Have you ever gotten angry at a review?

[spartandude]

Alot of IGN reviews

for example if you remember Star Craft 2 and Mario Galaxy 2 came out at very similar times. IGN criticised SC2 for being too much like the original but no criticism for Mario?

also in their review for Metro 2033 they accused it for being too much like a standard shooter yet give amazing reviews for CoD

 

[Something Amyss]

When I was ten, yeah. once or twice.

Since I reached adulthood? Nah. Don't see the point.

A lot of the rage is especially stupid, because they complain that a game "only" got a 90.

 

[scw55]

There was a review of Heroes of Newerth which annoyed me. Firstly was because there were criteria in which it was reviewed with (Gameplay, Innovation, aesphetics etc) with marks out of 5. Then at the end the marks were tallied together to give an overall score. But if you're using that system to grade a game, then you need to include a lot more criteria. The criteria chosen are biased (consciously or not).

Another reason why it annoyed me was the list of Good and Bad points. A good point was Large selection of heroes to choose from. A bad point was too many heroes to choose from[/u]. Both points contradict each other. You can't clame a Goldylocks with the desired number of heroes. Complain if there's too many or too few, not both simutainiously.

Also the website was a MMORPG review site. Not a DotA clone/Generic Multiplayer Game site. Heroes of Newerth is not an MMORPG, inless you enjoy your MMORPGs deleting your character after an hour everytime.

 

[Deathninja19]

I don't think it is. I just think it's silly to think of BF3 something other than a pure multiplayer shooter
If it was the other way around, excellent singeplayer with a pointless, average MP mode strapped on, it wouldn't get judged on that.
I mean nobody thinks any less of such games like Half Life, Deus Ex or Resident Evil 5 because their MP mode wasn't anything special.

Fair point but in a good review they should be mentioned and reviewed as they are a part of the whole product and should be in consideration when tallying up the score. But c'mon if a review is accurate why focus on a score.

 

[Armored Prayer]

I've been irradiated but never mad, a good example is Yahtzee's take on Gears 3 which was less of a review and more of the man confused as hell and focusing more about it.

Then again was it his fault for not even paying attention or was it the game's fault for not doing a good job explaining, because this debate can go either way.

 

[repeating integers]

PC Gamer's Half Life 2 review. Not because Half Life 2 wasn't an excellent game that deserved a good review, but because it (and Steam) launched with a host of issues that went completely without mention in arguably the single most fawning review I'd ever read in my life. And look at that, it was a world exclusive first review!

Was that the infamous 11/10 review?

 

[AnarchistAbe]

Yes, but only when a bad game gets a GREAT score. Or, when the scores don't reflect the (text) review.

Joystiq's review for BF3 is one such example. They bashed the campaign (hard) and then gave it a 4.5/5. Personally, I believe if it's in the game, then it counts against (or for) the game. If SP is shit, and multi is fantastic, note that and then give the game an overall score that reflects it. If the two components are HEADS AND HEELS either above or below each other, give them separate scores. They did it with CoD, why not do it with other games?

 

[Roberto Hadi]

Yes I have.
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/738/738253p1.html
I'm still angry at them.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Most reviews of Metro 2033, and Metro/GC's review of Medal Of Honour - as I thought it was just too damn misleading.
But 99% of the time, I barely read reviews and never put stock in them.

 

[GeneWard]

Iv'e only ever gotten angry at those fucking rubes on Metacritic giving Portal 2, one of the best games EVER MADE, a zero because it had hats in it. Fucking hell.

 

[nukethetuna]

Anytime someone posts a lengthy review that could potentially be a good read and interesting critique, but is missing one very important component.
Paragraphs.

 

[Magicmad5511]

When the review is entirely based on personal opinion.
A review should be based around the facts o the game, and maybe opinion for the final score.

Really I only get properly annoyed if it's a game I own and enjoy and they are saying things and lowering it's score because of things I don't care about.
A good example is Warhammer 40K Space Marine. I hated those reviews.

 

[Deathninja19]

Iv'e only ever gotten angry at those fucking rubes on Metacritic giving Portal 2, one of the best games EVER MADE, a zero because it had hats in it. Fucking hell.

That's just obvious Trolling though I can't see why you'd get angry at that.

 

[GeneWard]

Iv'e only ever gotten angry at those fucking rubes on Metacritic giving Portal 2, one of the best games EVER MADE, a zero because it had hats in it. Fucking hell.

That's just obvious Trolling though I can't see why you'd get angry at that.

Was it? sheeeet, I got worked up over nothing, I thought they were serious. At least Im a little happier now

 

[darksakul]

Have you ever gotten angry at a review?

Why would I. Everyone is entitles to their opinion, despite the opinion of many people including those on the internet.

If a reviewer was converse or bought out to reflect the wishes of the company who's product the reviewer is suppose to critic I find that as a lapse of moral, ethical and professional judgement, but this is still someone's opinion. Example a game company pays a critic or gaming magazine to give them a good/positive review. We know this 10 out of 10 score is shit, but rather than get mad at the reviewer, I find it more productive to consider the reviewer to not be credible and just take his future works with a grain of salt.

Its like why so many of us like Yahtzee. Yahtzee generally say most games are shit and explain in detail why they are shit even if the game have good or redeeming qualities. Because fan boys needs to be bough down a notch (or 35 notches).

 

[Kuchinawa212]

I remember I good and mad the first movie bob's "The big picture" sure it's not a review and more a introspective look on the halo games. Now I don't wanna repeat what I said then, that's in the past but needless to say it still irks me and I haven't watched another one of his episodes since.

 

[shelwyn]

Oh I get so mad when someone reviews eve online and tells me it sucks after playing 1-15 days. It's hard to relate to this reviewer when you've played for years and have enough isk (in game currency) and SP (skill points) that you could sell your character and in game currency for thousands of dollars. I've tried out almost all aspects of eve online, missions, trading, mining, ratting, pirating, plexing, scamming, manufacture, blueprint copying, selling characters, pvp, logistics, the null and low sec variants of all those, wormholes, actually leading others, building stations, having poses. It's just so hard to not get angry when someone tells you the game you've played for so long is dumb or boring when they don't even bother to try out many of the things that you consider 'fun'. Some of the best things about games can be the human interaction. It just get's me down or a bit mad when someone tells me this game is to hard or boring or empty when they don't really have enough experience with the game to know what they're talking about.

 

[Humza Ahmad]

Early reviews of Metroid Primer Hunters on the DS.

 

[JordanHavoc]

Usually, no. The only exceptions I can think of are Yahtzee's review of New Super Mario Bros. Wii and The Spoony One's review of Guitar Hero: World Tour. In the World Tour review, Spoony said that the game itself was bad and that nobody should like it based solely on the music line up not lining up with his taste. So basically, he made a highly objective statement based on entirely subjective reasoning.

 

[Sirch.Cajnos]

Eh, not angry. Just irritated.

Gametrailers was waaaay too harsh on Sonic Colors IMO.

Oh, and don't get me started on Yatzee giving up at THE VERY FIRST CUTSCENE. I know it's his job to hate everything, but come on...The first cutscene? Which can be skipped?

What review did he do that on?