Lamest excuse for a negetive point in reviews

[The Rockerfly]

Its nothing to do with the games them selves more to do with LIVE jeez how blind a fan lol

Care to expand on your point rather then use the "anyone with a different opinion from me is ignorant L-O-L" argument?

Honestly, I think terminator:future shock had better vehicles (they were crap) and tribes just blows it away. The laughable half-life vehicles are about the same as halos.

Okay that is just a load of bull. Play a driving game and you will notice something, Halo has the same controls as the driving game

Half life, you couldn't see anything besides you unless you painfully turned the camera around. Halo's, you can see all around you and it has the same controls as a racing game.

I cannot understand where the fuck people are coming from saying the vehicle sections are bad, I've played games for over 15 years and I can tell that the controls are perfectly functional

The regenerating health is unnecessary, going back and finding health reward rewards exploration, memory and paying attention to what your doing rather than charging in all the time. but even if you want the game to give the player a chance the regenerating shield and limited health system of Halo did the job very well and still offered the threat of failure, you could run and hide but it only bought you time not immortality.

How on earth is it unnecessary? You get shot by someone, you're close to death because of a sniper, you can hide. It's not as punishing and allows people to actually do something rather then trial and error style going out in the open and getting yourself killed

Hell you even proved yourself wrong saying it can buy you some time

I know you were only 3 when online gaming and the internet in general had a massive influx of inhabitants but your online gaming excuse is just a load of crap.

Oh using the "he's younger than me" argument. For your information I was playing games when I was 4 and besides, doesn't make my points less valid.

Let me make it clear, many places still have poor internet connection, making online matches frustrating with lag and difficult to find a decent connection.

This is over 10 years since Halo has been released and many users still have poor connection and 10 years ago, many were still on dial up or stupid slow speeds. To say it's bullcrap is just ignorant

Team fortress, counterstrike, tribes, unreal and quake3 are games (and yes mods) that were legendary for their online play having a huge amount of players and ladder rankings long before Halo showed it's console loving face to the internet. All of them were in my experience better games online.

You know what they are though, pc games. If you haven't noticed, pc games aren't the only console about, console players are becoming a massive market.

None of those games adapted for a console so they have been left behind in the older PC age and as a result have died out. I mean look how many fps's that came out on the pc exclusively, now look how many pc exclusive fps's are coming out today, not as many I bet.

but so is that.

I don't follow

Good online multiplayer existed a long, long time before halo. Despite what LIVE wants you to think.

[/quote]

O RLY? I know good multiplayer existed before live. I thought The Escapist was suppose to have a bit more thought put into posts rather then "he likes something, therefore he is something else"

A good console fps then? Surprise surprise PC gaming isn't the only market and console users have a demand for fps's too

le snip

Thank you, while it may not have been the first fps t do all of the functions, it was the first to bring them all together and to do them well

I think a lot of people are angry at it because they liked the doom-clone style of games and are frustrated at the death of them and now have to deal with the newer Halo clones

 

[Deleted]

You don't see "having to modify the game files to get anything resembling a challenge" as a negative?

Oh its a pretty massive flaw. But its not completely out of the blue. Normal has meant "retarded six year old" ever since halo hit the market.

Looks like you're in denial about Halo's impact on the FPS genre.

Where do you get that? Halo's impact was simply all negative. Games are worse now and, apart from the isolated efforts of a few independent developers and houses that don't feel "making easy games for stupid people" is worth their time, they're only going to get worse.

Yeah, worse in your opinion. How dare console games be fun in their own way, your posts suggest that you're a PC gamer who thinks PC > consoles.

Halo more or less revolutionized and popularized the console FPS.

I hate gamers who go "bah games these days suck it was better int he old days when I was a kid with low standards. OH my god why are games changing they should stay the way they are any change is bad ba humbug", just enjoy the games. And if you can't, then its not the games fault, its your fault for not having a diverse taste.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

IGN hates everything that isin't named Modern Warfare 2. EVERYTHING is compared to that game.

 

[DustyDrB]

I read a review of Red Dead Redemption giving it a 95/100, only complaining about how easy the game was because the auto lock aimer was far too overpowered. My complaint? The auto lock can be toggled to be less effective or completely turned off in the options menu... I absolutely hate it when people complain about settings that can be turned off.

However, not in the online game, where everyone uses the lockon feature, and access to the servers where it's turned off is restricted to higher level characters, a level which you can basically only get to by abusing the lockon to be at a slightly evener playing field with the griefers who all use it.

Whoa, I didn't even know there was an auto-lock. Mine wasn't set like that at default, maybe because I picked the hardest setting in the story. Then I went into free roam and people were absolutely destroying me. I thought it was because of my TV not being that good so I couldn't see the guy shooting me.

