Lamest excuse for a negetive point in reviews

[Unrulyhandbag]

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?.

More than that some of the best reviews have very little in the way for facts in them. They are simply a way of informing a reader what the reviewer thought of a game no more no less.

If a reviewer who likes strategy games starts a strategy game review by comparing the game to dried dog turds then you know straight away whether he liked it and that he's going to rip it, do you need to read further?
I once read a PCGamer(UK) review that spent the whole time hating on Battenberg cake because it was way more interesting than the game. It was a good review and told me exactly how the reviewer felt about the game.

Being given a list of good and bad points with some reasons why is often less informative as you'd need to understand game design yourself to appreciate some criticism and they are often subjective anyway.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Anyone complaining about F-Zero Gx being too hard. At no point in the game is fake difficulty used, so that criticism is completely baseless.

 

[8-Bit Grin]

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.

When Monster Hunter is reviewed, you should expect them to miss the point.

Until recently, it wasn't even acknowledged that some people actually enjoyed the game.

Then when they finally did bring it up, they acted like the fan base was pants on head retarded.

I've long since made peace with the fact that it's a 'love or hate' game, and no longer read the reviews.

 

[Squeaky]

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.

Hypes really not got all that much to do with it.

I ment more going with the hype of readers, though fear of backlash look at Uncharted 2 on GT it got 0.1 less than another game, there was almost an armed riot. Im not a keen on CoD so I probly would lol but yeh I ment more nostalgia ?

 

[Sovvolf]

More than that some of the best reviews have very little in the way for facts in them. They are simply a way of informing a reader what the reviewer thought of a game no more no less.

If a reviewer who likes strategy games starts a strategy game review by comparing the game to dried dog turds then you know straight away whether he liked it and that he's going to rip it, do you need to read further?
I once read a PCGamer(UK) review that spent the whole time hating on Battenberg cake because it was way more interesting than the game. It was a good review and told me exactly how the reviewer felt about the game.

Being given a list of good and bad points with some reasons why is often less informative as you'd need to understand game design yourself to appreciate some criticism and they are often subjective anyway.

True enough, hence the popularity of people like Charlie Brooker and Yahtzee. I also read PCGamer (I'm from the UK too) though not as much as I used to and some of the reviews from there do tend to be more comical while still providing valid points. Which is often the same thing you'll get from most gamer mags. When I had to write one for media I also stuck mostly to using my opinion over the more technical aspects... I laid waste to AVP in that. Wish I'd printed another copy of that mag to take home with me. I enjoyed writing it.

The point is, when you start a review you do need to keep in mind that this is your opinion of the game your writing about. It's often best to write it how you'd say it and don't hold back what you think... If you thought the game was a rustic rotting piece of dog shit then tell them exactly that then explain why you thought that. As long as your not bending the truth of course.

I ment more going with the hype of readers, though fear of backlash look at Uncharted 2 on GT it got 0.1 less than another game, there was almost an armed riot. Im not a keen on CoD so I probly would lol but yeh I ment more nostalgia ?

Well in that case, they should tell the readers to go fuck them selves. Look they should keep with their opinion and not care if the rustle a few fan boys as your always going to screw of the fan boys. Heck I read the review of the re-release of Ocarina of time on the Wii market place and it was the same there. 9.5 caused uproar... However they didn't move the score up just to please them. They pretty much said "Go fuck your self" but it a more polite way.

Again as said above... This is much the reason I like Yahtzee's reviews or Charlie Brooker. They tend not to give a shit about the hype of the game and give you it between the eyes. Takes balls to do that and them boys seem to have them.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

That is a massive exaggeration,

Yep, it is.

all it is doing is changing the pacing in an fps to make it compatible for online play.

but so is that.

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

Half the shit yahtzee says about Dead Space.

Well, he did play it on normal. Dead Space doesn't even start to become tense, much less scary, unless you modify the configuration files to unlock "impossible" your first playthrough.

Anything below that, and isaac is invincible. Period. Hell, you actually have to use a different weapon than the plasma cutter on impossible, as keeping it loaded is a pretty big credit sink.

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.

When Monster Hunter is reviewed, you should expect them to miss the point.

Until recently, it wasn't even acknowledged that some people actually enjoyed the game.

Then when they finally did bring it up, they acted like the fan base was pants on head retarded.

I've long since made peace with the fact that it's a 'love or hate' game, and no longer read the reviews.

You do have to admit monster hunter is a pretty massive grind with some extremely inane and arbitrary limitations. As much as I like the general idea of it, I simply can't play it, as the amount of required grind just puts me right off.

 

[Amnestic]

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

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.

Well, he did play it on normal. Dead Space doesn't even start to become tense, much less scary, unless you modify the configuration files to unlock "impossible" your first playthrough.

Anything below that, and isaac is invincible. Period. Hell, you actually have to use a different weapon than the plasma cutter on impossible, as keeping it loaded is a pretty big credit sink.

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

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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?

