Worst review ever?

[Keava]

Most are equally bad in my opinion. I don't know how and when exaclty that happned, but back in the times of good old PC gaming magazines the reviews were actually informative rather than just extended advertisement. Maybe, simply, people back then cared more because They knew the audience better and people who bought such magazines were actually dedicated gamers?

These days I haven't really read a review for quite some time. I don't see any reason to. I'm more interested in things like Quick Looks or First Impression videos that actually talk about the game in all it's aspects while same time showing me 15-20 minutes of gameplay and mechanics. I get 10 times more ifnormation from those than from any review in last few years.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Taking money out of the equation, yes, MW3 could be a 9/10 or whatever, but with money involved, it cannot be higher than a 5/10. Reviewers should have separate scores that take price into account.

But would MW3 be worth a 9/10 for someone who didn't buy (and never played) MW2? After all, if MW2 was scored as 8/10 and MW3 was scored at 5/10 (due to not adding much), then a consumer who hadn't yet bought either game would assume MW2 had the greater entertainment value, even though MW3 improved on it (if only by a small amount).

I think altering a game's score on the basis of other purchases the consumer may-or-may-not have made is a dangerous game. My opinion is that games should always be scored on their own merits, in isolation from other games. But if a game in a series adds very little compared to previous instalments, that's the sort of thing that absolutely should be discussed in the review.

 

[Dandark]

Well, opinions are opinions, and someone's idea of a game is never downright wrong.

That being said, I found that the Metro: 2033 right here on The Escapist felt like it scooted over what the made the game, in my opinion, unique, such as the atmosphere and setting.

Hey, its not just here, IGN also came down pretty brutally on Metro 2033 and seemed to have missed the whole point of the game. The only thing I agree with on their review was the stealth thing, but then again, I don't remember any mandatory stealth sections. I gunned my way through the whole thing.

I won't be surprised to see people mention Metro more in this thread, seeing as it is a gem of a game that was totally under appreciated by reviewers.

I didnt notice any mandatory stealth sections either, but I was so scared parts of the game that I didnt dare to go in guns blazing. Throwing knives FTW!

Man Metro 2033 was deliciously good.

There were no mandatory stealth sections. I went through the whole game guns blazing becase "Who needs stealth when I have a shotgun with a bayonet on the end right?".

What was the general consensus of Metro 2033 with reviewers? I never read any since I saw a trailer for the game and heard the developers were somehow once connected with the guy's who made STALKER. It was already sold and I regret it not one bit, one of my favorite games.
Metro: Last Light comes out soon as well =D


OT: I have always found IGN reviews to greatly differ from my opinion, I usaully don't watch reviews since most reviewers seem to be fans of mainstream games and I already know if I want a certain mainstream game or not, i'd only watch a review for a less known game that I am not too sure. I have rarely fond reviewers I agree with when it comes to most games.

For example Section 8. This and most especially it's sequel Section 8: Prejudice is one of my favorite multiplayer shooters. I have so mch fun playing and find so much more variety and fun gameplay than other shooters yet it was mostly disliked from many reviewers(The ones I saw at least).

You can't really call their opinion wrong since it is their opinion. However if all they do is praise mainstream games and give others low scores then you can still tell them that although not wrong, their opinion is USELESS!!! to you.

 

[Infernai]

Virtually every review of Nier

One of the most inspired, well told and most enjoyable games (not just RPGs) I've ever played yet it was almost universally hated by mainstream critics.
I have no idea why.

Considering Cavia made the game, it's quite likely that had something to do with it. And for the uneducated, you should know Cavia was the company responsible for making this:

My guess is that it's either two possibilities:

1. The reviewers saw who made it, got big PTSD from having to remember playing through the darkest game ever created (And which Square Enix has gone on to deny the existence of to Star Wars holiday special levels). Which in turn eschewed their perceptions.

or

2. They just simply didn't like it.

I honestly love both Drakengard and Nier, both for similar reasons (And, fun fact, Nier is actually a pseudo sequel to one of Drakengards Endings!). But i realize the two games are not everybodies cup of tea, Drakengard Especially, so it's not uncommon to find polarized opinions among critics.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Adam Sessler just wrote a pretty negative review of Amalur and I personally LOVE that game. Pretty much everything negative he said was things I loved.

