What is the worst gaming review you've read?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Because the recent controversy about Petit bringing up feminism in her GTA V review, I wanted to know? What is the worst game review you've ever read? Please do not factor score in, because scores have way too much power, and don't mention the GTA V review or IGNs review of God Hand. Because if God Hand is allowed, it will simply be a topic of IGNs God Hand review.

Myn would be Gamespot's review of Persona 2: Innocent Sin's PSP rerelease which now that a research about also happened to be written by Petit by a massive coincidence. She goes on about some legit fair points about it having a high encounter rate, waiting a long time to talk about the main characters backstories, and the pretty damn slow pacing. Then suddenly she says "The game suffers from using an outdated menu driven combat system" and "It has bad graphics" (noting its both a rerelease and a PSP game) and that should be about when your bullshit detector starts blaring.

The worst part of the review is that that there is legitimate problems with the combat system, mainly how slow the character attack and how long contact emotes take to finish, which causes battles to drag out. But she completely ignores that and just says its bad because its turn based. I kinda think she has some vendetta against ATLUS to insult their games, especially after she made that blog post about how Persona 4's Kanji and Naoto failing to touch on topics of homosexuality and transgender in modern society...when they did. Kanji's story was all about that, and Naoto's was instead turned into discussing the topic of women's oppression in modern society.

Which I only just realized is exactly what she bitched about with GTA V!

EDIT: Because someone mentioned it before. I'd like to remind them that I wrote most of this post before researching who wrote the review on Persona 2 IS. I didn't know it was her until most of it was written. I was not making this thread specifically to insult her.

Reviews are meant to be opinion and essentially a subjective critique, so if she didn't like it, then she didn't like it.

That being said, to me the worse reviews are ones that didn't play the game of just play it for a few hours. The most recent example of bad reviews would be looking at the total war: rome 2 reviews. The bad ones that gave high scores generally tended to ignore all the faults of the game. While ones that done by Angry Joe and a few others pointed out it's faults as well and critiqued the state of the game as they played it. That would be a good review. Angry joe seems to be an exception in that he clocks alot of hours before he does the review and it tends to be a high quality compared to others. His reviews are never on release date most of the time.

Essentially reviews are just subjective criticism. The good ones explain it and if they have time give examples to back it up. The bad ones just gloss over everything and say it's all good. And then when you play it the experience of the review doesn't match up to your experience when you play it and you get a wtf experience.

Also another point to add is time restraints. Alot of paid reviewers working for print and tv/web shows operate under a deadline and that will also factor in some way on how the review is constructed. Less time = less chance for a comprehensive review. Then there is also the issue of corporate sponsorship and how that may influence the review that comes out.

Captch: I think so.

yes indeed heh

Edited: error detections and such.

Greg Tito's Dragon Age 2 review. The OTT praise for such dross is nothing short of shocking. Arsehole to "opinion", there's just outright facts such as shite graphics which you can't deny. Lowlights include........

Not only does Dragon Age II play better, it looks absolutely gorgeous. - Four words......are......you...........blind Greg?

The party-based combat is frenetic, with no auto-attack making you feel in the thick of it with constant button-pressing - 1984 track & field type button bashing actions go from being an out of date, low playability, pretty awful mechanics to "frenetic combat"? WTF?

In fact, like Uncharted 2 and Empire Strikes Back, Dragon Age II is the rare sequel that improves upon its already excellent predecessor. - This statement makes me feel sick. Suggesting that DA:2 possesses any remote quality which SW:TESB has is scandalous, never mind suggesting that it's better than DA:O.

And to finish it all off, this laughable quote......
the real achievement of Dragon Age II is in the story-telling.
...........ha ha ha ha. Dull, drab, disjointed and poorly told, yet Greg's been plyed with enough drink/money to totally miss any of that.

There seems to be a lot debate from the review as to whether Greg was paid for such an opinion. I'll have FAR more respect for him if he was, as no reviewer should ever land so many views so wide of the mark with the majority of people.

Sorry Greg, sure you're a nice bloke, but until you take that review down it will remain the worst ever.

Second place goes to C&VG's review of "The Terminator" for the Megadrive back in the 90's. Massively wide of the mark too.

Amakusa:
Reviews are meant to be opinion and essentially a subjective critique, so if she didn't like it, then she didn't like it.

