Dat mortal kombat review by IGN...

[le picklez]

So, I know this upset me a little. For the IGN review of mortal kombat, the review nicked off a few points for "Much of the art style is still 'stuck in 1992,' as our own Arthur Gies described it. Character models themselves look respectable and the environments are awesome."- Which seems really subjective rather than objective. Also, "Aggravating single-player imbalances"- Which, and I quote, seems to be "two-on-one matches and confronted with bosses that actually break the game's rules (like not being staggered when hit)." Which is sort of what a boss is supposed to do. Be hard. Derpaderp. The review score of 8 is not something I'm contesting, having no authority, but don't you fellows agree that these cons are sort of dumb? "Bosses are hard, and the style looks old" doesn't seem to be negative traits to me. Correct me if I'm wrong. /rant.
The review [http://ps3.ign.com/articles/116/1162160p1.html]

 

[Tzekelkan]

Which seems really subjective rather than objective.

Reviews are subjective, because Everything is subjective. The fact that they didn't like the style may not have anything to do with your enjoyment of the game. I'd say "anything to do with the objective value of the game", but Everything is subjective.

 

[Brawndo]

Let's be honest, it upset you because it got an 8/10, which is apparently an F for a triple-A release nowadays. If he gave it a 10/10 and wrote a bunch of pros that were merely unsubstantiated opinions, you would not be complaining

 

[Dr Jones]

Which seems really subjective rather than objective.

Reviews are subjective, because Everything is subjective. The fact that they didn't like the style may not have anything to do with your enjoyment of the game. I'd say "anything to do with the objective value of the game", but Everything is subjective.

Um, yeah.. Pretty much.. Don't see the topic here..

 

[le picklez]

Which seems really subjective rather than objective.

Reviews are subjective, because Everything is subjective. The fact that they didn't like the style may not have anything to do with your enjoyment of the game. I'd say "anything to do with the objective value of the game", but Everything is subjective.

Yes, everything is subjective, but this seems to stand out. Say, if someone was to not like borderlands because it looks cartoony, wouldn't that be sort of a dumb reason to not like it? Especially a professional reviewer, I expect this from other people on the internet. What would make a valid negative point is something along the lines of "blah and blah have moves that are easily spammable and impossible to avoid"

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Boss are hard is totally valid.

Fighting game bosses tend to be evil...With most of your competitive strategies thrown out the window due to what basically amounts to the AI cheating, due to their lack of need for control input. From Seth in SF4, to Unlimited Hazama/Ragna in Blazblue...Fighting games bosses are unfairly hard.

 

[le picklez]

Let's be honest, it upset you because it got an 8/10, which is apparently an F for a triple-A release nowadays. If he gave it a 10/10 and wrote a bunch of pros that were merely unsubstantiated opinions, you would not be complaining

I'm upset because the cons are not cons. If you're going to dislike something give a valid reason. For example: "I don't enjoy call of duty on the xbox because the online community is filled with jerks, making exploits spread like wildfire and cheap tactics widespread." <- See that? That's a legitimate complaint. Not "the art style looks old".

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

It's a man's opinion...let it be that. Don't get all upset about it.

 

[le picklez]

Boss are hard is totally valid.

Fighting game bosses tend to be evil...With most of your competitive strategies thrown out the window due to what basically amounts to the AI cheating, due to their lack of need for control input. From Seth in SF4, to Unlimited Hazama/Ragna in Blazblue...Fighting games bosses are unfairly hard.

You can't really make a balanced boss, they're supposed to be difficult and unbalanced, it's nothing out of the ordinary. It's not as if they're impossible to beat, which they're clearly not.

 

[Elemental]

So, I know this upset me a little. For the IGN review of mortal kombat, the review nicked off a few points for "Much of the art style is still 'stuck in 1992,' as our own Arthur Gies described it. Character models themselves look respectable and the environments are awesome."- Which seems really subjective rather than objective. Also, "Aggravating single-player imbalances"- Which, and I quote, seems to be "two-on-one matches and confronted with bosses that actually break the game's rules (like not being staggered when hit)." Which is sort of what a boss is supposed to do. Be hard. Derpaderp. The review score of 8 is not something I'm contesting, having no authority, but don't you fellows agree that these cons are sort of dumb? "Bosses are hard, and the style looks old" doesn't seem to be negative traits to me. Correct me if I'm wrong. /rant.
The review [http://ps3.ign.com/articles/116/1162160p1.html]

IGNorance.
No, you're not wrong, I fully agree with what you've said, I'm kinda at the end of the story mode and I really enjoy it.
Shao Khan has always been an asshole and a ***** to defeat, he is armored which mean he does'nt staggered when hit and waaay overpowered. but really? he's a boss character, I didn't expected him to be easy and I was satisfied when I finally finished him (pun intended.. VERY intended).
As for the art style, I don't get thier point in here really, It's great and I love it. If it helps in anything maybe it's "old and stuck in the 90's" because it's supposed to retell the events of MK 1,2 and 3.

