Ouch, love the conclusion, comparing Ninja Gaiden to The Bouncer :lolSviatoslav said:
Ouch, love the conclusion, comparing Ninja Gaiden to The Bouncer :lolSviatoslav said:
He finally got his Pocahontas game, though.Aaron Strife said:I like how he goes on a tangent about the Street Fighter rip-off action figures, and also complains about there not being a Pocahontas game. What would you do in a Pocahontas game?
Boss fight: Negotiate peacefully with the white settlers!
Haha, nice.Timber said:pitchfork's kid a review
Well, they say there is a first time for everything. And this would be another one of those first times. Yesterday (Nov 3) we posted online a review of Neverwinter Nights 2 by contributing editor Matt Peckham. Today we are pulling that review down and retracting it. The reason for this is simple. The review was not up to our regular editorial standards, and it was our mistake to publish it in the first place. I stand by Matt Peckham completely, as he has done great work for our magazine and this website. And we will continue to publish his works going forward. So this is not being done to either punish him or to disavow ourselves from him. The blame for this particular mistake falls entirely upon the editors of the magazine, and, in particular, me. It is my job as editor-in-chief to ensure that all of the articles--and in particular, the reviews--meet a certain standard of fairness, that every game gets its "fair shake." After listening to the comments of readers, and after reviewing the matter internally with the other GFW and 1UP editors, we have come to the conclusion that this was not a fair review--or at least, it can be perceived as not a fair review, which is just as bad. And we are not so stupid or arrogant that we can't admit our mistakes here. To publish this review without further edits was a mistake, and for that we apologize. The review has been retracted, the score has been retracted, and it will not appear in our print magazine. We sincerely regret the error, and we will be back next week with a new review.
Jeff
Oh my!Nikorasu said:
It's a brand new product, but it looks like it could have been released on PlayStation 1, or perhaps even on Super Nintendo.
realized through a variety of multi-layer scrolling backgrounds
the environments are barren, old-styled 2D, void of detailed character models, crisp textures, or any advanced lighting or shadow effects, to say the least.
Graphics: Unmoving. Average for a Super Nintendo title.
An extremely standard music soundtrack mixes with an overwhelmingly standard supply of sound effects. Everything from gun blasts to enemy hollers sounds right on par with the normal, but nothing particularly stands out as exceptional. Don't expect to love or hate the audio portion of the game.
wow. what a writer. give this guy a pulitzer.Absolute run-of-the-mill music and sound effects with no real stand-outs.
jarosh said:ign's horribly written review for mega man network transmission. by matt casamassina no less.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/424/424503p1.html
some choice quotes:
first off: this game is in 3D. THREE FUCKING DEE. every character and the whole environment is made up of polygons. no, it's not "average for a super nintendo title". it's gamecube era 3d. there are no "multi-layer scrolling backgrounds" either. the backgrounds are 3d, you dumbfuck. "void of advanced lighting or shadow effects"? uh what does that even mean? this is a 3d engine with a pretty decent lighting model. things DO cast shadows and there's lots of pretty neat looking particle effects and light sourcing on everything.
wow. what a writer. give this guy a pulitzer.
PowerSmell said:Worst reviews?
Any arcade game review by a professional game journalist. http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3164501&p=37&sec=REVIEWS
95% of new games journalism reviews.
When paying ninety dollars for a lightgun shooter you're used to playing in movie theater lobbies and dingy arcades, you would expect to be able to feed it more virtual quarters when you die, or at least earn more to use along the way. Right?
jarosh said:ign's horribly written review for mega man network transmission. by matt casamassina no less.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/424/424503p1.html
Armada said:
Zen said:
Costanza said:
rainking187 said:? I'm having trouble finding any fault with that review.
PowerSmell said:Worst reviews?
Any arcade game review by a professional game journalist. http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3164501&p=37&sec=REVIEWS
95% of new games journalism reviews.
McBacon said:Time Crisis 4 blows.
And if you want to play it you gotta pay like 90 bucks
and if you want to play it co-op you gotta pay like a babillion dollars
Seriously.super metroid said:EGM's review of Star Fox Adeventures
This.PowerSmell said:Worst reviews?
Any arcade game review by a professional game journalist. http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3164501&p=37&sec=REVIEWS
95% of new games journalism reviews.
Whimsical Phil said:Seriously.
The only one of the three EGM reviewers who give this game the score it deserved was the guy who gave it a 4.5. The other two reviewers actually liked this horrible game.
McBacon said:Time Crisis 4 blows.
And if you want to play it you gotta pay like 90 bucks
and if you want to play it co-op you gotta pay like a babillion dollars
Woo-Fu said:Hsu's Gears review could have easily been shortened to, "It is not Halo, but its on the Xbox 360 so give it a A+"
McBacon said:Time Crisis 4 blows.
And if you want to play it you gotta pay like 90 bucks
and if you want to play it co-op you gotta pay like a babillion dollars
Zen said:
Dan Hsu 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.
My favorite line (it's hard to choose):Regulus Tera said:My contribution: Tim Rogers' Super Mario Galaxy review.
Sunshine only turned the gain up (thats a guitar term) on certain missions
Linkzg said:Time Crisis 4 is terrible; especialliy because it's the only game you can play using the fantastic Guncon3. Still, that review for the game is pretty bad. Even outside of the odd complaints about the lightgun genre itself, bringing up cost as factor in the review is a bad idea.
Night_Trekker said:Every negative review of Shiren the Wanderer than failed to understand it was a Roguelike.
Despite these interesting quirks, The Last Hope's core gameplay remains terminally unrewarding. Torneko loses all his experience points and much of his loot whenever he leaves a dungeon, meaning there's little opportunity for character advancement. The records that the game keeps provide only the most superficial sense of accomplishment; for the most part, Torneko: The Last Hope lacks any sense of progress. Not only does Torneko never get more powerful, the challenges he faces remain essentially the same throughout the entire game. Indeed, it's not clear at all what's supposed to be the meat of the game.
Zen said:
Raging Spaniard said:
I still think that is an awesome review, his experience with the game was obviously rewarding in spite of all the individual problems. It felt like a real person was reviewing the game, not just a robot that docks points for every little shortcoming, but someone who rates the game based on how rewarding the experience was for him.mr_square said:This always gets brought up, and every time people seem to forget that this image is only half the review. The rest:
Zen said:http://i41.tinypic.com/11t8j6w.jpg[/IM][/QUOTE]
Wow! subtle score?
Pretty much. I am currently reading "Predictably Irrational" to give you the context of where I am coming from, but what makes the reviews even worse is that they seem to go against our basic human nature to compare things relatively. The game plays like ass compared to several of its closest competitors, and the writing does nothing to distinguish itself from most other games. Like you said though, it was touted for having amazing gameplay and story. smhfortified_concept said:GTA4's review in every. fucking. site. And it's not about the scores, it's about all the bullshit they were spreading on their reviews. From the "Oscar winning story" to "brilliant gameplay additions". Idiots.