Worst review ever?

[Ando85]

As time passes I trust reviews less and less from big gaming sites and publications like Game Informer, Gamespot, IGN, and the like. I actually used to rely on these reviews and have since realized I've missed out on many a great game because of this.

What is the most biased and inaccurate negative review for a game that you ended up loving?

 

[NewYork_Comedian]

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.

 

[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.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Let's see... I once went through I think it was Gamespot (IGN?)'s reviews of Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney and Persona 4 (fucking awesome and fucking perfect respectively) and was quite surprised to see that they were actually pretty damn on the mark (except Persona 4 didn't have a 10/10 but whatev's)

Then again this might have been before they whored themselves out completely and lost all sense of journalistic integrity. PW:AA came out in 2001 after all.

Though IGN's UMVC3 review said the soundtrack was forgettable. It might just be me here but... Objection!

Spoiler

A lot of the more... Troublesome characters have pretty epic theme songs as well. Captain America for example is actually tolerable to play against because his theme is so damn catchy.


I don't read many reviews. So there be no true RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGEEEEEEE moments.

I might have seen the Metro review as well. It didn't go down well I gather.

 

[kyogen]

Joystiq's review of Nier admitted in the headline that the review was a failure. Basically, the reviewer had trouble understanding the controls and didn't pay any attention at all to the details and nuances of the story and world (huge mistake with this game) and thus couldn't make any real headway. It just wasn't for him, and he read that as a failure of the game. Maybe, but I tried it, loved it, and had no gameplay issues at all. Go figure.

 

[Dr.Panties]

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.

 

[Zhukov]

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 just read it. It was an accurate review.

I got some enjoyment from the game, but he was still completely correct on every point.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Inb4 Mr. Tito's Dragon Age 2 review.

But even then, I wouldn't say that was the worst review. I'm sure there's worse ones out there.

 

[redblinky]

Kotaku did a review on MW that basically said "this game sucks" all through it only at the end to come back and say "GO BUY IT NOW!!"

 

[Rude as HECK]

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.

 

[Savagezion]

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.

 

[darkcalling]

Adam Sessler just wrote a pretty negative review of Amalur and I personally LOVE that game. Pretty much everything negative he said was things I loved.

In fact the game kinda seems to be a "love it or hate it" kinda thing. Very few people I've seen talk about it has just been meh.

 

[Ando85]

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.

Aye, this is what I do now. I think the numbering systems are fairly arbitrary. Say an otherwise excellent game gets a low score for bad visuals or voice acting. As a fan of JRPGs I can let these things slide.

What got me to make this thread in the first place was Gamespot's review of Persona 2: Innocent Sin. It got a harsh 5 out of 10 mostly because in the reviewer's opinion the game is archaic and out dated as it is a remake for a game that came out in 1999. I enjoy some classic games just as much as new ones and I can look past these faults, which to me aren't even faults.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Adam Sessler just wrote a pretty negative review of Amalur and I personally LOVE that game. Pretty much everything negative he said was things I loved.

In fact the game kinda seems to be a "love it or hate it" kinda thing. Very few people I've seen talk about it has just been meh.

Adam Sessler was also the jerk that gave Too Human a good score and recommended it. I hate him, that game was a shiny turd. When I played it I honestly wondered how much money he got from Silicon Knights.

 

[crono738]

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.

This. This man wins the topic. Then again, the Navgtr reviews are so notoriously bad that they shouldn't even be considered reviews.

Also, watch his Symphony of the Night review. He found it to be "disappointingly enjoyable."

 

[Popeman]

Xplay infamous score of 3/5 for Uncharted 3
The Infamous Kane and Lynch review from former GameSpot employee Jeff Gerstman

I am like 90% sure they said 4/5.

 

[Black Arrow Officer]

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

 

[Savagezion]

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.

Aye, this is what I do now. I think the numbering systems are fairly arbitrary. Say an otherwise excellent game gets a low score for bad visuals or voice acting. As a fan of JRPGs I can let these things slide.

What got me to make this thread in the first place was Gamespot's review of Persona 2: Innocent Sin. It got a harsh 5 out of 10 mostly because in the reviewer's opinion the game is archaic and out dated as it is a remake for a game that came out in 1999. I enjoy some classic games just as much as new ones and I can look past these faults, which to me aren't even faults.

Yeah, if you are like me you will start to notice some consistencies with the reviewers. I personally know how much I will like a game Game Informer reviews based off genre/score. A comic book game needs to hit a 6 for me to enjoy it. A shooter needs to hit a high 8 to a 9. An action adventure game needs a 7, rarely a 6. RPGs and sandbox, score is irrelevant I need to know facts about the game. I have seen RPGs and sandboxes alike get high 9s and 10s and I found them to be garbage with minimal, if any, redeeming qualities.
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.

 

[Phlakes]

It's not that reviews are getting more biased, it's that the audience is getting more... vocal. And you know what I mean by vocal.