So... your saying that nothing can be bad?Radoh said:Would you look at this thread? What is this all about now, people liking things you don't like?
Seriously now, good reviews happen because the reviewers like them, and liking something is a Subjective thing. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean the game is bad, just that you don't like it.
Blah.
I agree with you about gta 4 and its refreshing to see someone who says so. I am genuinely baffled why so many people like it. San andreas was the peak for me.rohansoldier said:Fable 3, GTA 4 and Bioshock 2. I loved the previous games but these were so disappointing. Especially GTA as the crappy shooting mechanic that had me shooting some guy on the other side of the room when I was trying to shoot in front of me then dying to the guy I was trying to shoot was infuriating. Plus I just wasn't interested in Nico or his story (such as it was).
Thank god for Rockstar fixing this for Red Dead Redemption. Much better game. I hope they manage to sort out GTA 5.
Bioshock 2 did not have the impact of the original. Plus playing as Subject Delta did not have any of the walking tank feel that being a Big Daddy should have.
Fable 3 - I quite enjoyed Fable 2 but 3 was inferior in just about every way. Too short and really not up to scratch.
I do however like some of the games others have suggested on here, like Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2 (not keen on Origins though) and Halo Reach is OK I guess for a game I got for free (it came with my xbox).
This is a silly comment. If there wasn't a link between one person's perspective and another's then reviewing games (or anything else) would be pointless.Radoh said:Would you look at this thread? What is this all about now, people liking things you don't like?
Seriously now, good reviews happen because the reviewers like them, and liking something is a Subjective thing. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean the game is bad, just that you don't like it.
Blah.
If that's where the discussion lies then the thread should be 'Well-received games you didn't like' or something to that effect. By claiming a game is bad, the poster is implying that their opinion is more valid than someone else's, which is simply not the case. I also rather take issue with this sentence:i7omahawki said:This is a silly comment. If there wasn't a link between one person's perspective and another's then reviewing games (or anything else) would be pointless.Radoh said:Would you look at this thread? What is this all about now, people liking things you don't like?
Seriously now, good reviews happen because the reviewers like them, and liking something is a Subjective thing. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean the game is bad, just that you don't like it.
Blah.
Game reviews are subjective in that they come from a subject's point of view, but game reviewers are employed to offer judgements on games, not just whether they like them or not.
A carbon-copy of this post seems to occur very frequently on this site, and I am completely perplexed by the motive behind it. Should we not disagree with people, and offer reasons why we disagree? To be sure, we can't tell someone that they liked or disliked something, but we can get them to re-evaluate their tastes based on arguing the merits/drawbacks of a game. Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?
What are 'better, more enjoyable games'? Because, as you already stated, we can't tell people whether they liked a game or not. That sentence really sounds like you think people have the right to tell others why they're wrong to like the games they like and to tell them they should like 'better' games. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's how it sounds.Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?
Took me a minute to realize that you were talking about the Japanese version of Resident Evil. Makes me wonder where you must live where it's called Biohazard (I'm guessing Pretenseville). Also, I have ni what RDR stands for, dygtp? Or fabbo, ftm...let's spell things out every once in a while, please, for the dummies like me.uzo said:Biohazard 4.
Sure .. it's fun enough. But is it really THAT good? And it didn't so much 'redefine' survival horror as throw it out the fucking window. After the first scene (approaching the town on foot), it feels like godamn John Cleese appeared and said 'and now for something completely different.'
What in the hell happened to Biohazard, Capcom ??! I want it BACK.
EDIT: And wow .. RDR? Really? I thought it was fabbo.
That's always bothered me. I'm a big fan of GTA3 and Vice City and to a lesser extent San Andreas, but GTAIV was just terrible. I'll give them credit for mildly improving the shooting from earlier games but that's about it. The story was terrible, the missions were boring, and nothing will ever be more annoying than having people call you every five minutes looking to do something, even if you're in the middle of a mission, and you're punished if you ignore them too much. Fuck off.Woodsey said:I will never in a million years understand GTA IV's reception.
Bad controls, bad shooting, bad melee combat, bland and clichéd writing (some dialogue is OK, the story is crap), and terrible pacing (story and gameplay-wise).
Well hello there in Presumption City. Nice weather this time of year?funguy2121 said:Took me a minute to realize that you were talking about the Japanese version of Resident Evil. Makes me wonder where you must live where it's called Biohazard (I'm guessing Pretenseville). Also, I have ni what RDR stands for, dygtp? Or fabbo, ftm...let's spell things out every once in a while, please, for the dummies like me.uzo said:Biohazard 4.
Sure .. it's fun enough. But is it really THAT good? And it didn't so much 'redefine' survival horror as throw it out the fucking window. After the first scene (approaching the town on foot), it feels like godamn John Cleese appeared and said 'and now for something completely different.'
What in the hell happened to Biohazard, Capcom ??! I want it BACK.
EDIT: And wow .. RDR? Really? I thought it was fabbo.
This so much. God, I couldn't believe how crap I found it. I still have no idea how it got such good response. It seemed like everybody else was playing a different game to me. It was insanely broken and boring and even after trying to give it multiple chances and looking at the positives, I just couldn't get into it.Woodsey said:I will never in a million years understand GTA IV's reception.
Bad controls, bad shooting, bad melee combat, bland and clichéd writing (some dialogue is OK, the story is crap), and terrible pacing (story and gameplay-wise).
2 things. First: CS was not made by Valve, CS:S was, with the employment of the people that did CS. And the reason people like it is cuz it's hard, it's a competitive niche well filled out.megaman24681012 said:*cracks fists*GeorgW said:It happens all the time. It's all caused by those damn opinions... A recent example is inFAMOUS 2. I found it good, but highly overrated. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.296612] Meanwhile, the one person I though would agree with me, Yahtzee, loved it. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/3611-Infamous-2] I felt betrayed...
Hey, hey. inFAMOUS 2 is my most favourite game for the PS3 right now.
But hey, I digress. Counter-Strike; seriously, Its considered to be one of the best online shooters of all time. I found it repetitive, cheap, retardedly hard, and I've played much more enjoyable online games in my life. Its kinda insulting for me know a piece of garbage like this was made by the mighty Valve.