Worst review ever?

[Ando85]

However, I have yet to find a good source for RPG and sandbox reviews because all the ones I know praise any RPG or sandbox with a high budget. I don't know if it is because of the "scarcity" of them or what but usually to get the best overall opinion I have to weigh user reviews on those two genres which are generally diluted with bias lines of text that leaves little information once you weed it out.

I found rpgamer.com to be a pretty good source for RPG reviews. Games released recently, usually DS or PSP titles still using sprite characters seem to get reviews I can agree on. They also have several staff members write reviews for the same game so you can have a few opinions right there. The big budget games aren't given any extra padding and are treated with the same scrutiny.

 

[lacktheknack]

Our own Yahtzee's Mirror's Edge review!

...I found every one of his complaints to be irrelevant/wrong! Mirror's Edge is my number one game period, so clearly I'm very biased here, but come on. "The game forces you into fights"? Did he even TRY to get away from them?

 

[Squilookle]

I'd say most US reviews of Mashed. For some reason unlike a lot of the European reviewers, the US ones just completely missed the point of the game.

 

[Mettking]

Our own Yahtzee's Mirror's Edge review!

...I found every one of his complaints to be irrelevant/wrong! Mirror's Edge is my number one game period, so clearly I'm very biased here, but come on. "The game forces you into fights"? Did he even TRY to get away from them?

You do realize he said at times it forces you to fight, not all the time. And it did, I played it too and there were a few spots you were required to fight.

OT: Ignoring Irate Gamer, since someone has to bring him up sooner or later, I'd say the infamous Kane and Lynch one.

 

[Kimarous]

Gamespot Infamous 2 review is pretty bad. The guy whines about the game being too hard, for god sakes!

Um, no, that's not what he said at all. "Although inFamous 2 isn't particularly difficult, fights drag on for quite a long time because of the sheer amount of enemies on the screen. This leads to tedium and frustration after a while." From my experience with the game, that's a pretty accurate statement (and for the record, I enjoy the game).

 

[Julianking93]

Virtually every review of Nier

One of the most inspired, well told and most enjoyable games (not just RPGs) I've ever played yet it was almost universally hated by mainstream critics.
I have no idea why. The graphics weren't wretched as many said (though not really great. Shit doesn't have to look like Uncharted to be fun) and there were a lot of gameplay elements.
Apparently, that's a bad thing. Having diversity in a game is bad according to Gamespot and IGN.

At least most everyone praised its soundtrack, but I feel it deserves much more than that. Which is why I gave it my person game of the year in 2010. The incredible story alone is worth at least trying it out.
Not to mention that it's only, like £8 in most places now.

Well, opinions are opinions, and someone's idea of a game is never downright wrong

I personally think that when it comes to commercial reviews, it shouldn't just be someone's opinion.
That's the issue with a lot of sites. They let their own bias get in the way of something that can possibly be enjoyable, yet due to their own predetermined opinion of something, they immediately won't like it for whatever reason.

That really shouldn't be the case, in my eyes. Professional reviews need to have both subjectivity and objectivity put into place. It's fine to have an opinion, but don't treat it as the end all, be all bottom line.

 

[rekabdarb]

Our own Yahtzee's Mirror's Edge review!

...I found every one of his complaints to be irrelevant/wrong! Mirror's Edge is my number one game period, so clearly I'm very biased here, but come on. "The game forces you into fights"? Did he even TRY to get away from them?

One would like to point out he's not a reviewer. He's a critic/comedian.

Um I really don't have any horror stories about reviews. I used to watch Xplay when they actually reviewed games (and were on satellite) But the only thing i can remember is Morgan actually being super hot in an episode. And Sessler being a nice guy. But i'm pretty sure he's a toolbag in real life

Oh and they kept giving 3/5's to Full Metal Alchemist games. But i figured those were being nice

 

[lacktheknack]

Our own Yahtzee's Mirror's Edge review!

...I found every one of his complaints to be irrelevant/wrong! Mirror's Edge is my number one game period, so clearly I'm very biased here, but come on. "The game forces you into fights"? Did he even TRY to get away from them?

You do realize he said at times it forces you to fight, not all the time. And it did, I played it too and there were a few spots you were required to fight.

One. At ONE spot are you forced to fight. Specifically, the second encounter on the boat. At all other times, you can escape with a careful disarm and/or running the hell away. My current record is six knockouts, no shots fired.

Even "at times" is an exaggeration when it's actually only one time.

I think he also called it an "eight-hour fecal waterslide", which confuses me, as I can get through in two hours, and it took me four the first time.

