Lamest excuse for a negetive point in reviews

[Stickfigure]

Warning: looooong post.

I dunno, most of these complaints seem pretty valid...

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?

In multiplayer, probably not. However, there is a certain level of expectation from Turok as a game that it ought to live up to if it shares the brand. Even the Final Fantasy series, one that has very few connections between installments, featured similar songs, familiar creatures(moogles and chocobos), and possessed certain gameplay elements that lent them a certain brand of familiarity. If, say, one changes a series too much(Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles), it is a negative point worth noting to the fans of the franchise. If the gameplay change doesn't bother you, you ignore it. But it's a fair criticism all the same.

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.

On a PC, perhaps. The knowledge that a game has certain unrealistic demands of processor power is worth noting, but not worth deducting points on. It depends greatly on what causes the framerate issues and if it's a problem that spans many levels of processor power.

That said, if it's a problem with a console game, then it's indicative of sub-par programming and a problem that will effect all involved parties. Patches may come and fix it, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the released product simply wasn't up to snuff at certain points and deserves the disdain.

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

A game that apes so very many of the same gameplay, graphical, and story elements from another game that it's clearly a re-make may deserve a little ire, as well. Taking aside how it smacks of laziness, if the point of that review is that too many similar elements still exist, then what was really the point of making HG and SS other than making it prettier? I know, I know: money, but still, Black and White are the first interesting thing they've done with the series in a while. A little condemnation for lack of creativity and ethic never hurt anyone.

Guy marked down Mgs4 a point because of the install you have to do...

Of course he did. Mandatory install is a pain in the ass on it's own, but the fact that you have to do multiple installs throughout the process is flow-breaking insanity: a giant dam spontaneously erected in the middle of a confusing and poorly-written river. I would install regardless of choice, but failing to offer the option to do so seems a pretty big oversight, nevermind the option to simply forego the process entirely.

Resident Evil 4 and 5 getting dinged for their control style. It's true that they don't control like Halo, but they don't NEED to. The enemies and environments are designed so that they can be handled with the controls used.

4 deserved no such complaints. For the time it was made, it did a lot more things right than most competitors and deserves praise for it. 5, on the other hand, is easily outpaced by many other 3rd-person shooters in the gameplay department, due to the somewhat datedly clumsy and awkward controls and poor cover mechanics more competently achieved in numerous other TPSs. Context or no, the complaint that 5 is easily trumped by other games is valid.

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.

A small ding against them isn't completely remiss: it's a bit immersion-breaking if you're playing a serious WW2 shooter and all the flowers look like cardboard cutouts of flowers. Of course, I didn't read it, so it may have been used as an example of larger problems: like static backdrops or some such nonsense.

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?

That's a subjective statement(as are most game reviews), but certainly not baseless. A game that suffers from excessive simplicity makes for a poor challenge. Without challenge there's very little point to the game, since it's difficult to get invested if you start off the game on God mode.

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.

IT WAS TOO HARD, GOD DAMN IT!!!!

... OK, I just sucked at the game. But my ego won't allow that so... the game cheats. Totally valid complaint.

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.

Dunno 'bout LR, but even though I love the shit out of the Disgaea franchise, sprites that could've practically existed on the PSX does seem like a bit of a cause for concern when we're on the latest generation. That sort of stuff flies a bit easier on DLC, but a little more resolution in the sprites couldn't have hurt that much to do.

*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.

That's exactly it, though: he did say the game was average, and it was. It didn't really reinvent the wheel; it wasn't a startlingly new concept, it wasn't a terribly well-told or interesting story, and it ultimately did very little to justify it's existence beyond "We want Halo for the 360!" Which is fine. There's no problem in doing that. A lot of very acceptable games do just that. It's just not something to throw a parade over.

 

[repeating integers]

[/quote]

*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.

That's exactly it, though: he did say the game was average, and it was. It didn't really reinvent the wheel; it wasn't a startlingly new concept, it wasn't a terribly well-told or interesting story, and it ultimately did very little to justify it's existence beyond "We want Halo for the 360!" Which is fine. There's no problem in doing that. A lot of very acceptable games do just that. It's just not something to throw a parade over.

I didn't have any problem with most of his criticisms (though I do still love Halo 3 very much), I was just pointing out that his criticising THE WAY THE GUNS LOOKED was annoying.

I agree that Halo 3 isn't something to throw a parade over - it's something to sit down and play and get absorbed into because it's damn fun, and we shouldn't really be having flamewars over it. Halo: Reach on the other hand, is worth defending (though I lack the energy to do this anymore and will let others do so).

 

[D Moness]

"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.

People used that to bash eternal sonata.
A lot of IGN complaints , stopped taking them serious ages ago after one badly biased review of a certain pc game

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

snip

I don't like the older games better than the newer ones and you have no evidence with which to accuse me of that, I simply dislike one feature and that not enough to stop me playing the games.
If you bothered to read my posts, rather than being offended I personally dislike halo, I already granted Halo it's place as redefining the Console world, I can see it as a great piece of work.

