Worst review ever?

[M4t3us]

My reviews would fit the Terrible Review niche. They're all pretty inaccurate and biased, seriously: http://spoilerwarned.wordpress.com

OT: I'll have to agree with the already mentioned Metro 2033 reviews, both on the escapist and everywhere else in the internet.

 

[scnj]

Incidentally, anyone whining about reviews being subjective is missing the point of a review. Your best bet is to find five or so reviewers whose tastes tend to line up with your own and just pay more attention to their opinion. Or do the opposite even. Find five reviewers whose tastes don't line up with yours in the slightest and do the opposite to what they say. Or even try both methods.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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.

The thing I like about Adam Sessler is that he does do followups to expand on his points. Really, his soapboxes are one of the few things I still like on G4.
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/57249/sesslers-soapbox-high-hopes-and-heartbreaks/

He addresses here why Amalur was a disappointment for him.

 

[Dutchy115]

Any review that gave MW3 a 9/10 or higher.

The thing about MW3 is that, while it is "technically" better than MW2, this is only because it's the exact same game as MW2 but with a few extra perks and weapons. Same engine, same everything.

So, in that sense, sure, it has the same entertainment value as its previous iteration.

However, a good reviewer would take the consumer into account. Reviewers don't have to pay for their games. They aren't the ones spending $60 to get the exact same game that was released last year and the year before that.

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.

Simple solution, don't buy the game

I thought that IGN reviewed MW3 fairly, my feelings on the subject are summed up in the opening statement, "People love to hate it, but the Call of Duty franchise is successful for a reason". Yes it is, because it's actually quite good

Your theory is sound to a point, but by the same logic, incredible games like Super Mario Galaxy 2, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Mass Effect 2+3 (I could go on) would receive no more than 5/10, simply because they're similar to their predecessors and cost just as much as they did when they were released. If you saw a 5/10 score, would you buy the game? I wouldn't, then I would miss out on the funnest games ever made. Reviewers don't include price when equating the score because it throws it completely off.


As for the OP, The reviewing site "Destructoid", gave Assassin's Creed II a 4.5/10. Even if you were focusing entirely on the flaws of ACII and taking none of its good features into account, it would deserve no less than 7/10, because there's hardly any flaws in it at all.
And that's why sites like Destructoid are going under, no one wants to read reviews that aren't even close to being fair assessments

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Saying a review that doesn't agree with your personal opinion is one thing. It is another thing entirely when the review in question ignores fundamental flaws, or focuses on certain aspects to the neglect of others.

For example, a person who says "I dislike this game due to the clunky combat design and bland character models" has more clout than a person who says "I don't like this game because the trees are blue".

 

[scnj]

As for the OP, The reviewing site "Destructoid", gave Assassin's Creed II a 4.5/10. Even if you were focusing entirely on the flaws of ACII and taking none of its good features into account, it would deserve no less than 7/10, because there's hardly any flaws in it at all.
And that's why sites like Destructoid are going under, no one wants to read reviews that aren't even close to being fair assessments

Aside from this being an opinion (just to note, I also liked AC2), there's no way Destructoid is going under. Podtoid is getting record numbers of listeners, the Dtoid Show on Youtube is very successful, and the site itself receives a healthy number of hits. As for myself, it's one of only three video game sites I bother visiting any more along with here and Giant Bomb.

 

[Furioso]

Let's see... I once went through I think it was Gamespot (IGN?)'s reviews of Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney and Persona 4 (fucking awesome and fucking perfect respectively) and was quite surprised to see that they were actually pretty damn on the mark (except Persona 4 didn't have a 10/10 but whatev's)

Then again this might have been before they whored themselves out completely and lost all sense of journalistic integrity. PW:AA came out in 2001 after all.

Though IGN's UMVC3 review said the soundtrack was forgettable. It might just be me here but... Objection!

Spoiler

A lot of the more... Troublesome characters have pretty epic theme songs as well. Captain America for example is actually tolerable to play against because his theme is so damn catchy.


I don't read many reviews. So there be no true RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGEEEEEEE moments.

I might have seen the Metro review as well. It didn't go down well I gather.

How could anyone dislike the music in a game that features that masterpiece, you can put that song in front of anything to make it the most epic thing ever, I'm not a fan of complex fighting games (anything with combos is complex to me) but in the Phoenix Wright games I don't think I ever got as pumped in another game as I did when I had the perp on the run to this tune

 

[DJ_DEnM]

I read one that said Space Marine was a copy of Gears of War. /fail

And if you don't realize why, it's because Space Marine came out first.

No it didn't. Space Marine came out last year. Gears of War came out in 2007. If you'd said that it can't be like Gears of War because the 40k universe was around first, then sure. Or if you'd said that it can't be like Gears of War because one's a cover based shooter, whereas the other is a hack n' slash with guns, I'd also agree. But saying that Space Marine came out first is provably wrong.

That's what I meant, the Warhammer 40K universe >_>

Sorry for miswording xD

 

[Deskimus Prime]

I find I'll be far more likely to trust the opinion of some random online schmuck gushing about a game than I will a professional, paid reviewer. Which might be counterintuitive, but the thing is I'm actually looking for bias in reviews. If a game affected you so strongly all you can do is rant your own opinion for paragraphs on end, that tells me "hey! I'm probably gonna get a big emotional reaction hopefully along the same lines as this guy!"

