Review opinions that you disagree with.

Toblo1

New member
Jun 1, 2014
66
0
0
Leon Declis said:
I bet Greg Tito is reading this thread waiting for someone to mention his Dragon Age 2 review.

-----------------------------

Final Fantasy XIII.

I honestly think it's a good, solid game. It's not a Final Fantasy game, but I think it's a perfectly good step up in an interesting direction and it led to the wonderful FFXIII-2.

But the third one...

No, that one deserved to be destroyed.
Glad I'm not alone in thinking that FFXIII doesn't deserve all the hate and bile it gets. (Glares angrily at JonTron and Yahtzee)

The only reviews I've ever felt disputed in was Yahtzee's ZP stuff (Although calling Yahtzee's stuff "Reviews" is a bit of a stretch), mainly because I grew up on Nintendo games and JRPGS (Hell, FF7 was the first game I EVER played). So naturally whenever he shits on JRPGs or Nintendo games, I get conflicted. My nintendo/JRPG fan side yells "You biased ************!" while my sensible side understands that Yahtzee just doesn't like those things....

That being said, his recent Nintendo reviews (Hyrule Warriors) and references to the fanbase have been..... very very malicious.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
Sure, but that's the beauty of reviews: they're OPINIONS. You don't have to take the metacritc average as law.

One thing that I consistently disagree with is when I see "it has too much of a learning curve" in strategy games. If it doesn't have a learning curve, it's probably not a very good strategy game. For example, it took me a while to figure out Civ 5 (my first civ game), but once I had gained an understanding of all the different aspects of the game, it became a highly rewarding experience.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Arthur Gies' Bayonetta 2 review. Now, I don't necessarily mind criticizing games on more personal attributes like it's treatment of women. But in this case he offers a praise to the majority of the game, offers no criticism aside from the sexism claim, and proceeds to give the game a 7.5 in an industry where an 8 is considered "average" for a AAA game. Okay then.

Aside from that, I tend to dislike a lot of the AAA "10/10 GOTY" games most of the time. I'm still really fucking salty about Bioshock Infinite a year later. "Smart game for smart gamers" my ass.
 

Lugbzurg

New member
Mar 4, 2012
918
0
0
There was one quote from The Escapist's own Jim Sterling that I thought as rather bewildering to see. It was on the Steam page for Serious Sam 3: BFE, where he calls it a "dumb game" over and over again. For one thing... NO. He should know better than this. The Serious Sam series has some of the most intelligent gameplay I have ever seen in a shooter. There are multiple levels of spacial reasoning, resource management, prioritizing, and other on-the-fly strategizing that you've gotta pay very close attention to at pretty much all times, even moreso than most shooters.

What kinds of enemies surround me? How many are there? How far away are they? What direction are they coming from? Are they charging or shooting? What kinds of weapons do I have? How much ammo do I have? How much armor do I have? How much health do I have? Can I risk taking a few hits to plow through there? What kind of environment am I in? If I fire a rocket, a grenade, a cannonball, or a laser shot over there, where exactly should I am to make sure it actually gets there since they move more slowly and I don't miss? What kind of arc do I need to fire a cannonball or grenade in to reach my target? What kind of other items are in the surrounding area? What kind of weapon is better to take out this kind of enemy? Can I use an explosive on that enemy without hurting myself? How should I try to evade those projectiles? Should I take out the kamekazi charging at me first or the major biomech... or even its missiles?

It's nuts. There is NO WAY you can just "turn your brain off" and expect to get through this game. Not unless you're playing on Tourist (super easy) mode. Another thing that makes this so weird is that an official mini-documentary of the franchise to coincide with Serious Sam 3: BFE had someone addressing exactly this, talking about how these are in no way "dumb games", that there are a lot of depth and layers in these games to take into consideration. Yet here we have the Steam page prominently displaying Jim practically insulting the game on its intelligence. Cognitive dissonance, much? With how well he's able to carefully analyze so much, I wonder how he could've possibly come to such a ridiculous conclusion? Just because it all goes by so fast and you have to take so much into consideration so quickly and it all flows so naturally? I just don't get it...
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
Well, not exactly an outstanding example, but in recent reviews of Alien Isolation a common complaint is the shift in pacing at the 2/3 point in the game. Many reviewers mention it and say that it's the weakest part of the game.

But I just can't see it. Up to that point in the game it was a sequence of events with gradually escalating tension that was built up to breaking point. Then all of the sudden, the tension almost completely dissipated and the pacing shifted from caution and survival to a very System Shock sense of solving a mystery (in this case, why so much stuff seemed to be working against you). The slowed pace gave you time to breath and take in the narrative that was building up to that point. It then proceeded to answer certain questions and give the player a sense of empowerment...

Then in the last hour or 2 the game it strips it away from you, making you feel just as vulnerable as you were at the earliest stages in the game. It's also no coincidence that this subdued section of the game is also quite resource demanding (stealth is harder to achieve), leaving you feeling naked when the shit hits the fan for the end game sections.

