• 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.

LittleBigPlanet 3 reviews

F

family_guy

Member
GVA1987 said:
I see a bunch of people complaining about reviewers not marking down AC for the bugs. Outside of maybe biogamer girl they ALL mentioned the bugs and the mediocre scores reflect that (as it should).

I see the lack of content also reflecting in most scores so before you pick up your torches and pitchforks to defend your franchise/brand etc try to be a little more objective.

Some of you need to remove your tinfoil hats.
Click to expand...


Lack of content? I'm not even that big of a fan of the games but I can't agree with this. Sure there may be a short story mode but you have millions of levels already available and an even more robust creator mode, which is the main point of this game. You don't mark down other user content created games for limited story modes. The story is just their as a tutorial for what you can do with the toolset. The LBP games have infinite replayability.
 
M

Moobabe

Member
John Bender said:
This "I personally don't like it = bad" or "bu... but it's my opinion" is completely retarded and the perfect excuse for every reviewer. "Biased? Fanboy? Me? Nonono! Just my opinion."
Using that logic, I have to give Zelda: Skyward Sword a 5/10, because I hate it.
Would I do it? No, because I have to be unbiased and... you know... there is something called "objectivity". It is a good game, but it annoys me to no end, because it does some things I personally don't like.
Lower the score because of that? Bullshit!
Click to expand...

I feel like this is a fine line. If, in your review of Skyward Sword, you told me why you think it's bad or, more specifically, why you didn't like it - then I don't see what the problem is?

If you can recognise a game's good qualities, but still tell me why it isn't for you then that's a good review in my eyes. You need to be able to relate to a particular reviewer (or site's) tastes and standards to decide if you want to read more of their stuff.

Polygon, for example, have fantastic features on their site which I read a lot. Their reviews though have consistently been baffling to me - poorly written, huge leaps in logic and seemingly agenda driven scoring - as a result I don't read them.

I don't expect people to be unbiased completely - that's impossible.
 
C

Creaking

He touched the black heart of a mod
Tempesta di Fuoco said:
Eh, I was hoping they'd fixed the numerous problems with the series, but from the sounds of it, it's worse than the last couple. Pass.
Click to expand...

Impressions from NeoGAF members who have played it have been pretty much unanimously positive. The only people driving all the negative talk have gathered their information from shit reviews like IGN's.
 
E

Eggbok

Member
iPLuYBnbkwRzu.png


The IGN review is interesting. I just watched it and she spends the majority of the video praising the game. She said there are bugs, but she enjoyed it a lot. So how does it review at a 6.8 ?????

I'm literally scratching my head at the cons lol. The "floaty" controls or w/e aren't even listed as a negative so wtf lol?
 
T

Tempesta di Fuoco

Banned
Creaking said:
Impressions from NeoGAF members who have played it have been pretty much unanimously positive. The only people driving all the negative talk have gathered their information from shit reviews like IGN's.
Click to expand...

It is getting mixed reviews everywhere. Why are people pretending IGN's review is the only one that hasn't given it a good review?
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The only problem I have with IGN's review is that the buggy piece of crap WWE2K15 got a higher score, and that game had a ton of content cut and is full of bugs and glitches.
 
M

m@cross

Member
IGN is supposed to be a professional resource for game information.

Their inability to apply a standard to their review methods is lazy at best, possibly worse if you consider where the inconsistencies fall.

Want to remove points for bugs and play issues that have not been fixed by the time of review, I get that. Not doing so consistently across all your reviews is conspiracy bait and credibility destroying.

Yes every person who works there is a unique individual, but they produce a product, and consistency on the rules they apply and scoring methods is necessary for a quality result.

Buggy/broken on release?
Unity 78
Halo MCC 90
BF4 85

So those games must be near 9+ without their launch problems right?
 
O

Osahi

Member
Plinko said:
4-5 hours for SP mode is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

That's only scratching the surface, as in: after 5 hours you only pkayed the story bits.

There are a couple of challenge levels in every world to unlock, and finding them is thanks to the hub levels now part of the fun. There are also popit puzzles, which are create mode tutorials in essence, but are singleplayer levels on their own where you need create skills to overcome obstacles.

That's apart from the replay value that's inherent to lbp, where you can't unlock every prise bubble on your first run do to a lack of stickers and now power ups in your sackpocket.
 
S

sturgboski

Member
What's the over/under on this game scoring poorly on PlaystationLifestyle due to bugs. This could either be because they magically matter now but not in Unity or as a way to appease the people constantly ripping the reviewer apart in all AC Unity posts on that site.
 
A

Americanmushroom

Banned
sturgboski said:
What's the over/under on this game scoring poorly on PlaystationLifestyle due to bugs. This could either be because they magically matter now but not in Unity or as a way to appease the people constantly ripping the reviewer apart in all AC Unity posts on that site.
Click to expand...
Lol playstationlifestyle
 
M

m@cross

Member
Tempesta di Fuoco said:
It is getting mixed reviews everywhere. Why are people pretending IGN's review is the only one that hasn't given it a good review?
Click to expand...