The PC version was massively disappointing and even if it had come out art the same time as the console version I wouldn't have been impressed. Playing it on a console is just as awkward as I find any control pad based first person game.

Lots of the PC only FPS's, of which there have been a tonne of in recent years, don't have the health regenerate anyway or it can be switched off with a quick ini edit or console command.

Your assumption that the Pc market is in some way lessening is just that, an assumption. One that console owners have been claiming since the day the 8086 processor came out. The PC market is a far more diverse market than the consoles with the trade off of smaller sales per game but it has loads of FPS's.

You didn't present your argument well or in clear language and just stated a bunch of made up facts that had no bearing on the matter.

 

[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.

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.

Listen, just because you don't have any experience predating halo, doesn't mean halo did anything unique, innovative, or good for the industry as a whole. Sure, more money by opening previously inaccessible genres up to the "unwashed" console masses, but thats colored the entirety of the industry ever since it's release.

After their plan to be the only mac exclusive developer fizzled out, bungie pioneered a design philosophy along the lines of making games accessible to new demographics by making them easier, simpler, and most importantly, dumber. Don't make the player feel stupid, frustrated, or impotent, as nine times out of ten, the player will blame the game, rather than his/her own lack of ability.

Final Fantasy Mystic Quest (aka The Final Fantasy That Does Not Exist!) was also an attempt at this type of design. Open the JRPG to new players, as they had missed the crucial developmental steps that lead to games like FFVI. It failed magnificently because the new demographics still weren't interested, and the established fanbase felt insulted.

What bungie did with halo was identical, except the xbox demographics were completely captive. LIVE was always a perfect walled garden so there was no threat of [people who thought the xbox looked cool] having any experience playing the better games halo ripped it's every idea from. The captive demographics would never think, "hey, this game is aiming for me! It thinks I'm retarded! FUCK YOU BUNGIE!!" They'd think, "wow, I am a lot better at this game than any other shooting game. That must mean this is a better game! I LOVE YOU BUNGIE!!"

It established a new mainstream of stupid, lazy, incompetent children who would demand their hand be held every second. They weren't going to read a manual. They weren't going to learn to play. Unless they could quickly pick up the game and start killing shit, the game would be as quickly dismissed as "WTF NERD SHIT!"

Thing is, consoles should've had new controller designs by now. Controllers with more precise tuning to read smaller movements to minimize the barrier between hand and screen. Instead, we have waggle, motion controls, jumping up and down in front of a camera. All to push gaming to new demographics. People who, before now, would've simply dismissed video games as murderer factories or unholy filth. You say halo did good, the direction halo has taken the industry means soon, even you will be abandoned as well. If the kinest/move is successful, (or god forbid the SCOTUS rules in california's favor), gaming moves away from you the way it moved away from me. While I sit here saying, "told you so." But hey, maybe you'd like that easy casual bullshit.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

Except it couldn't be turned off. Expert mode still had a huge amount of assistance, and it pissed me off to no end. That and the fact the John wouldn't keep his damn gun out for more than five seconds...

 

[repeating integers]

I was just pointing out that his criticising THE WAY THE GUNS LOOKED was annoying.

This might surprise you, but art style and design IS a valid criticism target. One of the most valid, in fact. This is supposed to be some sort of gritty sci-fi action epic, "it's subjective" doesn't cut it when people are shooting each other with Mattel guns.

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.

But it WAS a good game. It didn't try and rip off Halo and Modern Warfare like everyone else, but those 2 games aren't standards for quality game design.

Did you just use the words "gritty" and "Halo" in the same sentence? Until Reach, Halo was a very light-hearted shooter. Personally I find Halo's art style to be very attractive, but that's not the point. If Yahtzee had said "the art style is *insert classic Yahtzee metaphor/simile here*", then I'd be more inclined to take his criticisms seriously, but... I dunno, maybe it was the way he said it, but he made it sound like the pettiest complaint one could have. It wasn't even funny, as opposed to your usual Yahtzee criticism.

 

[HT_Black]

I dunno; I don't read other folks' reviews. I can, however, tell you that I got some really funny looks from my friends when I said that Twilight Princess had an uncomfortable pedophiliac subtext.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

The linearity argument.

You know, people, some games are meant to be linear. A game's linearity is nothing to scoff at unless it's boring. Linearity does not exclude variety.

 

[MalevolentStaircase]

What? The DE was like insta-kill for me, I used it more than the sniper rifles.

 

[repeating integers]

What? The DE was like insta-kill for me, I used it more than the sniper rifles.

Methinks you may have posted in the wrong thread slightly? Or I'm missing/have forgotten something.

