• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Game reviews that were way off from the consensus

IGN's review of Double Dragon Neon

The reviewer gave it a 3/10 because according to him old school beat 'em ups aren't good anymore. Says very little about the actual game.

Much to its disadvantage, Neon never sets out to be anything other than Double Dragon. Yes, it adds new mechanics like unlockable special moves and shops for replenishing lost lives, as well as 3D characters, but at its core this is a loyal retro remake. Everything around it is superfluous because none of those features contribute anything to Neon’s benefit. There’s a laundry list of issues in Double Dragon that don’t sit well decades later, and Neon retains all of them.

The additional stages help fill out the original game’s 30-minute length, but only by about another 30 minutes, so you’re paying ten bucks for an hour of gameplay. In those new levels you’ll encounter inept platforming segments, which don’t mesh well with Neon’s slow, cumbersome characters. You’ll also suffer through frustrating enemy encounters that aim for you to fail, only to have to repeat an entire scenario from the start. In addition, the finicky combat demands precision Neon can’t achieve, so expect to punch a lot of dead air instead of bad guys when you’re not on the exact same plane.
 
TotalGames.net's 7.7 review of MGS2 was way, way off the consensus. (Metacritic of 97, I believe.) Must have taken some stones at the time, as everyone was already hyped as hell after the tanker mission demo.

"SOL's storyline (and this is being generous) is woefully inept, consisting of such high-calibre nonsense that there's absolutely no point following it."

Yeah, have to say I agree with that. Love Metal Gear as a series but MGS2 was a mess. Either way that was a brave review for back in the day. It might be hard to believe, but the reviewing 'scale' was far more compressed back in the PS2 era than it is today.
 
Can I ask for a recap of this? I don't know if I was aware of it at the time.

Basically:

2022215-4dn4ihh.jpg
 
While it may not be an overly EXTREME example it is one that really sticks out in my mind.

Game Informer - Mario Party 5
Their score 2/10
Average score 7/10

The only laughs come from knowing your friends are suffering the same punishment you are...They're cursing this to anyone within earshot, just like you. [Dec 2003, p.154]

This review will always stand out in my mind because it was the first time I had seen a nintendo franchise get such an abysmal score, I was never the biggest mario party fan but I understood its merits and I also owned the game as it was given to me, and I did not really believe it was THIS bad. It was just more of the same, why would that make the game drastically worse than the previous ones?

Also I recall reading in the next months issue a letter to GI about how a dad was angry that they ranked the game so low because he had given it to his son and after he read the review he wouldn't even play it or open it.

That was the day I decided I didn't care about review scores anymore.
 
Basically:

2022215-4dn4ihh.jpg

My goodness. That makes me literally scratch my brow in confusion and frustration. Thank you for filling me in, though.\

While it may not be an overly EXTREME example it is one that really sticks out in my mind.

Game Informer - Mario Party 5
Their score 2/10
Average score 7/10

This review will always stand out in my mind because it was the first time I had seen a nintendo franchise get such an abysmal score, I was never the biggest mario party fan but I understood its merits and I also owned the game as it was given to me, and I did not really believe it was THIS bad. It was just more of the same, why would that make the game drastically worse than the previous ones?

Also I recall reading in the next months issue a letter to GI about how a dad was angry that they ranked the game so low because he had given it to his son and after he read the review he wouldn't even play it or open it.

That was the day I decided I didn't care about review scores anymore.

It really is quite unfortunate/kind of sick how seriously reviews are taken in this industry. Reviews and PR hype make for a really unpleasant combination at times in gaming. It's perplexing, too, because movies, TV and books are nowhere near as review-oriented as media. I mean, they all are reviewed as much as games are, but the reviews themselves are not taken as seriously or as gospel amongst their respective consumers. I respect Kotaku immensely for doing away with scores entirely, and I was saddened to see Nintendo suddenly concerned about Metacritic scores in some of their press releases this past year or so; I understand why they did so but I don't like seeing numeric aggregates legitimized as indicative of overall quality of games.
 
the fact that people considered an 8.8 an OUTRAGEOUSLY low score to give. inconceivable!

The funny thing is I'm sure most of them woulda agree'd after they had finally played it. I liked TP but it was nothing special really. My first 3 Zelda games were OoT, MM and WW and this just couldn't compete with them.
 
Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. 87 average on Metacritic.

Game Informer: 68
The art and combat are killed in their tracks by the game's downright shameful dialogue. [Nov 2004, p.158]

Not the biggest disparity in score from the consensus, but probably not a single other person in the universe thinks the dialogue in that game is bad.

edit: oops, I missed that this was already covered on the first page.
 
Go on the Metacritic page for Journey and there's a sea of green. Just unanimous praise from everyone.

And then at the bottom of the page...



















...a solitary red square. 4 out of 10. Wut.
 
Godhand.