So if someone's review "suffers" from huge amounts of bias in favour of a particular game, they obviously liked it so much they'd compromise being objective just cause it was that awesome. Which is the best kind of recommendation possible; for me at least.



More in line with the topic, I had to scratch my head a few times at Leigh Alexander's RPS take on Katawa Shoujo, where her one of her main complaints seemed to be "it's just not very sexy/erotic for a porn game." It...uh...wasn't supposed to be. At all. It's not even supposed to be a porn game, any more than Mass Effect is a dating sim.

Not the "worst review ever" by any means, just...missing the point.

 

[scnj]

I read one that said Space Marine was a copy of Gears of War. /fail

And if you don't realize why, it's because Space Marine came out first.

No it didn't. Space Marine came out last year. Gears of War came out in 2007. If you'd said that it can't be like Gears of War because the 40k universe was around first, then sure. Or if you'd said that it can't be like Gears of War because one's a cover based shooter, whereas the other is a hack n' slash with guns, I'd also agree. But saying that Space Marine came out first is provably wrong.

That's what I meant, the Warhammer 40K universe >_>

Sorry for miswording xD

I knew what you meant, I just felt like being facetious.

 

[Amaror]

I know, please don't flame me, but i have to say it.
I don't watch reviews from that many sites but the worst i saw was the one of Dragon Age 2 by Greg Tito.
I just think that most of his arguments are simply wrong.
(There's more to it, just look on the last comment page of the review
i say it all there)
Then again it's just an opinion.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

No it didn't. Space Marine came out last year. Gears of War came out in 2007.

Actually Space Marine came out in 1992 but you know how warp transit can be. Time fluctuations can be unpredictable. I personally blame Tzeentch.

OT: This sites review of Dragon Age 2. It really felt like "Its Bioware so that right there is 8/10. Its a game so thats a extra point and it loaded so theres another point. 10/10!"
Just a all round horrible review.

 

[Rack]

Not quite what you are asking for but without doubt the worst review ever was Amiga Format's review of Epic. They gave it 94% 3 months before work on the game even started. 6 months later it got around 30% in most mags.

 

[L-J-F]

It's funny, I actually used Gamespot/IGN to find what is now one of my favourite games, Combat Mission. Since the vast majority of game reviews are just measurements of the "mainstream-ness" of a game I searched for the lowest scores and there it was!

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Pretty much any reviewer who says "this game is too hard," but then doesn't go to back it up objectively, is one I can safely ignore.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Gametrailers' review or Modern Warfare 2. Especially when you compare it to their Crysis review. Jesus fuckin' Christ on a pogo stick that is some retarded shit.

 

[Smiley Face]

Overly negative Alpha Protocol reviews

I concur with this. I only played the game for the first time recently, pretty much every single thing I heard about it was extreme to mild bad press - but I liked the sound of it, so I sought it out, got it, and loved it to death.

 

[shoddyworksucks]

Jeez, this complaint again?

As a writer myself, and someone who's done a number of reviews (film reviews, specifically), I'll say that one should always remember that these reviews are being written by people who consume a larger amount of media than the norm, and they have to play through games (or sit through movies) regardless of whether they are interested in them as a fan or not. Readers complain when a film critic takes a big summer blockbuster to task for stupid plots or boring characters, but they forget that a film critic probably sees more than 100 movies a year. A professional game reviewer probably plays 50+ games a year, give or take. Playing that many games, or watching that many movies, means that said critic has seen certain trends or mechanics copied over multiple games or movies.

But that aside, a good review should do two things:
1. Deliver objective information about the game such as basic story, genre, and control info, such that readers can decide if they're interested in the game even if the reviewer doesn't like it.
2. Give their own, honest opinion. A reviewer shouldn't lie about their game experience to make readers happy. If they didn't like said game, then they should explain why in an honest manner.

The problem, as I see it, is when fans complain that a reviewer didn't have the exact same opinion that they did. Why? Why does it matter? Why should it bother you that a reviewer didn't like a game that you did? Really, readers need to find reviewers who have opinions similar to their own as well as cross-check reviews with other reviewers or fans. Sure, there are times when a reviewer's own integrity might be in question (or totally, undoubtedly broken as in Harry Knowles' review of Blade 2: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/11793), but that dearth of journalistic integrity is usually easy to spot.

Really, the complaining about reviews doesn't accomplish anything. If reviewers start lying in their reviews to make fans happy, then their opinions become worthless and the usefulness of reviews becomes nil.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

Some of Yahtzee "reviews" are pretty horrible. I know it's his "thing" to nitpick a game to death, but his Dead Island review was pretty awful since all the negative things he pointed out were really minor, like the escort quests, of which there are very few and most of them are optional. His Bulletstorm review was likewise pretty crappy since the entire video is just of him saying "This game isn't like DOOM/Painkiller!"

Thankfully, I watch his reviews for entertainment, not because I value his opinion.