Support NeoGAF

[BlazeHedgehog]

That's probably because Dave has never worked for Game Informer.

Ahahaha, sorry. I've been up since 5am.

I mean PLAY Magazine.

 

[cuyahoga]

http://www.pgnx.net/reviews.php?page=full&id=12763

Hell, pretty much anything on that site qualifies.

http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2009-10-21/borderlands-xbox-360.aspx
read it..

The guy says "xxxtreme" like 15 times in the review. Honestly after reading it I can't understand how somebody could get paid for writing something so completely terrible. Do yourself a favor and read it :lol

He uses the term repeatedly for a reason, not because of a short vocabulary; it's pretty fucking blatant too.. And it's a very well-written review, despite that it stomps all over your favorite game or whatever.

 

[cuyahoga]

erg, double post.

 

[WrenchNinja]

I can't name a specific Tim Rogers review.

 

[Boss Man]

GTAIV is the worst in my book. I don't understand how everyone rated that game so high. I'd rather see a great game get a terrible review than a terrible game get a great review. The former might cost the developers money, but the latter costs me money.

It's too much of a coincidence for them to have all rated it perfect or near-perfect, which makes it obvious that game reviews are flawed. So in a sense, GTAIV managed to kill any respect I had for video game reviews. I just read the content and try not to get angry at the buzzwords now, the numbers seem completely meaningless.

 

[AniHawk]

GTAIV is the worst in my book. I don't understand how everyone rated that game so high. I'd rather see a great game get a terrible review than a terrible game get a great review. The former might cost the developers money, but the latter costs me money.

It's too much of a coincidence for them to have all rated it perfect or near-perfect, which makes it obvious that game reviews are flawed. So in a sense, GTAIV managed to kill any respect I had for video game reviews. I just read the content and try not to get angry at the buzzwords now, the numbers seem completely meaningless.

Yeah, GTA IV was particularly undeserving of its praise.

 

[Slavik81]

Oscar worthy review.

The IGN review of GTAIV was definitely the most egregious example of a total lack of perspective. When I first saw it, I thought it was a silly exaggeration. After I played the game, I realized the reviewers were insane.

 

[Cipherr]

Gamespot's review of Savage: Battle for Newerth, which was frankly a brilliant game, that became the victim of the lowest form of journalism a game can suffer. Now when I mention it was Gamespot who did this, why are so many of you not surprised?


Basically the Gamespot reviewer only put a couple of hours into the game before slapping a paltry 5.4 review score on it. The developer, S2 games however checked said reviewers playtime on their servers, and called bullshit to the internet at large. It forced a re-review and a higher score.



Tycho goes into detail over it here http://www.penny-arcade.com/2003/9/22/

WOW! Savage was a great game. I had no idea this happened. I stopped playing it FINALLY a bit back when its sequel came out but didnt grab me like the original. Props to them for calling the guy out. Savage was a great game. Mixed a 3rd person action/FPS with a strategy RTS like gameplay. I suck at RTS's, all of them, but like them anyway. I played alot of savage because a capable RTS player could be your teams commander while you and 30 others could be the 'units' carrying out the commanders orders building your base and upgrading your available units and finally assaulting the enemy. Fucking amazing concept that I am REALLY sad hasnt gained a fuckton of traction in PC gaming. I would kill small animals for a new game in this cross genre.

 

[olimpia84]

IGN's review of GTA4 is one of the worst reviews ever. Great game, but it's not perfect.

 

[Luigiv]

I wouldn't be able to find the link but I once read a review of Metroid Prime that gave it a 30% or something with the most horrible reasoning.

 

[WreckTheLaw]

A lot of what's coming up here is a discrepancy between what people think a game should be rated vs what it was rated. Is that as bad as a poorly written review? Is it worse than a review that has review text that doesn't match the score?

 

[PataHikari]

Reporting for duty.

Holy crap.

I mean.

Holy Crap.

