Worst review ever?

[Xanthious]

Allow me to quote the following.

Bottom Line: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.

A pinnacle of role-playing games?!?! Really Greg? Really?

This very site's Dragon Age 2 review has to be hands down the absolutely least informed and inaccurate review of a game I've ever read/watched/listened to. The 5/5 score it was given is absolutely laughable.

Shortly after that review was posted a sound like a jet engine could be heard. Rumor is that it was actually any credibility Greg Tito had as a reviewer flying out the nearest window at a high rate of speed never to be seen again.

A more cynical person would notice the copious amount of advertising Dragon Age 2 was doing on this site around that time and start drawing lines. A less cynical person would simply think that the reviewer in question either has horrible taste in games or didn't log enough time playing to write a properly informed review.

The bottom line is I can not believe that any professional game critic worth their salary could have played enough of Dragon Age 2 to do a proper review then write a review like that and actually believe it.

 

[Skin]

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.

There were no mandatory stealth sections. I went through the whole game guns blazing becase "Who needs stealth when I have a shotgun with a bayonet on the end right?".

What was the general consensus of Metro 2033 with reviewers? I never read any since I saw a trailer for the game and heard the developers were somehow once connected with the guy's who made STALKER. It was already sold and I regret it not one bit, one of my favorite games.
Metro: Last Light comes out soon as well =D

General consensus was it was a 6-7 game, whereas it should be no less than an 8 or 9. If you play this the same way you play Amnesia, your in for one hell of an experience. The games atmosphere and setting were top notch, as were its story. It's shooting was fun too, especially with all the weird guns and whatnot. Ranger mode is how the game should be played.

 

[Musiclly enhanced]

Ugh IGN reviews are terrible, i stopped watching them ever since GT5 were they talked crap about the game then gave it an overall 9.3 or something

 

[Vivi22]

Jim Sterling's review of Vanquish easily wins this...award...category.

It's like a "non-review", wherein fundamental facets of gameplay mechanics are blatantly ignored. It's not just a matter of taking issue with an opinion here- it's actually incorrect, a total misrepresentation.
Check it out.

I wouldn't say it's the worst review I've ever seen, but I do agree that he missed the point a lot. Vanquish is meant to be a fast paced arcade shooter. The goal is to improve and do better, and while it's a fairly short game, the replay value comes from striving for improvement. He also missed the mark about the boost slide or whatever it's called and melee. Melee isn't meant to be a focus of the game. In fact, it's a terrible idea to even attempt it with so many bullets flying around. It's more of a desperation move in case an enemy does slip passed you and get close since shooting quickly at close range is difficult. And I have to disagree with him about the boost being useless because of having to recharge, or the game not moving the genre forward. Cover may be a big part of the game, but I spent half my time sliding around between cover points, zooming around the map as I destroyed guys in bullet time. The only time the meter took a long time to recharge was if you drained it. It refilled quite fast if you didn't drain it completely, so the trick was to manage it intelligently.

That review came off as though he was expecting something completely different than what Vanquish actually was, and didn't bother to really learn or report on the game as it was made to be played. I mean he did an all right job of explaining the gameplay systems at work, but seemed to miss how they were meant to come together entirely.

If I were to pick any reviews I thought were bad it would be just about any that gave Resistance 2 a good score. So I guess that's most of them actually. I remember it got a lot of praise when it came out but it was honestly one of the worst FPS titles I've played this generation at least. Frankly, I thought the original Killzone was a more enjoyable game than it was.

 

[Idsertian]

OXM's (UK) review of Halo 2 back in the day. They gave it 10/10. Erm guys, what about the shitty graphics engine? The piss-poor AI pathfinding causing glitchy turning? The so called "AI driving", which, lets face it, wouldn't pass even the most basic of driving tests anywhere? The utter depressing shortness of the game compared to its predecessor? The pointless removal of the AR and nerfing of the pistol to the point of uselessness?

I call shenanigans on you OXM.