In fact the game kinda seems to be a "love it or hate it" kinda thing. Very few people I've seen talk about it has just been meh.

I'm rather "meh" about it. Played the demo and was unconvinced. It seemed all right but nothing spectacular.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Taking money out of the equation, yes, MW3 could be a 9/10 or whatever, but with money involved, it cannot be higher than a 5/10. Reviewers should have separate scores that take price into account.

But would MW3 be worth a 9/10 for someone who didn't buy (and never played) MW2? After all, if MW2 was scored as 8/10 and MW3 was scored at 5/10 (due to not adding much), then a consumer who hadn't yet bought either game would assume MW2 had the greater entertainment value, even though MW3 improved on it (if only by a small amount).

I think altering a game's score on the basis of other purchases the consumer may-or-may-not have made is a dangerous game. My opinion is that games should always be scored on their own merits, in isolation from other games. But if a game in a series adds very little compared to previous instalments, that's the sort of thing that absolutely should be discussed in the review.

And that highlights the problem with scoring systems. If instead of looking for an X/10 we just listened to the review then they could happily convey the problem, that MW3 is the same game as MW2 with a different skin so it depends on what you want and what you've done.

 

[Stalydan]

Jim Sterling's Destructoid review for Assassin's Creed II was pretty hard to read because despite it really improving on all the gameplay, story, voice acting etc. he gave it a 4.5 and honestly, I could have agreed with him if the points were good points but they weren't. They were more little nitpicks some of them. Some I did genuinely agree with like collecting money from the chest being a pain and some of the missions feeling a bit tacked on. Others were like "the one button system doesn't work" which I can't think of anyone who plays the series and can't use the controls.

I'd really like to see his opinion on the rest of the series but he's only review II.

 

[spartandude]

theres the IGN review for Metro 2033, they marked it down for being a standard fps but they claim every new call of duty has reinvented the genre

Ign review for Starcraft, the complained it was too similar to the first game, no such complaint for super mario galaxy 2

PS3 magasine review for Dragon age origins, it was bad because there was too much dialogue and not enough killing

also any review that gives a game makrs out of 10 but always gets 7 confused with 1

and any, ANY, reviewer who claimed DA2s graphics were better than the first. i can run the first game on the highest settings fine, i can run Crysis on the highest settings fine, i can run witcher 2 on medium settings fine and it looks better than most games. DA2 however i can only run on medium settings and it looks terrible. its poorly optimised and uses the same textures and environments over and over
ps im not a graphics whore but it just annoys me

 

[Casual Shinji]

Gamespot Infamous 2 review is pretty bad. The guy whines about the game being too hard, for god sakes!

If you think that's bad, you should read Edge's review of inFamous 2.

It goes as far in saying that the lightning grenades were ripped off from Halo.

I don't mind reviewers disliking a game that I like, but when they flat out make shit up I get a bit pissed.

 

[Martijn Nijkeuter]

Darren Nakamura of destructoid

his tactics ogre revieuw is just horrible, he's completely unable to grasp what aspects work well in a srpg...
for example he thinks the chariot is only meant as a way to save time so you can get trough the story easier which he claims it doesn't do. (ow hey look at me skipping chapter 1, no time saved there, none at all)
But no, it also allows you to redo story arcs, choose different story paths while keeping your army's stats and personal and without having to do everything over again. (you can select one of many waypoints in the story list to go there after beating the game once)

 

[MetalMagpie]

Taking money out of the equation, yes, MW3 could be a 9/10 or whatever, but with money involved, it cannot be higher than a 5/10. Reviewers should have separate scores that take price into account.

