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

Game reviews that were way off from the consensus

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 can definitely see why someone might give it that score. Being technically polished and everything working as intended doesn't mean the game should get a free pass to a high score. The game mixes some amazing highs (successfully avoiding the Alien) with some extremely frustrating lows (every time the Alien gets lucky and you die through no real fault of your own).

I've had to turn the game off a lot of times because it was just becoming frustrating to play.
 
I think Edge's Doom review from 1994 counts, even if they did give it a 7/10. But this quote is just too legendary and too absurd:

"As it is, once the power of Doom’s graphics has worn off (they’re amazing, so give that at least a week or two), you’lI be longing for something new in this game. lf only you could talk to these creatures, then perhaps you could try and make friends with them, form alliances… Now, that would be interesting."

http://www.edge-online.com/review/doom-review/

What's funny about that is that I still find doom's gameplay and level design to be amazing.
 
I think Edge's Doom review from 1994 counts, even if they did give it a 7/10. But this quote is just too legendary and too absurd:

"As it is, once the power of Doom’s graphics has worn off (they’re amazing, so give that at least a week or two), you’lI be longing for something new in this game. lf only you could talk to these creatures, then perhaps you could try and make friends with them, form alliances… Now, that would be interesting."

http://www.edge-online.com/review/doom-review/

Did Navigtr work for Edge at some point?
 
I remember Tom Chick's 4/10 for Uncharted 3 causing a stirr, but as is usually the case with Tom Chick reviews, it becomes more right the longer time goes on. My experience with Uncharted 3 was that it was an unenjoyable and at times painfully frustrating chore, which eventually I didn't even finish. If you're truly using the full scale and if 5/10 is therefore average, I'd say his 4/10 was bang on.
 
I remember Tom Chick's 4/10 for Uncharted 3 causing a stirr, but as is usually the case with Tom Chick reviews, it becomes more right the longer time goes on. My experience with Uncharted 3 was that it was an unenjoyable and at times painfully frustrating chore, which eventually I didn't even finish. If you're truly using the full scale and if 5/10 is therefore average, I'd say his 4/10 was bang on.

Yup, after the PR hype and post release buzz has finally died down, it's ironically often the "contrarian" reviews that reflect popular opinion the most.
 
Tevis Thompson wrote about that when Bioshock Infinite came out.
http://tevisthompson.com/on-videogame-reviews/
His point was that reviews were not divergent enough from the pool actually (and eventually gave 2/10 to Bioshock Infinite).

Tom Chick also pretty much doesn't care what the rest of the press think about a game : http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/review-list

Holy shit at Tevis Thompson's Ground Zeroes review. Added spoiler tags.

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes – 1

The woman you rescue has a bomb in her vagina. No spoiler warning? Too bad. Her name is Paz and she suffers rape, forced child rape, and vivisection before she explodes. The bomb in her vagina is merely the final twist. The punch line.

What about the game’s length? Its sandbox of guns and guards? What about the vision of Hideo Kojima?

No.

Ground Zeroes is not the work of a visionary auteur. It’s the work of a man.
A man who puts bombs in vaginas.

A review is a response, and this is mine: Mr. Kojima, go fuck yourself.

Some of his other reviews... man. This guy really likes being controversial.
 
Ah, good times. Still the worst review in the history of gaming. I also recall Tommy Tallarico giving Super Smash Bros. Melee a 1/10 because Kirby was in it.

Tommy Tallarico also gave the Willy Wonka movie game around a 9 or 10 because he liked the music. I don't know how many of the reviews for the show he wrote himself or if he was simply the messenger of odd opinions and things to get people riled up but from watching the program you got the idea to never take his opinions very seriously.
 
Holy shit. What an embarrassment of a thread that was. It wasn't even a bad score. It's a good thing I'm not a reviewer for any website lol.

it's 'great' for 2 reasons;
1) it's GAF, so there's no "lol gamefaqs" distancing happening
2)
A final reminder, for history, that at the time of writing NONE OF THE ABOVE HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME.

as is usually the case with Tom Chick reviews, it becomes more right the longer time goes on.

Pretty much.
No wonder he's so hated, and has appeared so many times in this thread, heh.
 
Holy shit at Tevis Thompson's Ground Zeroes review. Added spoiler tags.


Some of his other reviews... man. This guy really likes being controversial.
One of the most self-important clowns around. This particular review climaxed with a twitter rant where he "called out" reviewers tweet by tweet who didn't follow his approach (and no one cared). Videogame journo drama is never not petty. Kind of related to the thread at least.
 