 

[random_bars]

This.

http://www.destructoid.com/review-brutal-legend-151841.phtml

The guy clearly didn't understand how to play the game and doesn't know what he's talking about. He makes absolutely no mention of the double team attacks at all, which is worrying considering they're such a vital and important part of the gameplay. He makes no mention of the use of guitar solos in the stage battles. He makes one tiny, brief mention of the use of combat moves during them.

Then he complains about how the battles take over an hour and are frustrating and repetitive. Well... If you're going to ignore most of the gameplay mechanics available to you, what do you expect?

 

[BiggyShackleton]

George Wood's infamous review of Tomb Raider 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3JUrhh9VC8
Just... just listen to it.

If that's not enough, look for his review of Goldeneye.

This guy ended up faking his death online to escape his haters.

His Goldeneye review is one of the funniest fucking things I've ever heard. It has to be sarcasm, just for the sake of humanity.

"IS THIS SOME NEW FUNKY DIRECTING STYLE OR WHAT?!"

 

[DYin01]

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.

False. In fact, there's an achievement for not engaging in any fighting. Regardless, I agree with Yahtzee because sometimes you inevitably get shot if you run away which kinda breaks up the flow of the game. It really would've been better without gunplay.

 

[Manji187]

Gametrailer's review of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-s-t-a-l-k-e-r/18294

It just makes the reviewer sound lazy, expecting the game to hold his hand. Stalker SoC is not one of those games. Put in some real effort, you lazy bum.

that was a really bad review.. its annoying to have to save the game.. seriously?

Apparently for some people the effort that goes into pressing the quicksave button is too much. Spoiled by automatic saving and/ or checkpoints.

I bet these people would totally flip if they had to play a game with savepoints.

Where I took offense with the review is enemy AI (apparently good AI is bad) and "questionable gunplay" (In the words of Geoff Keighly: either the guns are incredibly inaccurate or the hit detection is bogus). Yeah no Geoff, you just didn't bother playing long enough so you ran around with the standard Makarov pistol and possibly the crappy AK versions.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

George Wood's infamous review of Tomb Raider 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3JUrhh9VC8
Just... just listen to it.

If that's not enough, look for his review of Goldeneye.

This guy ended up faking his death online to escape his haters.

His Goldeneye review is one of the funniest fucking things I've ever heard. It has to be sarcasm, just for the sake of humanity.

"IS THIS SOME NEW FUNKY DIRECTING STYLE OR WHAT?!"

"We couldn't review the multiplayer, because we only have one controller!"

 

[Ragsnstitches]

The problem is you can't view reviews like "How much should I buy this game, on a scale from 1-10?" It should be read as a persons take on the game. You should cross reference different reviews to get something little less bias. Then you need to consider that some game reviewers like Harvest Moon, TES:Oblivion, and other titles you may not like.

The Captain America game got bashed scoring in around a 6 I think. I think the game is fun. I went in wanting a comic-bookey game and that is what I got, I was pleased. I think for what it was trying to do, it deserves an 8-9. It wasn't trying to be anything more than the fun super hero games I grew up playing borrowing some mechanics from Arkham Asylum. That is what I found out from all the reviews and developer releases and that is what I wanted from it.

Personally, I find game reviewers pretty accurate. I don't care about the numbers or the "this is why this sucks" lines. All I need to know is the facts. Reading a review, I am always trying to take out the bias lines.

This is what should be done. Reviewers are gamers like me and you, though they get paid to do these reviews. Subjective standpoints are inevitable and unavoidable. They are just people with likes and dislikes similar, and dissimilar, to your own.

Reviews offer a SINGLE perspective on a game. It is not a definitive rating. Accepting one review as objective facts about a game is a bogus use of them. Even when rating seemingly objective aspects to a game like graphical fidelity, gameplay mechanics and audio, there are a plethora of subjective nuances that will sway the reviewers opinion. For example, Aesthetically pleasing vistas for one reviewer may trump shoddy textures while for another the textures might be unbearable despite the overall effect OR where one person lambastes the Classic Resident evil for it's sluggish and brutal control scheme but laud Resident Evil 4 for it's refinement of the interactivity in the game, another Reviewer may see that improvement as crippling to the Survival Horror aspects in the series, where the classic tank controls added tension and "almost nightmare like" quality to the horror.