I know that this on the first page of an old thread but I mean what.

It's like all the terrible things about video game reviews, hatred of anything with color or whimsy, stupid "hurr hurr 2D sucks" and genre elitism blended together to make a milkshake of terrible.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

What game was it where an IGN review referred to Jellyfish as a non-animal?

 

[PataHikari]

I can't name a specific Tim Rogers review.

Tim Rogers is excluded from these lists because otherwise every single word he's ever published would be on it.

 

[mileS]

He uses the term repeatedly for a reason, not because of a short vocabulary; it's pretty fucking blatant too.. And it's a very well-written review, despite that it stomps all over your favorite game or whatever.

You don't even need to play Borderlands to understand that the review was terrible. If you think it was "well-written" you are insane. You can't be serious...

oh wait, you're probably Scott Jones.

 

[Red]

GTAIV is the worst in my book. I don't understand how everyone rated that game so high. I'd rather see a great game get a terrible review than a terrible game get a great review. The former might cost the developers money, but the latter costs me money.

It's too much of a coincidence for them to have all rated it perfect or near-perfect, which makes it obvious that game reviews are flawed. So in a sense, GTAIV managed to kill any respect I had for video game reviews. I just read the content and try not to get angry at the buzzwords now, the numbers seem completely meaningless.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Chris R]

GTAIV isn't perfect, but it isn't deserving of a lot of the hate this forum loves to throw at it either. It is a solid 8 or 9 game, sadly that can't be said of most of the games that receive the scores of 8 and 9 from various reviewers.

 

[Shrennin]

Holy crap.

I mean.

Holy Crap.

I know that this on the first page of an old thread but I mean what.

It's like all the terrible things about video game reviews, hatred of anything with color or whimsy, stupid "hurr hurr 2D sucks" and genre elitism blended together to make a milkshake of terrible.

That's one of the reviews on the first page that made me regret even looking at this thread.

;_;

Opinions apparently can be wrong. And very wrong they are.

 

[Tain]

Ultimately, it's a game that never stops feeling like a game, and as a result, the entire experience is as flat as 2.5 liters of Mountain Dew that someone left the cap off of (definitely not xxxtreme, dude).

Regardless of what I thought of my time with Borderlands (it's aight i guess), the review's offensive garbage for docking a game for "feeling like a game." Heaven fucking forbid.

 

[jufonuk]

IGN's review of Guilty Gear accent core where they gave it a 5.9 because they judged it how the Wii remote+ nunchuk controller is the "primary control mode" BUT they also mention if you play it with a classic controller it gets the same score that the PS2 version got which was an 8.5.
Hell the second paragraph told you that if you have a classic controller to read the PS2 review instead.

Epic LULZ

Brought the Game anyway and I Love it

 

[Kimosabae]

The problem I find when it comes judging video games critically is we're all so fond of general quality as critics. In video games, the aspects of quality are a fair bit easier to measure relative to other mediums -- graphics, sound, content quantity, etc. As such, more subjective blurs such as "fun" tend to cause conflicts and dilemmas within ourselves and readers looking for hardline analyses of the medium -- as if a mere single person's opinion on a matter could truly make that possible. "Fun" is a non-qualitative, subjectivity, but the irony lies in the gaming community's insistence on this element being the defining measure of a quality game. There's the conflict.

It's hard to deny games like Gears or GTA IV are less than quality games. In part, their large budgets demand it so. But once certain aspects of these games come into play that don't match the real or projected quality of the rest of the game (Gear's online, GTA IVs... whatever), people's orientations of what "fun" is come into play. While one person's orientation allows him to have "fun" in spite of -- another is blaming the game's qualitative faults for his own lack thereof. This social fact alone proves that the only absolute element inherent to "fun" is its constructed nature.

