Alpha Protocol was executed so poorly, however, that it kind of ruined whatever good stuff they had going on. It felt terrible to play.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Games that reviewers were completely off base with.
- Thread starter LevityNYC
- Start date
Reviews for Tomb Raider mentioned many of the problems people have with it and read like 6's or 7's but still gave it 8's and 9's. It has no challenge, the gameplay is on autopilot, and the story is awful... 9/10!
An element worth considering is tight turnarounds. Sometimes reviewers will have an incredibly short window to complete the game and get a review out for embargo. This results in a lack of reflection and consideration of the game from a larger perspective. Remember that scoring a beloved franchise filled with PR hype lower than a 9/10 can result in a backlash. For advertisement lead sites this could lead to less later visits, etc.
Also the review scale has been obliterated. We're at a point where the base mechanics for games are all at an exceptable level. If we're reviewing games like cars - and a lot of people seem to want this cold exclusion - then that it is one reason for '7' being seen as a low score/standard. I've seen comments that 6/10 means a game is broken. Utter nonsense. But if the readership/audience all believe this then it becomes truth. For me 5/10 is average; you'll find fun in it if you like the genre but you won't miss anything if you never play it. A 7/10 is a recommendation - it puts that game in the top third of everything that reviewer has placed. That's a positive critique. In fact, the scoring is so weighted that Rotten Tomatoes dropped their videogame page as 99.9% of games were coming out as 'fresh', meaning the scale had no meaning.
One thing that does concern me is the way people completely write off a reviewer over a single review score. Only liking people that give the scores you want is unhealthy and disrespectful to videogames as a whole. Respectful disagreement is healthy. And so are diverse opinions. Disagreeing is fine but don't attack and then 'blacklist' them. That's crazy.
Also the review scale has been obliterated. We're at a point where the base mechanics for games are all at an exceptable level. If we're reviewing games like cars - and a lot of people seem to want this cold exclusion - then that it is one reason for '7' being seen as a low score/standard. I've seen comments that 6/10 means a game is broken. Utter nonsense. But if the readership/audience all believe this then it becomes truth. For me 5/10 is average; you'll find fun in it if you like the genre but you won't miss anything if you never play it. A 7/10 is a recommendation - it puts that game in the top third of everything that reviewer has placed. That's a positive critique. In fact, the scoring is so weighted that Rotten Tomatoes dropped their videogame page as 99.9% of games were coming out as 'fresh', meaning the scale had no meaning.
One thing that does concern me is the way people completely write off a reviewer over a single review score. Only liking people that give the scores you want is unhealthy and disrespectful to videogames as a whole. Respectful disagreement is healthy. And so are diverse opinions. Disagreeing is fine but don't attack and then 'blacklist' them. That's crazy.
Told you.
I know NO ONE, that finished the game (including part B) that wasn't amazed by the game. Only people who didn't finished it can say "it's a bad game".That's why it's so underrated by reviewers. They don't bother playing through the game.
And obviously, reading something on a wiki does you nothing.
It's true that the gameplay is pretty mediocre (although quite unique at times), but that is a drop into the ocean, compared to the awesome characters, setting, music and story. Part B is the best experience I've had with a game since 16 years ago. It's a master piece and game of the generation for me.
I think a lot of Wii games fell victim to this. for example SSX Blur, an early Wii game that introduced an entirely new control method... which happens to be the main reason critics were so harsh. It took me about 5 hours to fully adapt, but after I adapted I was hopeful that boarding games would never regress back to traditional controls. I don't think games or any other media should be faulted for requiring time to introduce a superior or novel technique, no matter how steep the learning curve. Few critics adequately recognized the all new, dynamic soundtrack courtesy of Junkie XL (which changes based on the players performance [I know lots of games do this but it was executed wonderfully here]), or the graphics, which remain some of the best seen on Wii. No, really, go watch some video, the game's presentation was outstanding.
There's usually a decent explanation for why critics get scores wrong. For example ZombiU, a challenging game designed to be played slow and methodically, was sent out to reviewers (alongside ~15 other games) just days before the U's launch.
Of course a lot of people are mentioning Alpha Protocol, but I've heard that the game got major patches after release. I only played the game after it was patched, but based on what I've heard the reviews were accurate for how the game was initially.
There's usually a decent explanation for why critics get scores wrong. For example ZombiU, a challenging game designed to be played slow and methodically, was sent out to reviewers (alongside ~15 other games) just days before the U's launch.
