derintrel said:
Iwata said:
Pretty much this. Their review for "I Am Alive" had me wondering if they had a monkey trying out the game.
For what reason do you say this I wonder? They were hardly the only site that gave it a bad review.
They complain about the graphics. They are fine. I've bought AAA releases that look worse than this downloadable game.
They complain about the fog. The game renders distances fine, the fog only comes into play at ground level (and even then not everywhere) and adds to the sense of being lost when you're on the ground and have to resort to your map and people's voices to try and find your way..
They complain about being able to replenish stamina instantly and thus removing tension, but never mention that your resources are so scarce that often using a single piece of drink is a serious blow and has to be managed carefuly, so it really isn't "I'll just use this and be fine", it's more like "Dammit, I HAVE to use this to not die".
They try to over-simplify the game as simply being "fetch quests", when it's much more than that. I've seen them giving awesome scores to games with much baser gameplay.
They say the Iron Sights in the pistol aren't responsive, which is moronic. "Some opponents require refined accuracy", which tells me he either didn't play the game, or he played it wrong. The game instantly locks you onto ANY enemy, and requires no real aiming whatsoever other than switching enemies with the thumbstick. This isn't a shooter.
They even complain on how the bow takes "too damn long" to shoot! Yeah, that's a valid criticism! At this stage you can tell the reviewer is just pretty much phoning it in. Ever fired a bow? I have. I takes easily two or three times the time it takes in the game.
But anyway, reviews are just that: personal opinions. I care little for reviews, but even among those, IGN's have a well-deserved reputation for being nonsense.