I think part of the problem is how writers write their reviews. Game critics are often so focused on journalistic "integrity" they deny expression of the subjective experience. They often criticize in abstract absolutes in hopes to convey a certain level of sophistication -- scientific, even. Everyone wants an "objective" game review, right? But that's impossible. As long as "fun" is the definitive measure of a game's value, an objective thesis regarding games is untenable.

Game reviewers should inject more of themselves into their reviews, IMO. More, "I feel", "This reviewer feels" or "This did/didn't work for me" etc. Guide the readers through their subjective experience, so at its conclusion, the reader fully understands a review is just an opinion, which is all it can be, and not a critical analysis.

Less, "This doesn't work", "bad/superlative decisions abound" or "this may be contender for game of the year" etc.

I dunno. I think Shoe's Gears of War review is an example of a review done right.

Meh.

 

[Vast Inspiration]

The problem I find when it comes judging video games critically is we're all so fond of general quality as critics. In video games, the aspects of quality are a fair bit easier to measure relative to other mediums -- graphics, sound, content quantity, etc. As such, more subjective blurs such as "fun" tend to cause conflicts and dilemmas within ourselves and readers looking for hardline analyses of the medium -- as if a mere single person's opinion on a matter could truly make that possible. "Fun" is a non-qualitative, subjectivity, but the irony lies in the gaming community's insistence on this element being the defining measure of a quality game. There's the conflict.

It's hard to deny games like Gears or GTA IV are less than quality games. In part, their large budgets demand it so. But once certain aspects of these games come into play that don't match the real or projected quality of the rest of the game (Gear's online, GTA IVs... whatever), people's orientations of what "fun" is come into play. While one person's orientation allows him to have "fun" in spite of -- another is blaming the game's qualitative faults for his own lack thereof. This social fact alone proves that the only absolute element inherent to "fun" is its constructed nature.

I think part of the problem is how writers write their reviews. Game critics are often so focused on journalistic "integrity" they deny expression of the subjective experience. They often criticize in abstract absolutes in hopes to convey a certain level of sophistication -- science, even. Everyone wants an "objective" game review, right? But that's impossible. As long as "fun" is the definitive measure of a game's value, an objective thesis regarding games is untenable.

Game reviewers should inject more of themselves into their reviews, IMO. More, "I feel", "This reviewer feels" or "This did/didn't work for me" etc. Guide the readers through their subjective experience, so at its conclusion, the reader fully understands a review is just an opinion, which is all it can be, and not a critical analysis.

Less, "This doesn't work", "bad/superlative decisions abound" or "this may be contender for game of the year" etc.

I dunno. I think Shoe's Gears of War review is an example of a review done right.

Meh.

Holy shit. I bolded the important parts. Listen to this man. God damn you are a fucking awesome.

 

[bluestuff]

The problem I find when it comes judging video games critically is we're all so fond of general quality as critics. In video games, the aspects of quality are a fair bit easier to measure relative to other mediums -- graphics, sound, content quantity, etc. As such, more subjective blurs such as "fun" tend to cause conflicts and dilemmas within ourselves and readers looking for hardline analyses of the medium -- as if a mere single person's opinion on a matter could truly make that possible. "Fun" is a non-qualitative, subjectivity, but the irony lies in the gaming community's insistence on this element being the defining measure of a quality game. There's the conflict.

It's hard to deny games like Gears or GTA IV are less than quality games. In part, their large budgets demand it so. But once certain aspects of these games come into play that don't match the real or projected quality of the rest of the game (Gear's online, GTA IVs... whatever), people's orientations of what "fun" is come into play. While one person's orientation allows him to have "fun" in spite of -- another is blaming the game's qualitative faults for his own lack thereof. This social fact alone proves that the only absolute element inherent to "fun" is its constructed nature.

I think part of the problem is how writers write their reviews. Game critics are often so focused on journalistic "integrity" they deny expression of the subjective experience. They often criticize in abstract absolutes in hopes to convey a certain level of sophistication -- science, even. Everyone wants an "objective" game review, right? But that's impossible. As long as "fun" is the definitive measure of a game's value, an objective thesis regarding games is untenable.

