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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Zappanale:
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."

ForgottenPr0digy:
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.

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

Ando85:

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.

Savagezion:

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.

I dunno... the reviews I did for Final Fantasy XII and XIII came across as a big load of Fanwank and Fanhate respectively...

Outside of my own terrible reviews? The Destructoid review for Borderlands DLC: Claptrap's Robot Revolution. The guy just tore it apart, criticized everything about it - ended up giving it a 3.5/10.

Also Jim Sterling's Final Fantasy XIII Review wins awards for the most negative review I've ever read - it was a good review, but the sheer level of hatred emanating from that review was enough to curdle milk.

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.

Every review of Dynasty Warriors/Samurai Warriors/Sengoku Basara ever created

Seriously, they ignore every change, every aspect, and dismiss it as "the same as the one before" while praising CoD and Halo

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.

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

Black Arrow Officer:
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).

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.

NewYork_Comedian:
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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.