I will accept criticisms of it not being paced well (it drags out for a bit with a very palpable sense of "is it over yet?") and some of the later sections not feeling as detailed and lovingly tailored as the start of the game (the market place being the worst offender), and I'll even accept criticisms of the backtracking segments (Too much time in familiar spaces gets somewhat boring).

But some reviewers seem to say that the section wasn't needed or could have been squeezed into the earlier sections and that I don't agree with. Horror games generally don't have such long playtimes and by the 7th or 8th hour the tension is starting to cause fatigue. By the 12 or 13th hour people might just quit the game as a result. So they created a section of the game where the tension eases off for 4ish hours, and lets you "relax" somewhat.

You could argue that "then it didn't need to be that long?" but I feel too many games today skimp on game length and focus too much on action beats. Alien Isolation was brave enough to take its time with the story, and I appreciate that. Could those sections have been done better? Sure. Could the game as it is now be the same without them? No.

And I like the game as it is now, imperfect but still a joy (or nightmare) to play.

EDIT: On a related note, I remember reading a review that said something like "this game doesn't know how the Alien works" citing a few plot centric events and then citing the movies as to where they went wrong. Often it was clashes with things established in Aliens.

To that I say... this isn't meant to be Aliens. James Cameron did his own thing with Aliens. Alien, made by Ridley Scott, can be viewed in isolation (hurr hurr) of any subsequent uses of the license. Where James Cameron took the franchise is irrelevant. And for that reason I love this game even more.
 

Mangue Surfer

New member
May 29, 2010
364
0
0
The natural of civilized people is agree in disagree. Happens that a big nunber of professional, some times, give practically the same review to a game an this create the feeling of "gamer truth". For me, this is very Body Snatchher-y 0___0
 

rbstewart7263

New member
Nov 2, 2010
1,246
0
0
Ragsnstitches said:
Well, not exactly an outstanding example, but in recent reviews of Alien Isolation a common complaint is the shift in pacing at the 2/3 point in the game. Many reviewers mention it and say that it's the weakest part of the game.

But I just can't see it. Up to that point in the game it was a sequence of events with gradually escalating tension that was built up to breaking point. Then all of the sudden, the tension almost completely dissipated and the pacing shifted from caution and survival to a very System Shock sense of solving a mystery (in this case, why so much stuff seemed to be working against you). The slowed pace gave you time to breath and take in the narrative that was building up to that point. It then proceeded to answer certain questions and give the player a sense of empowerment...

Then in the last hour or 2 the game it strips it away from you, making you feel just as vulnerable as you were at the earliest stages in the game. It's also no coincidence that this subdued section of the game is also quite resource demanding (stealth is harder to achieve), leaving you feeling naked when the shit hits the fan for the end game sections.

I will accept criticisms of it not being paced well (it drags out for a bit with a very palpable sense of "is it over yet?") and some of the later sections not feeling as detailed and lovingly tailored as the start of the game (the market place being the worst offender), and I'll even accept criticisms of the backtracking segments (Too much time in familiar spaces gets somewhat boring).

But some reviewers seem to say that the section wasn't needed or could have been squeezed into the earlier sections and that I don't agree with. Horror games generally don't have such long playtimes and by the 7th or 8th hour the tension is starting to cause fatigue. By the 12 or 13th hour people might just quit the game as a result. So they created a section of the game where the tension eases off for 4ish hours, and lets you "relax" somewhat.

You could argue that "then it didn't need to be that long?" but I feel too many games today skimp on game length and focus too much on action beats. Alien Isolation was brave enough to take its time with the story, and I appreciate that. Could those sections have been done better? Sure. Could the game as it is now be the same without them? No.

And I like the game as it is now, imperfect but still a joy (or nightmare) to play.

EDIT: On a related note, I remember reading a review that said something like "this game doesn't know how the Alien works" citing a few plot centric events and then citing the movies as to where they went wrong. Often it was clashes with things established in Aliens.

To that I say... this isn't meant to be Aliens. James Cameron did his own thing with Aliens. Alien, made by Ridley Scott, can be viewed in isolation (hurr hurr) of any subsequent uses of the license. Where James Cameron took the franchise is irrelevant. And for that reason I love this game even more.
I was the same way! I think the reviewers were just twitchy after colonial marines and anything in this game resembling boom at all was like "No no go away!!" I loved that section I felt it was a good reward for what I had been through.
 

small

New member
Aug 5, 2014
469
0
0
rbstewart7263 said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Well, not exactly an outstanding example, but in recent reviews of Alien Isolation a common complaint is the shift in pacing at the 2/3 point in the game. Many reviewers mention it and say that it's the weakest part of the game.