Of course a lot of people are mentioning Alpha Protocol, but I've heard that the game got major patches after release. I only played the game after it was patched, but based on what I've heard the reviews were accurate for how the game was initially.
kurtrussell
Banned
Dear Esther. The reviewers were so engrossed in circle jerking and fawning over the fact that video games had finally become "art" and "grown up" that they completely missed the point that it had a nonsensical at best plot, pretentious and immature dialogue and that ultimately it pretty much failed in it's one set in stone objective: To be a game.
I dunno. Am I supposed to say that reviews were wrong on some games? Because they are the opinions of the writers so they can't be "wrong" in most cases. People like shitty games and don't like good games. Deal with it.
As a general note, the rating system in videogame journalism is broken and wrong and most of the journalists are unprofessional.
As a general note, the rating system in videogame journalism is broken and wrong and most of the journalists are unprofessional.
If the game wasn't good enough to keep them playing to the end, then that counts when it comes to their opinion of the game.
To be clear, I loved Nier, and agree with you about the ending(s), but what you said here flat out doesn't make sense. Not every game is going to be universally embraced by everyone who plays it.
Lee Chaolan
Member
Nier, Godhand and DuckTales.
thewhitehawk
Member
Did it really disregard what made it great? What made the Mass Effect games great, actually, what makes most if not all Bioware games great are the journeys, not the endings.
They are capable of making engrossing and immersive new worlds with well-thoughout characters and are able to tell fantastic, yet believable, stories within those scenarios.
Most of your choices are binary at best and most of them lead to the same outcome, just through a slightly different path.
Even though I know the choices they present to us are mostly an illusion, they are something that help us get within the character we are roleplaying and feel more engaged with the story, the experience of going through that story is what makes the whole thing special in my opinion.
Could they have disguised that better than with a progress bar? Sure. But it was near impossible for them to develop a game in which the outcome of dozens of decisions throughout the course of the prior games would lead to significantly different and meaningful different paths in the final game. That is a pipe dream, that's the goal. But we're still a long way from reaching it.
If you want to have a gaming experience in which your interactions with others matter, in which your experience will be immensely different from any others and you'll meet unique characters that will make the world you are in much more engaging and unique, the closest thing you'll find to that in my opinion is within an MMO with a good community.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
ZombiU is a recent example that really exemplified how a niche and tailored game design has ramifications when in the hands of writers who find the core formula unappealing. Most people I know who picked up ZombiU knew exactly the kind of game it was going to be, and ended up enjoying it (to varying degrees). I've felt the word of mouth has largely been positive, those really disliking it also recognising it's just not the kind of game they'd seek out, rather than a bad game by some imaginary universal metric.
With ZombiU's more scathing reviews, I can't help but feel it was a situation equivalent to giving people disinterested in sport a copy of FIFA or PES to review.
With ZombiU's more scathing reviews, I can't help but feel it was a situation equivalent to giving people disinterested in sport a copy of FIFA or PES to review.
Ravensmash
Member
Tomb Raider was an amazing experience, totally worthy of the praise given.
Concentrate? Sure, it shouldn't. But I do think it's a valid criticism. If you're reviewing games you're recommending if someone should play it or not essentially. If another game does it a lot better, why not say so?
Also I'm curious what your opinion is on sequels (especially since ME3 was mentioned earlier this thread). Do you review them in isolation of the rest of the series, or do you take the mechanics and game elements of the previous entries into consideration here? Does it differ based on what type of sequel it is (i.e. direct or just another game in a non-connected series ala Final Fantasy)?
If you deconstruct a review you'll see that all the reviews are the same according to certain parameters.
A perfect game rarely gets more than 8, for example.
Here a vademecum for you all to understand how reviewers think:
1-3 Game does not necessary suck THAT much but once I interviewed these guys and they were lame. Time for revenge
4-5 Game actually sucks with a hint of goodness
6 game is good under many POVs but largely unpolished
7 very good, but only for specific gamers
8 great game, almost perfect for hardcore gamers but with no hint of the scripted events, QTEs and epic cutscenes that only AAA-10/10 games can achieve
9 we must give this game a 9 or we are screwed
10 hey, we were the first to receive the review code and we have to show how grateful we are. No need to play it btw we know it's great in the first place because it's so much hyped and anticipated it can't fail
A perfect game rarely gets more than 8, for example.