But would MW3 be worth a 9/10 for someone who didn't buy (and never played) MW2? After all, if MW2 was scored as 8/10 and MW3 was scored at 5/10 (due to not adding much), then a consumer who hadn't yet bought either game would assume MW2 had the greater entertainment value, even though MW3 improved on it (if only by a small amount).

I think altering a game's score on the basis of other purchases the consumer may-or-may-not have made is a dangerous game. My opinion is that games should always be scored on their own merits, in isolation from other games. But if a game in a series adds very little compared to previous instalments, that's the sort of thing that absolutely should be discussed in the review.

And that highlights the problem with scoring systems. If instead of looking for an X/10 we just listened to the review then they could happily convey the problem, that MW3 is the same game as MW2 with a different skin so it depends on what you want and what you've done.

Agreed. Scores really can't convey all the "well, if you what you're looking for is..." discussion that a decent review should have (and that a consumer really needs to make a decision). But people so love numbers (especially for bragging rights) so I can't see them going away any time soon.

 

[Shocksplicer]

The Gamespot review of Metal Gear Solid 4, where they gave it a 10/10
What game did they play???

 

[Manji187]

Gametrailer's review of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-s-t-a-l-k-e-r/18294

It just makes the reviewer sound lazy, expecting the game to hold his hand. Stalker SoC is not one of those games. Put in some real effort, you lazy bum.

 

[zefiris]

The truly, by far, worst reviews ever?

Any, and every, review that whined that you had to read too much text to play Planescape Torment. It's completely missing the entire point of the game, and is equal to complaining that a FPS is too 3D. The reason why these reviews are by far the WORST reviews is that they completely killed any wish for RPG developers to try to make games less focused on fighting. They had a signifiant bad effect beyond being useless for the readers of the review.

The western RPG went downhill from there. It's why we get messes like Dragon Age 2.

That guy on Gamespot who did the one for Skyward Sword.

Sad part is that this review was overall correct. As a game, Skyward Sword is barely more than mediocre.

This thread is actually a pretty good indicator of the problem of reviewing: People freak out when games they like don't get 10/10. A 3/5 for Uncharted 3? Is appropriate if you assume that 5/5 means a perfect game without any flaw whatsoever.

People are just so used to 10/10 slapped on everything that they completely go bonkers on anyone using the numbers properly. It's pretty sad and shows how meaningless review scores truly got.

Not to mention the many biases. FPS get generally better reviews than, say, non-western RPGs regardless of quality. Colorful graphics often get a - for the review score, brown gives a +, etc. It's downright ridiculous at this point.

Really, reviewers should review with something like buy, rent, or skip, and leave the review as a suggestion. That's really what reviews are for.

Sadly, fans turned reviews into wank by wanting "their" game to have the highest possible scores for no discernable reason. It's like it's a soccer match now.

 

[Xanthious]

Allow me to quote the following.

Bottom Line: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.

A pinnacle of role-playing games?!?! Really Greg? Really?

This very site's Dragon Age 2 review has to be hands down the absolutely least informed and inaccurate review of a game I've ever read/watched/listened to. The 5/5 score it was given is absolutely laughable.

Shortly after that review was posted a sound like a jet engine could be heard. Rumor is that it was actually any credibility Greg Tito had as a reviewer flying out the nearest window at a high rate of speed never to be seen again.

A more cynical person would notice the copious amount of advertising Dragon Age 2 was doing on this site around that time and start drawing lines. A less cynical person would simply think that the reviewer in question either has horrible taste in games or didn't log enough time playing to write a properly informed review.

The bottom line is I can not believe that any professional game critic worth their salary could have played enough of Dragon Age 2 to do a proper review then write a review like that and actually believe it.

 

[Skin]

Well, opinions are opinions, and someone's idea of a game is never downright wrong.

That being said, I found that the Metro: 2033 right here on The Escapist felt like it scooted over what the made the game, in my opinion, unique, such as the atmosphere and setting.

Hey, its not just here, IGN also came down pretty brutally on Metro 2033 and seemed to have missed the whole point of the game. The only thing I agree with on their review was the stealth thing, but then again, I don't remember any mandatory stealth sections. I gunned my way through the whole thing.