Game reviewers should inject more of themselves into their reviews, IMO. More, "I feel", "This reviewer feels" or "This did/didn't work for me" etc. Guide the readers through their subjective experience, so at its conclusion, the reader fully understands a review is just an opinion, which is all it can be, and not a critical analysis.

Less, "This doesn't work", "bad/superlative decisions abound" or "this may be contender for game of the year" etc.

I dunno. I think Shoe's Gears of War review is an example of a review done right.

Meh.

quoted twice for the one guy who seems to get it

 

[J-Rzez]

Did you read the second half that actually did the explaining for why the game got the score it did?

Yes, and that doesn't make up for all the crippling issues he mentioned. Their highest score shouldn't be slapped on a game with such incredible flaws regardless of whatever "wow" moment he had. Reviews like that do nothing but add to the laundry list of reasons why nobody takes reviewers seriously (though they cry wondering why nobody "respects" them).

Less, "This doesn't work"

Yes, indeed. Ignoring major problems is indeed the answer to a solid review. Unfortunately, they don't apply that leeway to all games.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

no, that review was completely self-aware. he knew what he was saying, and was trying to make a point. reviews that make people question the integrity of video game critics can be found here.

 

[Kimosabae]

Yes, indeed. Ignoring major problems is indeed the answer to a solid review. Unfortunately, they don't apply that leeway to all games.

I think you've misconstrued me. No one's advocating ignoring what one may interpret as a "problem" in regards to a game, only a reconsideration of the way these interpretations are expressed. What you quoted was an attempt to typify an "objective" critique in absolute fashion.

 

[Kard8p3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niv2Tgln8cY

This review of RE4 Wii edition is probably the worst I've seen.

 

[m3k]

I can't name a specific Tim Rogers review.

lol i read his stuff when i used to buy games tm... i remember but i did not think he was actually reviewing anything, just thought he talked about japanese things in general

well his section was called letters or musings from japan or something and i remember the getysburg and train review system editorial thingies

i just thought they were amusing sides to games tm

 

[Zenith]

GTAIV is the worst in my book. I don't understand how everyone rated that game so high. I'd rather see a great game get a terrible review than a terrible game get a great review. The former might cost the developers money, but the latter costs me money.

It's too much of a coincidence for them to have all rated it perfect or near-perfect, which makes it obvious that game reviews are flawed. So in a sense, GTAIV managed to kill any respect I had for video game reviews. I just read the content and try not to get angry at the buzzwords now, the numbers seem completely meaningless.

Much worse came later with the PC edition. Not only did everyone still maintain it was oscar-worthy, but NO ONE mentioned the crippling bugs, memory leaks and bloatware the port came with. Basically everyone played it on PCs set up by R*. By far the most clear-cut example of reviewers not doing their job IMO. Shame it didn't spark more outrage.

 

[rocksolidaudio]

I once read that you can lop off the first paragraph of most video game reviews, and they'll still make sense, just more to the point and enjoyable to read.

It's astounding how true that is. Especially with IGN.

That's true, but it's just as much the readers' fault. Most people only read the first paragraph, tops, before checking out the closing comments/score. So most opening paragraphs are built to stand by themselves to some extent, expressing the sentiment the rest of the review has yet to detail.

1UP - every single PS3 review ever.
Notable mention Warhawk(

And which others? Are you in the "too high" or "too low" crowd?

What game was it where an IGN review referred to Jellyfish as a non-animal?

Hail to the Chimp. Possibly the most hilarious thing ever.

The problem I find when it comes judging video games critically is we're all so fond of general quality as critics. In video games, the aspects of quality are a fair bit easier to measure relative to other mediums -- graphics, sound, content quantity, etc. As such, more subjective blurs such as "fun" tend to cause conflicts and dilemmas within ourselves and readers looking for hardline analyses of the medium -- as if a mere single person's opinion on a matter could truly make that possible. "Fun" is a non-qualitative, subjectivity, but the irony lies in the gaming community's insistence on this element being the defining measure of a quality game. There's the conflict.

