Have you ever gotten angry at a review?

[BloatedGuppy]

PC Gamer's Half Life 2 review. Not because Half Life 2 wasn't an excellent game that deserved a good review, but because it (and Steam) launched with a host of issues that went completely without mention in arguably the single most fawning review I'd ever read in my life. And look at that, it was a world exclusive first review!

 

[Deathninja19]

Angry? No. I just thought it was a lame review trying to be controversial just for the sake of it.

I don't get that though if Jim was trying to be controversial he'd have given it a 6 like the Witcher 2 or a 4 like Assassins Creed. I agree that Jim can go too far but 7.5 is a good mark it's way above average (5) and 0.5 below a great (8) and every point he made was fair, if a single player and co-op is terrible even in a multiplayer game like Battlefield it should get low marks because that is 2/3 of a game's features and yet Jim gave it a 7.5 which is a great score if a game has bad content.

No, you're wrong. And if you think the singleplayer & co-op are 2/3 of the game you have no idea what you're talking about. They're not even relevant. It's all about the MP and scores should reflect that. Anything below 9/10 is just plain silly

What I mean is if they included single player no matter the length etc that is a main game mode as is co-op. So if the game is to be reviewed they should be a large part of the review as they are a part of the product on the whole, if the single player and co-op are bad then that should aversly affect the score. DICE should have went multiplayer only but they didn't they half assed a single player and co-op mode and should be called out for it.

Also 9/10 is your opinion, if the reviewer thought otherwise he puts a mark that he thinks is appropriate. Personally I think the Battlefield series has flaws and even though I love the series BF3 is in no way a 9/10 for me probably an 8/10 at best but again this is my opinion.

Anyway Jim likes the game it's just the flaws which he explains in detail in the review that affected his score. Anyway dude at the end of the day it's just a number if you love the game why do you need validation just enjoy it and don't complain about an insignificant review because of a stupid number.

 

[Deathninja19]

PC Gamer's Half Life 2 review. Not because Half Life 2 wasn't an excellent game that deserved a good review, but because it (and Steam) launched with a host of issues that went completely without mention in arguably the single most fawning review I'd ever read in my life. And look at that, it was a world exclusive first review!

This is my biggest pet peve of reviewing, no game is perfect and flaws should be adressed but reviews that are 100% positive makes me suspicious and is useless to me as a critic needs to be critical about something warts and all.

 

[CountryMike]

Angry? No. I just thought it was a lame review trying to be controversial just for the sake of it.

I don't get that though if Jim was trying to be controversial he'd have given it a 6 like the Witcher 2 or a 4 like Assassins Creed. I agree that Jim can go too far but 7.5 is a good mark it's way above average (5) and 0.5 below a great (8) and every point he made was fair, if a single player and co-op is terrible even in a multiplayer game like Battlefield it should get low marks because that is 2/3 of a game's features and yet Jim gave it a 7.5 which is a great score if a game has bad content.

No, you're wrong. And if you think the singleplayer & co-op are 2/3 of the game you have no idea what you're talking about. They're not even relevant. It's all about the MP and scores should reflect that. Anything below 9/10 is just plain silly

What I mean is if they included single player no matter the length etc that is a main game mode as is co-op. So if the game is to be reviewed they should be a large part of the review as they are a part of the product on the whole, if the single player and co-op are bad then that should aversly affect the score. DICE should have went multiplayer only but they didn't they half assed a single player and co-op mode and should be called out for it.

Also 9/10 is your opinion, if the reviewer thought otherwise he puts a mark that he thinks is appropriate. Personally I think the Battlefield series has flaws and even though I love the series BF3 is in no way a 9/10 for me probably an 8/10 at best but again this is my opinion.

Anyway Jim likes the game it's just the flaws which he explains in detail in the review that affected his score. Anyway dude at the end of the day it's just a number if you love the game why do you need validation just enjoy it and don't complain about an insignificant review because of a stupid number.

The singleplayer isn't a "main game mode". Far from it even. It's an extra hardly worth mentioning.

And 9/10 isn't my opinion. That's me being objective. Me being subjective is 10/10

Everything is opinion, so...

 

[stefman]

snip
So, have you gotten angry at a review and if you have can you explain to me why?

I'm actually kind of mad about the Alpha Protocol reviews. I really enjoyed the choice and diologue in the game. Yeah it was rough around the edges but still quite playable. I think it is a 7.5 because I've seen far worse games get that score.

 

[Deathninja19]

The singleplayer isn't a "main game mode". Far from it even. It's an extra hardly worth mentioning.

