Worst review ever?

[Thoric485]

Worst one? I don't know, but there are far [http://www.destructoid.com/review-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-215404.phtml] too [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8701-Dragon-Age-II-Review] many [http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1156497p1.html] bad [http://www.pcgamer.com/review/star-wars-the-old-republic-review/] ones [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNnJqJ9hO4w].

I feel like nowadays RPS and Sessler's column are the only places on which i can rely for an honest analysis.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Insert Excellent Post Here

This is pretty much dead on. While I won't argue that there are lazy or poor reviews out there, the vast majority of examples people like to point out as "bad reviews" are not bad at all, they are simply differing in opinion from what the reader wanted to read. See The Escapists DA2 review for a perfect example of this.

If you're honestly looking for a review of a game, never look at just one review even if you usually agree with the writer. Always read several reviews from sources you personally trust and collate the presented information yourself.

If you're looking at the general quality of a game overall, going somewhere like Metacritic or Gamerankings is not the terrible idea that some make it out to be. If a game gets an average of 90%, it's probably a pretty good game. It may not be to your tastes, of course, but it's a quality title. If a game gets an average of 20%, it's likely to be terrible. If it scores in the 60 to 70 range, it might be something that is good for certain players with certain interests, or it might be a love it/hate it title that ends up at 65% as an average. It's really not that complicated.

And yes, watch videos. There are so many previews, post views, footage dumps, let's plays, etc. out there these days for pretty much any title you might be interested in. No, it's not as good as actually playing the game yourself but, barring some weird compatibility issues on the PC side of things, there's very little excuse for going into a game purchase these days without having a pretty good idea of what you're getting before you get it.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

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.

The comment about saving was odd. How hard is it to press one button?

If you make the effort to seek out good weapons, with good attachments, with good ammunition, it evens out the field much better than being stuck with some piece of shit weapon that's falling apart. (Funny how the crap weapons with crap ammunition actually handle like crap.)

I think the general idea of STALKER is, if you go into something unprepared; you WILL get fucked.
I did a mostly fair job of preparing myself for every mission. Until the last one. Once I got the brain scorcher off, I pretty much rushed into Pripyat. Getting through Pripyat, and the external NPP area, was one of the most grueling things I've ever endured. And I'm quite sure it's my own fault for not adequately preparing for it.
By then, every single enemy was wearing Exoskeletons and shooting rail guns. Oh, and rocketshooting attack helicopters and tanks. Jesus jumping shitballs.

OT: I can't think of any review in particular. But what really pisses me off are when reviewers flat out get something wrong about a game, and then complain about it as if it's a valid point.

It's one thing to misconstrue something. And it's another to spread misinformation.

 

[Manji187]

I think the general idea of STALKER is, if you go into something unprepared; you WILL get fucked.
I did a mostly fair job of preparing myself for every mission. Until the last one. Once I got the brain scorcher off, I pretty much rushed into Pripyat. Getting through Pripyat, and the external NPP area, was one of the most grueling things I've ever endured. And I'm quite sure it's my own fault for not adequately preparing for it.
By then, every single enemy was wearing Exoskeletons and shooting rail guns. Oh, and rocketshooting attack helicopters and tanks. Jesus jumping shitballs.

Yeah, everything from the gates of Chernobyl NPP onwards is hell, even if you are well-prepared. I still remember the final "portal" section. Bastard Monolith soldiers with their Exoskeletons and G36 assault rifles (best rifle in the game IMO) with AP ammo and of course some had to have rocketlaunchers. But worst of all, the terrain. Lots of industrial tubes, lots of cover. Easy to miss an enemy, easy for them to get the drop on you. All in all, very intense and often frustrating, especially on higher difficulty.

The problem with games like STALKER is, they can't be properly reviewed by someone who plays them for 3-4 hours and decides that's enough. The first 1-2 hours are incredibly unforgiving if you don't know what you are doing (we've all been there the first time around). I would say the game only starts properly when you're close to/ in "The Bar" area.

 

[DarkRyter]

All reviews are opinions.

There can't be a "best" or "worst" if they're all equally meaningless.

 

[Gylukios]

Eh, as long as the review is long enough, I can get a good sense of what the game is like regardless of the reviewer's opinion, which is all I want. What I do despise is when reviewers compare games that don't have to be compared, especially when the reviewer states a preference for the game not being reviewed (IGN's review of Tales of Vesperia compared it to Eternal Sonata, a game by the same company but otherwise completely different). I can understand a comparison between Portal 2 and Portal 1, but I hate when Shooter X is compared to Shooter Y, because it can't be guaranteed that the reader has played either.

 

[major_chaos]

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.

so what you are saying is that because the reviewer had a different opinion of the game then you he is bad and wrong and should feel bad? I honestly feel bad for game reviewers.
OT: any review is going to have a certain bias so instead of looking at the arbitrary score I look at what seems to be the pros and cons of the game and decide if it sounds like something I would like, so the only reviews I see as "bad" are ones that do not present any actual information about the game, therefor mostly what I hate is the user reviews on Metacritic which are either super short or nonsense rants, my favorite being the overly common "I actually think this game deserves a X but i'm going to give it a 0/10 to lower/raise the average"

 

[Hyper-space]

I HATE EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH MY OPINION, I WILL ACCUSE THEM OF BIAS AND BEING FACTUALLY WRONG WHEN IN TRUTH THEY JUST HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION.

I LACK PERSPECTIVE.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

I read one that said Space Marine was a copy of Gears of War. /fail

And if you don't realize why, it's because Space Marine came out first.