Here a vademecum for you all to understand how reviewers think:
1-3 Game does not necessary suck THAT much but once I interviewed these guys and they were lame. Time for revenge
4-5 Game actually sucks with a hint of goodness
6 game is good under many POVs but largely unpolished
7 very good, but only for specific gamers
8 great game, almost perfect for hardcore gamers but with no hint of the scripted events, QTEs and epic cutscenes that only AAA-10/10 games can achieve
9 we must give this game a 9 or we are screwed
10 hey, we were the first to receive the review code and we have to show how grateful we are. No need to play it btw we know it's great in the first place because it's so much hyped and anticipated it can't fail
I'm a critic and I don't think like that. Which reviewers are you specifically referring to here?
This is the only possible answer from your side, like a 9 or a 10 for a big Nintendo game
Destructoid's review of Kid Icarus: Uprising. I understand that the controls may not be for everyone (even I had difficulty with them at first), but it didn't take me that long to get used to them.
IGN's review of Double Dragon Neon. The game is unfair and may be too hard (even for me), but it doesn't deserve a 3.0 out of 10.
IGN's review of Double Dragon Neon. The game is unfair and may be too hard (even for me), but it doesn't deserve a 3.0 out of 10.
Sorry, don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean we - as in the royal 'we' - auto score Nintendo first party high and that is to balance 'overscoring' AAA games?
I hate It when that happens.
Anothet example of a reviewer getting it completely wrong due to wrong expectations is Eurogamer's review of the first Mafia game. They spent the entire review comparing it negatively with GTA 3, despite the fact that those two are totally different games.
Chrono Cross has a metacritic rating of 94%. I don't think the people that reviewed the game played the game. At least not all the way through.
Objectively and factually, it has a terrible shit story where 95% of the plot is revealed in the last hour in text dumps. It's like the developers made the game and forgot to put a story in it or give the gamers any reason to continue playing until the last day of development. Then they said "Fuck it, we're out of time. Let's put it all at the end and give it to some ghosts to say." It's a very flawed game far beneath Chrono Trigger without question.
FF8, FF13, and GTA4 are also rated way higher than the reception they received from gamers suggest they deserve. They're pretty hated games by the fanbases of those series yet reviewers all love them for some reason.
Objectively and factually, it has a terrible shit story where 95% of the plot is revealed in the last hour in text dumps. It's like the developers made the game and forgot to put a story in it or give the gamers any reason to continue playing until the last day of development. Then they said "Fuck it, we're out of time. Let's put it all at the end and give it to some ghosts to say." It's a very flawed game far beneath Chrono Trigger without question.
FF8, FF13, and GTA4 are also rated way higher than the reception they received from gamers suggest they deserve. They're pretty hated games by the fanbases of those series yet reviewers all love them for some reason.
My friend let's state that any person opinion is free, and my opinion is that reviewer always have to struggle between competence, truth, and readers. There always will be something that changes the score in favour of something, audience in primis.
Riposte
Member
You shouldn't trust "fanbases" either.
WHAT
We can agree to disagree. Just don't want to see all reviewers tarnished with the same brush.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
RE6 Defense Force: Assemble!
Yes, there is a group of us on GAF. This game brought the whole genre forward and it's like everyone straight up ignored every single innovation just because they wanted a slow paced, clunky movement, limited supplies, old school survival horror. Well fuck those reviewers. They obviously haven't paid attention to where RE has been going since RE2 Dual Shock Edition or how serious fans have enjoyed it. Capcom struck a masterwork balance between hardcore and casual fan, various gameplay tastes, skill levels, and social preferences, then wrapped it up in some of the most brilliant third person action mechanics ever.
Yes, there is a group of us on GAF. This game brought the whole genre forward and it's like everyone straight up ignored every single innovation just because they wanted a slow paced, clunky movement, limited supplies, old school survival horror. Well fuck those reviewers. They obviously haven't paid attention to where RE has been going since RE2 Dual Shock Edition or how serious fans have enjoyed it. Capcom struck a masterwork balance between hardcore and casual fan, various gameplay tastes, skill levels, and social preferences, then wrapped it up in some of the most brilliant third person action mechanics ever.
SLIM v3n0m
Member
This. Sorry, but it was one of the most monotonous games I've ever played. I can appreciate the scale and yada yada yada, but it just didn't click with me.
SLIM v3n0m
Member
Also, I agree that Crackdown was highly underrated at the time of release by reviewers. I loved it.
DecoyOctopus
Member
Also:
God Hand
BioShock Infinite
Uncharted 2
BuckRobotron
Member
Mad Dash Racing (Xbox) became a surprise favorite of mine in the way 7/10-ish games often do. Reviews scoring it 5/10 or so I found wanting but whatever...However, one of the Xbox-specific mags had a 2/10 review that was maybe two snotty uninformative paragraphs. That wasn't just off-base, but aggressively so.