That being said, to me the worse reviews are ones that didn't play the game of just play it for a few hours. The most recent example of bad reviews would be looking at the total war: rome 2 reviews. The bad ones that gave high scores generally tended to ignore all the faults of the game. While ones that done by Angry Joe and a few others pointed out it's faults as well and critiqued the state of the game as they played it. That would be a good review. Angry joe seems to be an exception in that he clocks alot of hours before he does the review and it tends to be a high quality compared to others. His reviews are never on release date most of the time.

Essentially reviews are just subjective criticism. The good ones explain it and if they have time give examples to back it up. The bad ones just gloss over everything and say it's all good. And then when you play it the experience of the review doesn't match up to your experience when you play it and you get a wtf experience.

Also another point to add is time restraints. Alot of paid reviewers working for print and tv/web shows operate under a deadline and that will also factor in some way on how the review is constructed. Less time = less chance for a comprehensive review. Then there is also the issue of corporate sponsorship and how that may influence the review that comes out.

Captch: I think so.

yes indeed heh

Edited: error detections and such.

A review that goes against popular opinion is one thing, hense why you cant make the same topic as for something like a movie or book, which is 100% subjective. However, a terrible game review is possible, as you can be objectively wrong, and insulting a common gameplay style because you think its outdated means you shouldn't be reviewing the damn game. It's be like insulting GTA V because it's open world and you don't like open world games. That is a bad review because you shouldn't be insulting the core concept of the genre of the game your playing, and if you do, you shouldn't be allowed to review the game. Your job is to give people insight into whether they might enjoy the game. If they despise the genre, they are not going to be buying it either way, and you have no right to tell them they shouldn't like that genre.

Also, a bad review can be completely objectively bad with things like God Hand's famous review (I know I'm mentioning it like I said not to, but its a really useful review to prove a point) which made negatives of the game with things that literally did not happen in the game, such as enemies coming up from behind (They would always indicate where and when enemies have spawned, and enemies were far more passive when the camera was off them to be less BS). If your objectively wrong, its a bad review.

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.

Recommendation: Buy it, steal it, beat up your little brother so you can play it.

About sums it up. I may go out on a limb for Tito in defending his stance on GTAV, but this review drives me nuts.

I don't know... Probably the ones on Amazon from people who are all, "Seller used too much tape and I cut my finger. One star."

No professional review sticks out in my mind for filling me with rage. Even if I see a review I completely disagree with, it's the reviewer's opinion. I know everyone says that, but it's true. Like, with ZP's SSBB review. It's one of my favorite games, but I can see where he's coming from with his complaints. If he didn't like it, he didn't like it, and bitching about it isn't going to make him "see the light." There's no clear yardstick over what makes a game good, except "is it fun?" I've probably spent four times as much time playing a "falling sand" app on my phone than I did playing GTA4.

If I ever get into game reviews, I'm not going to assign scores. It's just going to be "here are some things I liked about this game, here are some things I didn't like. Here's some games it's similar to. If it looks like you'd enjoy it, you probably would."

"Revelations 2012 is a fantastic and enriching experience that immerses you into the chaos of the Mayan Revelations!" - Valid Gaming

Thankfully, the Valid Gaming review seems to have mysteriously disappeared off the face of the Earth since (I wonder why...).

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

Amakusa:

Snip

Edited: error detections and such.

A review that goes against popular opinion is one thing, hense why you cant make the same topic as for something like a movie or book, which is 100% subjective. However, a terrible game review is possible, as you can be objectively wrong, and insulting a common gameplay style because you think its outdated means you shouldn't be reviewing the damn game. It's be like insulting GTA V because it's open world and you don't like open world games. That is a bad review because you shouldn't be insulting the core concept of the genre of the game your playing, and if you do, you shouldn't be allowed to review the game. Your job is to give people insight into whether they might enjoy the game. If they despise the genre, they are not going to be buying it either way, and you have no right to tell them they shouldn't like that genre.

Also, a bad review can be completely objectively bad with things like God Hand's famous review (I know I'm mentioning it like I said not to, but its a really useful review to prove a point) which made negatives of the game with things that literally did not happen in the game, such as enemies coming up from behind (They would always indicate where and when enemies have spawned, and enemies were far more passive when the camera was off them to be less BS). If your objectively wrong, its a bad review.