 

[syndicate]

Nowadays, the big review sites are willing to spew any shit to avoid uproar from fanboys. Any COD game, or damn, any straight up typical war-based FPS nowadays with no decent story, no likeable characters and repetitive gameplay are practically given a knighthood because these reviewers know that the huge mainstream audience will just trample all over them if the game becomes well-received by them.
More recognition should be given to games that dare to be different,so screw reviews that tell you what's true or not, just make up your own mind.
And seriously, some franchises just need to stop, like those bloody Assassin's Creeds. Since AC2 they haven't changed a damn thing, and yet somehow they're constantly being given stellar reviews for the same formula, and it's just wrong.

 

[Xanthious]

so what you are saying is that because the reviewer had a different opinion of the game then you he is bad and wrong and should feel bad? I honestly feel bad for game reviewers.

Our differences of opinion mean bugger all as to why his review is bad and wrong. This site's review of Dragon Age 2, for one reason or another, totally ignored massive fundamental flaws with the game in question. I stand by the statement the reviewer would have either had to not play enough of Dragon Age 2 to actually do a proper review and never played to the point of seeing the flaws or they chose to totally ignore and/or glaze over the games multiple short comings for reasons we can only guess about.

Finally I think it fails to pass a smell test that during the time in question Dragon Age 2 was heavily advertising on the site and coincidentally just happened to get a perfect score. Add that to EA's recent history with the Battlefield 3 review tampering that went on and you can begin to see that the review in question totally lacks anything that might resemble credibility.

 

[Dansen]

I HATE EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH MY OPINION, I WILL ACCUSE THEM OF BIAS AND BEING FACTUALLY WRONG WHEN IN TRUTH THEY JUST HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION.

I LACK PERSPECTIVE.

Really? There is actually a decent conversation going on, its not just people raging. Maybe you should take the time to read a little instead of looking like an idiot.

There are some good reviews out there, and there are bad ones. A good reviewer will try to be objective about the game and keep out their opinion as much as possible and when they do talk out about their preferences they will make a disclaimer , like: "I don't like the cartoony art-style of the game, but if your a fan of [insert game], you might like it...". A bad reviewer will just spew their opinions and complain about anything they dislike without keeping other audiences and tastes in mind. Like people have said, watch multiple reviews to gauge a game instead of relying on one source. That being said there needs to be a reform in how games are rated, I don't know how it will come about but I think that the game industry will greatly benefit from a more accurate review format. These reviewers have a say in how these games are received and they should strive to be as fair and accurate as possible.

The reason people get so worked up about reviews is because they care about the game. They want people to share in their experiences and see how great something truly is(in their mind). Sadly, things don't always work out and some one might despise what you love. It hurts to have some thing you feel passionate about be torn apart.

 

[Julianking93]

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

Technical aspects, for one, are in no way subjective. Enjoyment level, of course is a bit more difficult to tackle but it's possible to look at through an objective standpoint.
I personally do not find any enjoyment in Valkyria Chronicles because I don't like turn based, strategic gameplay but I know that a lot of people do and will love the game because its constructed in a technically well thought out manner and for that I would praise it more than my own level of entertainment would typically allow from my own subjective standpoint.

It doesn't need to cater to an idea that there is possibly someone out there who likes it. There's surely someone who likes Drake of the 99 Dragons but that doesn't mean reviews should cater to that.
All I'm saying is that it needs to be looked at through a objective and analytical standpoint rather than through the vise of a biased person.

But it seems you're not really listening to anyone else who's bringing up valid points so I'll just move on.

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.

Interesting point. I personally loved Drakengard and didn't know Cavia made them both until I played through it again and saw that 5th ending.
I never heard a lot of critical praise or hate over Drakengard though. I just didn't think it really existed.
A scarce review here and there but no general consensus. Kind of like with Nier really though there were a fair number of western reviews for that. >.>
Like I said though, I love both Drakengard and Nier due to their dark tone and fully understand that not everyone will like Nier over its.... oddities but most everyone I talk to who are big RPG fans talk about Nier with nothing but universal praise. Hopefully Cavia can make another game in the near future or something with the same team since they merged with Square, I think.

 

[Bvenged]

Gamespot, IGN - anything they say,I laugh at. It's just ludicrous how kiss-arse they can be. IGN rarely scores low and Gamespot has employees who I just do not understand the chain of thought of.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

I thought the Zero Punctuation review of the Witcher 2 was shite (certainly not the worst ever). I usually agree with Yahtzee, even when it comes to games I enjoy, but in this review he seemed like he just had an axe to grind.

Aside from a nod to the fact that consoles are not always plug n play, he spends a large portion of the review bitching about PC gaming/gamers (we're arrogant, elitist, slothful, blah, blah, blah, fuck off). Then goes on about how the game is too difficult and doesn't hold your hand or some shit...maybe you have to be really fucking stupid or something, because I thought the game was pretty straightforward. There are a few factual errors in the review as well (cutscenes have always been skippable for one).

I did laugh when he questioned the validity of carrying the two different swords and the stupid names of the spells but I think he was just pissed off that it released as a PC exclusive.

 

[Agow95]

I only read gaming sites and magazines for news on upcoming games, I only trust reviews when a many have generally agreed something was crap, because some reviewers try to give a kind review, and overlook what they can.

 

[kyogen]

Hopefully Cavia can make another game in the near future or something with the same team since they merged with Square, I think.

No, they were absorbed into their parent company, AQ Interactive. AQI, in turn, merged with several other companies to form Marvelous AQL Inc.

Yoko Taro, the director of Drakengard and Nier, resigned when Cavia disappeared and now seems to be doing some contract work for Square-Enix, but the original studio is gone. Unfortunately.

 

[girzwald]

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?

Zeropunctuations review of darksiders.