Oceansized
Banned
Sonic Unleashed got a 4 from IGN and a 3 from gamespot (Tom McShea reviewed it)
Sonic unleashed is in no way that bad ( ithink most other outlets had it somewhere in the 7's)
Also, GT gave Shadow the hedgehog an 8, so there's that.
Tom McShea also gave Ducktales Remastered like a 4 or something
I'm seriously worried they'll let him review Sonic Lost World
Can we just fire Tom McShea?
Sonic unleashed is in no way that bad ( ithink most other outlets had it somewhere in the 7's)
Also, GT gave Shadow the hedgehog an 8, so there's that.
Tom McShea also gave Ducktales Remastered like a 4 or something
I'm seriously worried they'll let him review Sonic Lost World
Can we just fire Tom McShea?
The worst part of that review is that the guy rated it a 3 because he thinks beat em ups in general aren't good anymore.
johntown
Banned
This is a prime example. Either none of the reviewers played the first game or never actually played DA2.
This game is the reason I no longer trust critic reviews.
thelatestmodel
Junior, please.
Also, can we talk about Fable II for a second?
10/10 from Eurogamer, 1up, The Telegraph, and 9s for days from just about everyone else.
Fable II is a solid 6/10 game. Decent and enjoyable at times, but it has numerous major issues.
10/10 from Eurogamer, 1up, The Telegraph, and 9s for days from just about everyone else.
Fable II is a solid 6/10 game. Decent and enjoyable at times, but it has numerous major issues.
That's just your opinion man. For me its the biggest letdown of this gen. Shitty gameplay + shitty story + shitty characters = shitty experience.
Well you should trust them more than reviewers unless you want to find yourself wasting money on games that are absolute garbage like FF8, FF13, and GTA4.
CC at least has music going for it so I won't put it in that category.
Black Door
Banned
GTA IV getting better than perfect scores
Uncharted getting perfect scores
Any post-buyout Bioware game getting 8/10 or better
Sonic Unleashed getting worse scores than '06 (wtf?)
User ratings for Neptunia
Uncharted getting perfect scores
Any post-buyout Bioware game getting 8/10 or better
Sonic Unleashed getting worse scores than '06 (wtf?)
User ratings for Neptunia
Barry Burton
Member
ZombiU and Deadly Premonition were criminally underrated by some outlets.
No More Heroes and MadWorld were very overrated by some outlets.
Games off-hand that I thought were way too flawed to get the near-universal acclaim that they did: Wind Waker, Skyward Sword, MGS4, LittleBigPlanet.
No More Heroes and MadWorld were very overrated by some outlets.
Games off-hand that I thought were way too flawed to get the near-universal acclaim that they did: Wind Waker, Skyward Sword, MGS4, LittleBigPlanet.
There is nothing more infuriating then seeing this "its about the journey" crap.
In games like Skyrim and Borderlands that have no real story and is just an excuse to do things in those games ITS ABOUT THE JOURNEY.
In games like Mass Effect that are first and foremost about STORY and built on making choices that are supposed to have a payoff. The destination is just as (if NOT more) important than the journey.
Plus, the journey has its flaws.
The journey analogy is the equivalent to jumping out of an airplane and then realizing your parachute is broken and then you fall on the ground and die. Sure, it was fun before you realized your parachute wouldnt open, but you ended up dead.
The ones who were ok with ME3'e ending were likely casual fans of the series in which they did one playthrough of the previous games and had no desire to see how the choices played out. From that perspective I give the game an 8/10/
But for those who had an emotional investment in the series and did multiple playthroughs I give the game a 6/10
thewhitehawk
Member
Not sure what kind of respectful response you're expecting when you start off by saying someone's opinion is crap.
But fine, let me rephrase it for the sake of your skewed semantics. The Mass Effect games are not about the ending, they are about the small pieces of content you experience along the path to the final destination. They are about how the people and missions you interact with are intertwined with a larger story. Though your actions may mean very little in the grand scope of things, at the end of your journey when you collect the achievements you reached you find that their combined value was greater or more relevant than the weight of your final actions.
I look at Mass Effect in a similar light to Walking Dead. Your actions mean very little throughout the course of the entire game, and in the end, you reach the same destination. The choices you make have very little impact on the story or your progress, but they greatly impact your emotional engagement with that world. Mass Effect is no different in that regard.
I'm not saying it's not understandable that you were disappointed in the final game, the expectations were immensely high, but I honestly think most fans' expectations were severely unrealistic.