This is simple;

When you are a major (possibly the biggest) game journalism resource available, you are expected to have a minimum standard.

Their reviews are their products, and the inability to provide a consistent product makes them look like asses and possibly shills.

If they want to deduct points for bugs and such, that is fine. If they want to do so inconsistently, that is not.
 
D

Dark_Rainbow

Neo Member
John Bender said:
Which is still nonsense!

If a game is good, it's good.
Doesn't matter if it's Dudebro 552585.

If you have to review a car, it doesn't matter if you are sick and tired of Toyota's.
If the care is good, it's getting good reviews.

This "I personally don't like it = bad" or "bu... but it's my opinion" is completely retarded and the perfect excuse for every reviewer. "Biased? Fanboy? Me? Nonono! Just my opinion."
Using that logic, I have to give Zelda: Skyward Sword a 5/10, because I hate it.
Would I do it? No, because I have to be unbiased and... you know... there is something called "objectivity". It is a good game, but it annoys me to no end, because it does some things I personally don't like.
Lower the score because of that? Bullshit!
Click to expand...

99.99 of reviewers are biased, metaphorically. Either they like certain type of games, or they don't know what they heck they are into. I believe games should be reviewed like kotaku, they tell you whether you should play they game or not (Which I don't agree to some extent because it is all about taste) and then they give you the good and the bad side of the game, unlike other gaming websites which they give numeric rating which sucks. But like I said, whether we like or not we should be fine with that since they play a big role in gaming industry.
 
D

Dr_LucienSanchez

Banned
Tempesta di Fuoco said:
It is getting mixed reviews everywhere. Why are people pretending IGN's review is the only one that hasn't given it a good review?
Click to expand...

Because IGN is probably the most egregious example in this case?

And it's hardly getting mixed reviews. Unless you only focus on the negative ones and not on the numerous glowing reviews and impressions.

Toothbrush said:
Fair enough, I just think that those recent reviews have illustrated each of those individual's expectations out of game rather than purposely trying to cater to a targeted audience. That being said, I do think the idea of more consistency would be nice. Especially with the rising problem of unfinished games being shipped!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I think that the idea of 'in-progress' reviews at launch are better than just rushing together a review to meet the embargo. Like what Eurogamer did with Destiny and AW, but strangely enough not with the MCC.
 
L

LegendofDragoonLives

Member
I do think Shu has to get some serious questions answered in regards to what this year. Driveclub and LBP3 should have been pushed back. LBP3 with 2 weeks may have had several buggy issues ironed out, instead they had to release it the same day as GTAV, Dragon Age and Farcry 4.

Does he even play the games more than an hour to make sure they're ready?
 
E

EagleEyes

Member
I seriously thought this would be higher than a 79 on metacritic so far. Didn't the first 2 games average 90+ on metacritic?
 
…

……forgetit

Member
I gotta ask, what the hell is an objective review? You can't review something without opinions. If you hate a game it gets a bad review, if you like it it gets a good review. It's not like the reviewer owes the company something, it seems like the IGN reviewer wanted to like the game but it broke on her way too many times.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Spork4000 said:
I gotta ask, what the hell is an objective review? You can't review something without opinions. If you hate a game it gets a bad review, if you like it it gets a good review. It's not like the reviewer owes the company something, it seems like the IGN reviewer wanted to like the game but it broke on her way too many times.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Cornbread78

Cornbread78

Member
Dark_Rainbow said:
No one, if you like the series, just grab it and enjoy the fucking game :D
Click to expand...


Yup, pretty much this. Why bother with the scores when over 50% of them have biased reviwers and it's obvious. That goes for all games.

We all know what kind of game this is and its fun stems from the incredible online world (with the best online community by far) to play it in. It's one of those games that keeps you coming back because there's always new content to play. Plus, if you're the creative type, this is your paradise. ...
 
B

Banjo-Kazooie

Member
Creaking said:
I wish more websites would use Famitsu's reviewing method. Four people, four scores, one total.
Click to expand...

While it's a model that I personally like, the logistics of setting it up is a bit painful.

You would either need to:
  • make a shared account that you download every game to to review, and then take turns playing it (takes a lot of time, you need to be close to one another to have access to the account, ect)
  • or have the publisher/dev/pr company give you 4 copies of the game so each of you could download it.

For smaller sites this would be a nightmare to handle, let alone get the games for. The bigger sites I'm sure wouldn't have an issue getting it done though
 
DryvBy

DryvBy

Member
Paz said:
Someone had a terrible experience with the game and gave it a bad review, somehow this translates to everyone here being angry at them? What would you do, assuming you had the exact same experience they did?