Off topic-ish... what is the deal with page 1 being a veritable graveyard? Was it this thread, or is there another wherein one needs tread lightly?
 

A classic example of how a lot of magazines and websites hated everything that it was """2D""" in the fifth console generation.

Also:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/02/16/giga-wing-2-import

Giga Wing 2: 5/10 because "it's a 15 minute game", yeah... using 49063406 continues of course. The best thing about this is that the guy who wrote this review later fund Andria Sang and "apologize" for the review because "at the time i didn't like shooters".
 
I'm not very familiar with the rules, is that a ban-able offence?

It is not stated somewhere I think, but it is yes. Won't happen too often though.

It just is very stupid to be participating in a forum discussion, without reading what you are participating in.

Godhand.

Off topic-ish... what is the deal with page 1 being a veritable graveyard? Was it this thread, or is there another wherein one needs tread lightly?

This one, people not reading the OP.
 
That's specifically why I like Yahtzee. He focuses on the negatives, so watching the video about a game you like is actually the best thing you can do for your own objectivity. When I found out he spoke highly of Dark Souls, I immediately went and played that shit (because him complimenting a game!? Impossible!) and didn't regret it.

Its not even that for me so much as that I appreciate that Yathzee has a distinct voice that he does not compromise on. He approaches everything from his perspective. The one thing he is not is interchangeable (and if you think he is you haven't watched enough of his stuff)
 
Most recently IGNs frankly amateurish Alien Isolation review - 5.9 if I remember correctly.

The game is technically pretty polished and the gameplay systems work pretty much as intended and it delivers the experience it's designed to do.

IGN reviewed it on a casual "I dont like this gameplay therefore it must be bad" which is what I expect from Joe Public online but not a supposedly professional review.
 
Go on the Metacritic page for Journey and there's a sea of green. Just unanimous praise from everyone.

And then at the bottom of the page...

...a solitary red square. 4 out of 10. Wut.

Yeah, that's Tom Chick. Here's his rating system:

5 stars: I loved it
4 stars: I really liked it
3 stars: I liked it
2 stars: I didn't like it
1 star: I hated it

Honestly, I wish more outlets used this system.
 
A classic example of how a lot of magazines and websites hated everything that it was """2D""" in the fifth console generation.

That's amazing to me. I understand it because I know 2D games were a rarity in that console gen because devs, publishers and players wanted the new excitement of 3D games (same deal in the sixth gen), but when I go back to find new experiences I missed out on during the fifth and sixth gen, I'm disappointed that there aren't more games like Kirby 64 and Klonoa 2, both superb 2D platformers.
 
Godhand.

Off topic-ish... what is the deal with page 1 being a veritable graveyard? Was it this thread, or is there another wherein one needs tread lightly?

OP asked for games where there was a particular professional review that was off from the consensus.

What he got was a bunch of snarky replies about personally "overrated" games from last gen. Not reading the OP has been a bannable offense for years here. For example, simply saying "GTA 4 sucks!" is a terrible example, because the review consensus was overwhelmingly that it was a great game. If you pointed out a review that gave it a 4/10, that would be within the guidelines pointed out in the OP.

Why in the hell are we discussing how one's opinion can be tremendously different from someone else's?

That's how life works. Get over it.

The fact that it happens so rarely in gaming is worthy of a discussion in and of itself, I'd think. And all the posts here aren't "why so low?"
 
There isn't a specific example here, but Alpha Protocols reviews seemed to be split geographically between European publications who played it like an RPG and loved it, and American publications who played it like a shooter and shat all over it for things like "gunplay".

Alpha Protocol is not a shooter.
Alpha Protocol is great.
 
That's amazing to me. I understand it because I know 2D games were a rarity in that console gen because devs, publishers and players wanted the new excitement of 3D games (same deal in the sixth gen), but when I go back to find new experiences I missed out on during the fifth and sixth gen, I'm disappointed that there aren't more games like Kirby 64 and Klonoa 2, both superb 2D platformers.

It was the "new thing", 3D was "the future" in mid-nineties, it was a terrible fad and i enjoyed a lot of 2D games on PS and Saturn at the time, also a lot of 2.5 games too like Mischief Makers.
 
Most recently IGNs frankly amateurish Alien Isolation review - 5.9 if I remember correctly.

The game is technically pretty polished and the gameplay systems work pretty much as intended and it delivers the experience it's designed to do.

IGN reviewed it on a casual "I dont like this gameplay therefore it must be bad" which is what I expect from Joe Public online but not a supposedly professional review.

Ryan Mccaffrey works in mysterious ways, in general.
 
Most recently IGNs frankly amateurish Alien Isolation review - 5.9 if I remember correctly.

The game is technically pretty polished and the gameplay systems work pretty much as intended and it delivers the experience it's designed to do.

IGN reviewed it on a casual "I dont like this gameplay therefore it must be bad" which is what I expect from Joe Public online but not a supposedly professional review.

the criticisms in that review are right along the lines of what most people thought of it. it's too long and repetitive. you don't share the same opinion. no big deal, relax.