 

[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.

"It lacks depth."
*RAGE*

These ARE legitimate reasons to give a negative point in a review. People often see them the way you two see them, as stupid excuses to downplay a title, but they are usually given for good reason.

There are plenty of good games that have a high difficulty curve. There's usually nothing wrong with that. It's HOW the game is difficult that makes the difference. If you make a game harder by adding enemies with, for lack of a better word, 'cheap' stats or moves, the result is frustration due to an unfair and unbalanced system. On the other hand, if difficulty is raised by simply adding more enemies in general, then it constitutes a challenge as opposed to a nuisance.

Depth is damn important. It's often a make-it or break-it factor. It's more important for single player than multiplayer, though. If you play through a story and gain absolutely no emotional connection, then you'll likely register the game as boring. On that note, emotional connection refers to ALL emotions. You wonder why some horror games aren't scary? It's because they lack debth.

Debth can also refer to the mental invigoration that a game causes. If you develop theories or start thinking differently because of how you play a game, then the game has debth. I don't mean you look at a game and go "Wow! That's cool!" I mean you play the game, then go to work the next day and rearrange your desk because you're worried about the implications your furniture could have on visitors. Or you start sitting with your back to the wall so that you can watch the people in the room.

In closing, don't throw out what you think is a stupid reason. There is always a legitimate explanation.

The thing is, the example I gave (Fire Emblem) isn't doesn't punish you by being 'cheap', it makes you use actual strategy to get past some parts. Yet I see it receive reduced scores for being 'too hard'.

 

[Eduku]

The Last Remenant had issues loading textures when you enter a zone, it does, for 2 SECONDS, its not a game breaker, the textures load fine.

Yeah, Mass Effect had the exact same thing, but everyone brushed it aside, whereas everyone made a big deal out of it in TLR.

 

[Kalabrikan]

I hate gamers who go "bah games these days suck it was better int he old days when I was a kid with low standards. OH my god why are games changing they should stay the way they are any change is bad ba humbug", just enjoy the games. And if you can't, then its not the games fault, its your fault for not having a diverse taste.

Look at the differences between Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Invisible War. There is such a thing as change for the worse in video games.

On topic, I remember one reviewer reviewing a game based on a movie who spent one paragraph ranting about the game and the rest of his ten-paragraph review ranting about how bad the movie based on it was. So, yeah, I hate it when people can't enjoy a licensed game just because they personally hate the source of the game's license.

Oh, and I second the guy who mentioned complaining about easily toggleable settings in a single-player game.

 

[1blackone]

-snip-

Surely it depends on the nature of the bugs. If one of the bugs happens to be "It deletes my save", then it doesn't matter how infrequent it is, it's pretty damn noticeable and deserves to be marked down for it.

Dear Contrarian.

"there's at least one stagecoach driver who apparently isn't great at math and might inexplicably charge you $100. Other problems worthy of note during our 30-plus hours in single-player included a conversation between Marston and another character in which only Marston's lines could be heard, an attempt to crouch behind a decrepit overturned wagon that resulted in Marston being thrown high up into the air, and a cutscene in which two versions of the same character--one injured and animated, one neither--appeared alongside each other. You might also notice characters having some pathfinding problems"

Let me know if these are even worth their weight in pixels. i.e. Will someone who was considering a purchase of the game would NOT do so because of these supposed "bugs"?

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

Okay that is just a load of bull. Play a driving game and you will notice something, Halo has the same controls as the driving game. I've played games for over 15 years and I can tell that the controls are perfectly functional

Yes perfectly functional, however controls do not a driving game make. The vehicles feel wrong and lots of people are happy to acknowledge that. And I've been playing games for 27 years for all the bloody difference it makes and I can tell you halo makes a pretty driving experience functional or not.

How on earth is it unnecessary? You get shot by someone, you're close to death because of a sniper, you can hide. It's not as punishing and allows people to actually do something rather then trial and error style going out in the open and getting yourself killed

Hell you even proved yourself wrong saying it can buy you some time

I said a regenerating shield bought you time but halo didn't do that first either.
Health regenerating immortality just makes the game easy, can't get past a section just crouch behind a rock until your health is back to full and your shields are back. It's lame and I for one want it to go away unless it has a reason to be there.
The Vampire games (before halo note) had a pretty good reason for their (very slow) regeneration and a wolverine game can say the same but most have no excuse or really flimsy ones.

Oh using the "he's younger than me" argument. For your information I was playing games when I was 4 and besides, doesn't make my points less valid.