 

[lacktheknack]

Our own Yahtzee's Mirror's Edge review!

...I found every one of his complaints to be irrelevant/wrong! Mirror's Edge is my number one game period, so clearly I'm very biased here, but come on. "The game forces you into fights"? Did he even TRY to get away from them?

One would like to point out he's not a reviewer. He's a critic/comedian.

I know he said that. He also refers to his output as "reviews", so they're reviews whether he's a reviewer or not by his own admission.

 

[Windcaler]

It was the last review I read which was for Alpha Protocol. I forget who wrote it but I remember he was a "freelance" reviewer for IGN. During his review he was talking about how "none" of the system worked correctly and his video demonstrated him using his pistol to try and head shot an enemy. Before I go on I need to point out that the pistol aiming mechanics of the game were designed so that when you were in range there was a slight color change from orange to red, noting that you were 1. within range and 2. the character was aiming to deliver a more powerful shot. The problem with this video demonstration was the reviewer didnt understand these mechanics (which are explained quite clearly in the tutorial) and there was no color change when he fired (and unsurprisingly missed the shot). What this means was he was to stupid to realize he was out of range

He also talked about how the graphics bugged "all the time" and every moment in his review showed graphics that were working perfectly. I mean Ill admit that graphical bugs are quite common in the game but they usually only last a split second and they certainly arent there "all the time"

He also demonstrated how "awful" melee combat was in the game. Only his character clearly had no points in melee because he executed no special moves and couldnt punch through the weakest characters guard. On that note, IMO, melee is quite possibly the strongest combat style in the game

It was pretty clear that he was approaching the game and review as a FPS run and gun player but Alpha Protocol is quite clearly a 3rd person Role playing spy fiction game.

This was the one that made me realize that almost every reviewer doesnt know their butt from a hole in the ground. So instead of listening to reviews Ive taken a more proactive approach. When a game comes out that Im interested in I go check out a lets play on youtube and if it looks like fun Ill buy it. This system isnt perfect but I feel its better then listening to people who usually dont have a clue what theyre talking about since I base a purchase off of my own subjective ideas of enjoyment

 

[Tiswas]

That guy on Gamespot who did the one for Skyward Sword. Marked it down for it's controls, was proved wrong many times. Gamespot did an apology and then the guy came back and said they didn't work for him only.

Like somebody else said. Nier scores are abysmal and seem to miss the point entirely. (Have still yet to meet anyone who played it and actually disliked it.

I remember a video review of skyrim that shown off about 3 different bugs (crashing, lagging and texture problems) all of which were ignored in the review and was given a perfect rating. Come on. If you're gonna give a game a perfect rating at least look at the video you're reviewing.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, ignoring the fact that I think the idea of a review being "biased" and "inaccurate" is laughable, there are some reviews I greatly disagree with. The IGN review of Deadly Premonition comes to mind, as well as many of Yahtzee's reviews (I pretty much disagree with all of his opinions on the Uncharted series). Also, everyone who gave FEAR2 a score higher than a 5 out of 10. Or a "good" score to any game I hate. Screw those guys.

 

[chadachada123]

Any review that gave MW3 a 9/10 or higher.

The thing about MW3 is that, while it is "technically" better than MW2, this is only because it's the exact same game as MW2 but with a few extra perks and weapons. Same engine, same everything.

So, in that sense, sure, it has the same entertainment value as its previous iteration.

However, a good reviewer would take the consumer into account. Reviewers don't have to pay for their games. They aren't the ones spending $60 to get the exact same game that was released last year and the year before that.

Taking money out of the equation, yes, MW3 could be a 9/10 or whatever, but with money involved, it cannot be higher than a 5/10. Reviewers should have separate scores that take price into account.

 

[Krantos]

Worst example in my experience was one for Need For Speed: Undercover, I think it was on IGN.

Now, the game isn't perfect by far (I'd say it's just this side of being good), but the review basically came down to "It's not Burnout: Paradise." And not in the sense that it tried to do what BP did and failed. No, what the reviewer didn't like was everything it did different from BP. The reviewer showed a total inability to distinguish flaw from design decision.

For example, he complained that the races were on set courses, with side streets blocked off (unlike Burnout). Apparently he completely missed that this was to allow the player to spend less time reading the map and more time focusing on driving really fast. I forget the other things he mentioned, but there were at least 4-5 other things that were the same; i.e. they were design decisions made to provide a specific style of play, but he listed them as faults.

Some of his complaints were legitimate, of course. As I said, the game is just barely what I would call good, but this was the worst case of someone who just didn't get what the game was trying to do.