Actually no. Objective means Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts (from using define: objective in google, so i'll use this definition). A review is subjective criticism. What you have described is a subjectively bad review in par 1.

And as to how a game reviewer is meant to do their job, the final buck stops with the editor. If the editor is happy with the work they are producing then that is all that matters to them since that is how they get their paycheck. As for self employed game reviewers, they review however they like to. If the reviewer fails to meet your standards, awesome, you can filter out that trash and read better ones. But that doesn't change the fact that a game review is still a subjective critical review.

As for par 2 example, i don't remember god hand or i vaguely do. In this example you seem to have a described a review where the person falsified his or her position by making shit up. This would still be an example of a bad subjective review using objective data. The person has still given a subjective interpretation, even though false data was used. In this case pulling shite out of his or her ass.

Objective data is used in reviews but it doesn't change the interpretation and process into becoming subjective one. Examples of this could include shot composition, loading times, graphic setting. For example, i can look at character pixels but until i subjectively interpret it, it means nothing.

You can have objectively bad data and that will make it a bad review but it will still be a subjective bad review.

If you truly want an objective review the closest thing we have for the entertainment medium is total average metacritic score. This is the closest thing that imitates how the hard sciences and social sciences does literature reviews.

I remember this one Darkfall review. The reviewer addressed many issues which were often raised in the forums and as a consequence of these numerous issues he gave the game a 4/10. Now what he obviously didn't know was that many of these issues were fixed or heavily improved on at the time he played (or rather should have played) the game. It was kinda funny.

The Shmup genre has had some crap reviews in years gone by, but the rather recent Akia Katana 360 review on IGN is a bad, one.

Basically the reviewer admits they couldn't be arsed learning the game (despite there been a lengthy rolling tutorial explaining it all), then takes a big shit on said mechanics saying they weren't unique (which is totally wrong) and recommend gamers buy Ikaruga or Sine Mora (2 names he pulled out of his arse to sound informed) or Skyrim since it's priced about the same at $40.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/05/16/akai-katana-review

1 Star Amazon reviews are better than that trash

GundamSentinel:
"Revelations 2012 is a fantastic and enriching experience that immerses you into the chaos of the Mayan Revelations!" - Valid Gaming

Thankfully, the Valid Gaming review seems to have mysteriously disappeared off the face of the Earth since (I wonder why...).

Oh yes, that review. Nothing in this thread can top that one.

I won't link to it since people might not realize the entire site it the absolute worst kind of fear-mongering tabloid, but there was a very recent GTA V review on the Dailymail that wasn't anything to do with the game, but more just how insane the author was.

It was basically a diatribe on what he thought the modern world was and had quotes like:
"Modern child-hating Britain!"

Followed by a reminiscent of the authors time in Africa looking at dying children and being unable to feel. It was all kinds of insane. I wish the guy would put all the money he gets from his BS book writing and article making and get sometime for his very severe paranoia and delusions, since everything he says gets treated as gospel by idiotic readers.

The IGN US review of Football Manager 2009 was hilariously bad. I would link it, but it seems it has been taken down, and with good reason too!

The reviewer was woefully ill-informed.

She didn't think the Kanji and Naoto message hit the themes they were going for?! I mean... their Social Links went even deeper!!! Wow... she needs to go back and play the game and actually LISTEN.

OT: I guess IGN's review of DmC (reboot). Not one mention of dumbed down gameplay in the series, if I remember correctly all they said was its the best Devil May Cry as of now. Devil May Cry 4 looked better and wasn't very far off... oh wait they don't do research, my bad. Also theres the rumors of NT paying them to give it a high score even if they said the story sucked... but that is a story for a different thread entirely.

Go onto Metacritic.

Go to the user review section of any triple-A release, the more highely praised the better.

Find the most negative review, bonus points if the reviewer states "he only rated it such to counter all the 10s".

Any review that gave Final Fantasy XIII a 9/10 or more.

In the case of professional reviews, I find it hard to say they are bad reviews. Even when I disagree with it on a profound level, its still a competent review in the sense that it conveys the reasons why the writer liked or disliked a game. There are some weird exceptions, though... I remember a video review in gamespot shortly after the "Gerstmanngate" that was hardly a review. It was just a person saying "and now you punch it... and this is cool... look at this". I can't remember the name of the game (and I guess it was something obscure that only I cared about), but that video content was closer to a kid playing at being an sport commentator during random gameplay footage, than an actual review.

