Lamest excuse for a negetive point in reviews

[Stickfigure]

"It didn't have zombies in it."

That is never an invalid complaint. I recall Barbie Horse Adventures' biggest flaw was, in fact, a lack of zombies.

No that game's greatest flaw was its own existence.

Perhaps, but can you honestly make the argument that it's existence wouldn't have been monumentally improved by a preponderance of zombies?

 

[Saxm13]

Anytime any critic says anything is "unoriginal".

-______-


Nothing is original these days. Critiquing needs to evolve...

 

[repeating integers]

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

I still fire up Doom 2 every now and then.

And C&C: Red alert 2......and the original Worms.....and the original Crash Team racing....and etc.

Your assumption that old games suck just for being old makes me sick.

I agree, actually. Halo is fun, but it's perfectly possible for games made over 10 years ago to be fun. Homeworld was made 11 years ago. Hell, Halo CE is approaching the over-10-year mark.

EDIT: Not having zombies in it isn't a criticism, it's praise. Zombies are bland, dull, boring enemies. Games should have aliens or robots instead.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

I'm not a Halo fan, gave up on it halfway through the first game, but I don't consider it a dumbing down of the FPS like the Thief & Deus Ex sacrifices to the mainstream gaming gods. Yes, it did a few things in aid of the casual player (namely the recharging shields), but it also streamlined the controls, while adding functionality (grenade & melee buttons). But I think everything the game did was a justifiable game play choice... yes, even the recharging shields.

I hated the shields when I played Halo and I think it's more often than not a destructive trend... but I also think it works in some games, because it does two things better than a kit-based health system. Firstly, if you're playing a godlike bringer of death (see Prototype or to a lesser extent Saints Row), being able to play aggressively at all times adds to the gameplay. These games are designed to make you feel like a badass at all times, even if you're not very good at them.

On the other side of the coin, it actually makes you feel more like you've been in a firefight. Gears Of War is pretty much based on this, but I think the best example is the Iraqi missions in Call Of Duty 4. One thing video games have a hard time evoking are near misses. You can't feel the thump of shells landing next to you or bullets whizzing by your head. Oddly, the recharge system mimics these near-death experiences (although it's not a perfect illusion). COD4's Iraqi missions were so hard-hitting and intense, that I was experience battle fatigue (in a good way) from it. Had I been searching for health kits constantly, I would not have experienced as an immersive experience (health kits remind you it's a game). While the "hide until you're better" gameplay is unrealistic, in that situation, it was almost like you were experience constant near-death experience. If you were nearly killed by a grenade, you'd probably hide behind a wall for a moment if you could. It's almost like you're not getting hit by anything, but *almost* getting hit and experiencing the psychological experience. Mind you, this illusion is smashed every time you charge into a room and take a shotgun at point blank range and live... but I think that constant damage tinge mimics near hits better than any traditional shooter.

But the real problem of Halo isn't Halo, it's all the unimaginative types who blindly follow the trends, and there were more than a few of these guys jumping on the Doom and Quake band-wagons back in the day. The console failures of creativity just tend to be higher profile.

 

[SalamanderJoe]

IGN's video review of 3D Dot Game Heroes. It's only negative mark was the repetitive music. A game. Based around the 8-bit era of gaming. I presume the reviewer never actually played anything from the chip-tune decades...

 

[Gerrawn]

I can't remember the reviewer or what site it was on, but it made me go "wat" when he complained that Dragon Age: Origins was too long.

 

[Beartrucci]

I think I rememember IGN docking off points or at least criticizing BOH: Hell's Highway because of the 2D flowers on the ground...now that's lame.

This, because I'm replaying the game at the moment and it's fucking intense. Such a fantastic game. Complaining about 2D flowers on the ground is beyond nitpicking.

 

[Cpu46]

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.

Sure they were done before Halo but Halo was the game that brought all these pieces together and implemented them almost perfectly in my opinion.

 

[Netrigan]

Halo did what most successful FPS games did. It raided the box of toys, took what it liked, added a handful of tweaks, and put out a game different enough from the compitition to stand out. Solid game play and story put it over the top.

I still think that Halo would have been a momentary blip on the PC front (no way it's multiplayer would make a dent in the crowded MP arena), but it would have been successful and critically acclaimed. But on the console, it created and filled the FPS vacuum. And being (more or less) first, it endeared a level of fan adoration that only games like Doom, Quake, and Half-Life enjoy. For a lot of people, it was their first exposure to the genre and you never forget your first.

 

[Locko96]

I sense an impending flame war about Halo... grab the popcorn.

My Spidey-senses went off as soon as I started reading this!

OT: A review for Just Cause 2 took off points for it's plot. I'm pretty sure plot was number 37 on the developer's list for making the game, under a long list that includes explosions and pulling millions of parachutes out of your ass.

 

[The Axon Hillock]

Framerate issues could very well be a game issue. For example, KOTOR has serious framerate issues when played on an xbox 360. It's just not coded very well.

Shenanigans. KOTOR doesn't have any framerate problems on the original XBox, which is what it was coded for. The 360 just has horrible backwards compatibility. For example, my copy of Silent Hill 4 runs smoothly on my XBox, and falls completely to pieces on my XBox 360. That's a hardware issue, not a game coding issue. Stupid shitty 360... Well, I guess it's better than not having ANY backwards compatibility with the last console generation. Stupid shitty PS3...

