Lamest excuse for a negetive point in reviews

[Nexus4]

I was recently watching the Army of Two 40th day review from IGN, they game it a solid score but one of it's main criticisms at the end was "weak pistols". Really? Out of any negative points that could be made about the game they settled for 'weak pistols' despite the fact that the pistol are kinda meant to be a last resort weapon in the game. Anyone else got similar stories?

 

[Jack and Calumon]

The pistol always needs to be effective. They still kill you.

OT: GameSpot's review of Turok stays in mind. "Human Opponents aren't Dinosaurs."

Calumon: Well...should they be?

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

IGN will always have the stupidest criticisms. I hate seeing "framerate issues" as a criticism. That's your hardware, not the game doing that. Unless you're online, then it could be lag.

 

[The Rockerfly]

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

 

[Omikron009]

IGN will always have the stupidest criticisms. I hate seeing "framerate issues" as a criticism. That's your hardware, not the game doing that. Unless you're online, then it could be lag.

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.

OT: One review for Halo 3: ODST gave it a negative point because of how hair-pullingly difficult the final escort section was on legendary. Then again, that one might be legitimate.

 

[TheComedown]

The ZP Batman AA, the thing about the box art.


There was also quite a few lame points in the Metro 2033 review here.

 

[Amnestic]

IGN will always have the stupidest criticisms. I hate seeing "framerate issues" as a criticism. That's your hardware, not the game doing that. Unless you're online, then it could be lag.

That's not even remotely true. I've played a number of games on the 360 which have framerate issues on occasion, both with and without installation.

Framerate issues can be, and is, a valid criticism at times and you disregarding it out of hand is foolish.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

The pistol always needs to be effective. They still kill you.

OT: GameSpot's review of Turok stays in mind. "Human Opponents aren't Dinosaurs."

Calumon: Well...should they be?

YES.

Yes they should.

It's Turok. The lack of focus on dinosaurs and the abandonment of all the ludicrous plot elements that set the original apart are among the many reasons Turok was terrible.

That weak pistols thing is just silly, though.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

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.

 

[Starke]

IGN will always have the stupidest criticisms. I hate seeing "framerate issues" as a criticism. That's your hardware, not the game doing that. Unless you're online, then it could be lag.

That's not even remotely true. I've played a number of games on the 360 which have framerate issues on occasion, both with and without installation.

Framerate issues can be, and is, a valid criticism at times and you disregarding it out of hand is foolish.

Even with some PC titles, it can be legitimate. Off hand Civ V seems to be a legitimate subject for this at the moment. Historically Trespasser was another game with unreasonable framerate issues.

 

[EqualNOpposite]

I always thought that at least one of the 'negative' points for IGN's reviews was a joke. I think they had 'no cake' for Portal.

 

[The Rockerfly]

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.

It doesn't matter if it was a console limitation, it doesn't matter if it was a fucking flying elephant saying the game needs to be made in a certain way

What matters is that they did release a game which changed fps's and while you might want to admit that, look at most fps's released in the last 3 years

Plus Bungie is one of the few companies that give a shit about their community and they release good games, that's why they are considered a high quality developer

 

[Jack and Calumon]

The pistol always needs to be effective. They still kill you.

OT: GameSpot's review of Turok stays in mind. "Human Opponents aren't Dinosaurs."

Calumon: Well...should they be?

YES.

Yes they should.

It's Turok. The lack of focus on dinosaurs and the abandonment of all the ludicrous plot elements that set the original apart are among the many reasons Turok was terrible.

That weak pistols thing is just silly, though.

I think they were talking about Multiplayer though, and that's silly for ridiculing it for that though. But if they are talking about the campaign, then fair enough. I made it through that unsatisfied.

Calumon: I wasn't around then. I think I should be glad?

 

[Wuffykins]

Monster Hunter Freedom games having a 'lack of lock-on control.'

This pisses me off to no end, as I always read reviewers stating they want games not to be clones or have differences in gameplay, but a design choice to make a game more challenging doesn't fit their bill.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

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.