PC Gamer's infamous Dragon Age II review, giving it 94 when most reviewers at least acknowledged it was a massively flawed game, if not outright slamming it.

It's end summary: "The best RPG combat ever. Not gaming’s best story, but maybe its best storytelling. Darker, sexier, better."
 
Nah, they just aren't afraid to use their entire review scale. We should really be examining why other outlets don't.

Yeah, and then the same guy gave the remaster a higher score, whilst still defending that the game retains the same flaws the original had and led to the score given. Why upgrade the score then? Quoting the review:

"The core gameplay of The Last of Us remains untouched. All of the issues I had related to encounter design, weird AI glitches and likewise were still evident in my time with Remastered. I still didn't enjoy the gunplay this time around, but I must admit that it feels better with the DualShock 4 and a slightly tweaked control scheme."

And

"More notable problems with The Last of Us manifest as it leans more on the traditional trappings of third-person shooters — fights against waves of enemies or arenas full of waist-high cover where your only recourse is to kill everyone in your way. These sequences sit at odds with the rest of the game. Joel can't take much damage from enemies, which isn't such a big deal when you're sneaking past them without incident. But at increasingly frequent points in the narrative, I had to buckle down and deal with the messy gunplay and repeated checkpoint restarts.

Combat against the zombie-esque infected is especially frustrating. Not only are they faster, more aggressive and more unpredictable than human enemies, but multiple types of infected have an instant, one-hit kill if they get in melee range.

Did I mention that Joel isn't terribly good with guns? Naughty Dog has given Joel's aim a semi-realistic shakiness which, when mixed with the erratic movement of the infected, makes keeping enemies at bay a serious — and not terribly entertaining — challenge. Eventual upgrades allow Joel to hold his aim slightly better, but the annoyance never disappeared."


None of this changed in the remastered version, so why the upgraded review score?
It was a mere cop out, they knew they kinda fucked up with their review. The vast majority of gaming outlets can't all be wrong at the same time with only these guys seeing the truth.
So they decided to raise the score a bit to fall a bit more in line with the rest of the crowd. No one is gonna get upset over an 8, but a 7 usually means a glitchy game, with not so good production values, something long lasting fans might truly appreciate but rough on new comers - nothing that applies to TLOU. I realize they've been trying to be Edge for a while now (giving low scores and being more strict) but it seems like clickbait, honestly. That 7,5 stuck out like a fucking sore thumb in the ocean of 9/9,5 and 10s all across the board. They must have felt like the only guy in the room who didn't understand the joke and then fakes a laugh just so they don't look dumb.

Yeah, I would say Polygon's TLoU review was one that was way off the general consensus, not only by press standards but also according to gamer's opinions out there.
 
Those letters from Jeremy Zoss over the Paper Mario score are great. The first one is like "We're just telling our audience what we think they want to hear!" But then the second one is "We're not paid to tell people what they want to hear!"

They also gave Elite Beat Agents a 6.75/10, its GR average is 88. Tasteless bastards.
 
IGN's review of Alien: Isolation really sticks out compared to most other outlets. Especially much considering I really, really like the game so far (I'm on mission 8).
This one stuck out for me too. And they tweeted SO unprofessionally about it when they published their review. Like "Alien: Isolation isn't a very good game :/"

:/
 
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.

I can't recreate the face I did when I read this:

And because you can't move the camera round with the Wiimote the absence of a strafe function and the slow turning speed and the impossibility of shooting while moving feel even more backward and annoying than they did the last time around.
 
1up had some major shit bomb calls back in the day.

ryano8xu.jpg


Gears of War 2

the game that made me get an xbox 360 elite, I found it overwhelmingly disappointing in just about every aspect. I could not believe the hype surrounding it.



IGN - Resistance 2 - 9.5

Gamespot - Rachet and Clank: Tools of Destruction - 7.5
 
Does Jeff Gerstmann's 8.8 heard 'round the world review of Twilight Princess count? The shitstorm that sparked made me uncomfortable to be a gamer for a while.
Don't believe that was TOO out of line from the general media consensus, 8.8's still pretty close to a 9, certianly the 7.5 from Polygon for TLoU was more worthy of comment and that was still a gross overreaction from people.

I remember really not liking how GamePro scored Xenogears (don't think I'd care as much now unless the review was hot garbage, and then I'd probably just be mildly exasperated before forgetting about it), and the game DID mostly get good marks over here going by a glance at Metacritic.
 
