Worst review ever?

[BreakfastMan]

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.

If you want someone to describe mechanics, graphics, etc. watch videos, look at screenshots, or read the Wikipedia entry. Reviews are not just dry descriptions of how mechanics work. They include opinion on what works and what does not, what is good and what is not. You pretty much admit that yourself when you talk about Susan Arendt's reviews, which contradicts your entire statement.

 

[Krantos]

They include opinion on what works and what does not, what is good and what is not.

Let me clarify, then. Yes, they include opinions on what works and what doesn't, but most of them leave it at that. I want to know why it does/n't work. For me, that's what separates a good review from a shallow one.

A lot of reviewers will say "The visuals were bad" and then move on. I want to know what made them bad. Were they pixelated? Too much brown? Not enough brown? What? Tell me, specifically, why that part did or did not work.

 

[Adam Cammock-Sands]

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

wow, how can someone be MORE wrong about a game?

 

[Keava]

Most are equally bad in my opinion. I don't know how and when exaclty that happned, but back in the times of good old PC gaming magazines the reviews were actually informative rather than just extended advertisement. Maybe, simply, people back then cared more because They knew the audience better and people who bought such magazines were actually dedicated gamers?

These days I haven't really read a review for quite some time. I don't see any reason to. I'm more interested in things like Quick Looks or First Impression videos that actually talk about the game in all it's aspects while same time showing me 15-20 minutes of gameplay and mechanics. I get 10 times more ifnormation from those than from any review in last few years.

 

[MetalMagpie]

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.

But would MW3 be worth a 9/10 for someone who didn't buy (and never played) MW2? After all, if MW2 was scored as 8/10 and MW3 was scored at 5/10 (due to not adding much), then a consumer who hadn't yet bought either game would assume MW2 had the greater entertainment value, even though MW3 improved on it (if only by a small amount).

I think altering a game's score on the basis of other purchases the consumer may-or-may-not have made is a dangerous game. My opinion is that games should always be scored on their own merits, in isolation from other games. But if a game in a series adds very little compared to previous instalments, that's the sort of thing that absolutely should be discussed in the review.

 

[Dandark]

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


OT: I have always found IGN reviews to greatly differ from my opinion, I usaully don't watch reviews since most reviewers seem to be fans of mainstream games and I already know if I want a certain mainstream game or not, i'd only watch a review for a less known game that I am not too sure. I have rarely fond reviewers I agree with when it comes to most games.

For example Section 8. This and most especially it's sequel Section 8: Prejudice is one of my favorite multiplayer shooters. I have so mch fun playing and find so much more variety and fun gameplay than other shooters yet it was mostly disliked from many reviewers(The ones I saw at least).

You can't really call their opinion wrong since it is their opinion. However if all they do is praise mainstream games and give others low scores then you can still tell them that although not wrong, their opinion is USELESS!!! to you.

 

[Infernai]

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.

Considering Cavia made the game, it's quite likely that had something to do with it. And for the uneducated, you should know Cavia was the company responsible for making this:

My guess is that it's either two possibilities:

1. The reviewers saw who made it, got big PTSD from having to remember playing through the darkest game ever created (And which Square Enix has gone on to deny the existence of to Star Wars holiday special levels). Which in turn eschewed their perceptions.

or

2. They just simply didn't like it.

I honestly love both Drakengard and Nier, both for similar reasons (And, fun fact, Nier is actually a pseudo sequel to one of Drakengards Endings!). But i realize the two games are not everybodies cup of tea, Drakengard Especially, so it's not uncommon to find polarized opinions among critics.

 

[Scorekeeper]

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.

I'm rather "meh" about it. Played the demo and was unconvinced. It seemed all right but nothing spectacular.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

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.

But would MW3 be worth a 9/10 for someone who didn't buy (and never played) MW2? After all, if MW2 was scored as 8/10 and MW3 was scored at 5/10 (due to not adding much), then a consumer who hadn't yet bought either game would assume MW2 had the greater entertainment value, even though MW3 improved on it (if only by a small amount).

I think altering a game's score on the basis of other purchases the consumer may-or-may-not have made is a dangerous game. My opinion is that games should always be scored on their own merits, in isolation from other games. But if a game in a series adds very little compared to previous instalments, that's the sort of thing that absolutely should be discussed in the review.

And that highlights the problem with scoring systems. If instead of looking for an X/10 we just listened to the review then they could happily convey the problem, that MW3 is the same game as MW2 with a different skin so it depends on what you want and what you've done.