This is over 10 years since Halo has been released and many users still have poor connection and 10 years ago, many were still on dial up or stupid slow speeds. To say it's bullcrap is just ignorant

Far from ignorance, I played quake over a 33.8Kbs modem same for C&C. Hell I played WoW over dial-up for a while when I moved house last year and I often play unreal tournament over my parents dial-up although you do have a disadvantage and sometimes get kicked. A good connection is a bonus but a well coded game doesn't need it; sadly x-box live is a bandwidth hog so goodbye console dial-up gaming.

Unfortuately a lot of games have very poor network code. But your arguing a whole new point unless Halo magically made the internet faster.
Youth isn't an excuse nor was it an accusation, I assumed you simply ignore or don't know much about games your own age or older. Which is supported by your ongoing comments.

You know what they are though, pc games. If you haven't noticed, pc games aren't the only console about, console players are becoming a massive market.

None of those games adapted for a console so they have been left behind in the older PC age and as a result have died out. I mean look how many fps's that came out on the pc exclusively, now look how many pc exclusive fps's are coming out today, not as many I bet.

You think PC gaming is some bygone era?
Seriously?
Console players were always the bigger market it makes not a jot of difference to PC gamers. There are far more FPS's on PC than any other platform and plenty of 'exclusives' (given that Pc is an open platform that's an odd word to use).

Anyway... "Hey look, before the x-box hardly any consoles used online seriously and the first successful shooter on xbox was halo. show me a better online console only shooter that worked before halo." is a pretty shitty way to discuss anything I cannot win your argument. You claimed Halo was the first good online shooter and now your pretending you said console simply because your argument was indefensible. Console is not implied when you say game you know.

I think a lot of people are angry at it because they liked the doom-clone style of games and are frustrated at the death of them and now have to deal with the newer Halo clones

I grant there are people out there that want the "nine weapon, run and gun games" back but when halo came along every FPS was trying out some new gimmick because everyone was sick of them. I like having to have a weapon strategy, I like the odd cover based game but pathetically easy shooting games are not for me.

the only person sounding bitter and frustrated on this thread is yourself.

 

[EHKOS]

IGN marked down Pokemon heart gold and soul silver because it was a remake.

That is ridiculus....I think...I'm in the middle of that one.

OT: Hideki kamia's cutscene usage. I enjoy them very much.

 

[repeating integers]

*grabs jumbo bag of popcorn and proceeds to munch, occasionally throwing it at the people in this Halo flamewar he doesn't like*

Aaaaanyway.

As much as I love Yahtzee, and try as hard as I can to not take his criticisms seriously... "Halo 3 sucks is average because *list of valid, if debatable reasons* and also THE GUNS LOOK SILLY." That's not a criticism, it's a nitpick of the most petty kind.

 

[lolcatize]

ive read this one in gamereactors review of Bad Company when it got a minus point for enemies that can acctualy shoot acuratly

 

[Dogstile]

This is without a doubt the worst review I have ever witnessed. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7423-Review-Metro-2033] It gets absolutely everything wrong, it just maddens me to no end. It can all be boiled down to "it isn't Modern Warfare 2, so the game isn't good"... I stopped caring for the reviews of this site after I saw that atrocity.

That's nonsense. Metro 2033 being shit had nothing to do with it not being like MW2 and everything to do with it not being a good game.

Oh psh. The game worked really well. I don't care if logan couldn't do the stealth sections. I could. Enemies taking half a shotgun clip to go down? Bollocks. The review stank of "I didn't play it and play attention to it".

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I heard an insane one about Ju-On, the japanese version of The Grudge. The complaint was that there are TOO MANY practical effects, and there should have been MORE CG. Basically, it is a low-budget horror film and people didn't like that that's what it was and what it looks like.

In my opinion you can't HAVE too many practical effects in a movie world where CG likes to crap all over everything, but whichever camp you're on I think you can agree this criticism is utterly imbecilic and pointless.

 

[-Seraph-]

"It's Linear": This one pisses me off the most, it's a fucking design choice you twats not a flaw. I don't care how linear the game is, it's designed to be that way and you cant hold it against the game.

Any comment made that shows the reviewer played the game for 20 minutes and didn't bother to pay attention. I've seen criticisms for games that were just so utterly stupid that I could tell that reviewer hardly played at all. Siting non existent issues, or just bitching about the game because of their lack of skill.

Any comparison to other game to a certain degree. yes it can be terribly annoying hearing a review complain about a game because it's not like this other game, and it's annoying how some hold that against it. You can compare a certain game with others in its genre to a degree when judging certain standards, but side by side comparisons can fuck off.

Technical issues to a certain degree are another big one. Sometimes reviewers make a big deal over something very minor in terms of technical issues.

