Stupidest reason to shoot down a game
- Thread starter omega_peaches
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Agreed, it was a bit weird to play Half-Life 2 and then switch over to Fallout 3, with its rigid swingsets and stuff like that. It's not totally necessary to make the game fantastic, but it just gives that little bit more immersion.derelix said:
soul reaver was a perfect game now i stumbled upon the stupidest review i have ever seen in my entire life it was written on gamespot by an user
user : the battles were strange(what the hell does he even mean by strange?and even if it is strange then it means its original and if its original it means GOOD not BAD),the graphics sucked(no shit einstein it was made in 1999)the enviroment is repetitive(there is a thing called theme, would you call the enviroment repetitive if it would take action in antartica or in a desert?or in ruins?)then he complains he doesnt know anything about the storyline because he was to ocupied to seeing how everything sucked so much(this is the second game in the series legacy of kain)it does not tell you how to play the damn game(lots of games have no instructions on how to play them and i mean LOTS i too had trouble understanding how to do anything in some games but im not a goddamn asshole to complain and rate a lower score on the game)then i found the stupidest thing he wrote then i seriously thought he was mentally retarded : the battles were really awkward you had to move while atacking or you will get hit now that's really really awkward(in every goddamn game you have to move while attacking to not get hit)his over reviews included rating JRPGS perfect well if humanity is composed at least 20 percent of these idiots we are doomed.
user : the battles were strange(what the hell does he even mean by strange?and even if it is strange then it means its original and if its original it means GOOD not BAD),the graphics sucked(no shit einstein it was made in 1999)the enviroment is repetitive(there is a thing called theme, would you call the enviroment repetitive if it would take action in antartica or in a desert?or in ruins?)then he complains he doesnt know anything about the storyline because he was to ocupied to seeing how everything sucked so much(this is the second game in the series legacy of kain)it does not tell you how to play the damn game(lots of games have no instructions on how to play them and i mean LOTS i too had trouble understanding how to do anything in some games but im not a goddamn asshole to complain and rate a lower score on the game)then i found the stupidest thing he wrote then i seriously thought he was mentally retarded : the battles were really awkward you had to move while atacking or you will get hit now that's really really awkward(in every goddamn game you have to move while attacking to not get hit)his over reviews included rating JRPGS perfect well if humanity is composed at least 20 percent of these idiots we are doomed.
Well like as far as newer and better graphical techniques. Crysis I would say has the best balance of Gears gritty and dark to Halo's cartoon special. Killzone 2 mixes the styles pretty good too, a little more on the gritty side though. And this is where I think real life is. It isn't clean like Halo but it also isn't grungy like Gears... but Gears isn't on earth (our earth today anyway) and neither is Halo so both I guess don't apply.derelix said:
I see games like Call of Duty and Halo:Reach and wonder why they didn't add things like HDR Lighting and motion blur when they are both common in games today and make games automatically look 10x better. Team Fortress 2 and World of Warcraft are the best examples of cartoon like graphics that also have style. WoW a little older though and could use a graphics boost. I am loving the cut-scenes in Starcraft 2 though, amazing graphics.
Stupidest reason to shoot down a game: the fans. How many games have you chosen not to play because its most vocal fans are mindless zombies? Some would point out FF7, Halo, etc. Games whose fans try their best to make the game look bad. I like both, but am neither an otaku wwho cosplays on weekends and writes fanfics about Tifa's breasts, nor am I a complete tea-bagging douche online.
Have you ever played a game where you could grab a sniper rifle, used a grenade to blow out the stairs leading up to the second floor of a building so nobody could follow you, lob another grenade out of a window sending smoke from a nearby fire to dynamicly swirl around an opponent before taking them out with a head shot that would have otherwise been imossible had they been able to see you? You then shoot out a small nitch in the window frame giving you just enough line of sight to take out another sniper by making a pile of rocks collapse with a single shot sending a bus derelict supported by them onto your hapless victim. All before using one last grenade to break down the wall and send the debris topling down on any remaining enemies, using the distraction to mow them down before hiding in the rubble waiting for reinforcements. It is moments like this in games like Warmonger: Operation Downtown Destruction that make it hard to play another shooter knowing that the enviroment no matter how pretty it looks, it just does not feel as alive.derelix said:
Counter Strike was f*ckin awesome back in the day.Claptrap said:
But people are to quick to compare it with CoD.