EDIT: also, the reviewer stated clear as day that he played in on hard because the game recommended it
 
Most recently IGNs frankly amateurish Alien Isolation review - 5.9 if I remember correctly.

The game is technically pretty polished and the gameplay systems work pretty much as intended and it delivers the experience it's designed to do.

IGN reviewed it on a casual "I dont like this gameplay therefore it must be bad" which is what I expect from Joe Public online but not a supposedly professional review.

I think I may have said this to you already in the OT, but that review was absolutely shocking and was the last straw for IGN's credibility imo.

The reviewer moaned about it being hard, even though he played it on hard. I believe he also called it unfair and random which could not be any further from the truth.
 
Perfect Dark 0 - Gamespot 9/10

This awesome, high-tech first-person shooter champions the Xbox 360 with its excellent assortment of single- and multiplayer game types, as well as its incredible good looks and dynamic, intense action.

lol what? Game was a steaming pile
 
I also HATED and I do mean HATED Jim Sterling's review of Batman Arkham Origins. I felt he was way off the mark, although I do get his criticism of unnecessary multiplayer.

http://www.destructoid.com/review-batman-arkham-origins-264357.phtml

Having played the game, I've got to essentially agree with him. While the underpinnings of a great game were there, at launch it was a highly buggy, defective product, and the fact the company prioritized DLC over fixing the bugs, several of them progression-blocking, is patently offensive.

For my own money, I refuse to believe that Way of the Samurai merited a 55 average on Metacritic. Thankfully EGM, at least, showed some good taste and gave it a 75: http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-way-of-the-samurai-4/
 
Ninja Gaiden on Xbox

C- from gaming-age. (Or was it a D)

Either way it was a a ridiculous review of what is now considered a masterpiece.
 
Yeah, that's Tom Chick. Here's his rating system:

5 stars: I loved it
4 stars: I really liked it
3 stars: I liked it
2 stars: I didn't like it
1 star: I hated it

Honestly, I wish more outlets used this system.

Why? Since when did reviews become about what one single person likes. Games should be reviewed based on what it offers/does right/does wrong.

Reviewers like that are egotistical and put far too much emphasis on their opinion without looking at things unbiased and factually.
 
Perfect Dark 0 - Gamespot 9/10



lol what? Game was a steaming pile

Oh, I absolutely agree.

But, for some crazy fucking reason, Perfect Dark Zero actually reviewed very well as a consensus. (81 Metascore)

I don't get it either, the game was typical launch garbage. It wasn't even graphically impressive, outside of the POM on the walls. Everyone obviously remembers Wallguy.

Just truly a baffling reception to that game. And I was super hyped for it, it was a true disappointment in almost every way.
 
I'm not going to pick on individual reviewers, but in general terms: Kid Icarus Uprising. Takes time - time that most reviewers didn't seem to have - to adjust to controls. And to a lesser extent, Wonderful 101 for the same reasons. But I find more people agree with reviewers on W101 and it has more of a cult following.

P.S., as a longtime Gamefaqs user/poster, I'm appalled at those reactions to Jeff's G's LOZTP review. It's just those types of posts which eventually made me want a new home to discuss games... and here I am on NeoGAF, happy as a clam. It makes me sad to see such hate.
 
Oh, I absolutely agree.

But, for some crazy fucking reason, Perfect Dark Zero actually reviewed very well as a consensus. (81 Metascore)

I don't get it either, the game was typical launch garbage. It wasn't even graphically impressive, outside of the POM on the walls. Everyone obviously remembers Wallguy.

Just truly a baffling reception to that game. And I was super hyped for it, it was at true disappointment in almost every way.

I don't either, outside of MS paying for these scores I have no clue how it scored higher then a 6
 
Eurogamers 7/10 Resident Evil 4 Wii edition review.

This is pretty different from the 90 / 91 metacritic publication and userscore average.

I usually like Eurogamer reviews, but my god you can taste the agenda in their RE4 Wii review.

To be fair to that guy, he actually realised how biased and shit his review was in the actual review itself.

Maybe I'm being unkind. Maybe this review is nothing more than the out-of-date opinions of a gaming dinosaur, out of touch with the general gamer. Maybe Wii's target audience will take to this like a duck to water, unburdened by hands that are semi-permanently contorted into a dual-stick controller grasp. Maybe it is, as many people are saying, the definitive version of the definitive game in Capcom's superb survival horror series. But they're not writing this review. I am.

So at least he had one accurate paragraph in there. Also, how 'slightly worse' (which is how he describes the controls) takes a game from being a 10 to a 7 is beyond me. But yeah, this...

It's just a shame that one of the best ever action games has become another casualty of the Wii controller.

Is absolutely hilarious. The Wii really, really pissed some people off.
 
Top Bottom