Lamest excuse for a negetive point in reviews

[Eduku]

'It's too hard.'

Seriously, it makes me rage when a game's score get reduced because the reviewer simply sucks at the game. Example: Fire Emblem.

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

Most of the ones for Halo

"It never did anything to change fps's"

If you honest believe that then you're are so ignorant it hurts. Vehicles, regenerating shields, strong weapons at the start of the game, the first decent console fps, got people to stop saying "that game is a doom clone" now it's a "Halo clone" and there are more reasons but I am keeping this short

It didn't do any of those things first, nor did it do them as well as specific previous games.

What it did do was cater to the consoles failings and make shooters more forgiving in the process. It was presented as a very polished game incorporating the best ideas of the industry in one mass market friendly package, that was the marvel of Halo.

Some say Golden-eye proved consoles could do fps's but halo made them accessible and brought them into the mainstream. It didn't change FPS's but showed which features were going to appeal to the larger console market more.

What strong starting weapons are you referring to? the weapons are reasonably balanced but later weapons are better. The pistol was a waste of time, or would have been if it wasn't for the scope. Feels like they tried to balance the pistol and didn't realise how much a scope could be abused rather than the pistol being good.

The regenerating health,excluding the regenerating shields of the first game, was ham-fisted, unnecessary and pure cheese.
The vehicles just feel nasty and very unnatural and most other games FPS with vehicles were at least as good and often better.

 

[Kristoffer Mattila]

A dude said Mario is for "fat nerds" and then he went to talk about how great Crysis is.

 

[TehIrishSoap]

In Gamesmaster Magazine, When They Reviewed COD 4, They Deducted Marks For "Not Being Able To Grow A Mustache Like Captain Price" WTF?
Also, I Hate It When Critics Complain Its "Linear" Not Everything Has To Be Grand Theft Auto!

 

[The Rockerfly]

le snip

Maybe not first but online multiplayer wasn't very popular at the time, it was released too early for the technology of going online

I didn't mean starter weapons in Halo but in a lot of fps's you get the weaker guns first then get ridiculously powerful ones later which I feel made the endings far too easy. Halo weapons are balanced enough to not do this, I mean sure a rocket launcher can take down a vehicle better than a pistol but a pistol is better against a grunt which there are more of

Why were they "unnecessary"? It was a lot quicker to wait for your health to come back rather then trek all the way back to a health spawn point or just go and getting yourself killed because there was no way back.

Okay, which fps vehicles felt better? You might not like them that much but they aren't that bad, you want a bad vehicle in an fps then play borderlands or half life 2, those vehicles are ones that felt bad

Halo may not have done them first but it was the reason for them being there in the industry

 

[Thaius]

I recently read some random guy's review of Okami (couldn't find the page again, unfortunately) where he got about a half an hour in. He complained about how the text boxes looked ugly. He spent a rather large paragraph on it.

One of the most artistically beautiful interactive creations of all time, and he complaints about how the text boxes are fuzzy. Sigh...

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Most of the ones for Halo

"It never did anything to change fps's"

If you honest believe that then you're are so ignorant it hurts. Vehicles, regenerating shields, strong weapons at the start of the game, the first decent console fps, got people to stop saying "that game is a doom clone" now it's a "Halo clone" and there are more reasons but I am keeping this short

All of those things were done by games before HALO and most were done better, Halo just scored a lucky hit as it was introduced during a generation shift and scored with a market of people who had not played FPSs or games in general before.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

Complaining about things that can be turned off easily.

In the Dead Risingg 2: Case Zero review the guy brought up the main characters hair. Seriously. It's not even that bad.

it was from ign and yes the hair isnt even bad.

OT: saying a game isnt scary enough when it isnt a horror game. * cough* xplay reviewing metro 2033 *cough*

 

[scnj]

I saw a Shadow Of The Colossus review that took points off for "no small enemy encounters". Sigh.

 

[Amnestic]

All of those things were done by games before HALO and most were done better, Halo just scored a lucky hit as it was introduced during a generation shift and scored with a market of people who had not played FPSs or games in general before.

Halo: Combat Evolved sparked a marked change in the way console FPS games were designed. Whether or not it was the first game to impliment the mechanics (regenerating shields, vehicle sections, hot-button melee and grenade attacks) is frankly irrelevant. The sudden, marked change to the way they were designed (which as someone else pointed out, turned them into 'Halo clones' rather than 'Doom clones') is the very definition of revolutionary.

I'm pretty much quoting myself at this point, both myself and Timotei made this argument in her Halo: Reach [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.232399-Reviews-In-The-Shower-Games-Halo-Reach?page=1] review and it still stands. By definition, Halo: Combat Evolved revolutionised console FPS games.

 

[Edechew]

'The pistol was a waste of time, or would have been if it wasn't for the scope'

Then... it wasn't a waste of time then, was it?

Got a Lame Excuse for a Positive Point, Orange Box. '5 games in one, excellent value.' No, one game thats five years old, two expansion packs, and two glorified tech demos. How about only charging for the new stuff Valve rather than charging us for stuff we've already bought?

 

[The Rockerfly]

All of those things were done by games before HALO and most were done better, Halo just scored a lucky hit as it was introduced during a generation shift and scored with a market of people who had not played FPSs or games in general before.

Luck? That's laughable, it was not luck that determined that Halo did better. Halo did better because it was released at an appropriate time for the technologies needed for online gaming. Along with that, most fps's were just not appropriate to be made into a multiplayer game.

You can complain and "Halo didn't do them very well" but I ask you, which game series is still around today because it did a console fps better than others? You would get Halo because none of the others are around because they all had massive flaws in them that weren't suitable for online gaming

 

[icame]

Guy marked down Mgs4 a point because of the install you have to do...

 

[lleihsad]

Resident Evil 4 and 5 getting dinged for their control style. It's true that they don't control like Halo, but they don't NEED to. The enemies and environments are designed so that they can be handled with the controls used.

 

[Sovvolf]

There are quite a few stupid complaints out there but I think they are put there in good humour. I mean I think they are required to put something negative down with a review and when they can't find something genuine, they just pick an hilarious nit just to put there. I think when a game as a humours nit pick for it's negative, then it's a highly recommended game as they couldn't find a real negative point for the game.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Saying that Scott Pilgrim The Game wasn't one of the best of it's genre simply because it didn't have online play and new players couldn't join once the game had begun.