That is an interesting question. Turok is a game notable for the fact that it tends to place a person against dinosaurs for the majority of the game. When a First Person Shooter comes out with the turok name attached, it sorta implies you'll spend quite a bit of time shooting dinosaurs. If you do not spend your time doing this thing Turok is notable for, one might ask "So why is it called Turok?". It's like making a Halo game where you spend your time solving physics based puzzles. It might be a perfectly good game, but why would you call it Halo?

Also, I want to play a physics based first person puzzle game set in the Halo universe. I have a desperate need to build a see-saw that will save the human race from the covenant.

 

[Deleted]

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.

Looks like you're in denial about Halo's impact on the FPS genre. Its no longer cool to hate halo, what with Halo Reach being fun and all.

Also, most everything Yahtzee says is complete BS. For example during the scribblenauts episode, he said that when you have the ability to do whatever you want, you're at a lose at what to do. That isn't a flaw of the game, its just a flaw in his creativity.

Also the fact that NSMBWii has no story, seriously? Then final fantasy has too much story.

But maybe I'm taking him too serious, he's a comedy guy not a reviewer.

 

[The DSM]

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.

And complaining about Disgaea 3's graphics, you dont need super HD graphics when your game is as addictive as that series, also the sprites add charm.

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

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.

 

[Netrigan]

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

I'm with you on the first decent console fps (because they figured out how to do quick weapon changing), but the other ones... not terribly innovative, while being quite influential. They get points for creating the curve, but you can spot those popping up in games before that.

Vehicles... I'm assuming you're talking about being able to seemlessly enter and exit vehicles during a level (otherwise, I need only point you to Terminator and Goldeneye, two early FPS which had vehicle levesls). Well, the year before Halo launched, GTA III hit and while it was a third person shooter, the third person shooter has always been fairly closely linked to the FPS (Halo spent time in development as a third person shooter). And even if we ignore GTA III because it's not a FPS, Tribes 2 had integrated vehicles into its multiplayer combat before Halo. This is one of those trends that was in the mail. Jedi Knight 2 would land four months later and allow you to take control of a AT-ST.

Regenerating shields... I'm currently replaying Serious Sam and had my memory prodded when secret hunting in the easiest game mode. Regenerating health had been used for years before Halo, but only on the easiest of difficulties, allowing you to hide in a corner until you feel better. And there's quite a few people who don't think this is an innovation, but a genre-destroying trend. I personally think it can be used well, but most games don't do it well.

Strong weapons at the start... that one, depends on how you look at it. Dark Forces started you off with an accurate, energy efficient pistol, with a fairly slow rate of fire. This would be frequently used throughout the game, because it was good for sniping distant enemies... but like a six-shooter in a Western FPS, it's not something anyone would classify as "good" even though it's the most frequently used weapon in the game. The sequel would have you getting the best weapon in the game about halfway through, the light saber, which the add-on pack, Mysteries Of The Sith, gave you right away.

Is it an assault rifle? No, but getting highly functional, useful weapons at the start of the game wasn't unknown to shooters. But Halo was pretty much the game that put the nail in the coffin for starting you off with a crap weapon, which had been the norm for FPS before it.

And I think the reason "Halo Clone" replaced "Doom Clone" in the lexicon is that Halo's popularity outstripped Doom's, and as such it became one of the most influential FPS games ever. But most of its innovation is in successfully translating things that were already being done in PC shooters, proving that the genre could be done as good (if not better) on the console. By the time we get to Bioshock, we see a game that managed to dramatically improve the controls of the super-powered FPS sub-genre. And this, I think, is Halo's true legacy, a great control scheme that proved that you didn't need to water down the FPS experience to make it work on a console.

 

[KaosuHamoni]

Saying that a sequel's gameplay mechanics are too much like the original. ITS A F*****G SEOUEL YOU F*****G DOUCHE! Of course its gonna have similar gameplay mechanics. The mechanics are what we liked about the first one! =_=

/rant

 

[Daxter343]

'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.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Yahoo reviewing the PS3, you know, i was planing on buying that thing, but i dont feel like buying a new controler every time the battery dies.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

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.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Any time the phrase "it needs more polish/ more refinement, could use a little sprucing up, needs a tiny bit of work." are used to describe the entire game, I go "What's that even supposed to mean?" It's basically saying "There's just something that isn't right. I don't know what, but it's something.'"

If they're specific, there's no problem, like "the controls need a little more work" or "the level design could use some refinement". But if they say "the GAME needs a little tweaking.", I see it as "Yeah, I'm not good at nitpicking or even finding flaws, so here's my cop-out."

Also, the sequel paradox, as I like to call it:
To much like the first or not enough like the first.

The sequel paradox also tends to lead to another thing I hate: contradictions.
One reviewer sang the praises of Halo 3 for being so much like 2. In his review for Metroid Prime 3, he took off some points and spent two paragraphs ranting for the exact same reason.

 

[gl1koz3]

When simplification is called "improvement".

Because "improvement" can be either way.