 

[Tzekelkan]

Which seems really subjective rather than objective.

Reviews are subjective, because Everything is subjective. The fact that they didn't like the style may not have anything to do with your enjoyment of the game. I'd say "anything to do with the objective value of the game", but Everything is subjective.

Yes, everything is subjective, but this seems to stand out. Say, if someone was to not like borderlands because it looks cartoony, wouldn't that be sort of a dumb reason to not like it? Especially a professional reviewer, I expect this from other people on the internet. What would make a valid negative point is something along the lines of "blah and blah have moves that are easily spammable and impossible to avoid"

Well then, find another site's review to read. Surely, for some people the fact that the style is stuck in the nineties is more important than the nature of the game's moves. Go read Gamespot, Gametrailers, Eurogamer, Giant Bomb, Escapist, whatever, man. If you read a review that presents characteristics of a game you don't deem essential, then I have nothing to say other than use your common sense.

For instance, I recently did some research for buying a smartphone. A review of the one I eventually bought docked points for the phone not having an optical trackpad anymore (while earlier models did). This wasn't an issue for me, since I didn't like the trackpad in the first place. So, did I cry about the legitimacy of the reviewer? No, he has the right to an opinion, like you and me.

Just use your head. It's not like there's a shortage of people with opinions on the Internet. The 'I' in Internet probably stands for 'I have an opinion and will therefore be posting it on the Internet, how novel'. Find someone who agrees with you, then profit.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

You can't really make a balanced boss, they're supposed to be difficult and unbalanced, it's nothing out of the ordinary. It's not as if they're impossible to beat, which they're clearly not.

Games can and have made balanced bosses for years. It's just that no one mentions them, since they don't inspire rage and hate. The two most loved topics on the internet, let's be honest.

There's a difference between "Hard"...and "Hard but fair".

A bad boss is just a test of how much you are willing to mash continue until you get a lucky break.

 

[Dr Jones]

Let's be honest, it upset you because it got an 8/10, which is apparently an F for a triple-A release nowadays. If he gave it a 10/10 and wrote a bunch of pros that were merely unsubstantiated opinions, you would not be complaining

I'm upset because the cons are not cons. If you're going to dislike something give a valid reason. For example: "I don't enjoy call of duty on the xbox because the online community is filled with jerks, making exploits spread like wildfire and cheap tactics widespread." <- See that? That's a legitimate complaint. Not "the art style looks old".

Wow, just wow. Reverse what you just said and it makes sense. You can't blame CoD for people abusing it and talking trash! That's not the game's fault is it?

If you don't like the art style then obviously it's a goddamn con for you. Remember it's the guys opinion!

 

[le picklez]

Well then, find another site's review to read. Surely, for some people the fact that the style is stuck in the nineties is more important than the nature of the game's moves. Go read Gamespot, Gametrailers, Eurogamer, Giant Bomb, Escapist, whatever, man. If you read a review that presents characteristics of a game you don't deem essential, then I have nothing to say other than use your common sense.

For instance, I recently did some research for buying a smartphone. A review of the one I eventually bought docked points for the phone not having an optical trackpad anymore (while earlier models did). This wasn't an issue for me, since I didn't like the trackpad in the first place. So, did I cry about the legitimacy of the reviewer? No, he has the right to an opinion, like you and me.

Just use your head. It's not like there's a shortage of people with opinions on the Internet. The 'I' in Internet probably stands for 'I have an opinion and will therefore be posting it on the Internet, how novel'. Find someone who agrees with you, then profit.

The 'I' is also for 'Incessant whining about things that don't matter', and since this is a gaming discussion board, this will happen alot. But yes, it doesn't really matter that someone has a different opinion than I do, as long as it's something that would actually make a sliver of sense.

 

[le picklez]

Let's be honest, it upset you because it got an 8/10, which is apparently an F for a triple-A release nowadays. If he gave it a 10/10 and wrote a bunch of pros that were merely unsubstantiated opinions, you would not be complaining

I'm upset because the cons are not cons. If you're going to dislike something give a valid reason. For example: "I don't enjoy call of duty on the xbox because the online community is filled with jerks, making exploits spread like wildfire and cheap tactics widespread." <- See that? That's a legitimate complaint. Not "the art style looks old".

