this was "Worst Gaming Articles", then I could link to a bunch of Gamesradar lists...

But their NMSB Wii review is pretty bad, complete with the screenshots proving they are right by saying that the game just copies everything from its predecessors. http://www.gamesradar.com/wii/new-s.../a-20091113105237874009/g-2009060211259405068

And the worst thing about GR is that most of their commenters are complete suck-ups to the site and treat their reviews as the advice of the gods.