Support NeoGAF

[water_wendi]

There was an online game that caused a big hubbub on GAF due to a Eurogamer reviewer not actually playing it online which the developer proved. The review had factual inaccuracies and a low score to boot.

Though the name totally escapes me.

Darkfall Online?

 

[Yuripaw]

Edge's Marvel vs Capcom 3 review comes to mind. The sheer confidence in his ignorance is amusing. However it doesn't seem to be online.

On the other hand there is Giantbomb/Jeff's fanboyism for Mortal Kombat which led to him giving MK vs DC a 5/5. (One star higher than MvC3 lol).

Ok...to each his own here. I personally really enjoyed MK vs DC when it came out, and I've been really really enjoying the new MK since it came out. I wasn't even that big of an MK fan before these games. I barely played the PS2/Xbox titles, and like any kid in the 90s, I enjoyed the 2D MK games back in the day, but that was a long time ago.

As a matter of fact, prior to MvC3's release, you could put me in the boat of people who was mad hyped for the game, and really enjoyed MvC2 when it was on dreamcast. However, when MvC3 finally came out, I found that I was having no fun with the game. Yet once online functionality came to these MvC games...I found myself enjoying it less and less. I loved MvC2 because I played it with friends who didnt care about skill and mastering moves. We just beat the crap out of each other and had fun.

Once I started having the ability to play MvC2 and then MvC3 online...I started to get a taste of what it's like to fight against the "hardcore" crowd, and with those games mechanics, and the straight broken tiers that make it obvious you have to pick certain characters or face instant loss is just bull crap, and not fun to me. I get so tired of the massive difference in character tiers in that game. People online will always pick the same broken characters so they can get an for sure win. Even when I started to master some of the mechanics of MvC3, you always gotta do the same juggles and combos. You can say that i simply suck, but once I saw how those games are play, I just don't enjoy it, so I don't care if I suck.

MK9 on the other hand I have been enjoying like crazy, and have actually felt like the game feels more balanced than most fighting games I ever played. Sure, there are some characters feel more higher tier than others (Smoke and Scorpion come to mind because of their teleports and easy combos), but I have never felt like it was impossible to defeat people that use those cheap moves. I can easily block someone using those moves and counter it.

I've had my disagreements with Jeff on some of his opinions, but his fanboyism, and lack of enthusiasm for a game like MvC3 is something I can easily relate to and would side with him on.

 

[tiff]

I think the situation with stuff like Dan's Gears of War review or the reviews of Deadly Premonition are, do you give a final score based on point-to-point factors of the game, or are you giving that score as an overall representation of the good (or bad) experience that you had with the game?

One great example for me is Lux Pain on DS. The English translation was horrible, and if I just went down a list of points, gave each a score, and then tallied a final score, I would be giving it a lower score (let's just say, for example, a 5 or a 6). If I simply scored the game depending on how much I enjoyed the experience - beyond its good and bad points - I might give it a 7 or an 8.

Some of my favorite games ever have horribly broken aspect to them. Silent Hill 2, a game I adore, is really kind of a shitty game if we're being honest here. Same with the original, which I also love dearly. I spent a ridiculous amount of hours with Phantasy Star Online, but man that game was a mess in a lot of ways.

So, you know, I can totally understand how you review Gears of War, point out a lot of flaws, and then give it an A+. I think what's direly important, though, is that your organization have a standardized decision on that. I have the feeling that 1up wasn't that way, and they were more "the score is the final grade of all points" kind of thing, so that's where something like that Gears of War review can feel so off the mark.

I understand that line of thought perfectly, but when you're rattling off a game's flaws there comes a point where you have to imagine that all those flaws collectively would hamper your enjoyment of a game at least to the point where you wouldn't give it the absolute best score possible.

Well there's two things that stand out to me immediately. More recently, the tranny video review of LA Noire at Gamespot. Very awkward.

Really?

 

[ultron87]

Dan Hsu reaction to that oft cited Gears of War review pic: http://bitmob.com/articles/inception-is-my-gears-of-war

I think he makes a very fair point that you shouldn't subtract X for this and X for that when scoring a game. And that a game can have flaws and still equal an A+.