This is totally unrelated. But nice avatar pic, I recall it being from Half Life 2? Combine logo I think?hotpotat0wned said:
Lack of focus on Multiplayer. I found a site that gave the game a 0.8 score. What game? Sonic and the Black Knight. But i had a free rental that expired that day so i gave it a chance. The kicker? the game was good. Not talking Left 4 Dead or Fire Emblem good. More like Sonic Heroes good. Not a generation defining game by any means, but next to the rest of the shit they've been putting out? A ray of hope. So i got online to see what exactly gave it such a bad score. 3/4 of the review talked about its lackluster multiplayer, comparing it to other, horribly done and horrible shallow games tacked-on to a multiplayer engine and sold as a console game.
I hate my fellow man. I don't mind playing multiplayer. I don't mind playing online with people I don't know and have never talked to. On occasion. The rest of the time i want a GAME, not the maze on the back of a box of halO's.
This is one thing i go on about and the moment i see or hear it, that source of gaming news becomes dead to me. Gamespot, Game Informer, IGN, G4, and a lot of others have all lost my respect. Yahtzee is probably the longest I've gone without losing all faith in them as an honest critic.
A lot of critics will be biased, according to what's popular, genre or console-wise, or whatever developer is paying for advertising space. That's why an RPG on the Wii by the name of Fragile Dreams got a 6, even though it has a deep, thought provoking storyline, wonderful characters(apart from Ren), and a "Memories" feature, which while it sounds like a cheap way to review what you already did, is actually a way of looking into the world around you, and what it was like before. The 'monsters' you fight, all but 2 boss characters, reflect the dystopian world before it was destroyed. When fighting the fire-ball carrying dog, for example, you can faintly hear a man calling "Here boy, good dog", as if playing fetch. The experience made it incredibly surreal and immersive, and even long after finishing it, i still think about it almost consistently throughout the day. However it got a 6/10 because it was on the Wii and had no Multiplayer.
Fragile Dreams is actually a game I'd recommend to yahtzee. It has a great atmosphere, and likable(again, the exception is Ren) characters.
Although graphics and the Wii are ones i hate hearing people shoot down games over too, lack/luster multiplayer is by far the worst.
I hate my fellow man. I don't mind playing multiplayer. I don't mind playing online with people I don't know and have never talked to. On occasion. The rest of the time i want a GAME, not the maze on the back of a box of halO's.
This is one thing i go on about and the moment i see or hear it, that source of gaming news becomes dead to me. Gamespot, Game Informer, IGN, G4, and a lot of others have all lost my respect. Yahtzee is probably the longest I've gone without losing all faith in them as an honest critic.
A lot of critics will be biased, according to what's popular, genre or console-wise, or whatever developer is paying for advertising space. That's why an RPG on the Wii by the name of Fragile Dreams got a 6, even though it has a deep, thought provoking storyline, wonderful characters(apart from Ren), and a "Memories" feature, which while it sounds like a cheap way to review what you already did, is actually a way of looking into the world around you, and what it was like before. The 'monsters' you fight, all but 2 boss characters, reflect the dystopian world before it was destroyed. When fighting the fire-ball carrying dog, for example, you can faintly hear a man calling "Here boy, good dog", as if playing fetch. The experience made it incredibly surreal and immersive, and even long after finishing it, i still think about it almost consistently throughout the day. However it got a 6/10 because it was on the Wii and had no Multiplayer.
Fragile Dreams is actually a game I'd recommend to yahtzee. It has a great atmosphere, and likable(again, the exception is Ren) characters.
Although graphics and the Wii are ones i hate hearing people shoot down games over too, lack/luster multiplayer is by far the worst.
Agreed, I value Yahtzee much more for his sense of humor than for the actual review. While he is often right in many respects, in the end it all boils down to opinion. Tastes differ, so of course someone is going to disagree. You could argue about that, but what is the point. De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est.LordCuthberton said:
That said, and at the risk of contradicting my own point, I frown at people who shove aside great games because they're cartoony and light-hearted and denounce them as 'gay' or 'kiddy'. Or people who don't give a game a try because its a casual game and not 'hardcore' enough.
because i dont want to get involved in a game like that. this was for the game europa universialis 3 (you win one internet if you play this game) and i htink his main reasoning behind that reason was because it takes to long but he plays dwarf fortress (you win two internets if you play that)