Worst review ever?

[syndicate]

Nowadays, the big review sites are willing to spew any shit to avoid uproar from fanboys. Any COD game, or damn, any straight up typical war-based FPS nowadays with no decent story, no likeable characters and repetitive gameplay are practically given a knighthood because these reviewers know that the huge mainstream audience will just trample all over them if the game becomes well-received by them.
More recognition should be given to games that dare to be different,so screw reviews that tell you what's true or not, just make up your own mind.
And seriously, some franchises just need to stop, like those bloody Assassin's Creeds. Since AC2 they haven't changed a damn thing, and yet somehow they're constantly being given stellar reviews for the same formula, and it's just wrong.

 

[Xanthious]

so what you are saying is that because the reviewer had a different opinion of the game then you he is bad and wrong and should feel bad? I honestly feel bad for game reviewers.

Our differences of opinion mean bugger all as to why his review is bad and wrong. This site's review of Dragon Age 2, for one reason or another, totally ignored massive fundamental flaws with the game in question. I stand by the statement the reviewer would have either had to not play enough of Dragon Age 2 to actually do a proper review and never played to the point of seeing the flaws or they chose to totally ignore and/or glaze over the games multiple short comings for reasons we can only guess about.

Finally I think it fails to pass a smell test that during the time in question Dragon Age 2 was heavily advertising on the site and coincidentally just happened to get a perfect score. Add that to EA's recent history with the Battlefield 3 review tampering that went on and you can begin to see that the review in question totally lacks anything that might resemble credibility.

 

[Dansen]

I HATE EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH MY OPINION, I WILL ACCUSE THEM OF BIAS AND BEING FACTUALLY WRONG WHEN IN TRUTH THEY JUST HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION.

I LACK PERSPECTIVE.

Really? There is actually a decent conversation going on, its not just people raging. Maybe you should take the time to read a little instead of looking like an idiot.

There are some good reviews out there, and there are bad ones. A good reviewer will try to be objective about the game and keep out their opinion as much as possible and when they do talk out about their preferences they will make a disclaimer , like: "I don't like the cartoony art-style of the game, but if your a fan of [insert game], you might like it...". A bad reviewer will just spew their opinions and complain about anything they dislike without keeping other audiences and tastes in mind. Like people have said, watch multiple reviews to gauge a game instead of relying on one source. That being said there needs to be a reform in how games are rated, I don't know how it will come about but I think that the game industry will greatly benefit from a more accurate review format. These reviewers have a say in how these games are received and they should strive to be as fair and accurate as possible.

The reason people get so worked up about reviews is because they care about the game. They want people to share in their experiences and see how great something truly is(in their mind). Sadly, things don't always work out and some one might despise what you love. It hurts to have some thing you feel passionate about be torn apart.

 

[Julianking93]

What about a game could possibly be objective? And, why can't someone treat opinion as the end-all, be-all bottom line?

Technical aspects, for one, are in no way subjective. Enjoyment level, of course is a bit more difficult to tackle but it's possible to look at through an objective standpoint.
I personally do not find any enjoyment in Valkyria Chronicles because I don't like turn based, strategic gameplay but I know that a lot of people do and will love the game because its constructed in a technically well thought out manner and for that I would praise it more than my own level of entertainment would typically allow from my own subjective standpoint.

It doesn't need to cater to an idea that there is possibly someone out there who likes it. There's surely someone who likes Drake of the 99 Dragons but that doesn't mean reviews should cater to that.
All I'm saying is that it needs to be looked at through a objective and analytical standpoint rather than through the vise of a biased person.

But it seems you're not really listening to anyone else who's bringing up valid points so I'll just move on.

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.

Interesting point. I personally loved Drakengard and didn't know Cavia made them both until I played through it again and saw that 5th ending.
I never heard a lot of critical praise or hate over Drakengard though. I just didn't think it really existed.
A scarce review here and there but no general consensus. Kind of like with Nier really though there were a fair number of western reviews for that. >.>
Like I said though, I love both Drakengard and Nier due to their dark tone and fully understand that not everyone will like Nier over its.... oddities but most everyone I talk to who are big RPG fans talk about Nier with nothing but universal praise. Hopefully Cavia can make another game in the near future or something with the same team since they merged with Square, I think.

 

[Bvenged]

Gamespot, IGN - anything they say,I laugh at. It's just ludicrous how kiss-arse they can be. IGN rarely scores low and Gamespot has employees who I just do not understand the chain of thought of.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

I thought the Zero Punctuation review of the Witcher 2 was shite (certainly not the worst ever). I usually agree with Yahtzee, even when it comes to games I enjoy, but in this review he seemed like he just had an axe to grind.