Wow, just wow. Reverse what you just said and it makes sense. You can't blame CoD for people abusing it and talking trash! That's not the game's fault is it?

If you don't like the art style then obviously it's a goddamn con for you. Remember it's the guys opinion!

Yes, you can. You can blame the developers for making CoD abusable, just like I could blame the developers if there was an infinite combo in MK, it's the same idea innit? I don't see how the easily abused CoD is not the fault of the game.

 

[Dr Jones]

Let's be honest, it upset you because it got an 8/10, which is apparently an F for a triple-A release nowadays. If he gave it a 10/10 and wrote a bunch of pros that were merely unsubstantiated opinions, you would not be complaining

I'm upset because the cons are not cons. If you're going to dislike something give a valid reason. For example: "I don't enjoy call of duty on the xbox because the online community is filled with jerks, making exploits spread like wildfire and cheap tactics widespread." <- See that? That's a legitimate complaint. Not "the art style looks old".

Wow, just wow. Reverse what you just said and it makes sense. You can't blame CoD for people abusing it and talking trash! That's not the game's fault is it?

If you don't like the art style then obviously it's a goddamn con for you. Remember it's the guys opinion!

Yes, you can. You can blame the developers for making CoD abusable, just like I could blame the developers if there was an infinite combo in MK, it's the same idea innit? I don't see how the easily abused CoD is not the fault of the game.

But trash talking kids? Blame that on CoD. Also that does not at all change my main argument, that his con is subjective. You don't like it? Fine, but dont go saying that his opinion is "wrong".

 

[Tzekelkan]

Let's be honest, it upset you because it got an 8/10, which is apparently an F for a triple-A release nowadays. If he gave it a 10/10 and wrote a bunch of pros that were merely unsubstantiated opinions, you would not be complaining

I'm upset because the cons are not cons. If you're going to dislike something give a valid reason. For example: "I don't enjoy call of duty on the xbox because the online community is filled with jerks, making exploits spread like wildfire and cheap tactics widespread." <- See that? That's a legitimate complaint. Not "the art style looks old".

Wow, just wow. Reverse what you just said and it makes sense. You can't blame CoD for people abusing it and talking trash! That's not the game's fault is it?

If you don't like the art style then obviously it's a goddamn con for you. Remember it's the guys opinion!

Yes, you can. You can blame the developers for making CoD abusable, just like I could blame the developers if there was an infinite combo in MK, it's the same idea innit? I don't see how the easily abused CoD is not the fault of the game.

I can blame the game for being stuck in the nineties. I hate the nineties. Even seeing a character designed with elements whose origins can be traced in nineties roots makes me puke vomit all over the barf.

See? It's easy. It's about as valid complaint as any. And no, I don't actually hate the nineties.

 

[le picklez]

I can blame the game for being stuck in the nineties. I hate the nineties. Even seeing a character designed with elements whose origins can be traced in nineties roots makes me puke vomit all over the barf.

See? It's easy. It's about as valid complaint as any. And no, I don't actually hate the nineties.

It doesn't really help the reviewer's original statement if all he has to support the '1992' statement is:"Arthur Gies described it." That's really it. No mention of the graphics before this point. He doesn't even back it up with anything much of anything. And I wouldn't blame you if you hated the nineties anyway.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I'm not certain about the reviewers exact complaint as it's a little unspecific as written, but the fact is the new MK does look old and outdated. Character animations and the flow from move to move do look just as stilted and janky as they did in MK1. When the characters are standing still it's not a big deal, but as soon as you actually start fighting it just looks.. wrong, so I have no issues at all with the game receiving some negative marks for that.

As for boss difficulty, I think that's a valid complaint as well. No one likes SNK boss syndrome. It's a cheap and frustrating way to make a game difficult, and just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Bosses that break the fighting game's engine are just badly designed, not clever or challenging. What's the point to learning the game and your character if the final challenge in the game (single player wise anyway) makes all of that useless while you scramble to figure out the one cheese tactic or move that works.. and that probably never worked otherwise?

SF3's Gill and SF4's Seth are great examples of fighting game bosses done right. Sure they have a bit of psychic AI and can be very tough, but they generally don't break the game and do things a player couldn't do given their move sets. If you hit them, they react like any other character would, and if you block their attacks properly you can counter them. The game doesn't change just because they are the "bosses."