 

[The Rockerfly]

I don't like the older games better than the newer ones and you have no evidence with which to accuse me of that, I simply dislike one feature and that not enough to stop me playing the games.
If you bothered to read my posts, rather than being offended I personally dislike halo, I already granted Halo it's place as redefining the Console world, I can see it as a great piece of work.

The PC version was massively disappointing and even if it had come out art the same time as the console version I wouldn't have been impressed. Playing it on a console is just as awkward as I find any control pad based first person game.

Lots of the PC only FPS's, of which there have been a tonne of in recent years, don't have the health regenerate anyway or it can be switched off with a quick ini edit or console command.

Your assumption that the Pc market is in some way lessening is just that, an assumption. One that console owners have been claiming since the day the 8086 processor came out. The PC market is a far more diverse market than the consoles with the trade off of smaller sales per game but it has loads of FPS's.

You didn't present your argument well or in clear language and just stated a bunch of made up facts that had no bearing on the matter.

You said you wish that games went back to the old fashion style

Would you listen to yourself for 2 minutes, you've proved yourself wrong in your own arguments and you're ignoring points you've made. I mean I'm used to people ignoring points at other people but to yourself? Also you agree with my man point, why the hell are you arguing with me?

I did read your posts, I gathered that you dislike Halo... I didn't get offended, I just can't stand people spouting rubbish

I think you're confusing assumptions with simple business. The video game industry is a business, stuff gets popular, more of that stuff will be made and if something is unpopular less is made of it. Simple supply and demand. So using this you can analysis the market and determine that less larger developers are creating games for PC due to the lack of sales. Granted there is other factors such as piracy but many companies managed to get over that with various schemes such as the Ubisoft DRM scheme

I didn't say it wasn't more diverse. I think that it has a hell of a lot less impact on the market though

Okay this is stupid, I have heard the "you didn't present an argument in a way I like it boo hoo" argument too many times when it comes to Halo. Show me something specific in my answers and I will attempt to explain it in a different fashion for you to understand

Golden eye came out way before and was a blast to play. Sorry not first decent console, maybe 30th (exagerating on that but no way in hell its the first)

Read through my other posts

 

[LogicNProportion]

"It never took itself seriously." - Some review I remember in January for Bayonetta.

Me: "TH-THAT'S THE POINT GODAMMIT! IT'S SILLY! IT WANTS TO BE! LET IT BE SO! FUUUUUUCK!"

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

I can agree with this. I never have been able to get into the mindset of the hater. There are plenty of popular things that I don't like, but then I don't feel the need to point it out because, quite obviously, my opinion on the subject is irrelevant to other people's enjoyment. I can't stand Final Fantasy (any save Tactics) yet I don't begrudge people for liking the game nor do I feel any smug superiority. It just isn't the game for me.

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.

I wouldn't call any particular point BS. His assertions are, as far as I've noticed, true. The question often becomes if any particular assertion impacts how you will play the game. Scribblenauts does have quite a bit of variation, but you quickly find that there is a small set of solutions that work for almost any problem. Sure, you can find another solution but in the end why bother? You are given a sandbox and you have devised a shovel and a bucket. When asked to build a sandcastle, why create a unique bucket or a very specialized shovel when your generic set will often work perfectly fine?

The problem, I'd say, is not then in the variety of things you can do, but rather the fact that the game only has a few different types of problem. You can have a hundred different nails that need to be drive home and, while you might find there are several ways to drive a nail, the basic solution of a hammer will almost certainly work for any of them.

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

It has a story in the most basic sense but it is the same threadbare story that has been attached to most Mario games.

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

I generally watch his segments for the purposes of entertainment and have rarely taken his advice when purchasing a game since he, very generally, gives a negative impression of any game. His segment does have some value when it comes to consumer advocacy of course in that I can be fairly certain he will tell me what is wrong with a game even if he rarely tells me what might be right with it.

 

[Snotnarok]

For the game Blade Kitten, IGN complained the combat was too simplistic ...

Now mind you this is a platformer, the stupidity of that comment just makes me wonder why they didn't rate Mario lower because his platforming is too simplistic and fighting is even more basic. That means Marios games are crap because they're not complicated enough, according to IGN's logic that is.

Doesn't bother me what they gave Blade Kitten, I think the game is fun as hell. To me it feels like an old DOS styled game like Commander Keen where you're killing enemies sure but your other goal is to find all the floating items to get points.

 

[wolf thing]

from gametrailer, stalker shadow of chernobly AI was too good

 

[Dexiro]

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.

For the PSP version it's not such a bad criticism, the lack of a second analog makes it super awkward trying to turn and move the camera at the same time. Some sort of "weak" lock on would have helped where it just tries to keep the monster in-view when you want it to be.

With the PS2/Wii versions though I agree with you, it's fine without lock-on.