 

[Stalydan]

Jim Sterling's Destructoid review for Assassin's Creed II was pretty hard to read because despite it really improving on all the gameplay, story, voice acting etc. he gave it a 4.5 and honestly, I could have agreed with him if the points were good points but they weren't. They were more little nitpicks some of them. Some I did genuinely agree with like collecting money from the chest being a pain and some of the missions feeling a bit tacked on. Others were like "the one button system doesn't work" which I can't think of anyone who plays the series and can't use the controls.

I'd really like to see his opinion on the rest of the series but he's only review II.

 

[spartandude]

theres the IGN review for Metro 2033, they marked it down for being a standard fps but they claim every new call of duty has reinvented the genre

Ign review for Starcraft, the complained it was too similar to the first game, no such complaint for super mario galaxy 2

PS3 magasine review for Dragon age origins, it was bad because there was too much dialogue and not enough killing

also any review that gives a game makrs out of 10 but always gets 7 confused with 1

and any, ANY, reviewer who claimed DA2s graphics were better than the first. i can run the first game on the highest settings fine, i can run Crysis on the highest settings fine, i can run witcher 2 on medium settings fine and it looks better than most games. DA2 however i can only run on medium settings and it looks terrible. its poorly optimised and uses the same textures and environments over and over
ps im not a graphics whore but it just annoys me

 

[Casual Shinji]

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

If you think that's bad, you should read Edge's review of inFamous 2.

It goes as far in saying that the lightning grenades were ripped off from Halo.

I don't mind reviewers disliking a game that I like, but when they flat out make shit up I get a bit pissed.

 

[Martijn Nijkeuter]

Darren Nakamura of destructoid

his tactics ogre revieuw is just horrible, he's completely unable to grasp what aspects work well in a srpg...
for example he thinks the chariot is only meant as a way to save time so you can get trough the story easier which he claims it doesn't do. (ow hey look at me skipping chapter 1, no time saved there, none at all)
But no, it also allows you to redo story arcs, choose different story paths while keeping your army's stats and personal and without having to do everything over again. (you can select one of many waypoints in the story list to go there after beating the game once)

 

[MetalMagpie]

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.

But would MW3 be worth a 9/10 for someone who didn't buy (and never played) MW2? After all, if MW2 was scored as 8/10 and MW3 was scored at 5/10 (due to not adding much), then a consumer who hadn't yet bought either game would assume MW2 had the greater entertainment value, even though MW3 improved on it (if only by a small amount).

I think altering a game's score on the basis of other purchases the consumer may-or-may-not have made is a dangerous game. My opinion is that games should always be scored on their own merits, in isolation from other games. But if a game in a series adds very little compared to previous instalments, that's the sort of thing that absolutely should be discussed in the review.

And that highlights the problem with scoring systems. If instead of looking for an X/10 we just listened to the review then they could happily convey the problem, that MW3 is the same game as MW2 with a different skin so it depends on what you want and what you've done.

Agreed. Scores really can't convey all the "well, if you what you're looking for is..." discussion that a decent review should have (and that a consumer really needs to make a decision). But people so love numbers (especially for bragging rights) so I can't see them going away any time soon.

 

[Shocksplicer]

The Gamespot review of Metal Gear Solid 4, where they gave it a 10/10
What game did they play???

 

[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.

 

[zefiris]

The truly, by far, worst reviews ever?

Any, and every, review that whined that you had to read too much text to play Planescape Torment. It's completely missing the entire point of the game, and is equal to complaining that a FPS is too 3D. The reason why these reviews are by far the WORST reviews is that they completely killed any wish for RPG developers to try to make games less focused on fighting. They had a signifiant bad effect beyond being useless for the readers of the review.

The western RPG went downhill from there. It's why we get messes like Dragon Age 2.

That guy on Gamespot who did the one for Skyward Sword.

Sad part is that this review was overall correct. As a game, Skyward Sword is barely more than mediocre.

This thread is actually a pretty good indicator of the problem of reviewing: People freak out when games they like don't get 10/10. A 3/5 for Uncharted 3? Is appropriate if you assume that 5/5 means a perfect game without any flaw whatsoever.

People are just so used to 10/10 slapped on everything that they completely go bonkers on anyone using the numbers properly. It's pretty sad and shows how meaningless review scores truly got.

Not to mention the many biases. FPS get generally better reviews than, say, non-western RPGs regardless of quality. Colorful graphics often get a - for the review score, brown gives a +, etc. It's downright ridiculous at this point.

Really, reviewers should review with something like buy, rent, or skip, and leave the review as a suggestion. That's really what reviews are for.

Sadly, fans turned reviews into wank by wanting "their" game to have the highest possible scores for no discernable reason. It's like it's a soccer match now.