Aside from a nod to the fact that consoles are not always plug n play, he spends a large portion of the review bitching about PC gaming/gamers (we're arrogant, elitist, slothful, blah, blah, blah, fuck off). Then goes on about how the game is too difficult and doesn't hold your hand or some shit...maybe you have to be really fucking stupid or something, because I thought the game was pretty straightforward. There are a few factual errors in the review as well (cutscenes have always been skippable for one).

I did laugh when he questioned the validity of carrying the two different swords and the stupid names of the spells but I think he was just pissed off that it released as a PC exclusive.

 

[Agow95]

I only read gaming sites and magazines for news on upcoming games, I only trust reviews when a many have generally agreed something was crap, because some reviewers try to give a kind review, and overlook what they can.

 

[kyogen]

Hopefully Cavia can make another game in the near future or something with the same team since they merged with Square, I think.

No, they were absorbed into their parent company, AQ Interactive. AQI, in turn, merged with several other companies to form Marvelous AQL Inc.

Yoko Taro, the director of Drakengard and Nier, resigned when Cavia disappeared and now seems to be doing some contract work for Square-Enix, but the original studio is gone. Unfortunately.

 

[girzwald]

As time passes I trust reviews less and less from big gaming sites and publications like Game Informer, Gamespot, IGN, and the like. I actually used to rely on these reviews and have since realized I've missed out on many a great game because of this.

What is the most biased and inaccurate negative review for a game that you ended up loving?

Zeropunctuations review of darksiders.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

The problem is you can't view reviews like "How much should I buy this game, on a scale from 1-10?" It should be read as a persons take on the game. You should cross reference different reviews to get something little less bias. Then you need to consider that some game reviewers like Harvest Moon, TES:Oblivion, and other titles you may not like.

The Captain America game got bashed scoring in around a 6 I think. I think the game is fun. I went in wanting a comic-bookey game and that is what I got, I was pleased. I think for what it was trying to do, it deserves an 8-9. It wasn't trying to be anything more than the fun super hero games I grew up playing borrowing some mechanics from Arkham Asylum. That is what I found out from all the reviews and developer releases and that is what I wanted from it.

Personally, I find game reviewers pretty accurate. I don't care about the numbers or the "this is why this sucks" lines. All I need to know is the facts. Reading a review, I am always trying to take out the bias lines.

I think a big issue is one you brought up. Giving games to reviewers who aren't familiar with the genre or have no respect for the game they're given. Case in point, giving someone from Kotaku a Modern Warefare game.

 

[RanD00M]

Snip

I've yet to find a reasonably priced copy here in Iceland. So I sometimes think I should have rather gotten Nier than Demon's Soul from you.

OT: I don't really follow reviews or reviewers. I like to get community instead of, ahem, "professional" opinions.

 

[Hyper-space]

There are some good reviews out there, and there are bad ones. A good reviewer will try to be objective about the game and keep out their opinion as much as possible and when they do talk out about their preferences they will make a disclaimer , like: "I don't like the cartoony art-style of the game, but if your a fan of [insert game], you might like it...". A bad reviewer will just spew their opinions and complain about anything they dislike without keeping other audiences and tastes in mind. Like people have said, watch multiple reviews to gauge a game instead of relying on one source. That being said there needs to be a reform in how games are rated, I don't know how it will come about but I think that the game industry will greatly benefit from a more accurate review format. These reviewers have a say in how these games are received and they should strive to be as fair and accurate as possible.

You do know that reviews are actually just opinions, right? Very little about video-games, movies, art or whatever is objective and even then the subjective parts can easily overshadow everything else.

This is not a competition, reviewers are not judges and metacritic is not a contest to see what is the "best" movie or video-game. Reviews are there as tools to aid you in your decision-making, they are meant to be contrasted with other reviews in order to get a clearer picture of how fun/enjoyable it is.

Sure, there will always be a difference in how well the reviewer articulates his/hers opinion, but that doesn't make them any less "right". A reviewer or critic might claim that Transformers 3 is the best movie he has ever seen and guess what? HE WOULD ALWAYS BE RIGHT.

That's right, he can never be wrong.

Unless he was lying, he would always be right because he is describing what he felt and experienced. And the same goes for anyone who said that they hated something and found it to be the worst X they've ever played/watched/listened to.

Reviewers have no obligation to pander to everyone's specific taste and doing so would only be a waste of times, they don't need to tell your mind for you. You already know whether or not you like cartoony-visuals or whatever, if the reviewer doesn't share your tastes, THEN READ ANOTHER REVIEW. Reviewers have no power over whether or not the reader will take their opinion as hard fact or whether or not they will dismiss it. Don't expect them to shepherd the consumer, choosing what their opinion of this and that game is gonna be and whether or not you're going to buy it. That's their own responsibility, asking them to make up the minds of the readers is pointless.