Worst criticism I ever heard was everyone pitching a tearful little ***** fit because Brutal Legend didn't have the words "PLAYS KINDA LIKE AN R.T.S., YO!" Printed on the front. That's why you research games to see if they are your style, stupidbrains. Don't say it's a bad game because its a genre you weren't expecting and you didn't bother to youtube gameplay footage...

My Brutal Legend fandom is showing through...

 

[Zanaxal]

"Starcraft 2 ZOmg only 1 campaign and we need to pay for more" is way up there. Because the campaign is very well done and long enough for any solo gamer. And you cant exspect a company to work for free 3+ years on campaigns. Gtfo. Beats any DLC ever.

 

[Hisshiss]

Judging by the way most games are reviewed these days, "isn't halo" seems to knock off two or three points. Unless its a halo game, then its perfect tens all around

-snip-

halo did not do any of those things first. It simply used what other games were doing to prop up the limitations of console controls. Low weapons inventory to offset the lack of buttons, regenerating health so players wouldn't have to rely on dodgy move/look controls to heal. Cover so players wouldn't have to rely on dodgy move/look controls to avoid damage. Aim-assist so players wouldn't have to rely on dodgy move/look controls to inflict damage. Vehicles are just fluff, but tribes beat them to that as well... and did them better.

Basically, they made an okay console shooter by minimizing the amount the player had to play it. But because it was released to a completely captive audience (the portion of humanity that thought the xbox looked cool), bungie is now considered a high quality developer.

Seconded.

 

[Something Amyss]

Anytime any critic says anything is "unoriginal".

Especially when they then go praise the next Halo/CoD/GTA Clone or Madden title.

Nothing against any of the above. Just the hypocrisy represented.

 

[Brotherofwill]

Plus Killzone flopped because it was boring, grey and quite possibly the dullest fps mankind has ever made

This has got to be like the most ironic thing I've read in a long time given your previous and following comments. Just wow.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Plus Killzone flopped because it was boring, grey and quite possibly the dullest fps mankind has ever made

This has got to be like the most ironic thing I've read in a long time given your previous and following comments. Just wow.

Because Halo is grey...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Wolfram23]

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 was directly painful to watch. "it feels like the game wants me to run and shoot, but that doesnt work"... doesnt that mean youre NOT supposed to run and shoot?!

and the sarcastic remarks... *slow motion scene* "oh look, its sparta".... 300 didnt invent slow motion!

fully agree with you on worst review ever

That almost hurt to watch. He was running up to point blank range... no fucking shit you're going to die... stupid ass reviewer. Metro 2033 was epic and the gameplay was perfect. Stealth worked really well for me. The only gameplay part that pissed me off was those damn things that would spawn exploding bubbles, yet your escort guy would blindly continue walking through them. That was really tough but otherwise, great game. The reviewer also made a lot of mistakes and/or assumptions of the details that aren't valid.

 

[repeating integers]

Plus Killzone flopped because it was boring, grey and quite possibly the dullest fps mankind has ever made

This has got to be like the most ironic thing I've read in a long time given your previous and following comments. Just wow.

Because Halo is grey...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

The second image there is the single greatest thing ever to happen to gaming.

This is why Halo is so fun. You can be so damn creative.

Really, I don't get the types who actively argue against Halo and claim it's rubbish just because it's not their kind of thing, at its core. Not liking a game doesn't make it terrible, it means you don't like the game. If I played Half Life 2 and decided I hated it, would that make it any worse?

Oh and:

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.

I'm not a Halo fan, gave up on it halfway through the first game, but I don't consider it a dumbing down of the FPS like the Thief & Deus Ex sacrifices to the mainstream gaming gods. Yes, it did a few things in aid of the casual player (namely the recharging shields), but it also streamlined the controls, while adding functionality (grenade & melee buttons). But I think everything the game did was a justifiable game play choice... yes, even the recharging shields.

I hated the shields when I played Halo and I think it's more often than not a destructive trend... but I also think it works in some games, because it does two things better than a kit-based health system. Firstly, if you're playing a godlike bringer of death (see Prototype or to a lesser extent Saints Row), being able to play aggressively at all times adds to the gameplay. These games are designed to make you feel like a badass at all times, even if you're not very good at them.

On the other side of the coin, it actually makes you feel more like you've been in a firefight. Gears Of War is pretty much based on this, but I think the best example is the Iraqi missions in Call Of Duty 4. One thing video games have a hard time evoking are near misses. You can't feel the thump of shells landing next to you or bullets whizzing by your head. Oddly, the recharge system mimics these near-death experiences (although it's not a perfect illusion). COD4's Iraqi missions were so hard-hitting and intense, that I was experience battle fatigue (in a good way) from it. Had I been searching for health kits constantly, I would not have experienced as an immersive experience (health kits remind you it's a game). While the "hide until you're better" gameplay is unrealistic, in that situation, it was almost like you were experience constant near-death experience. If you were nearly killed by a grenade, you'd probably hide behind a wall for a moment if you could. It's almost like you're not getting hit by anything, but *almost* getting hit and experiencing the psychological experience. Mind you, this illusion is smashed every time you charge into a room and take a shotgun at point blank range and live... but I think that constant damage tinge mimics near hits better than any traditional shooter.

But the real problem of Halo isn't Halo, it's all the unimaginative types who blindly follow the trends, and there were more than a few of these guys jumping on the Doom and Quake band-wagons back in the day. The console failures of creativity just tend to be higher profile.

I also agree with this. Sure, Halo spawned a whole collection of mindless and shit clones. Don't blame Halo for this, blame the idiots who decided to be copycats of it.