It's hard to deny games like Gears or GTA IV are less than quality games. In part, their large budgets demand it so. But once certain aspects of these games come into play that don't match the real or projected quality of the rest of the game (Gear's online, GTA IVs... whatever), people's orientations of what "fun" is come into play. While one person's orientation allows him to have "fun" in spite of -- another is blaming the game's qualitative faults for his own lack thereof. This social fact alone proves that the only absolute element inherent to "fun" is its constructed nature.

I think part of the problem is how writers write their reviews. Game critics are often so focused on journalistic "integrity" they deny expression of the subjective experience. They often criticize in abstract absolutes in hopes to convey a certain level of sophistication -- scientific, even. Everyone wants an "objective" game review, right? But that's impossible. As long as "fun" is the definitive measure of a game's value, an objective thesis regarding games is untenable.

Game reviewers should inject more of themselves into their reviews, IMO. More, "I feel", "This reviewer feels" or "This did/didn't work for me" etc. Guide the readers through their subjective experience, so at its conclusion, the reader fully understands a review is just an opinion, which is all it can be, and not a critical analysis.

Less, "This doesn't work", "bad/superlative decisions abound" or "this may be contender for game of the year" etc.

I dunno. I think Shoe's Gears of War review is an example of a review done right.

Meh.

You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir.

I was actually covering some of this exact same ground over dinner earlier tonight with some friends from 1UP. It's bizarre to me that there's so little dissent amongst scores of triple-A titles, but you're right that games bear more objectively assessable qualities as a medium. Though whether you want an objective game review or not really comes down to the place they hold in your life: entertainment "product" to pass the time, or something more. I can understand wanting a more objective review for something you're going to spend $60 on, but that's only if you view games are "product" in the first place. The completely subjective approach is why I liked writing for 1UP/EGM so much. Lastly, your argument is supported by the fact that many of the reviews called out in this thread, and in general, are simply ones where the score varies too far in either direction from the majority crowd; nothing to do with the writing.

Of course, in an idyllic world without review scores, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

 

[Tain]

I used to be in the no-score camp, but it just seems useless.

Unless you review a game in a vacuum, treating it as though it was the only game in existence, every review has a score built into the text. We don't need x.x levels of detail, but ultimately, you can't praise or trash a game without putting it on some scale.

 

[McBacon]

PGNX is pretty funny. Check this out:

Google: sitegnx.net "price of admission"

However, the peripheral is definitely worth the price of admission given how great the early WMP games have been. There's a ton of potential ...

DJ Hero is one of the most novel games I've played in a while and certainly worth the price of admission. It stands out in an otherwise ...

Thus, Red Faction: Guerrilla earns its price of admission when you fly away and watch a tower collapse with two well aimed rockets. ...

multiplayer of some kind, playing through the 8-hour or so single-player campaign with the Wii Remote is worth the price of admission. ...

For everyone else though, the value of seeing and hearing your friends sing “Baby Got Back” is more than worth the price of admission. ...​

Google: sitegnx.net "graphically"

Graphically, DJ Hero looks the part. The classic music highway from that Guitar Hero made famous is still found here, though you can tell ...

Graphically, the game isn't too bad. There are better games out there graphically for the GBA, but Fusion uses the dark environments and the lush ...

Graphically, the game is about par for a kids licensed movie title. The characters look very similar to their movie counterparts thanks to ...

Graphically, Friend or Foe looks comparable to other Spider-Man games on the Nintendo DS. The 3D character models move around in a flat, ...

Graphically, the game is comparable to the latter last-generation Tony Hawk games. The character models look similar to the character models ...​

Google: sitegnx.net "visually"

Visually, NHL 10 looks very similar to its predecessor though that's certainly a compliment. The game is quite good looking thanks to ...

Visually, the game looks pretty similarly to NBA 2K9, which is to say, it looks great, most of the time. Players are very detailed and ...

Visually, NBA Live 10 looks great thanks to detailed character models, fluid animation, and an amazing, energetic crowd. ...

Visually, Gay Tony adds a much-needed bucket of color to Liberty City. The game's menus have been redesigned for the game and help it boast ...

Visually, Shift is quite a stunner. The car models look fantastic with great details abound. The tracks are all fairly varied and look great, as well. ...

Visually, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 is a strong improvement over its predecessor. While Ultimate Alliance was designed as a last-gen game, ...​

 

[zoukka]

Yes, and that doesn't make up for all the crippling issues he mentioned. Their highest score shouldn't be slapped on a game with such incredible flaws regardless of whatever "wow" moment he had. Reviews like that do nothing but add to the laundry list of reasons why nobody takes reviewers seriously (though they cry wondering why nobody "respects" them).

Sorry man. One day you'll finally see that it's the "backside of the cover" reviews are the ones that are poisoning and killing any possibilities that anyone would take games seriously.

If you would compare any respected music and movie reviews to games... you would cry and repent. You want consolation for your console purchase of choice. You want a fucking feature list.

I wonder how long will it take to console warriors to die out?

 

[cuyahoga]

PGNX is pretty funny. Check this out:

Google: sitegnx.net "price of admission"

However, the peripheral is definitely worth the price of admission given how great the early WMP games have been. There's a ton of potential ...

DJ Hero is one of the most novel games I've played in a while and certainly worth the price of admission. It stands out in an otherwise ...

Thus, Red Faction: Guerrilla earns its price of admission when you fly away and watch a tower collapse with two well aimed rockets. ...

multiplayer of some kind, playing through the 8-hour or so single-player campaign with the Wii Remote is worth the price of admission. ...

For everyone else though, the value of seeing and hearing your friends sing “Baby Got Back” is more than worth the price of admission. ...​

Google: sitegnx.net "graphically"

Graphically, DJ Hero looks the part. The classic music highway from that Guitar Hero made famous is still found here, though you can tell ...

Graphically, the game isn't too bad. There are better games out there graphically for the GBA, but Fusion uses the dark environments and the lush ...

Graphically, the game is about par for a kids licensed movie title. The characters look very similar to their movie counterparts thanks to ...

Graphically, Friend or Foe looks comparable to other Spider-Man games on the Nintendo DS. The 3D character models move around in a flat, ...

Graphically, the game is comparable to the latter last-generation Tony Hawk games. The character models look similar to the character models ...​

Google: sitegnx.net "visually"

Visually, NHL 10 looks very similar to its predecessor though that's certainly a compliment. The game is quite good looking thanks to ...

Visually, the game looks pretty similarly to NBA 2K9, which is to say, it looks great, most of the time. Players are very detailed and ...

Visually, NBA Live 10 looks great thanks to detailed character models, fluid animation, and an amazing, energetic crowd. ...

Visually, Gay Tony adds a much-needed bucket of color to Liberty City. The game's menus have been redesigned for the game and help it boast ...

Visually, Shift is quite a stunner. The car models look fantastic with great details abound. The tracks are all fairly varied and look great, as well. ...

Visually, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 is a strong improvement over its predecessor. While Ultimate Alliance was designed as a last-gen game, ...


Visually, Modern Warfare 2 is gorgeous. The game may not have the latest and fanciest bump mapping techniques or super-realistic lighting engine…​

Fixed. :lol

 

[theignoramus]

Anyone post 1up's review of Perfect Dark Zero? :lol

 

[lucablight]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but whoever did the IGN review for the first Shadow hearts has no idea.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

GTA IV has had me hooked since it came out, i'm a total bitch for it, so I agree with the 10's. It's not a perfect game, but I think it's up there with the Halo's & Gears.

 

[Kunan]

I was reading IGN's review of Rise of the Argonauts earlier. Granted, the game isn't perfect, there are a lot of flaws, but the reviewer says you can play through it in 10 hours on the easiest mode and skipping the dialogue, so there's no reason to get it. Okay...that's like playing Halo on easy, running through the levels and never firing a shot. Stupid shit.

Just like the reviewers who docked Wii Fit for allowing you to cheat :lol . If you're going to cheat when playing Wii Fit, then you have completely missed the point.

Some games have something special that, you feel that if it WAS perfect, then it'd deserve more than 10.

To put it another way: The game may be an 8, but the entire experience is a ten. It was able to work past it's flaws and get 'extra credit'.

Half-Life deserved the 10s it's got.. but you can't say it was perfect or even near perfect. Glaring flaws like the NPC models and voice quality were there, but since everything ELSE was so much better nobody cared so they didn't factor into the score.

Someome should tell this to Cassamassia. The wii speak podcast before the mario galaxy review was awful. After ranting about how great the game is, Jess asked him if he would score it a 10. After that, he immediately went (not exact wording) "I don't know, there were a couple times when the camera wasn't so great". There's your .3! Yet every other reviewer seems to understand that a game can get past that.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

Sonic 1 review

Sonic 2 & 3 review

These guys make me want to break something.

That made me want to stab them in the eye and rape them up the ass with a sharp knife.

EDIT: They think Sonic 3 is better than Sonic 1 and 2? x_x

EDIT 2: "they're not real animals"? Wat? You dumb fucking Nintendo fanboy assmunchers, "echidnas, foxes and hedgehogs aren't real animals lolololol". Fuck you.

RAGE.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Yes, and that doesn't make up for all the crippling issues he mentioned. Their highest score shouldn't be slapped on a game with such incredible flaws regardless of whatever "wow" moment he had. Reviews like that do nothing but add to the laundry list of reasons why nobody takes reviewers seriously (though they cry wondering why nobody "respects" them).



Yes, indeed. Ignoring major problems is indeed the answer to a solid review. Unfortunately, they don't apply that leeway to all games.

Dude, it's been 3 years. Resistance is never going to be seen in the same light as Gears of War. That's all this has ever been about for you. Get over it. The only people who lost respect were console warriors who didn't want to like Gears anyway, it was and still is an amazing game.

You were so convinced that there was this mass conspiracy against PS3 exclusives in the review community, and yet LBP, Killzone 2, and Uncharted 2 all cleaned up, nearly universally.

I mean, look at the people quoting Hsu's review in this thread from 2 years ago. Private Hoffman? Seriously? You have to have more sense than that.

 

[Monocle]

Nearly any mainstream review of a fighting game is chock full of gross inaccuracies and hilarious misapprehensions.

 

[Curufinwe]

Nearly any mainstream review of a fighting game is chock full of gross inaccuracies and hilarious misapprehensions.

Eurogamer and 1up both seem to have fighting game experts do their recent fighting game reviews.

 

[Jay Sosa]

GTA IV has had me hooked since it came out, i'm a total bitch for it, so I agree with the 10's. It's not a perfect game, but I think it's up there with the Halo's & Gears.

?

 

[tanod]

Gamespot's Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destructions

Summing up his complaints: Too much variety. The 6th game in an established series has the same solid controls, the same humourous script and interesting weaponry as the other games in the series but is suffering an identity crisis.


"Very good game" - "7.5 - Good"

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/...vert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review


Aaron Thomas has a history of terrible reviews.

 

[bonesmccoy]

?

He's thinking that something doesn't have to be perfect itself to receive the highest score available.

The only *bad* review I read was The Edge's on Killzone 2. Glowing, gushing review, one detraction (a complaint about the story I believe), and then an inexplicable mark of 7/10. I didn't even like Killzone 2 all that much, but that review was a inexcusable and blatant attempt to generate hits. I haven't given The Edge's reviews more than a passing glance since.

 

[Virtua Ben]

shoegearsofwar.jpg

I will never forgive Shoe for that bullshit. He was one of the worst fan-boy reviewers ever.

 

[epmode]

?

Oh god stop it. What the hell is the point of a 10 point system if nothing can possibly get a 10?

 

[fernoca]

Like the many reviews that say things like "OMG best visuals ever - 8.0"..(are the "best visuals ever an 8? shouldn't it be a 10?)

Another problem with reviews, is the ..more recent trend of turning reviews into basically ads for games (reviews that read like PR from the publisher), then have this...race, to see who or which site/magazine can post the review of that particular game, sooner and that's ignoring the whole debacle about exclusive reviews.

I still say, that one of my favorites sites, when it comes to reviews is..well, I forgot it's name since it's Wii-only site and I don't have a Wii. But they review games, in 3 separate ways:
-First impressions (from the moment they open the package -even things like booklet-quality are mentioned- how teh game starts, controls, first visual and aural impressions)
-Sometime later (a few hours-days after playing the game, how's teh game's holding: is it improving, declining, visuals get better or worse? game's interesting and adds variety or becomes stale and boring?
-Aftermatch (after finishing the game, how was the overall experience, any incentives to come back? Multiplayer?)

Then they proceed to gives "achievements" to the game in random categories-btu related to the game like great visuals, framerate, sound quality, soundtrack, online multiplayer, etc..then give the game an overall grade.

But, probably because most sites have like this "race" I already mentioned, they don't have the time (maybe) to focus on each game, play the games as fast as they can sometimes not even reaching half the game and proceed to make a review.

If anything, publishers and developers should demand like logs (fully open and posted online so anyone can read them) made by the reviewers detailing their game from start to finish; just to make sure they are actually playing said games...at least for the "big games" and even maybe for exchange of said games (like "hey we're giving you Bayonetta, in exchange go to this website, and post your impressions after every playtime")...or something like that. The same way many reviewers has been caught on the connection logs; after posting reviews of MMORPGs after like under 5 hours of playtime, mostly spent creating a character.

 

[theignoramus]

The only *bad* review I read was The Edge's on Killzone 2. Glowing, gushing review, one detraction (a complaint about the story I believe), and then an inexplicable mark of 7/10. I didn't even like Killzone 2 all that much, but that review was a inexcusable and blatant attempt to generate hits. I haven't given The Edge's reviews more than a passing glance since.

Nah, Edge also complained about its lack of innovation (a talking point they seem to avoid when it comes to some other shooters), and predictable, unimaginative nature of the game design, which is acceptable criticism, especially if you invested in that game for a revolving door spectacle. (I didnt, I was always interested in the combat and AI and it delivered in spades in that area. )But still, the fact that the review starts out with a mention of rabid "KZ2 fanboys" makes you wander if the final score was a calculated move. I believe it was, because their review of F.E.A.R. 2, which was in the same issue, makes a couple of snide references to KZ2.

As for you,‭ ‬Killzone,‭ ‬mind your manners and stop peering over at the score.‭ ‬It’s unfortunate timing that sees two quite similar triple-A games sitting shoulder-to-shoulder in the space of a week,‭ ‬but‭ unfortunate for who‭? ‬Killzone‭ ‬2‭ ‬has the technology and spectacle‭; ‬FEAR‭ ‬2‭ ‬has class,‭ ‬direction and a most mischievous sense of humour‭ – ‬and technology and spectacle.

I dont believe F.E.A.R. 2 was regarded as a triple A technological spectacle by anyone really, especially not in comparison to KZ2. Also, it totally bombed at retail, (didnt even make the top 10 in Feb. NPD) and it left a LOT fans of the original F.E.A.R. totally disappointed. Talk about a misfire from Edge magazine.

 

[Q8D3vil]

God Hand ign review