[QUOTE="Metamania"]
[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]They seem fine to me. I'm usually able to get the info I need from them to help me figure out if it's a game I'd like to get.CarnageHeart
As much as I enjoy reading the writing of the reviewers on GS, they aren't spot-on. They give too much praise to games that have a ****load of problems to begin with (Halo Reach, Call Of Duty: Black Ops, Grand Theft Auto IV). To them, if it doesn't have any of those names slapped on the box, it's not worth the time or the patience. And that angers me, because there are some decent, wonderful games that don't have those names on it, yet still get judged if they aren't coming from a company like Rockstar Games or Activision. They get unnoticed and unplayed in time, while the ones I mentioned stay played for a long time and you know what? That sickens me. Even Final Fantasy XIII got a high score when it is bugged with a myraid of problems that need to be solved. As least Kevin got it right with Final Fantasy XIV...
So you assume that that games that GS (and many other reviewers and gamers) liked that you didn't got unfairly positive reviews due to the company making them? Have you considered the possibility that their tastes simply differ from yours?
As for your complaint about good games going unnoticed and unplayed, I hate to break it to you, but reviewers have minimal impact on people's purchasing choices. Sticking to 2010, games like Vanquish, Enslaved, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Sin and Punishment, Resonance of Fate, and Bayonetta got extremely positive reviews, but few bought them.
I'm not assuming anything. With some series, like Call Of Duty, it's pretty much the same thing. They make improvements here and there, but leave it the same game that everyone remembers and plays. While keeping the gameplay basics that made it successful is a good thing, it has to be a step up from its previous incarnation. Call Of Duty, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't do anything new to the series and I don't think Halo did either. People thought that Halo was such a revolution to the first-person shooting genre. Why? Because there's dual-handed weapons for the first-time? Previous FPS games, such as Goldeneye, had that. Because it had a badass like Master Chief? That's been done to death in games before too! I have considered other people's tastes, yes, but I share their taste for shooters, but Call Of Duty and Halo, the ones that get overhyped and overrated anyway, don't do it for me. But other people won't give a damn how bad the game is and will just play it anyway, just because it's either cool or they need to be part of a trend.
As far as your latter comments go, few bought them because the media gave little attention to them. Vanquish, Enslaved, Kirby's Epic Yarn, etc - I'm sure all are good games and they should be highlighted more as standouts, because they are something different and a breath of fresh air. Problem goes back to what you said - it all has to do with sales. That's how sequels get made in the first place; as long as people buy it, developers will continue to make them. I've seen this happen for a lot of series, small or big, but I doubt those games will receive sequels, no matter how well-polished they turned out to be and that's a damn shame. So even if the reviews are glowing for those games, developers don't care about them - they only care about the money rolling in. If something is that successful, everyone will obviously copy it because it garners the money.
Log in to comment