I won't be surprised to see people mention Metro more in this thread, seeing as it is a gem of a game that was totally under appreciated by reviewers.

I didnt notice any mandatory stealth sections either, but I was so scared parts of the game that I didnt dare to go in guns blazing. Throwing knives FTW!

Man Metro 2033 was deliciously good.

There were no mandatory stealth sections. I went through the whole game guns blazing becase "Who needs stealth when I have a shotgun with a bayonet on the end right?".

What was the general consensus of Metro 2033 with reviewers? I never read any since I saw a trailer for the game and heard the developers were somehow once connected with the guy's who made STALKER. It was already sold and I regret it not one bit, one of my favorite games.
Metro: Last Light comes out soon as well =D

General consensus was it was a 6-7 game, whereas it should be no less than an 8 or 9. If you play this the same way you play Amnesia, your in for one hell of an experience. The games atmosphere and setting were top notch, as were its story. It's shooting was fun too, especially with all the weird guns and whatnot. Ranger mode is how the game should be played.

 

[Musiclly enhanced]

Ugh IGN reviews are terrible, i stopped watching them ever since GT5 were they talked crap about the game then gave it an overall 9.3 or something

 

[Vivi22]

Jim Sterling's review of Vanquish easily wins this...award...category.

It's like a "non-review", wherein fundamental facets of gameplay mechanics are blatantly ignored. It's not just a matter of taking issue with an opinion here- it's actually incorrect, a total misrepresentation.
Check it out.

I wouldn't say it's the worst review I've ever seen, but I do agree that he missed the point a lot. Vanquish is meant to be a fast paced arcade shooter. The goal is to improve and do better, and while it's a fairly short game, the replay value comes from striving for improvement. He also missed the mark about the boost slide or whatever it's called and melee. Melee isn't meant to be a focus of the game. In fact, it's a terrible idea to even attempt it with so many bullets flying around. It's more of a desperation move in case an enemy does slip passed you and get close since shooting quickly at close range is difficult. And I have to disagree with him about the boost being useless because of having to recharge, or the game not moving the genre forward. Cover may be a big part of the game, but I spent half my time sliding around between cover points, zooming around the map as I destroyed guys in bullet time. The only time the meter took a long time to recharge was if you drained it. It refilled quite fast if you didn't drain it completely, so the trick was to manage it intelligently.

That review came off as though he was expecting something completely different than what Vanquish actually was, and didn't bother to really learn or report on the game as it was made to be played. I mean he did an all right job of explaining the gameplay systems at work, but seemed to miss how they were meant to come together entirely.

If I were to pick any reviews I thought were bad it would be just about any that gave Resistance 2 a good score. So I guess that's most of them actually. I remember it got a lot of praise when it came out but it was honestly one of the worst FPS titles I've played this generation at least. Frankly, I thought the original Killzone was a more enjoyable game than it was.

 

[Idsertian]

OXM's (UK) review of Halo 2 back in the day. They gave it 10/10. Erm guys, what about the shitty graphics engine? The piss-poor AI pathfinding causing glitchy turning? The so called "AI driving", which, lets face it, wouldn't pass even the most basic of driving tests anywhere? The utter depressing shortness of the game compared to its predecessor? The pointless removal of the AR and nerfing of the pistol to the point of uselessness?

I call shenanigans on you OXM.

 

[random_bars]

This.

http://www.destructoid.com/review-brutal-legend-151841.phtml

The guy clearly didn't understand how to play the game and doesn't know what he's talking about. He makes absolutely no mention of the double team attacks at all, which is worrying considering they're such a vital and important part of the gameplay. He makes no mention of the use of guitar solos in the stage battles. He makes one tiny, brief mention of the use of combat moves during them.

Then he complains about how the battles take over an hour and are frustrating and repetitive. Well... If you're going to ignore most of the gameplay mechanics available to you, what do you expect?