JonathanEx
Member
jay said:
Hamlet would taste like ass.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Worst reviews EVER
- Thread starter Guybrush Threepwood
- Start date
Hamlet would taste like ass.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
"Professional" sites are usually the worst for good reviews. Problem is by the time a decent site reviews the game there's a chance I've already bought it and played through it.
sonicmj1 said:
1 and 2) You're right. But you can only read so many of Roger's reviews and still say "hey wait, this isn't really a review" before people start to wonder. My issue is we are now arguing about what content fits well into what we deem a review, as opposed to debating the quality of the content. Have you read book reviews in classy magazines that tell stories and cover multiple books at once? Reviews don't all take similar shapes so I think "what is a review" can be an entirely different and long debate. Once we get into form, I can play the snob card and say what you think are reviews are consumer bullshit and the New Yorker does real reviews. Roger's is a proponent of new games journalism and so his review is yet another beast, but I disagree with the idea that his take on reviews is wrong.
Forkball said:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Yes, I'm mixing plays.
Rapping Granny
Banned
The one that got me pissed the most was the Eurogamer Eden review. such bullshit.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
truly101 said:
You're actually right on the money. I used to know someone who was close to the mag (not a writer), and basically the writers there intentionally give games high scores so that more and more publishers advertise with them. The mag was nothing more than just a PR tool.
Not sure if anyone is interested, but Shawn Elliot recently put together a big discussion on game reviews, it's a long read, but I felt that it gave a good insight on game reviews : http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2008/12/symposium-part-one-review-scores.html
A big chunk of the discussion focuses on whether or not a score should even be given, editorial duties, pr interference, and what the purpose of reviews even is.
It's quite long, but a decent read if you're really interested.
A big chunk of the discussion focuses on whether or not a score should even be given, editorial duties, pr interference, and what the purpose of reviews even is.
It's quite long, but a decent read if you're really interested.
1up's Omega Five review always left me baffled.
...And that's it. I can't think of anything but the reviewer playing no more than ten minutes of this game. He went out of the way to explain certain mechanics and kinda demonstrate that he knew some of the genre's terminology, and then went on to call what is possibly the easiest commercial shooter this decade "ludicrous."
review said:
review said:
...And that's it. I can't think of anything but the reviewer playing no more than ten minutes of this game. He went out of the way to explain certain mechanics and kinda demonstrate that he knew some of the genre's terminology, and then went on to call what is possibly the easiest commercial shooter this decade "ludicrous."
jesus, you can find a lot of poorly written, barely edited reviews if you spend some time on ign. i was just reading this orcs & elves ds review:
http://ds.ign.com/articles/836/836903p1.html
in any case, this sentence doesn't make much sense - something is obviously missing.
DUH
1. cell phones
2. nintendo ds
so yes, i guess, the ds version plays better than ANY version already on the market.
the review is also full of redundant or awkward uses of "the":
http://ds.ign.com/articles/836/836903p1.html
that's the opening line. as the world of games advances through its years? really? that... doesn't mean anything.
even though its simplified gameplay WHAT? what does the gameplay do? or did he mean "it's" as in: even though it is simplified gameplay...? but again, WHAT is he referring to that is simplified gameplay? did he mean to say "it is simplified gameplay-wise"? no one really knows. maybe he meant "DESPITE the simplified gameplay". but that's not how you use "even though" and the middle part doesn't work anymore if you use "despite".
in any case, this sentence doesn't make much sense - something is obviously missing.
what exactly is that semicolon for? the two statements are not related in any way, there's no reason to link them, they're separate enough to be individual sentences. i suspect the reviewer might have been trying to make a point here, about the game being so old-school and low-key in its presentation that it sneaks under people's radars. but then the sentences should have been re-worded and conjoined by a conjunction like "because" or "therefore". the whole point of using a semicolon in a case like this would be to join two statements with a self-explanatory connection when there's no need for a conjunction. yet if the reviewer WAS trying to make a point here there absolutely IS a need for a conjunction - if not, then there's no need for a semicolon either, since the two statements have no obvious connection.
the second "it" is redundant. if you start with "what it lacks in..." you have to follow it up with "...it makes up for in...". the additional "it" is only needed if you have two separate statements like "the game lacks X but it makes up for it with Y".
jesus christ. get an editor.
okay, let me get this straight: "every step ... as well as every rotation is in 90 degree increments". steps and rotations are in 90 degree increments... hm... wait a second: how can a step in any direction be a 90 degree increment? only ROTATIONS are happening in 90 degree increments. i'm playing the game right now and a step forward is just that: a step forward. it's a straight line. that's all there is to it. there's no "angle" to forward, backward or sideways movement. every rotation in every direction happens in 90 degree increments - and that's it. movement IS grid-based but also completely unrelated to turning or any sort of "degree increment"
a bunch of... what?
oh? is this helping:
DUH
OH GOD
the presentation of "Orcs & Elves". ITS presentation. that's possessive. since this is the title of a game that ends with a plural noun an apostrophe is needed. "Orcs & Elves' corner-cutting presentation".