 

[mParadox]

"it's too hard" WTH? Really? That's pathetic.

IGN marked down Pokemon heart gold and soul silver because it was a remake.

Ok....didn't see that one coming.

Oh and it's too linear. Go play GTA or Fallout but please don't blame the devs. It's a design choice not a flaw. Sometimes i wonder if Picasso ever had to deal with this. =3

 

[C95J]

damn, accidently pressed the post button, oh well, I will post my own thread later, I can't be bothered to write everything out now...

 

[The Rockerfly]

Right after this I seriously can't be arsed, I've made my points over and over again and people ignore them believe games made over 10 years ago are still fun to play today

Yes perfectly functional, however controls do not a driving game make. The vehicles feel wrong and lots of people are happy to acknowledge that. And I've been playing games for 27 years for all the bloody difference it makes and I can tell you halo makes a pretty driving experience functional or not.

The only way they feel out of place is that they can be overpowered in the right hands but because of the decent weapon balancing, you can still easily take a vehicle out

I said a regenerating shield bought you time but halo didn't do that first either.
Health regenerating immortality just makes the game easy, can't get past a section just crouch behind a rock until your health is back to full and your shields are back. It's lame and I for one want it to go away unless it has a reason to be there.
The Vampire games (before halo note) had a pretty good reason for their (very slow) regeneration and a wolverine game can say the same but most have no excuse or really flimsy ones.

No and I don't think Halo did make it, I think it made it well. Of course you want it to be made back to the old way, you can't accept the newer generation of fps games

A reason for health regeneration? that's laughable. In the old games where you're required to have med packs, you think a med pack can really help when you're bleeding to death. There is little to no point having reasons for every tiny detail, it is much easy to accept that they balance out the game and it is more realistic then a tiny med pack making your health numbers come back

Far from ignorance, I played quake over a 33.8Kbs modem same for C&C. Hell I played WoW over dial-up for a while when I moved house last year and I often play unreal tournament over my parents dial-up although you do have a disadvantage and sometimes get kicked. A good connection is a bonus but a well coded game doesn't need it; sadly x-box live is a bandwidth hog so goodbye console dial-up gaming.

Unfortuately a lot of games have very poor network code. But your arguing a whole new point unless Halo magically made the internet faster.
Youth isn't an excuse nor was it an accusation, I assumed you simply ignore or don't know much about games your own age or older. Which is supported by your ongoing comments.

Exactly, you get kicked, it is more difficult and many will find that a very unattractive feature. Please stop assuming your tolerance for the whole market

I think a better argument was that I don't know much about pc gaming. Besides I've backed up all my points, given reason and you think I am ignorant because I support a game which you disagree with.

You think PC gaming is some bygone era?
Seriously?
Console players were always the bigger market it makes not a jot of difference to PC gamers. There are far more FPS's on PC than any other platform and plenty of 'exclusives' (given that Pc is an open platform that's an odd word to use).

Anyway... "Hey look, before the x-box hardly any consoles used online seriously and the first successful shooter on xbox was halo. show me a better online console only shooter that worked before halo." is a pretty shitty way to discuss anything I cannot win your argument. You claimed Halo was the first good online shooter and now your pretending you said console simply because your argument was indefensible. Console is not implied when you say game you know.

I never said it was a era gone but it is far less popular than in the 90%. Don't believe me? Take a look at my argument about pc exclusives, there are far less than there were in the 90's and it is rarer that it is made by a large developer.

You aren't listening, there are plenty of pc exclusive fps's but how many were made in the last 10 years? I don't know the exact number but I bet it isn't that much

First good online console shooter, taking in account technology and it been released for an appropriate time.
You are treating the pc market and the console market as the same thing which is just wrong. Both have hardware, software limitations and different flaws. Saying that a decent fps on pc came before is all fine and dandy but what about the fucking massive great console market?

I grant there are people out there that want the "nine weapon, run and gun games" back but when halo came along every FPS was trying out some new gimmick because everyone was sick of them. I like having to have a weapon strategy, I like the odd cover based game but pathetically easy shooting games are not for me.

the only person sounding bitter and frustrated on this thread is yourself.

Okay, go online with Halo and post your score. Then you may come back and say it is pathetically easy because it's just not

Says the one who wants gaming to go back the way they are. I like a game, I have my reasons and I like the way Halo has taken gaming while you are prepared to tolerate the massive obvious flaws old fps's

Don't you think that is a bit silly, that you hate the flaws of the newer generation while you barely regard the older fps flaws?

 

[War-hamster]

I remember one civilization 4 review where one bad point was that, I kid you not, the game is too addictive. Seriously...