User reviews are an entirely different beast. Most of them vary from barely a review to barely English.

I cant find my favourite fan review of Valkyria Chronicles but it went like this "Game suks hahaha geras of war is awsedsoe mch bettr than ths garbge. You will ply 4 abot 5 mintes thn wsh it was Gaers of war, Valkria Croncles suck ballz ply GOW insted".

I think I may have written it more eloquently than them however. I dont remember any profesional review I thought was complete trash but plenty I have thought are poorly researched or totally ignorant. I remember in the Edge review of DOA5 they thought Gen Fu was a Virtua Fighter character and you could tell from what they were going on about they hardly played the game (if they did play it at all), it sounds like they looked at it being played for 5 minutes and then scrawled a review out.

For any competitive game I take the review with a huge pinch of salt I remember I think it was Games TM claiming that Modok and Arthur were to powerful in MVC3 and would dominate.....yeah that happened.

Soviet Heavy:

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.

Recommendation: Buy it, steal it, beat up your little brother so you can play it.

About sums it up. I may go out on a limb for Tito in defending his stance on GTAV, but this review drives me nuts.

Yep.

That particular reviews stench is going to linger for a long time Mr Tito.

Amakusa:
Reviews are meant to be opinion and essentially a subjective critique, so if she didn't like it, then she didn't like it.

Yeah, but reviews are also supposed to help customers with decision, not a place for people to vent their personal views.

On the contrary, I think reviews shouldn't be opinionated at all. They should stick to the facts, and advise gamers on whether it's the right game for them or not.

As for me, I rate the majority of Amazon.co.uk reviewers. Even the semi-professional ones sometimes really don't know what they're talking about.

As for professional, if you can call him professional, I'd say every Sega Saturn review by The Video Game Critic:

http://videogamecritic.com/index.htm?full=true

It pains me to link to his site, in danger that more people might actually rate his shit. I haven't got the energy to go into detail (like anyone will read this post anyways), but he clearly doesn't understand the audience many games target, or the point of certain games i.e. fun over graphics, or game length, etc.

This poignant article points out the problem with game reviews: http://www.somethingawful.com/news/movie-game-review/

In my mind, most video game reviews are lacking because they focus too much on the mechanics and aesthetic presentation while ignoring all the things of 'cultural value' or noteworthy ideas they are trying to convey. (even the bad ideas)

And when people rightfully deviate from this standard the backlash is intense and becomes a story in itself. (as with the case of that gamespot review of GTA5)

I've read so many bad reviews that i don't even know where to start, needless to say i don't have very high thoughts of videogame "critics". But most recently it must have been Gamereactors review of Total War: Rome II (???), they managed to wrie an entire page about the game, which could have been a review of any Total War game ever. No in depth analysis, no critiscism only vague descriptions of what a Total War game is and whether it was fun or not.

But really, i think the level of quality is very low when it comes to game reviews. Too many shallow consumer guides written by people with near identical taste in games, and too little actual analysis and in-depth critique. Roger Ebert used to say that a review could be about anything, more of that please!

I can't point to any in particular but I've been down on any reviews not written by Tom Chick recently. This charade that many reviewers hold that their work isn't meant to be subjective doesn't jibe with what they produce. They've adopted a herd mentality and seem to be tailoring the reviews to fit the scores they'll all give and gloss over aspects of the games that jump right the hell out at me when I bought early based on good reviews or late and cheap based on poor reviews. I don't always agree with Chick but I have absolute faith that he approaches his reviews honestly. Also Yahtzee. He takes things and runs with them but I've never got the feeling he says things just to have material and there isn't a core of truth in any of his observations.

This Legend of Legaia review I stumbled upon GameRevolution AGES ago, well after I had played the game once or twice. It mocked all the things that would've otherwise gone unnoticed in any other Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, just because it was a new IP yet it wasn't particularly original. It had like a D or D+. Surely you can't doom a game because it's playing all the right tropes?

Phrozenflame500:
Go onto Metacritic.