But I just can't see it. Up to that point in the game it was a sequence of events with gradually escalating tension that was built up to breaking point. Then all of the sudden, the tension almost completely dissipated and the pacing shifted from caution and survival to a very System Shock sense of solving a mystery (in this case, why so much stuff seemed to be working against you). The slowed pace gave you time to breath and take in the narrative that was building up to that point. It then proceeded to answer certain questions and give the player a sense of empowerment...

Then in the last hour or 2 the game it strips it away from you, making you feel just as vulnerable as you were at the earliest stages in the game. It's also no coincidence that this subdued section of the game is also quite resource demanding (stealth is harder to achieve), leaving you feeling naked when the shit hits the fan for the end game sections.

I will accept criticisms of it not being paced well (it drags out for a bit with a very palpable sense of "is it over yet?") and some of the later sections not feeling as detailed and lovingly tailored as the start of the game (the market place being the worst offender), and I'll even accept criticisms of the backtracking segments (Too much time in familiar spaces gets somewhat boring).

But some reviewers seem to say that the section wasn't needed or could have been squeezed into the earlier sections and that I don't agree with. Horror games generally don't have such long playtimes and by the 7th or 8th hour the tension is starting to cause fatigue. By the 12 or 13th hour people might just quit the game as a result. So they created a section of the game where the tension eases off for 4ish hours, and lets you "relax" somewhat.

You could argue that "then it didn't need to be that long?" but I feel too many games today skimp on game length and focus too much on action beats. Alien Isolation was brave enough to take its time with the story, and I appreciate that. Could those sections have been done better? Sure. Could the game as it is now be the same without them? No.

And I like the game as it is now, imperfect but still a joy (or nightmare) to play.

EDIT: On a related note, I remember reading a review that said something like "this game doesn't know how the Alien works" citing a few plot centric events and then citing the movies as to where they went wrong. Often it was clashes with things established in Aliens.

To that I say... this isn't meant to be Aliens. James Cameron did his own thing with Aliens. Alien, made by Ridley Scott, can be viewed in isolation (hurr hurr) of any subsequent uses of the license. Where James Cameron took the franchise is irrelevant. And for that reason I love this game even more.
I was the same way! I think the reviewers were just twitchy after colonial marines and anything in this game resembling boom at all was like "No no go away!!" I loved that section I felt it was a good reward for what I had been through.
it was an interesting twist and pacing change i reached that point and i was pissed, a robot standing in front of me just bring it on and slowly, ever so slowly the tension built back up until the fear returned and im jumping at ever noise and movement.

my biggest disagreement would be with jims review of alpha protocol where it was labeled a disaster. but each to their own
 

Danbo Jambo

New member
Sep 26, 2014
585
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Danbo Jambo said:
I think that modern day reviewers are FAR worse than those from the early 90's when reviewing took off.
Are you sure about that?

I remember one of the most prominent RPG reviewers of her day, Scorpia, trashing Baldur's Gate as all sizzle and no steak and a dumbing down of the RPG. Sort of the same crap we hear today about the Skyrims or the Dragon Ages, with (ironically) Baldur's Gate and its contemporaries held up as the golden age of the genre.

There are just more voices in the mix now. And people love a controversy, so poorly expressed or controversial reviews will get the spotlight more.

A few people have mentioned Angry Joe, so I'll use him as my example for the OP (although there is a nigh bottomless multitude). His review of Elder Scrolls Online, whilst fair in its totality (game had a lot of problems), spend an inordinate amount of time talking about a "pay to win" scheme that didn't actually exist, or could be considered such only by the most fantastical standards. So even though I concurred with his score, I completely disagreed with how he arrived at it.
Maybe the volume of voices in the mix is too loud.

back in the 90's you had go-to magazines like Mean Machines which offered a more balanced and honest perspective IMO. Skyrim is a perfect example of a game which has it's plus points, but which doesn't appease everyone, yet which has been mis-reviewed many a time.

It's a big world with a nice atmosphere and plenty of dicking about to do. Great if that's your thing. However, it's not an epic, intense adventure in any way, and barely an RPG. Yet many reviews claimed it was.

Modern reviewers seem to consider a readers opinion then review the game, as opposed to just passing an honest opinion.
 

gamer_parent

New member
Jul 7, 2010
611
0
0
I think it's faster to list the times I actually agreed with a reviewer. Honestly, reviewers are virtually useless to me for a number of reasons.

1. most reviewers and game journalists are shockingly bad at their job. When you're a game reviewer, I don't need to know the basics of the game, or how the graphics look, I need an analysis, an opinion, and some thought put into whether or not someone like me would like this game. When you're only recommendation dwindles down to "if you like fighting games, you'll like this" or "if you're a fan of this franchise, you'll like this", you've failed. I need to know what makes those things tick, and from there lead to why you would like something. Otherwise, it just becomes a matter of the reviewer's taste vs. my own tastes, which is pointless.

2. most reviewers don't have enough time to really get into a game in depth in terms of design. Add to the fact that most reviewers are not the best designers either and their opinion becomes uninformed at best.