And 9/10 isn't my opinion. That's me being objective. Me being subjective is 10/10

Everything is opinion, so...

If it's advertised it is a main game mode and should be reviewed as such. Look I'm not gonna argue just agree to disagree but can you tell me why you are so focused on a number, I'm not being rude or anything honestly find it interesting why you think the number is so important in a review.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

I don't care if the reviewer simply has a different opinion, but I do get annoyed when a reviewer makes factually wrong statements about a game, or slams it for completely arbitrary and pointless reasons.

 

[CountryMike]

I don't think it is. I just think it's silly to think of BF3 something other than a pure multiplayer shooter
If it was the other way around, excellent singeplayer with a pointless, average MP mode strapped on, it wouldn't get judged on that.
I mean nobody thinks any less of such games like Half Life, Deus Ex or Resident Evil 5 because their MP mode wasn't anything special.

 

[spartandude]

Alot of IGN reviews

for example if you remember Star Craft 2 and Mario Galaxy 2 came out at very similar times. IGN criticised SC2 for being too much like the original but no criticism for Mario?

also in their review for Metro 2033 they accused it for being too much like a standard shooter yet give amazing reviews for CoD

 

[Something Amyss]

When I was ten, yeah. once or twice.

Since I reached adulthood? Nah. Don't see the point.

A lot of the rage is especially stupid, because they complain that a game "only" got a 90.

 

[scw55]

There was a review of Heroes of Newerth which annoyed me. Firstly was because there were criteria in which it was reviewed with (Gameplay, Innovation, aesphetics etc) with marks out of 5. Then at the end the marks were tallied together to give an overall score. But if you're using that system to grade a game, then you need to include a lot more criteria. The criteria chosen are biased (consciously or not).

Another reason why it annoyed me was the list of Good and Bad points. A good point was Large selection of heroes to choose from. A bad point was too many heroes to choose from[/u]. Both points contradict each other. You can't clame a Goldylocks with the desired number of heroes. Complain if there's too many or too few, not both simutainiously.

Also the website was a MMORPG review site. Not a DotA clone/Generic Multiplayer Game site. Heroes of Newerth is not an MMORPG, inless you enjoy your MMORPGs deleting your character after an hour everytime.

 

[Deathninja19]

I don't think it is. I just think it's silly to think of BF3 something other than a pure multiplayer shooter
If it was the other way around, excellent singeplayer with a pointless, average MP mode strapped on, it wouldn't get judged on that.
I mean nobody thinks any less of such games like Half Life, Deus Ex or Resident Evil 5 because their MP mode wasn't anything special.

Fair point but in a good review they should be mentioned and reviewed as they are a part of the whole product and should be in consideration when tallying up the score. But c'mon if a review is accurate why focus on a score.

 

[Armored Prayer]

I've been irradiated but never mad, a good example is Yahtzee's take on Gears 3 which was less of a review and more of the man confused as hell and focusing more about it.

Then again was it his fault for not even paying attention or was it the game's fault for not doing a good job explaining, because this debate can go either way.

 

[repeating integers]

PC Gamer's Half Life 2 review. Not because Half Life 2 wasn't an excellent game that deserved a good review, but because it (and Steam) launched with a host of issues that went completely without mention in arguably the single most fawning review I'd ever read in my life. And look at that, it was a world exclusive first review!

Was that the infamous 11/10 review?

 

[AnarchistAbe]

Yes, but only when a bad game gets a GREAT score. Or, when the scores don't reflect the (text) review.

Joystiq's review for BF3 is one such example. They bashed the campaign (hard) and then gave it a 4.5/5. Personally, I believe if it's in the game, then it counts against (or for) the game. If SP is shit, and multi is fantastic, note that and then give the game an overall score that reflects it. If the two components are HEADS AND HEELS either above or below each other, give them separate scores. They did it with CoD, why not do it with other games?

 

[Roberto Hadi]

Yes I have.
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/738/738253p1.html
I'm still angry at them.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Most reviews of Metro 2033, and Metro/GC's review of Medal Of Honour - as I thought it was just too damn misleading.
But 99% of the time, I barely read reviews and never put stock in them.

 

[GeneWard]

Iv'e only ever gotten angry at those fucking rubes on Metacritic giving Portal 2, one of the best games EVER MADE, a zero because it had hats in it. Fucking hell.

 

[nukethetuna]

Anytime someone posts a lengthy review that could potentially be a good read and interesting critique, but is missing one very important component.
Paragraphs.