More recent example would have to be Greg Tito's review of LotR: War in the North. In his Witcher 2 review, Tito admitted being a LotR fanboy, and it really showed in this review. It was quite clear he couldn't separate his enjoyment of the source material from his enjoyment of gameplay. He makes note of numerous design flaws, but then says they don't matter next to the supposedly well crafted lore. He even goes to far to say that playing a "derivative" action beat-em up only enhances the experience of the world. He just heaped praises onto a game that has ~62 on metacritic.

I know reviews are opinions, but I kind of expect more from a "professional." Given that this is not the first time (*cough*DragonAge2*cough*) Tito has let his fanboyism get the better of him in reviews, well, lets just say I take everything he says with a grain of salt.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I personally think that when it comes to commercial reviews, it shouldn't just be someone's opinion.

So, um... What should it be then?

That's the issue with a lot of sites. They let their own bias get in the way of something that can possibly be enjoyable, yet due to their own predetermined opinion of something, they immediately won't like it for whatever reason.

I just... I don't get this. So reviews should consider if someone, somewhere might be able to take a modicum of enjoyment from a game?

That really shouldn't be the case, in my eyes. Professional reviews need to have both subjectivity and objectivity put into place. It's fine to have an opinion, but don't treat it as the end all, be all bottom line.

What about a game could possibly be objective? And, why can't someone treat opinion as the end-all, be-all bottom line?

 

[Krantos]

What about a game could possibly be objective?

I honestly think reviewers need to restructure how they do reviews. Any more, I simply ignore all instances of the word "fun", "enjoyable", "bad", "epic", etc when reading/watching reviews. These are just 'fluff' words that are either there because someone paid for the review, or entirely based on that person's opinion, which makes them meaningless to anyone but that person.

Instead, I only pay attention when the reviewer talks about tangible things. Explaining the gameplay, describing art style, variety, etc. These sorts of thing can and should be objective. That, according to some (including myself, obviously), is the purpose of reviews: to hear details about a game from someone unattached to it.

That's why Susan Arendt is my favorite reviewer here. Even when she likes a game, she will be brutally cutting with its short-comings. She explains why she likes/dislikes a game, rather than just saying its good/bad. She'll also always talk about the other side too. "If you (do/do not) like x, you (will/won't) like this game."

I don't share her tastes a lot of times, but her reviews are always very informative and honest. We need more like that.

If I could find a site where the reviewers were restricted from talking about how much they liked/didn't like a game and could only talk about the mechanics, I would totally give them all my traffic.

 

[Hal10k]

What about a game could possibly be objective?

I honestly think reviewers need to restructure how they do reviews. Any more, I simply ignore all instances of the word "fun", "enjoyable", "bad", "epic", etc when reading/watching reviews. These are just 'fluff' words that are either there because someone paid for the review, or entirely based on that person's opinion, which makes them meaningless to anyone but that person.

Instead, I only pay attention when the reviewer talks about tangible things. Explaining the gameplay, describing art style, variety, etc. These sorts of thing can and should be objective. That, according to some (including myself, obviously), is the purpose of reviews: to hear details about a game from someone unattached to it.

That's why Susan Arendt is my favorite reviewer here. Even when she likes a game, she will be brutally cutting with its short-comings. She explains why she likes/dislikes a game, rather than just saying its good/bad. She'll also always talk about the other side too. "If you (do/do not) like x, you (will/won't) like this game."

I don't share her tastes a lot of times, but her reviews are always very informative and honest. We need more like that.

If I could find a site where the reviewers were restricted from talking about how much they liked/didn't like a game and could only talk about the mechanics, I would totally give them all my traffic.

That site exists. It's called Wikipedia.

 

[tzimize]

Well, opinions are opinions, and someone's idea of a game is never downright wrong.

That being said, I found that the Metro: 2033 right here on The Escapist felt like it scooted over what the made the game, in my opinion, unique, such as the atmosphere and setting.

Hey, its not just here, IGN also came down pretty brutally on Metro 2033 and seemed to have missed the whole point of the game. The only thing I agree with on their review was the stealth thing, but then again, I don't remember any mandatory stealth sections. I gunned my way through the whole thing.

I won't be surprised to see people mention Metro more in this thread, seeing as it is a gem of a game that was totally under appreciated by reviewers.

I didnt notice any mandatory stealth sections either, but I was so scared parts of the game that I didnt dare to go in guns blazing. Throwing knives FTW!

Man Metro 2033 was deliciously good.