Lamest excuse for a negetive point in reviews

[Griphphin]

"It's just not a game I like."
I forgot where I heard that, but that shouldn't effect your reviews enough to actually outline it as a point. ZP doesn't do RTS's because he hates them and isn't great at them, so he knows the review will be skewed in that respect.

 

[1blackone]

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.

You have served Lord Computer well, serf.
+34.25 points for mentioning Tribes
+300 points for vicariously mentioning Tribes 2
x4 Shazbot Multiplier!!

OT:GS lowered Call of Duty: WAW for-i kid you not-"not being able to kill anyone in multiplayer with the tank". Really? So you are(reviewer) literally the only person who can't go god-mode with the tank in Big Team DM...and it's the GAMES fault?

Honorable Mention: a man whose name rhymes with Huxpin Pulver once negatively marked Red Dead Remption for "Infrequent but noticeable bugs"

That's like degrading Citizen Kane because there are cigarette burns where the film is spliced.

 

[Squeaky]

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

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

 

[Echo136]

"It lacks depth."
*RAGE*

That sounds pretty legitimate to me.

 

[Julianking93]

IGN is always the worst with stupid criticisms.

Recently read their Castlevania: Lords of Shadow review.

Gave it a 7.5 (I think. It was a 7 something) only because it "doesn't feel like a Castlevania game"

So...because a series takes a new turn and tries out a new style, it sucks? Fuck you IGN! You'd say it sucked if it kept too close to the originals too, so just shut the fuck up!

 

[Thimblefoot]

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.

 

[Squeaky]

Saying that a game has to steep a learning curve, were has the learning curves fucking gone From Software seem to be the only dev were you have to learn to play rather than the game tells you.

 

[Squeaky]

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.

no thats just because they didnt look hard enough I can find problems with even my favourite games, why do reviewers get payed... oh thats right to big up a milked franchise.

 

[Pearwood]

Saying that a game has to steep a learning curve, were has the learning curves fucking gone From Software seem to be the only dev were you have to learn to play rather than the game tells you.

I don't think that's really a valid comment, RTS, SRPG and survival horrors all have quite steep learning curves except certain individual series who are just plain easy (Silent Hill, riddles aside, C&C). FPS doesn't have much of a learning curve and that's pretty much the only genre that doesn't so if you want a steeper learning curve check out other genres.

 

[Professor James]

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

*sigh* Both of you you're going off topic if you haven't noticed this is a review thread not a Halo thread take it somewhere else

 

[SergeMC]

i don't know who it was, gamespot or ign... but a classic for me is when one of these reviewing sites criticized metroid prime 3 for, i kid you not, having "too good controls" that make the game "too easy"
...my god, how stupid can these guys get?

 

[Sovvolf]

no thats just because they didnt look hard enough I can find problems with even my favourite games.

When it comes to the point where your looking hard to find a negative point then it sort of seals it for the recommendation of the game. Anyone can find something bad in a game if they look hard enough... That's what we call nit picking.

why do reviewers get payed... oh thats right to big up a milked franchise.

Last time I checked they reviewed video games. Giving their opinions on a video game that may or may not differ from your own view.

 

[Squeaky]

Saying that a game has to steep a learning curve, were has the learning curves fucking gone From Software seem to be the only dev were you have to learn to play rather than the game tells you.

I don't think that's really a valid comment, RTS, SRPG and survival horrors all have quite steep learning curves except certain individual series who are just plain easy (Silent Hill, riddles aside, C&C). FPS doesn't have much of a learning curve and that's pretty much the only genre that doesn't so if you want a steeper learning curve check out other genres.

I do play every genre as arragont as it may appear I just miss figuring things out by my self :S

 

[Squeaky]

no thats just because they didnt look hard enough I can find problems with even my favourite games.

When it comes to the point where your looking hard to find a negative point then it sort of seals it for the recommendation of the game. Anyone can find something bad in a game if they look hard enough... That's what we call nit picking.

why do reviewers get payed... oh thats right to big up a milked franchise.

Last time I checked they reviewed video games. Giving their opinions on a video game that may or may not differ from your own view.

Yes I mean with in reason, reviews are alot more forgiving of games this gen with only 8,9 and 10s are given as scores. You are ment to try and find pro's and con's of games and be opinionless to show facts to help people decide wether a game is for the reader/viewer but they get lost in hype and the franchise.

 

[feeback06]

Here's a source you may not expect. Every Friday our newspaper does basically an entertainment editorial called "The Weekender." It has movie reviews, concert listings, restaurant reviews, and so on. Recently though they have started doing one video game review a week. Now I don't usually read them, so I don't know if they are always this terrible but the entire review for Metroid: Outer M consisted of; "This game isn't good because it's on the Wii, the 360 looks prettier." I was so angry about it, I had to talk about it at work.

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

le snip

more snippy stuff

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

In general I heaped praise on the games execution and I really don't like the game at all. It was a well made well timed product aimed and thoroughly remoulded to suit it's new console. Halo was not the reason for those things being in the industry as they were already there and very common but halo made them work on the consoles and even made them work well with the rubbish for first person controller. It reason for it's success lies in that it works very well. It gave console players something they'd been asking for for years, previous FPS efforts always showed just how hard it was to do anything in first person with a control pad while still being as brutal as PC games, unsurprisingly they left people feeling cold.

I dislike the pacing, the games speed, aesthetic design, weapon feel, auto-aiming and the regenerating health. The only two things I like about halo are the animations (which were just fantastic on the vehicles like nothing else at the time) and the for the time good story.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hell, I put hundreds of hours into the first quake games online multiplayer in 1996 and was never shy of busy severs to play on. Its simple controls with bindable functions and mouse look made it a joy to control, I even bound a melee attack button. It's arcadey physics and over the top weapons made for some fantastic situations and elegant rocket jumping tactics.

 

[joshuaayt]

I'd wager that half of these "Weak criticisms" are just euphemistic ways of saying "Company didn't suck us off quite enough."

 

[Sovvolf]

Yes I mean with in reason, reviews are alot more forgiving of games this gen with only 8,9 and 10s are given as scores.

You'll find that it's always been like that. I know it seems that most review sites are pretty forgiving but trust me its not been that much of a change. Read some of the older reviews and you'll note that they are just as forgiving.

You are ment to try and find pro's and con's of games and be opinionless to show facts to help people decide wether a game is for the reader/viewer but they get lost in hype and the franchise.

The fact is that the pros and cons can (within a reasonable extent)be subject to opinion. So it's not easy to be opinionless when what your doing is trying to provide the reader with your opinion on whether or not a game is good.

Hypes really not got all that much to do with it. You can't blame the games review scores on the companies marketing department. Look I can see where your coming from, you feel that reviews are too easy or rate high those games that have been highly marketed. It's not as simple as that and many try base the reviews on the games own merits. Look lets look at COD 4 for example, that got good scores and was (in my opinion)an excellent game on both a technical level and artistic level. Should we take points away from this game based solely on the fact that the game belongs to a long running franchise or that it was hyped up be the marketing department?.