It doesn't matter if it was a console limitation, it doesn't matter if it was a fucking flying elephant saying the game needs to be made in a certain way

What matters is that they did release a game which changed fps's and while you might want to admit that, look at most fps's released in the last 3 years

Plus Bungie is one of the few companies that give a shit about their community and they release good games, that's why they are considered a high quality developer

So if I released a game built entirely around eating your own shit, and it became so massively successful that every game copied my brilliant "innovations" in coprophagia, you would happily eat your own shit while defending my game against anyone who points out that dogs have been eating their own shit for centuries and it was generally discouraged?

I am, of course, talking about regenerating health and auto-aim. Two of the linchpins in the halo formula. See, ever since online games existed, people made aimbots and invulnerabilty/regeneration hacks. These aren't what I'm talking about when I say other games beat halo to regenerating health, auto-aim, and everything else the captive LIVE demographics claim it did first. But being forced to rely on the game's built in assistance measures does not make a better game, it just makes an easier game. But most people can't really tell the difference, so MASSIVE SUCCESS.

If you remember, it took a while for non-halo games to "get" that halo's success was based upon auto-aim. Killzone, for instance, was a pretty massive flop both times because the developers didn't get the auto-aim right.

The fact every game followed suit isn't really a valid claim either. "Holy shit, easy games are making money. That must mean easy games are awesome!" The reality its just more proof people are cretinous dipshits who will, literally, buy anything.

 

[Instant K4rma]

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.

 

[Oilerfan92]

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.

 

[The Rockerfly]

So if I released a game built entirely around eating your own shit, and it became so massively successful that every game copied my brilliant "innovations" in coprophagia, you would happily eat your own shit while defending my game against anyone who points out that dogs have been eating their own shit for centuries and it was generally discouraged?

I am, of course, talking about regenerating health and auto-aim. Two of the linchpins in the halo formula. See, ever since online games existed, people made aimbots and invulnerabilty/regeneration hacks. These aren't what I'm talking about when I say other games beat halo to regenerating health, auto-aim, and everything else the captive LIVE demographics claim it did first. But being forced to rely on the game's built in assistance measures does not make a better game, it just makes an easier game. But most people can't really tell the difference, so MASSIVE SUCCESS.

If you remember, it took a while for non-halo games to "get" that halo's success was based upon auto-aim. Killzone, for instance, was a pretty massive flop both times because the developers didn't get the auto-aim right.

The fact every game followed suit isn't really a valid claim either. "Holy shit, easy games are making money. That must mean easy games are awesome!" The reality its just more proof people are cretinous dipshits who will, literally, buy anything.

That is a massive exaggeration, all it is doing is changing the pacing in an fps to make it compatible for online play. If everyone was a super hero solider online with a million hit points and guns that only the top end people could earn then it is almost impossible for new players to get involved. That's the problem with old fps's, they are just not compatible for new generation playing multiplayer. That is where auto aim and health regeneration come in

Auto aim for consoles is necessary for any console fps, while I think that a controller is much more comfortable to play with and more fun, I will agree that a mouse is more accurate. However, if you play online with any fps, not just Halo but say COD4. Go online and you will die a fair amount and because everyone has the same assistance it balances out the game. It doesn't make a game any easier or unfair and it fixes the problem of the controller being less accurate

Auto health is also necessary because going back to any point and walking a distance for you to live longer takes more time than just dying. This makes the game much more fast paced rather then trekking back and forward to health point. Besides, it's not like it's instant and everyone has it so it's not making the game any easier (like if one person had the ability and everyone else had to go back and get health)

Even if they weren't there, it wouldn't make it any harder, just more frustrating for new players.

You can say it made it more shit but people liked it, bought it and it became the new fps standard. You can't measure something like this so you can say it's shit but it doesn't matter, the old style is too old fashioned for the console fps generation. Maybe it will come around again but only if the market determine it

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

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

 

[vaderaider]

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