As I said before, reviews are tools. Its your own goddamn fault if you don't know how to use them.

 

[RaikuFA]

As time passes I trust reviews less and less from big gaming sites and publications like Game Informer, Gamespot, IGN, and the like. I actually used to rely on these reviews and have since realized I've missed out on many a great game because of this.

What is the most biased and inaccurate negative review for a game that you ended up loving?

Psychonauts. Tommy Tallarico gave it a bad score because it was annoying(read, he didn't work on it so it sucked) then he had the balls to blame the game for when Advent Rising flopped(a game he worked on).

Play Magazine was pretty good. Just learned they ceased publication. EGM was good up until it was revived. Seriously they gave DQ6 a 6/10 because it didn't have the monster catching theme like how 5 did it.

And for those who are attacking people for attacking reviewers, you gotta remember that in the early 2000's nearly every game was being compared to whatever was popular at the time. Released a RTS set in 25th century Mexico? 5/10 cause its not Halo. Released a life simulator about shark people? 56/100 cause its not Final Fantasy.

 

[MrGseff]

I usually go on user reviews on Metacritic as I find the opinions of 100+ gamers more important than that of one person being paid.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

Well... there is no such thing as an "objective review" because when someone is giving a review of something they are in fact stating their opinion on it, and opinions are always subjective.

I've encountered poorly done reviews.

Some old, and long since dead, video game show did a review of Metal Arms.

The whole review was nothing but praise. Not a single word was negative. What was the score at the end? A 6/10...

Way to not cover the issues the game had that were present enough to reduce the score by 4 points there guys. There's nothing worse then when a game's score conflicts with what the article/video says about it.

 

[Panorama]

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.

Thank you, i hadn't seen this review. I love that game it was really good, he seems to miss the point that dirty ammo is meant to be less powerful on purpose. That you don't run and gun as it is the type of game you don't do that. So Yes i agree this review i feel really missed the point.

 

[Dr.Panties]

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 just read it. It was an accurate review.

I got some enjoyment from the game, but he was still completely correct on every point.

Riiiight. Carry on then.

 

[Quantum Star]

IGN. Sonic Unleashed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjyWXiZrSlQ

Listen to him talk about how every decision was a bad one then contradict himself by praising a decision a few seconds later. Watch him say that the jump button is "fatally unresponsive," then slow down while running to jump over a ramp placed directly in your path to his death. Says the frame rate is bad while the footage runs perfectly fine (in fact, the frame rate never slows down at any point during the review.) He writes off all of the werehog platforming sections as terrible with no explanation as to why. Criticizes the werehog for having stretchy arms because "everybody knows werewolves have stretchy arms." Yeah, and everybody knows that foxes can fly and plumbers can grow to twice their height if they eat a mushroom. And then he tops it off by reusing the same footage of slowing down and jumping over the ramp to his death.

Well played IGN, well played.

 

[BreakfastMan]

What about a game could possibly be objective? And, why can't someone treat opinion as the end-all, be-all bottom line?

Technical aspects, for one, are in no way subjective.

No disagreement here, but how do you evaluate them? Graphics wise, what looks good to one person might not look good to another. Bugs wise, it is entirely possible not everyone will encounter the same bugs, or any bugs at all. How is someone supposed to look at it from an objective standpoint then?

Enjoyment level, of course is a bit more difficult to tackle but it's possible to look at through an objective standpoint.
I personally do not find any enjoyment in Valkyria Chronicles because I don't like turn based, strategic gameplay but I know that a lot of people do and will love the game because its constructed in a technically well thought out manner and for that I would praise it more than my own level of entertainment would typically allow from my own subjective standpoint.

How is someone who does not find any enjoyment in a game supposed to recognize that it is "constructed in a technically well thought out manner"? I don't understand that. An explanation would be welcome.

All I'm saying is that it needs to be looked at through a objective and analytical standpoint rather than through the vise of a biased person.

People will always have biases. There is no way to escape that fact. There is no way to not have biases. Even if I go into a game, free of all expectations of what a game should be, I still have biases relating to storytelling, characters, themes, hell, even colors. To say to someone "look at it without bias" is impossible.

But it seems you're not really listening to anyone else who's bringing up valid points so I'll just move on.

Really? Going for the ad hominem there, eh? To rebute that statement and not dismiss it out of hand: I replied to everyone who quoted me (only 2 so far, including you) on that original post. If there was nothing more to say, I did not say it. I did not read the rest of the thread. If you want to point out where people quoted me and I missed it, or people who brought up good points, feel free.

 

[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.