Football manager 2009 got a 2/10 by IGN. Meanwhile I think the UK IGN gave it a 9/10 or 8/10 lol, got an overall 83 on metacritic.

Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 (football manager 2009 in Europe) 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)


They eventually pulled the review and apologized. I'm not sure if the review is interesting as much as a "I wish this was another game" article.
 
Aren't game reviews opinions first? If someone has a different opinion, is that bad?

I thought reviews were supposed to be buyers guides.
I mean, they're certainly presented as such, not as a random bloggers opinion, and if they are supposed to just be some dudes opinion then what is the point in having things like editorial staff.
 
Weird people are upset by that smash brothers review. Its always been a bad fighting game made for people who don't play fighting games. That review is spot on.
 
Driv3r got a couple of early 9.0 reviews, before being torn to shreds.

Didn't Doom get a very low score from one publication because you couldn't "talk" to the enemies?
 
Football manager 2009 got a 2/10 by IGN. Meanwhile I think the UK IGN gave it a 9/10 or 8/10 lol, got an overall 83 on metacritic.




They eventually pulled the review and apologized. I'm not sure if the review is interesting as much as a "I wish this was another game" article.

I forgot about the shitstorm this caused. It's like getting some kid that only plays COD to review an Atlus game.
 
The polygon review for the last of us. I say they felt like fools after that one. The game is one of the greatest games ever made

I just watched their video review of the last of us because I wanted a good laugh. figured it was polygon and you brought it up specifically so it'd be hilariously awful. their review was pretty spot on actually. was it just that it got a 7.5? I mean, I guess that number seems low when considering the usual scale most sites use but the actual review had nothing that stood out to me. what was your issue with it other than its score?
 
Given you're the very first person called out in the Uncharted hall of shame its no surprise you chose to gloss over that one

Erm, wow, that's a randomly confrontational post. I'm not sure why you singled out Uncharted 3 as something I supposedly glossed over. By that logic, I must have glossed over every other example given in this thread that I made no reference to in one of my posts.

I never had a problem with the Eurogamer review anyway. I even said as much in the review thread itself. But hey, nice try.
 
ITT: "Your opinion is wrong" (and sometimes that's true)

Learn the ins and outs of each person's tastes and it's fine. I honestly thought we had this discussion and it was done and dusted in like 2006.

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.
Since reviews have existed. I mean lots of people put in sections that talk about why other people might like the things they don't but at the end of the day media review is about your opinion of that thing. If they're making demonstrably false claims though...

The odd thing is I think looking back on it he was a bit too kind. It is really an 8/10 game.
Nintendo fanboys man.
If you look at the timestamps that screen was taken before the game even released. Which still occurs far too often.

X-play's review of Metroid Other M comes to mind. Abbie Heppe gave it a 2/5; its Metacritic is 79.


She basically slammed it because of it being sexist more than anything else. It was interesting to hear her point of view, and she wasn't wrong about it not making sense story-wise, but she came across as being unwilling to listen to any reason for liking it. She caught a lot of shit for it, though, which wasn't right, and I doubt it would've happened to the same degree if she wasn't a woman.
Skyward Sword got a 7.5 from Gamespot despite a metacritic of 93. Maybe not that extreme but I remember people being pissed at the time.

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-review/1900-6345839/
And like the TP review, once the dust settled everyone understood why

What's funny about that is that I still find doom's gameplay and level design to be amazing.
As long as you've got mouse controls working Doom the best aging PC game I've played from that era. Amazing achievement in raising the bar, but not pushing the limits so much that you age badly (like most N64 and PS1 games).

Yeah, and then the same guy gave the remaster a higher score, whilst still defending that the game retains the same flaws the original had and led to the score given. Why upgrade the score then? Quoting the review.
Because they felt it was worth those scores at the times they reviewed the game. Maybe it was because it had more time to settle, maybe they had a good/bad day on one of them, maybe it's completely arbitrary.

Gaming experiences are impossible for a human to consistently boil them down and stick them somewhere on a 20-point scale. Anything above 10-points is just noise, and even that's pushing it. They're also subject to inflation, I remember a magazine I read as a kid gave 100/100 to Goldeneye because it was the best game they'd ever played. Then when Perfect Dark came out and it was better they realised that they'd fucked up and ended up giving it 101/100. What's the point?
 
Top Bottom