Reviews are a reflection of a personal experience and nothing more, if I reviewed COD: Ghosts I wouldn't give it 10/10 because I know ~30 million people are going to love it, I'd give it a score based on my experience of it being a fairly poor game.
Click to expand...

I'm not irate. I just find the process hypocritical. This goes along with the constant pushing of every big game as the next big thing.

But when you're going to say LBP 3 has game-breaking bugs an give it a 6.8, then turn around and give a turd like Unity a 7.8 without explaining how absolutely unplayable some missions are due to framerate drops (game-breaking framerate), then that seems a little unjust.

Or Halo MCC getting a 9.5 (something I would agree with if it worked day one).

But this really is just a bigger complaint to how the numbered score system is a clog in the review process. It's not helpful.

Another good example is reading the WWE 2K15 (current gen edition) review and then seeing that 7.0 score. Huh?
 
K

Kenshin001

Member
Deadpool_X said:
The first 2 ganes were made by Media Molecule, not some brand new studio trying to imatate someone else's success, like 3 is.
Click to expand...

Ugh. Sumo is not a brand new studio. I don't think Sumo is trying to imitate MM's success, they were probably offered the game to make and did the best they could.
 
F

fallen_dawn

Member
Spork4000 said:
I gotta ask, what the hell is an objective review? You can't review something without opinions. If you hate a game it gets a bad review, if you like it it gets a good review. It's not like the reviewer owes the company something, it seems like the IGN reviewer wanted to like the game but it broke on her way too many times.
Click to expand...

As someone stated earlier, there are some things which should be fairly standard across reviews. While the actual enjoyment is subjective - things like game-breaking bugs are not. If there were bugs in LBP3 that hindered gameplay then yes, it should be penalised. But if LBP3 was to be penalised, then so should other games with similar performance issues, even if it means updates to review scores.

There should be a set of standards that any publication/website adheres to.
 
K

kvothe

Member
Spork4000 said:
I gotta ask, what the hell is an objective review? You can't review something without opinions. If you hate a game it gets a bad review, if you like it it gets a good review. It's not like the reviewer owes the company something, it seems like the IGN reviewer wanted to like the game but it broke on her way too many times.
Click to expand...

You put the game into the review bot, it calculates the frame rate, resolution, and game length then spits out a score based on those factors. It's the only way.

I seriously can't believe people are still calling for "objective reviews". It's absurd.
 
B

BPoole

Member
Another "meh" exclusive from Sony.

They better bring the heat next year or else that good will they've established through MS and Nintendo's mishaps will run out.
 
T

thefro

Member
EagleEyes said:
I seriously thought this would be higher than a 79 on metacritic so far. Didn't the first 2 games average 90+ on metacritic?
Click to expand...

1) Reviewers are generally tougher now to everything without "Grand Theft Auto" in the game title.
2) We've had a lot of very good platformers lately.
3) The first two LBP games were IMHO, a bit overrated (I've only beaten the 2nd game but most of the reviews all say it's better than the 1st).
 
I

IAmRandom31

Banned
I see 13 positive reviews, 6 mixed and 0 negative.

Why is the mood in here so .... off?

Game is getting just about what is expected. IGN is funny though. all these games with massive bugs and this is the only one that gets docked for it. * shrug *
 
…

……forgetit

Member
fallen_dawn said:
As someone stated earlier, there are some things which should be fairly standard across reviews. While the actual enjoyment is subjective - things like game-breaking bugs are not. If there were bugs in LBP3 that hindered gameplay then yes, it should be penalised. But if LBP3 was to be penalised, then so should other games with similar performance issues, even if it means updates to review scores.

There should be a set of standards that any publication/website adheres to.
Click to expand...

So this is more about assassin's creed than little big planet? A big factor is the games were reviewed by different people. I mean I haven't played assassin's creed specifically because of the reviews, and I won't be playing little big planet either, but it's very possible that they were completely different situations. Assassin's creed seems to have a poor frame rate and some crazy facial glitches, but little big planet apparently completely stopped working multiple times. There's only so many times that that can happen to someone who isn't in love with the series before it gets docked a lot.
 
M

Man-is-Obsolete

Member
People just need to get used to a large spread of scores. It has happened to nearly every game released this year including Indies. Combine this with reviewers suddenly realizing their scale goes below 7, and you have had large spreads.

The only part annoying to me is how certain people latch onto the lowest review as being indicative of the game while ignoring the highest reviews. For example there are more 9 and above scores for this game than 7 and below, yet look at what is getting the most attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1847 — SAND LAND and more scored
Review
4
564
Shake Your Rump replied
Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1842 — Rise of the Ronin Review Score: 9/10/9/9 [37/40]
Review
17
1K
killatopak replied
Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1835 | Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth awarded a perfect score
Review
44
2K
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1846 — Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes and more scored
Review
2
639
sigmaZ replied
Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1839 | Final Fantasy VII Rebirth awarded a 38 out of 40
Review
8
1K
killatopak replied
Top Bottom