Go to the user review section of any triple-A release, the more highely praised the better.

Find the most negative review, bonus points if the reviewer states "he only rated it such to counter all the 10s".

I said it once, I'll say it again:

NEVER read the user reviews. The Metacritic average user score is pretty much the most accurate review score you can find in the games industry, but only because if you lock 1,000 hooting, raging, fandom-maddened internet users inside a room and get their average opinion, it will reflect the view of the average user.

OT: I don't remember the last review I read, they all fail the bottom line of telling me if a game's gonna be worth the money in the end. Nowadays most of my purchases come from recommendations or really good Steam sales.

Well the IGN review of Persona 4 only gave it an 8/10. The bastards. It deserves no less than a 20/10. How DARE they! They said the PACING was off! No! Wrong! Fuck you!

Game of the year forever.

Otherwise I don't read reviews. I read the ones on 'Scapist and not much else. I just buy games I have a good feeling about really...

Hey it worked for both the Ace Attorney game and Persona 4. I think my pr0 strat is great.

Klagnut:
Greg Tito's Dragon Age 2 review. The OTT praise for such dross is nothing short of shocking. Arsehole to "opinion", there's just outright facts such as shite graphics which you can't deny. Lowlights include........

Not only does Dragon Age II play better, it looks absolutely gorgeous. - Four words......are......you...........blind Greg?

The party-based combat is frenetic, with no auto-attack making you feel in the thick of it with constant button-pressing - 1984 track & field type button bashing actions go from being an out of date, low playability, pretty awful mechanics to "frenetic combat"? WTF?

In fact, like Uncharted 2 and Empire Strikes Back, Dragon Age II is the rare sequel that improves upon its already excellent predecessor. - This statement makes me feel sick. Suggesting that DA:2 possesses any remote quality which SW:TESB has is scandalous, never mind suggesting that it's better than DA:O.

And to finish it all off, this laughable quote......
the real achievement of Dragon Age II is in the story-telling.
...........ha ha ha ha. Dull, drab, disjointed and poorly told, yet Greg's been plyed with enough drink/money to totally miss any of that.

There seems to be a lot debate from the review as to whether Greg was paid for such an opinion. I'll have FAR more respect for him if he was, as no reviewer should ever land so many views so wide of the mark with the majority of people.

Sorry Greg, sure you're a nice bloke, but until you take that review down it will remain the worst ever.

Second place goes to C&VG's review of "The Terminator" for the Megadrive back in the 90's. Massively wide of the mark too.

Reading that is hilarious, need to look up his reviews now.

I know the escapist guys were trying to play up his GTA 5 review response as "oh boo hoo it got a low score but it wasn't a low score" but the fact is that most of the people complaining were quoting his review.

I don't think he was "paid off" but he was paid for his opinion and if that's the best he can present an opinion, I think the community that makes this site money has a right to be a bit judgmental.

That DA 2 review is just hilarious. The way he goes on about how it "improves" over the original, you can tell he thought this game was going to be a hit. Hey, maybe he's really into hack and slash gameplay, but that brings up the question of why he is reviewing a dragon age game.

His GTA 5 review was him giving it a good score after doing nothing but complaining about how naughty the main characters were. Now that's ok (not really, if you are trying to pretend you are a professional reviewer) but he goes on and on about it being impossible to relate to ANY of the characters. I had no issue relating with them, many people feel the same, it's not like your life needs to be similar to a character's in order to relate to their story.

But that's all opinion, where it bugged me is where he said things that were demonstrably false. He didn't say he didn't like the motivations of the characters, he said they had no motivations. That's a bold claim, and a false one, they had pretty clear motivations throughout the game.
He talks about past GTA games, even vice city, and tries to claim that the protagonists of those games all had some level of morality. He said that Vercetti in Vice City was fighting for justice, kind of wondering why he brought up Vice city if he hadn't played it.

And of course, life invader. He claims you are never told what will happen, Lester explains what will happen before you do the mission. He says a reason is NEVER given for doing it, Lester gives a few reasons before the mission and tells you the real reason after.
The problem is that a lot of what he said was not a matter of opinion but, as I said, demonstrably false and it starts to paint a picture that suggests that he was skipping all the cut scenes to fly through the game, which is fine unless you are doing a "professional review" and do nothing but complain about a lack of story.