REMEMEMMEMMEMEMBER
here's a list of all the platforms orcs & elves has been released on:
1. cell phones
2. nintendo ds
so yes, i guess, the ds version plays better than ANY version already on the market.
let's shorten the first part of this sentence: "the game ... goes against the grain that ... wouldn't work on any other system...". now, what does this mean? if it goes "against the grain that wouldn't work on any other system" doesn't that mean that it WOULD work on any other system? he probably meant for this to be two separate statements: "the game's approach goes against the grain. that probably wouldn't work on any other system..." or "the game's approach goes against the grain which probably wouldn't work on any other system..."
the review is also full of redundant or awkward uses of "the":
who says "roll THE eyes" and not "roll YOUR eyes"?
Gamespot's initial Shenmue review...6.8.
Changed to 7.8 after a huge uproar:
Editor's note: The preceding review is a re-evaluation of Shenmue on GameSpot - the original score overlooked certain significant features that, after consideration, invalidated the original score that the game received. GameSpot regrets the error.
Changed to 7.8 after a huge uproar:
Editor's note: The preceding review is a re-evaluation of Shenmue on GameSpot - the original score overlooked certain significant features that, after consideration, invalidated the original score that the game received. GameSpot regrets the error.
Night_Trekker
Member
jarosh said:
...do you have to have any qualifications at all to write for IGN? Christ.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
I don't think it's been mentioned but any of Gerstmann's Gamespot video reviews. He basically rambles on for five minutes, repeating like three lines in different ways, and summarizes the game by reading the wikipedia entry. The epitome of bad at your job.
Stalfos said:
Yeah, having just read the Eurogamer review, I take issue with some of his opinions. I'd have agreed with his assessment of the controls had I only played the game for an hour or two. The traditional GC controls were ingrained in my mind, and it took a bit to get accustomed to using the analog stick in conjunction with the pointer. Once it clicked, though, I found the new controls to be superior in many ways. Most importantly, it became much easier to pull off precise shots at any distance against multiple targets with nearly any weapon.
I do think waggling the remote to reload is a bad idea, especially when you're taking heat. However, there's a much better alternative with the d-pad. Auto-knife kicks ass, too. It's not always reliable when facing multiple opponents at close range or slashing at an enemy's eyes (switch to manual for those occasions), but for everything else, it's great.
If there's one legitimate problem with RE4 Wii controls, it's the d-pad camera control. Without analog control and precision, it's worthless. Fortunately, there's little need to ever adjust the camera.
Zen said:
If I may...that's only half the review. The other half talked about how great the game is. That missing half justified that score, imo.
I felt the game deserved the highest score possible (our 10 does not mean it's "perfect" btw), but I didn't want to gloss over its problems, either.
Here's the full review: http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3154958&p=4&sec=REVIEWS
Thanks.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
Every non-Giant Bomb Banjo review.
vireland said:
I was referring to the end of Gears of War 1. For my review of that game, I wasn't taking into consideration how the series as a whole may or may not eventually conclude. I just didn't like the whole
"The Lightmass bomb didn't kill them all! There's one left..." + jumping off a train last second before it derails
This image is really a poster for what the gaming media has become in many corners of the Internet and print. It's like he disregards the flaws he found and just ends up jumping on the bandwagon because it's safe.Zen said:
"This road has so many bumps on it that I had to get a realignment, but at least I got to my destination! A+"
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
jarosh said:
For all your valid criticisms against IGN, your capitalisation is really lacking.
Calcaneus said:
Thanks (and thanks mr_square, Sho_Nuff82, etc). That was what I was going for...I don't approach these scientifically. It's just how I *feel* in the end that determines my score.
In the whole "scores" vs. "no scores" reviews argument, I've always been pro-score, but I wonder....
Haunted
Member
Hsu's review has no place in this thread, and I don't even like Gears that much. He explains his stance clearly in the second part of the review. If the image were the whole thing, you guys would've had a point.
Che's PDZ (god that last paragraph), Halverson's Sonic 06 and Paper Mario and that recent Soccer Manager review from IGN's sports editor are far more appropriate here.
Someone post a link to that Eurogamer Eden review, I haven't seen that yet.
Che's PDZ (god that last paragraph), Halverson's Sonic 06 and Paper Mario and that recent Soccer Manager review from IGN's sports editor are far more appropriate here.
Someone post a link to that Eurogamer Eden review, I haven't seen that yet.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
No, it's a poster for all thats wrong with the gaming public. If it's really that hard to understand why a game can get the highest score there is without being flawless this medium will *never* advance.Diablos said:
xS1TH L0RDx
Banned
every review Giancarlo Varanini does.
benjipwns
Banned
I haven't played the game but: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/pixeljunk-eden-reviewHaunted said:
I can see why a fan might take issue with a review that starts:
Private Hoffman
Banned
Son of Godzilla said:
No game is perfect.
"10's" seldom (should) have the issues that riddled the original Gears of War, however.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
grandjedi6 said:
There's not a facepalm big enough for this.
Haunted said:
Agreed. Many of the peeps calling Shoe out are the same fuckers we all complain about who never read a review and go right to the number (er...letter). Don't get me wrong: I don't think anyone is above criticism and I wouldn't necessarily point to Dan's review as how it should be done, but I never understood why people got their panties in a wad over it when he clearly expresses what he likes and dislikes about the game.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
Yea, that's completely embarassing. Especially considering there are plenty of legitimate reasons to rip TTYD apart for.Regulus Tera said:
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Argh. Not only did they review two games in one paragraph, they rated Nightmare Creatures higher?cartman414 said:
Worst review I ever happened across was a random syndicated review of the first Star Ocean game on the PS. It was rated poorly "because the characters had big heads".
nincompoop said:
Well, the score was better than I remember it being, the actual review was worse than I recalled. Fucking terrible review. The fact that he complains about being the kids and having to collect spheres shows you have little he knows about the game.
ShadowgeistX
Member
Another vote for IGN's God Hand review. Horrendous.
Honorable mention goes to Gamespot with their FE: Radiant Dawn review. Lack of mii support where it's painfully obvious, etc.
Honorable mention goes to Gamespot with their FE: Radiant Dawn review. Lack of mii support where it's painfully obvious, etc.
Add me to the ones picking the GI Paper Mario: TTYD review. I love the magazine, but that was a horrible review. Someone needs to tell Jeremy and Lisa that the whole point of reviews is for it to be based in their opinion. That is why people read reviews, to see what that person thinks about the game. Scoring a game based on what you think the general public will think. Just pathetic, and it calls into doubt the quality of all future reviews from those editors since you don't know if they are basing their review on what they think or what they assume we will think.
Zen said:
2nd post wins the thread. That was easily the worst review I've read, ever. I think being blissfully ignorant to the problems would be better, but to admit there's problems in critical areas of the game, just to write them off later is plain ridiculous. Factor also it became a clear indication where that publication was going, and single-handedly crippled their integrity to the point where when they did their other lame articles people were easily able to call out bias. That one review alone caused so much tarnishing it's incredible.
There's really no justification for that. Even if the game had a lot of "oh shit" moments, when controls for one are in trouble, to write that off and give a company a free ride is insane because it's not going to give any motive to the devs to not release half-fast shit.
No game with the issues that Gears of War had should be getting a 10. If there are significant areas in which there obviously could be a great deal of improvement, you should not be giving it the highest score on the scale. Had a game come out the day after that review that was the same, but with all those issues fixed it would be significantly better, but still receive the same score. Basically, the score would be unable to convey the difference in quality between the two titles.Grecco said:
The problem isn't so much in the text. The writing's fine. It's how they use their scale that is flawed. It doesn't convey as much information as it should.
Admittedly, that doesn't qualify it for the 'worst review ever', but it's annoying.
Slavik81 said:
That's a crazy scenario, though...no offense. Let's say you felt Mario 64 deserves a 10. But then a day later, they come out with an improved version with a completely perfect camera, better swimming controls, and sharper graphics. Is that first 10 a mistake then?
Bottom line...a game can have problems. It can have a LOT of problems. But just like how much you like a game is a subjective thing...so can how much the problems bother you. All those negatives in that review are issues I felt obligated to write about. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a responsible reviewer, and I'd be ignoring any faults just so I can justify the 10 that I want to give it. I really don't think anyone would agree that approach.
So for example...stuff like the matchmaking problems didn't make it a less fun multiplayer experience for me, cause I can still get most of the same experience with just my friends. I loved co-op. I loved single-player. It had issues, but I still thought the game was completely awesome.
Zen said:
Yuck. This should get an award for most terrible review ever. I don't care how fun and awesome the reviewer felt in the second half of the review. With faults like this, no game, and I mean no game should recieve a 10. If its fun and awesome, but has flaws, then there is nothing wrong with a solid B or 8 or whatever. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
This whole idea of a "game can't get a 10 with that many flaws" suggests that Dan calculated the score with some actual arithmetic.
I cant speak for Shoe, but I assume the scores are a product of a games gut feeling it can give you. I know I LOVED Gears of War, and it would take some serious game breaking (ok, the online is trash, but Im talking singleplayer) shit to knock me down from one of the highest scores.
And besides, thats not even the full text.
I cant speak for Shoe, but I assume the scores are a product of a games gut feeling it can give you. I know I LOVED Gears of War, and it would take some serious game breaking (ok, the online is trash, but Im talking singleplayer) shit to knock me down from one of the highest scores.
And besides, thats not even the full text.