 

[Whimsical Phil]

Well there's two things that stand out to me immediately. More recently, the tranny video review of LA Noire at Gamespot. Very awkward.

Why was it awkward? It seemed like a pretty legit review to me.

 

[Patryn]

Well there's two things that stand out to me immediately. More recently, the tranny video review of LA Noire at Gamespot. Very awkward.

So what was wrong with the review? Or is it that you just can't get over yourself and let a person do their job?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

I know what it is. Your post was basically "So you think it's a bad review, huh? I bet THIS and THIS and THIS is why you think that! Well let me tell you, you're wrong!" Thus, a straw man.

Oh right, this actually makes sense. I thought you were referencing using a bad review thread to rail on a game, as opposed to blaming the GAF hype train for peoples inflated excitement for the game. I can see why you took it that way.
I need to stop posting when I'm in a bad mood in the morning, jump to all kinds of conclusions. I'm a nice guy really!
Seriously, my bad.

 

[Interfectum]

Escapist's Dragon Age 2 review

A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.

G4TV's Portal 2 review

I am honored to have reviewed Portal 2, and look forward to playing it again tomorrow.

Dan Hsu's Gears of War review

Control issues (Gears of War has that). A.I. problems (that, too). Bad dialogue or storytelling (yes on both). Linear levels, online lag, limited modes (yup, yup, and yup). (A+)

 

[The Omega Man]

Dan Hsu reaction to that oft cited Gears of War review pic: http://bitmob.com/articles/inception-is-my-gears-of-war

I think he makes a very fair point that you shouldn't subtract X for this and X for that when scoring a game. And that a game can have flaws and still equal an A+.

nah, the review is still terrible, he just tried to be unbiased and failed miserably, he has always have had a hard-on for everything Halo or Gears of War.

 

[Empty]

Well there's two things that stand out to me immediately. More recently, the tranny video review of LA Noire at Gamespot. Very awkward.

that you're so comfortable just throwing this opinion out there makes me sad. so insensitive and vacuous.

 

[Curufinwe]

Well there's two things that stand out to me immediately. More recently, the tranny video review of LA Noire at Gamespot. Very awkward.

Am I missing something, or are you just saying that review was bad based on the appearance of the reviewer?

[EDIT] The video wouldn't load for me on Gamespot, so I watched it on youtube and they really shouldn't allow comments for that video. People are so incredibly awful on youtube.

 

[N4Us]

Forgot the name of it, but one of the worst was one X-Play review of some PS2 RPG that they gave a 1/5 because they'd rather be playing RE4. Guess they were miffed about having to review so many RPGs but it was still pretty unfair.

That is perhaps the strangest thing I've seen in a while, if it's real. Do you know what exactly it is?

It was from a disgruntled employee who apparently snuck it in last minute.

August 18, 1995

GameFan, more so than any other American title covering the gaming industry, has been the greatest proponent of the Japanese market and culture. This is a known fact in the industry and among gamers.

We are also the fastest growing gaming magazine on the market, despite the fact that our cover price is 20% higher than that of our competitors. We are thought of by readers of all gaming titles as the magazine with the highest production quality and editorial integrity. For these reasons, we are the constant target of our competitors.

Our September issue was the aim of sabotage. The intention was to include language in our issue offensive to the Japanese to damage relationships and set our friends against us.

During the production process, text containing various profanities and language offensive to the Japanese culture was woven throughout the text of the issue. We were able to remove the majority of the language. Despite our efforts, one paragraph contained within an editorial made it through the production process. By the time we discovered this, some of the copies were already distributed to retail outlets.

Unfortunately, because our production process largely involves digitized information on disk and it travels through the hands of several outside sources, it is subject to this type of manipulation. We were caught with our guard down, never having expected such an outrageous act. We have put safeguards in place to insure that this will never occur again.

The action was undoubtedly directed to harm GameFan.

We ask that you accept our deepest apologies for any offense that it may have caused. Please consider that the persons responsible for this action intended not only an offense against the Japanese, but against GameFan. This type of motive and behavior should not be condoned.

Carefully consider the circumstances and our integrity and help us maintain it by not reacting against GameFan, but together with GameFan.

Sincerely,

Dave Halverson

Editor In Chief, GameFan Magazine

 

[ultron87]

nah, the review is still terrible, he just tried to be unbiased and failed miserably, he has always have had a hard-on for everything Halo or Gears of War.

So he's biased because he really liked the first game in the series and gave it a positive review?

Was he supposed to mask how much he enjoyed the game and review to some point deducting formula where you take off a point for texture pop-in and 2 for slow matchmaking?

 

[Yuripaw]

MGS4 is unarguable the best game of this generation. Sorry if the awesome went over your head. May you be trolled with MGS4 propaganda and may it annoy you as long as you live.

10/10 - FOREVER.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with that quote. Saying MGS4 having a story worth of a feature film, does not mean they are saying it's the best ever. It just meant it had a narrative worthy of a feature film. Many feature films have shitty stories, so depending on how you read it, there is nothing wrong with the statement.

Any plot sucks around these parts. You constantly hear bitching about everything from MGS to Witcher 2 in terms of story. There is no good stories. Only Silent Hill 2 and perhaps Chrono Trigger if they FF7 kids are sleeping. The rest is bad because it ain't books or The Wire, or some hipster scribble they read one day at a mens room.

This. I had to comment on this also, because at least someone here is rational about MGS4. I really don't agree with all the massive hate that MGS4 gets here on gaf. I remember when I first played it when it came out, I played it for 2 nights until I finished it, and I was really satisfied. Sure, the entire game tried to wrap every loose end into a tight little bow at the end, and the ending may have dragged with the fan service appearance at the end. I can not think of how else I would have wanted it to end though.

Ever since MGS2, I was ready for everything to wrap up in a tight bow like that because the loose ends in the series were beginning to drive me nuts! I guess it was disappointing that everything was basically about

Spoiler

nanomachines

, and I would've preferred they went in a different direction but oh well. It didn't break the game for me.

I still think MGS4 is easily one of the most complete single player experiences on current gen consoles. Very little games give you so many reasons to want to go back and play a game's campaign, but there are so many easter eggs, and unlockables that I still go back and play the game just to have fun with it.

The video review from IGN for Rift is only 3 min long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7iMZjIKKjM

Makes me laugh as I would think that an MMO would have enough content for a little more than 3 minutes worth of review.

IGN video reviews in general are a waste of time. They're all pathetic and short like that. They always just barely scratch the surface of a game with those, and always end with "for the full written review, check out our shitty website".

 

[Count Dookkake]

Pretty much anything for Wii Music.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

So what was wrong with the review? Or is it that you just can't get over yourself and let a person do their job?

The problem was the voice. When the review starts, whoever that is starts talking, and you're like "wait... something's wrong." Then he shows up and you're like "oh..." And it was distracting for the duration of the review. Does that make me an asshole? Maybe. Probably. But c'mon, people... don't pretend like you didn't even flinch.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

This. I had to comment on this also, because at least someone here is rational about MGS4.

Vigilant Walrus says that MGS4 is "unarguable [sic] the best game of this generation. Sorry if the awesome went over your head." and it's rational. Huh.

 

[linko9]

It was from a disgruntled employee who apparently snuck it in last minute.

OK, that's sort of hilarious. Perhaps shidoshi knows the full story?

 

[The Omega Man]

So he's biased because he really liked the first game in the series and gave it a positive review?

Was he supposed to mask how much he enjoyed the game and review to some point deducting formula where you take off a point for texture pop-in and 2 for slow matchmaking?

that's the problem, by reading his review, you wouldn't think he liked it that much, just read that review to someone who doesn't know about it and then ask him/her what would he/she thinks the score was. I don't think anyone would guess A+.
And yes, the dude is fanboy he likes his Halo and his Gears, nothing wrong with that, but it always shows in his perfect scores of those franchises.

 

[ultron87]

The problem was the voice. When the review starts, whoever that is starts talking, and you're like "wait... something's wrong." Then he shows up and you're like "oh..." And it was distracting for the duration of the review. Does that make me an asshole? Maybe. Probably. But c'mon, people... don't pretend like you didn't even flinch.

Fuck off. Seriously.

Imagine if you were saying that it was the color of someone's skin that made you flinch.

 

[Roto13]

If you consider Yahtzee a real reviewer, he's pretty bad at it. That Brawl review where he didn't seem to realize that you can unlock all of the characters and stages by playing Vs. mode and you never have to touch Subspace Emmisary mode if you don't want to comes to mind. And his review of The World Ends With You that pretty much went "JRPGs are generic and so is this one because it's a JRPG and that's what they are." I guess that's what happens when you go into a game thinking "Now, how can I complain about this?"

I'd really love to see him discuss Godhand more and more importantly his fellow staffer calling him out.

The fact is that I think the game is a piece of shit, and nearly everyone in the office agrees with me. Mark Ryan happens to like the game a fair bit, and on some level I can see why.

Outside of you and me, who in the office has actually played the game?

Ha ha ha ha, I didn't know he did a blog post after. That's awesome.

I didn't particularly like IGN before that review, but it is the review that made me stop giving their opinions any attention whatsoever. Even if it is one review by one staff member, that's one staff member that shouldn't be paid to write about video games. Same with that Joystiq review of Conduit 2, but at least that was written by a random guest contributor.

that's the problem, by reading his review, you wouldn't think he liked it that much, just read that review to someone who doesn't know about it and then ask him/her what would he/she thinks the score was. I don't think anyone would guess A+.
And yes, the dude is fanboy he likes his Halo and his Gears, nothing wrong with that, but it always shows in his perfect scores of those franchises.

This was the first Gears of War game ever. How could he have been a fanboy of the series at that point?

 

[insert_username_here]

IGN MGS4.

Most reviewers seem incapable of giving a big game a bad score, that's the big difference between this and other media. Music magazines or film reviewers won't be afraid to take a shit on a new Coldplay album or a Transformers movie, but the gaming equivalents always get a 7+ despite their frequent shitness. If you think MGS4 deserves a perfect score there is something wrong with you. None of the big outlets know what the fuck they are talking about most of the time.

I still have no idea who the fuck the patriots are, and I've played the game twice.

 

[Ushojax]

T
I still think MGS4 is easily one of the most complete single player experiences on current gen consoles.

See I just don't get this. There's about 5 hours of gameplay in there split up into 10 minute chunks with 20 minute cutscenes between sections. For 75% of the game time you don't need to touch the controller. It's unbelievable that so few of the gaming 'experts' paid to review this game didn't pick up on something so glaring. If you enjoy MGS4 then more power to you, but you can't deny it's an awkwardly constructed game.

 

[Despera]

Escapist Dragon Age II.

This is the only review on that website of Dragon Age 2 that actually counts.

 

[ultron87]

that's the problem, by reading his review, you wouldn't think he liked it that much, just read that review to someone who doesn't know about it and then ask him/her what would he/she thinks the score was. I don't think anyone would guess A+.
And yes, the dude is fanboy he likes his Halo and his Gears, nothing wrong with that, but it always shows in his perfect scores of those franchises.

I'd read the second half of the review that says all the reasons he loves the game and how they overcome the flaws shown in the first half and not be surprised by the score at all.

 

[JWong]

Dan Hsu

Why wasn't this the first reply!

 

[dragonlife]

GameSpot's Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn review (6.0)

The biggest problem with Radiant Dawn is that it proves just how firmly rooted Fire Emblem is in its ways; it makes absolutely no effort at all to adapt and change from its predecessors. Despite being a Wii game, it doesn't make any attempt to use any of the system's strengths, such as Mii support, online support, or motion controls and pointing, even though the advantages of such integration should be plainly obvious.

 

[NeoUltima]

A bunch of IGN reviews.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I guess this kind of fits here as well. Arthur Gies theory about a shadowy cabal of God Hand fanboys in the gaming media who conspired to overrate Vanquish was pretty hilarious. Probably one of the worst things I've heard coming from a professional reviewer.

 

[Yuripaw]

See I just don't get this. There's about 5 hours of gameplay in there split up into 10 minute chunks with 20 minute cutscenes between sections. For 75% of the game time you don't need to touch the controller.

Again, to each his own... I value storyline in video games more than anything sometimes. If you don't want to see the cutscenes in a MGS game, then you shouldn't be playing MGS. I enjoy those cutscenes, and I want hours of narrative, because I enjoy good storytelling. I don't care about how deep a game can get, if I love the story, it ranks high in my book. For example, favorite games consist of: MGS series, Earthbound and Mother 3, Persona 4, Deadly Premonition, Mass Effect 1 and 2.

None of these games are especially deep or good in terms of gameplay...but I love em cuz I love the story.

Even in terms of gameplay though, you may have only gotten 5 hours of gameplay out of it, but with the amount of replay value there was, I probably got at least 20-30 hours of fun out of it, and still feel like going back. Also, I am probably one of the few that enjoyed the Metal Gear online multiplayer that other people shrugged off. I don't know what people were expecting, and why they were all shocked and disappointed with how that mode was. It was metal gear...and it was online. I got exactly what I was expecting.

 

[DryvBy]

Well there's two things that stand out to me immediately. More recently, the tranny video review of LA Noire at Gamespot. Very awkward.

And this:

Which person is a tranny? And picture of this person. I can't visit GameSpot at work.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Fuck off. Seriously.

Imagine if you were saying that it was the color of someone's skin that made you flinch.

I'm not weirded out by what someone was born with, just when someone tries to change what they naturally are. There's a big difference between your analogy and what I said.

But this is getting way off topic, and I apologize to the OP. I shouldn't have brought it up, and I'm calling it quits here.

 

[Man God]

GameSpot's Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn review (6.0)

IGN brought that up too, but gave it a better score. Tonally it'd be like throwing Avatar's into Mass Effect 2.

That score is almost criminal though.

 

[SamBishop]

wow, reading all the opinions about mana khemia for psp, made me want to play the ps2 version of that game... I played it on the PSP and i really liked... I suppose its because I dont know how much better the original version is...

Ignorance is definitely bliss. If you don't know all the loading isn't supposed to be there, then it's not nearly as bad. I can only assume that things are much better if you got the PSN version too, of course.

Honestly, a game shouldn't have to pause to load text. It's much, much better on the PS2, and if anyone likes the whole crafting mechanic of the Atelier series, for instance, they should absolutely check it out. Gust tends to do some really interesting things with really basic concepts (in this case, it's a limited amount of time to juggle school work and light outside exploration, all while crafting like crazy).

 

[mollipen]

OK, that's sort of hilarious. Perhaps shidoshi knows the full story?

Nothing to do with a disgruntled employee, and everything to do with an employee doing layout who made incredibly poor decisions when it came to what to use as filler text.

 

[jett]

Any reviewer that gave MGS4 a perfect score.

 

[Struct09]

Tommy Tallarico had some reviews that probably shaved a few years off of my life

 

[SneakyStephan]

You should just rename this thread to 'IGN and gametrailers suck,and Jim Sterling should get his pen/keyboard shoved up his t-shirt bathing lame-o ass

 

[PhantomOfTheKnight]

If you consider Yahtzee a real reviewer, he's pretty bad at it.

Nope; even he doesn't consider himself an actual reviewer. He prefers to be called a critic insstead.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

If you consider Yahtzee a real reviewer, he's pretty bad at it. That Brawl review where he didn't seem to realize that you can unlock all of the characters and stages by playing Vs. mode and you never have to touch Subspace Emmisary mode if you don't want to comes to mind. And his review of The World Ends With You that pretty much went "JRPGs are generic and so is this one because it's a JRPG and that's what they are." I guess that's what happens when you go into a game thinking "Now, how can I complain about this?"

Yahtzee is weird. Sometimes he's spot-on, but other times he just rambles on about the most nonsensical tangential bullshit, usually when it's a popular game that he doesn't have any interest in really reviewing. His Brawl review was full of baffling contradictions and ended up as a rant about how multiplayer games were bad because he could lose at them (and he also asserted that he was a "real reviewer" in it, a stance he flip-flops on). His Halo review was just "heh, Halo is a game for dudebros and is really hyped, but it's actually a really average FPS!" His Uncharted review was more about Uncharted fanboys and how Nathan Drake shoots foreigners than anything meaningful about the game.

The worst example I can think of, however, isn't a popular game at all. It was freaking Monster Hunter Tri, and it was pretty bad. He insisted that the zone structure (a deliberate design decision in all MH games) was a limitation of the Wii and thus Nintendo's fault. He tried to fight a monster that you're told not to fight... by standing 100 feet away from it on a beach while it was swimming underwater, and then complaining that it wasn't coming to fight him. He only got to the end of the tutorial section by fighting the Great Jaggi before quitting, because he was told that the Jaggi would appear during free roaming. He didn't even play the real game (monster hunting), and in his "serious mode" Extra Punctuation follow-up, said that it took him 3 hours to get that far (I was totally new to the series when I got Tri, and it took me less than a third of that time), then made up a total lie by claiming that Monster Hunters fans told him the "tutorial section" was 20 hours long (he had already beaten the tutorial section when he killed the Great Jaggi) and using that as a serious argument, not joking at all. His fanbase took it at face value too, and upon finally being convinced it was a total falsehood fell back on, "Well, he was just making an example." To top it all off he snuck in another jab at MH3 during his NMH2 (IIRC) review by using it as an example of an HD game that's being shrunk to Wii limitations (there was no true HD Monster Hunter and still isn't).

 

[giggas]

Dan Hsu reaction to that oft cited Gears of War review pic: http://bitmob.com/articles/inception-is-my-gears-of-war

I think he makes a very fair point that you shouldn't subtract X for this and X for that when scoring a game. And that a game can have flaws and still equal an A+.

You know, I still don't buy it. It's cool to knock stuff like story and characters in a game and still give a game a perfect score. We're reviewing a game here, not a movie so how the game plays and is designed is the key here. However when he goes into the stuff about how Dom keeps dying, I'm sorry, that is a game breaking material. For me personally, Dom being worthless single handedly made me stop playing the game. I couldn't possibly ever give Gears a perfect score, personally. In fact, I'm one of the few people that hates Gears and that was one of the huge reasons.

I guess it shows how the numbers/rating system is broken. Had Hsu written that review and simply given the game his highest recommendation without a number score, that would be fine. Unfortunately number scores ARE looking for just how perfect a game is. It's like giving a student an A+ for a class just because you really enjoyed having that person around in class yet they never turned in their homework and flunked half of their tests.

 

[mikeGFG]

okay not the worst reviews, not by any means, but I have to get this off my chest:

I fucking hate the puns in every single gametrailers review.

IS DESTINY SHARD DESTINED TO RISE TO THE TOP? OR DOES IT SHATTER INTO LITTLE.. shards. FIND OUT

 

[dimb]

Maybe not the worst review, but this guy likes his use of hyperbole.

"This is the game Metroid fans have waited decades for."

"It features breathtaking visuals and a rich storyline that will keep you guessing until the very end."

Talk about cliche. I was bored 3 minutes in.

This one is hilarious.

 

[IC_Champion]

I was going to make this thread, but oh well.

WALL OF SHAME

Chris Roper (IGN): GOD HAND (Partybabyz is better)
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/738/738253p1.html

Hilary Goldstein (IGN): Grand Theft Auto 4 (Oscar-worthy)
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p1.html

Jim Sterling (Destructoid): Vanquish (Formulaic and shitty controls!)
http://www.destructoid.com/review-vanquish-186214.phtml

Greg Tito (The Escapist): Dragon Age II (What videogames should be, not like this)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8701-Dragon-Age-II-Review


Incomplete entry: ??? (IGN): Football Manager 09 (You don't even play soccer!)
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/936/936295p1.html (non-review)


Have to add more.

I like how you label it as Wall of Shame. Also, God Hand got a bad rap and GTA 4 is "Oscar-Worthy". Do games win Oscars?

 

[Special J]

Dan Hsu reaction to that oft cited Gears of War review pic: http://bitmob.com/articles/inception-is-my-gears-of-war

I think he makes a very fair point that you shouldn't subtract X for this and X for that when scoring a game. And that a game can have flaws and still equal an A+.

doesnt matter people will always take stuff out of context dan's review is great because its a "despite these flaws its still the best game at the time", and really gears was incredible when it was first released nothing even came close in third person shooters.

 

[darkpaladinmfc]

This is pretty bad (GameTrailers compilation).

 

[Snuggles]

Gameinformer: Modern Warfare 2

the bulk of the review is just typical, nondescript knob-slobbing but there was a section about the reviewer's response to Infinity Ward's cynical attempt to get their game in the press. it was juvenile and goofy, but they managed to have an impact on this particular reviewer:

Upon starting a new game, players are given the choice to opt out of a morally gray mission with no penalty to their Achievements or Trophies, and with no effect on the story. The option is there for a good reason – the mission in question makes the player a part of truly heinous acts. If you’re on the fence about letting your child play this M-rated game, this will likely push you over the edge. On the other hand, the mission draws the morality of war and espionage into sharp focus in a way that simply shooting the bad guys cannot. It is presented and handled in a mature way that avoids feeling tasteless.

By choosing to skip this controversial scene, you’ll be missing the most emotionally affecting moment I’ve experienced in a game this year, and possibly ever. The subject matter is mature in a fashion that goes far beyond a topless lady or a messily curb-stomped alien; it deals with issues like the relative worth of a human life and the idea of heart-rendingly difficult sacrifices for the greater good. If this mission felt in any way exploitative or tasteless, I’d be the first to call for Infinity Ward’s head. The skill with which it is handled in the game, however, makes me proud that our medium can address such weighty issues without resorting to adolescent black-and-white absolutes.

hyperbole overdose

 

[dragonlife]

This is pretty bad (GameTrailers compilation).

Wow, this was hilarious and kind of painful to watch.

 

[Ledsen]

Oh right, this actually makes sense. I thought you were referencing using a bad review thread to rail on a game, as opposed to blaming the GAF hype train for peoples inflated excitement for the game. I can see why you took it that way.
I need to stop posting when I'm in a bad mood in the morning, jump to all kinds of conclusions. I'm a nice guy really!
Seriously, my bad.

No sweat bro!

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Yahtzee is weird. Sometimes he's spot-on, but other times he just rambles on about the most nonsensical tangential bullshit, usually when it's a popular game that he doesn't have any interest in really reviewing. His Brawl review was full of baffling contradictions and ended up as a rant about how multiplayer games were bad because he could lose at them (and he also asserted that he was a "real reviewer" in it, a stance he flip-flops on). His Halo review was just "heh, Halo is a game for dudebros and is really hyped, but it's actually a really average FPS!" His Uncharted review was more about Uncharted fanboys and how Nathan Drake shoots foreigners than anything meaningful about the game.

The worst example I can think of, however, isn't a popular game at all. It was freaking Monster Hunter Tri, and it was pretty bad. He insisted that the zone structure (a deliberate design decision in all MH games) was a limitation of the Wii and thus Nintendo's fault. He tried to fight a monster that you're told not to fight... by standing 100 feet away from it on a beach while it was swimming underwater, and then complaining that it wasn't coming to fight him. He only got to the end of the tutorial section by fighting the Great Jaggi before quitting, because he was told that the Jaggi would appear during free roaming. He didn't even play the real game (monster hunting), and in his "serious mode" Extra Punctuation follow-up, said that it took him 3 hours to get that far (I was totally new to the series when I got Tri, and it took me less than a third of that time), then made up a total lie by claiming that Monster Hunters fans told him the "tutorial section" was 20 hours long (he had already beaten the tutorial section when he killed the Great Jaggi) and using that as a serious argument, not joking at all. His fanbase took it at face value too, and upon finally being convinced it was a total falsehood fell back on, "Well, he was just making an example." To top it all off he snuck in another jab at MH3 during his NMH2 (IIRC) review by using it as an example of an HD game that's being shrunk to Wii limitations (there was no true HD Monster Hunter and still isn't).

Yep, that was awful. Worst thing about it was all the people who hadn't even played the game popping up to do their usual "You obviously don't get Yahtzee lol, butthurt fanboys lol" patting themselves on the back bullshit. I'd say they are the ones who don't get him because when he actually knows what hes talking about he's generally pretty good.