And don't even get me started on his (and so much of the Escapist it seems) complete misrepresentation of the torture scene. Oh it made you feel uncomfortable? Good! Do one of you people stop and think "why didn't I get this angry over the torture scenes in MW or Splinter Cell?" and maybe you will get what they were going for here. People want to push the idea that games are art but then want to punish games for making you feel something other than thoughtless fun.

They could have made the torture scene take place in a nice clean room, they could have had one of the non psychotic protagonists driving the victim home and doing the "torture is wrong" speech but they had trevor do it and they had it take place in a nasty looking abandoned building for some very obvious reasons that I don't see escapist touching in the slightest.

But GTA has to take the "glorifying torture" heat because they had the guts to portray torture as a disgusting act but to make the player feel close enough to the act that they actually feel disgust.

It reminds me of the people complaining that cops are too aggressive or unfair to Franklin, it's Los Santos, it's based on a real city (guess which) that's known for an aggressive and racist police force.

But GTA 5's review on the Escapist was not the worst review I have ever read. I could list Gamefaqs reviews for hours but it doesn't really matter because only the people that write those reviews give them any credence.

The Wykydtron:
Well the IGN review of Persona 4 only gave it an 8/10. The bastards. It deserves no less than a 20/10. How DARE they! They said the PACING was off! No! Wrong! Fuck you!

Game of the year forever.

Otherwise I don't read reviews. I read the ones on 'Scapist and not much else. I just buy games I have a good feeling about really...

Hey it worked for both the Ace Attorney game and Persona 4. I think my pr0 strat is great.

Apparently you don't read posts either because the OP kind of specified that you can't just complain about a score.

*reads first post* Oh wait, it says we also can't mention the GTA 5 review.

Great thread guy, it's fun to have our hands tied at every turn.

The Wykydtron:
Well the IGN review of Persona 4 only gave it an 8/10. The bastards. It deserves no less than a 20/10. How DARE they! They said the PACING was off! No! Wrong! Fuck you!

What!?! Quick, you get the rope and I'll find a suitable tree.

OT: I found some pretty funny reviews which said that Final Fantasy 9 had a boring plot, unlikable characters and poor gameplay. This coming from people who liked Final Fantasy 7. I mean, I know my opinion isn't the same as everyone else's but I cannot see how anyone could dislike Final Fantasy 9's characters and story. Both are masterful, and stand as Square's finest achievement in my eyes. The complaints about the gameplay are pretty spot on though. It's deep enough (more so than FF7) but god is it slow. There's like 10 seconds at the start of every battle where the camera just slowly pans across the enemies. At least you get a lot of experience for each battle and there aren't too many of them.

DoveAlexa:
I won't link to it since people might not realize the entire site it the absolute worst kind of fear-mongering tabloid, but there was a very recent GTA V review on the Dailymail that wasn't anything to do with the game, but more just how insane the author was.

It was basically a diatribe on what he thought the modern world was and had quotes like:
"Modern child-hating Britain!"

Followed by a reminiscent of the authors time in Africa looking at dying children and being unable to feel. It was all kinds of insane. I wish the guy would put all the money he gets from his BS book writing and article making and get sometime for his very severe paranoia and delusions, since everything he says gets treated as gospel by idiotic readers.

I need to look up that review, can you find a link for it?
That sounds like some amazing new genre of writing, delivering a chilling character study in the form of a review.

"But what matter are the graphics when my vision is so bad I was unable to see my own wife drift away from me throughout the years. She packed her bags last night. I reassemble my rifle, meditating on her, the game, and everything that's happened up to this point."

Yeah I could do that I think.

Carpenter:
SNIP

His reviews do come across as if he's trying to second-guess the gamers opinion of various things, instead of just being honest. No way can anyone on God's green earth with the power of sight say that DA:2 looks "absolutely gorgeous"

But I think there are a lot of reviewers out there incapable of passing an honest opinion. I've certainly never known SO many be SO wide of the mark on SO many games. Again I know it's all down to opinion, but I remember Jaz Rignall and his team reviewing for Mean Machines and nailing 99% of reviews bang on. Nowadays it's embarrassing how far wide of the mark some get it. The fact that ME:3 was so widely well received shows just how incompetent a lot of them are. If Yatzee wasn't restrained by his persona I think his opinion would be a far better marker (and it often is anyway)

I play games and often find myself asking "WFT was the reviewer(s) thinking?"