Bias in any medium is expected. But it shouldn't be damnable. You don't (or shouldn't) chastise a friend for liking/loving a game you found boring/abhorrent, likewise you shouldn't slam all reviewers who don't share an opinion to your own. There ARE bad reviewers for sure, usually they are amateurs who completely avoid critical thinking and instead see themselves as Critics, without a proper understanding of what a "critic" is in reviews. But these reviewers are the same as you... again, they shouldn't be flamed for an opinion.

Of course tossing my two cents into this. The internet is so full of blowhards and egotists, that expecting humble and rational approaches to anything with an opinion is liable to get me flamed too.

The key to efficient utilisation of Reviews is, as Savagezion said, to cross reference multiple reviews. Even if you trust your go to reviewer, alternative perspectives will only enrich your knowledge of what makes good gaming and make you more tolerant to the vastly opinionated interwebs.

Finally, a good way to gauge the Objecitve quality of a game is to use mass review sites like Metacritic and other of the same vein. But be careful of User reviews, they are good for alternative and "unprofessional" takes on games (films/music etc) which add perspective, but they aren't held accountable for blasting a game that competes with their favourite game (see whichever side of the BF3 and MW3 debate) or for adding cynical and jaded remarks that are heavily weighted in the negative, but not always based on the qualities of the actual product.(not to mention they are generally worse at putting a score to their reviews, usually landing on extremes with little beyond a "IT'S THE SHIT" or "IT'S SHIT" remarks in place of a review.

EDIT: Also, look up youtube vids that demonstrate the actual game (outside of official demos). I find that a good way to gauge whether a game is worth the dosh or if I need to let the price drop again (or ignore it altogether).

 

[Erttheking]

Personally I don't really care that much what people put up for reviews and frankly I don't see why people get so worked up over them (WHY DON'T YOU LIKE WHAT I LIKE! WHY DO YOU LIKE WHAT I DON'T LIKE) seriously, people used to get on my case all the time when I used to criticize Yahtzee's reviews people jumped down my throat saying "IT'S HIS OPINION!" How is this any different? IGN and Gamespot are giving us their opinions! You don't have to agree with them, they're not infallable, they don't stop you from enjoying your game, what's the bid deal?

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

Uncharted 3 10/10 on IGN, it's not a bad game, it's actually a really good game, but such a un-original game with nothing new brought to the table doesn't deserve the score.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

I may be hated for this and I may be biased but ANY review that gave ANY dragon age game more than a 5.5/10 seems...eh really people?

The story was okay, nothing special from the other bioware games such as kotor and mass effect.

The rest of it was ugly, greasy, meh, copypasted and the combat was NO FUN WHATSOEVER, also it was slow.

I will admit that it had it's moments where it set a very good mood and got me immersed but those were far too few, a mere handful of moments to be honest that mostly involved having the lighting and aesthetics just right...

 

[Treblaine]

look at this colour commentary for this review. Get to 1:10 and you will hear the worst thing I've ever heard suggested in any video game review.


Yes, that guy (George Wood) actually suggested it would be a good idea if in Tomb Raider 3 Lara Croft got breast cancer. And I can't tell if he is serious or this is the worst joke ever.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

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 bought Nier and almost immediately returned it. I don't care how good the story or anything was, the gameplay was downright painful, I couldn't trudge my way through it.

 

[Woodsey]

Although probably not the worst review I've ever read, I am still annoyed by The Escapist's review of The Witcher 2. However many lines devoted to the interface, and not a single word on the fact that the entire second act is different depending on what choice you make? And the third act is extremely elastic too. And there's a fair amount malleability in the first act also.

I would consider that a bad review in that, whilst I can see what their problem was (even if I didn't particularly have it myself), it spends far too much time waffling on about certain aspects whilst ignoring far larger ones.

Really, the issue comes down to whether they're writing something akin to a critique, or something closer to a product review (95% of well-known gaming sites).

(Although anyone calling out reviews for being bad because they don't agree with the points being made is bad at reviewing reviews.)