Edge magazine's hilarious, point-missing 7/10 review of Doom.

Or possibly their tepid, vacuous, dick-sucking 10/10 review (and they're supposed to be incredibly miserly with their tens) of Super Mario Galaxy 2.

At least they've admitted they screwed up on Doom.

captcha: no brainer

I mean reviews in general rub me as blind praise a lot. "Popular Bland Game Sequel 3" won't get a lower score than an 8 pretty much anywhere. I don't really look at them for scores I look at them for how well they give me an idea of what the game is like.

The only thing that comes to mind specifically is the GTA 5 review I read here on the escapist, probably because it was really recent and I don't get frustrated with reviews very often. I was sort of on the fence about the game, so I went in looking for a review that would talk about actual gameplay, features, areas of improvement over 4, things like that. 3/4ths of it was spent going "I DONT LIKE PLAYING AS BAD GUYS" and what should have been a short bullet point with maybe a sentence or two of justification became the center of the whole review.

Gamespot's review of Spec Ops: The Line was embarassing - complaints about bad gunplay, over-macho characters and the level of violence. I can understand a difference of opinion - that happens all the time with reviews - but it's disquieting when the reviewer comes off as simply quite dim.

Klagnut:

Carpenter:
SNIP

His reviews do come across as if he's trying to second-guess the gamers opinion of various things, instead of just being honest. No way can anyone on God's green earth with the power of sight say that DA:2 looks "absolutely gorgeous"

But I think there are a lot of reviewers out there incapable of passing an honest opinion. I've certainly never known SO many be SO wide of the mark on SO many games. Again I know it's all down to opinion, but I remember Jaz Rignall and his team reviewing for Mean Machines and nailing 99% of reviews bang on. Nowadays it's embarrassing how far wide of the mark some get it. The fact that ME:3 was so widely well received shows just how incompetent a lot of them are. If Yatzee wasn't restrained by his persona I think his opinion would be a far better marker (and it often is anyway)

You know I could see that being the case with GTA 5 but depending on the DA 2 review's timing, I couldn't see many people predicting how bad it would be. Yes it's all pretty bad but judging by his comments it seems he may not have been a fan of the original. Graphics are a matter of opinion and perspective, despite how people make it seem like a science. The whole idea that "graphics are different from aesthetic" comes from people misusing the term graphics. It has nothing to do with how realistic or new a game looks, one could easily say that Hotline Miami or Retro City Rampage have great graphics, and it's not some ironic statement. Graphics are just whatever visuals they choose to use.

Who knows, maybe he really did love the game. I know a lot of people that liked the game, not great people, but I hardly think there's a relation. Hardly. I mean possibly, but hardly.

I have to disagree about ZP, he's a hit man, not a reviewer. Even he admits that he's a critic and that's far from being a reviewer. It's a cynical viewpoint of games, it's entertaining but not a good judge of a game's quality.

Agreed on ME3 though. Good reviews I am fine with, we disagree, no big deal, but the way so many (especially on the Escapist, what a shock) used the strawman arguments to discredit the complaints was so annoying.

"Oh they just want a happy ending, those stupid consumers" yeah we just want a happy ending, guys that are making money off us while insulting our intelligence at every turn. No, we didn't want a happy ending, we wanted an ending that was based on the choices we made and not all funneled down into one ending that didn't even make sense. Yes taking away the effect of choice could have been an awesome point to the series but not when it gets down to an obviously rushed ending that doesn't make any sense.
The joke has been made a thousand times before, the flawed logic of the god child that originally you weren't even able to counter with the obvious flaws in the logic based on Shepard's own experiences.
Synthetics and organics can never co-exist. Ok no big deal, it's proven false by the things that happen in the game but it was rushed, I'll give them a pass with that I guess.
So they created synthetics to kill organics. What? No really, what? And you are not able to poke any of the obvious holes in this, Shepard just makes a choice between splosion colors.

Oh but nope, we just wanted a happy ending. No, it was a huge insult to our intelligence, obviously rushed (likely because of EA wanting to make their money without waiting through another delayed release)and so was the escapist's treatment of the complaints.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked