New Game Informer review scores Resistance 3 Cover

Got the new issue today. Here's the scores:

• Star Wars Forced Unleashed 2 - 7.75
• Rock Band 3 - 9.25
• Dead Rising 2 - 9.5
• Castlevania Lords of Shadow - 9
• Medal of Honor - 7
• Guitar Hero Warriors of Rock - 8
• Vanquish - 7.75
• Enslaved - 7
• NBA 2K11 - 8.75
• Sonic the Hedghog 4 Episode 1 - 8
• Plants VS Zombies XBLA - 9
• NBA Jam Wii - 8.25
• Wii Party - 4.5
• Civilization V - 9.75
• Amnesia Dark Descent - 9.25
• Super Scribblenauts - 8.75
• FF 4 Hereos of Light - 6
• Professor Layton and the Unwound Future - 8.25

Civ V a 9.75... I think its a good game, but come on.

THEY GAVE ENSLAVED A 7?!?!

Liltorchic

Can anyone tell me if that article "Sacred Cows Barbecue" or whatever it was called was a joke or not? All they did, was trash more recent games for the sake of trashing them. They didn't even really give good reasons, more along the lines of "Knights of the Old Republic's story sure did suck huh?"

It was pretty sad. I mean, I read a few of the reviews in it and they were easily some of the worst I've ever read but if that article was meant to be taken seriously I'm officially done reading Game Informer :P

Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" and the list of doors' songs pretty much confirm my purchase of rockband 3.

Its a shame Dead Rising 2 got 9 and Enslaved got a 7. Take DR down a notch and Enslaved up one, and Ill be happy.

What game received GOTM? Dead Rising 2?

What did they say about the Force Unleashed 2?CarnageHeart

It's a ridiculous review.

They basically admit that every aspect of the game's mechanics has been improved upon but because they disliked the story they give it a lower rating than the original.

The narrative in the first TFU was, like most extended universe SW stories, pretty nonsensical when contrasted against the cannon of the films so I'm not all that worried about the story. What matters to me and what should matter to them is the core game mechanics, which are both vastly improved and incredibly polished.

I usually like most of GI's reviews but lately they've dropped a few that were genuinely mystifying.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]What did they say about the Force Unleashed 2?Grammaton-Cleric

It's a ridiculous review.

They basically admit that every aspect of the game's mechanics has been improved upon but because they disliked the story they give it a lower rating than the original.

The narrative in the first TFU was, like most extended universe SW stories, pretty nonsensical when contrasted against the cannon of the films so I'm not all that worried about the story. What matters to me and what should matter to them is the core game mechanics, which are both vastly improved and incredibly polished.

I usually like most of GI's reviews but lately they've dropped a few that were genuinely mystifying.

Got the new issue today. Here's the scores:

• Star Wars Forced Unleashed 2 - 7.75
• Rock Band 3 - 9.25
• Dead Rising 2 - 9.5
• Castlevania Lords of Shadow - 9
• Medal of Honor - 7
• Guitar Hero Warriors of Rock - 8
• Vanquish - 7.75
• Enslaved - 7
• NBA 2K11 - 8.75
• Sonic the Hedghog 4 Episode 1 - 8
• Plants VS Zombies XBLA - 9
• NBA Jam Wii - 8.25
• Wii Party - 4.5
• Civilization V - 9.75
• Amnesia Dark Descent - 9.25
• Super Scribblenauts - 8.75
• FF 4 Hereos of Light - 6
• Professor Layton and the Unwound Future - 8.25

ASK_Story

Great, huge issue of GI but they have some of their worst reviews ever in that issue. It's like everyone was hitting the pipe that month.

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

Got the new issue today. Here's the scores:

• Star Wars Forced Unleashed 2 - 7.75
• Rock Band 3 - 9.25
• Dead Rising 2 - 9.5
• Castlevania Lords of Shadow - 9
• Medal of Honor - 7
• Guitar Hero Warriors of Rock - 8
• Vanquish - 7.75
• Enslaved - 7
• NBA 2K11 - 8.75
• Sonic the Hedghog 4 Episode 1 - 8
• Plants VS Zombies XBLA - 9
• NBA Jam Wii - 8.25
• Wii Party - 4.5
• Civilization V - 9.75
• Amnesia Dark Descent - 9.25
• Super Scribblenauts - 8.75
• FF 4 Hereos of Light - 6
• Professor Layton and the Unwound Future - 8.25

Jbul

Great, huge issue of GI but they have some of their worst reviews ever in that issue. It's like everyone was hitting the pipe that month.

Agreed.

Vanquished and Ensalved getting below an 8 is horse****.

Civ V a 9.75... I think its a good game, but come on.

agpickle

[QUOTE="Jbul"]

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

Got the new issue today. Here's the scores:

• Star Wars Forced Unleashed 2 - 7.75
• Rock Band 3 - 9.25
• Dead Rising 2 - 9.5
• Castlevania Lords of Shadow - 9
• Medal of Honor - 7
• Guitar Hero Warriors of Rock - 8
• Vanquish - 7.75
• Enslaved - 7
• NBA 2K11 - 8.75
• Sonic the Hedghog 4 Episode 1 - 8
• Plants VS Zombies XBLA - 9
• NBA Jam Wii - 8.25
• Wii Party - 4.5
• Civilization V - 9.75
• Amnesia Dark Descent - 9.25
• Super Scribblenauts - 8.75
• FF 4 Hereos of Light - 6
• Professor Layton and the Unwound Future - 8.25

Grammaton-Cleric

Great, huge issue of GI but they have some of their worst reviews ever in that issue. It's like everyone was hitting the pipe that month.

Agreed.

Vanquished and Ensalved getting below an 8 is horse****.

Yeah, and Dead Rising 2 getting a nearly perfect rating. What the **** was that about? That's like a Super Mario Galaxy score right there.

Yeah, I'm never reading GameInformer again after the crap they've dished out in this issue.

7.75 for Force Unleashed 2 because of problems with story, even when they admit the game mechanics and visuals are far superior? How moronic do they get?

And 7.75 for Vanquish, 9.5 for Dead Rising 2? I don't think anyone should trust those reviews in this issue, they need to step up big-time.

Honestly, if they say Force Unleashed 2 got a 7.75 for story when everything else was great, I think I know how all the other reviews for the game will go..... (8/10 +).

Despite the reviews being terrible for this issue, in the end, reviews don't really amount to much. After all, it's only one person's opinion. Best reviewer that we can trust is pretty much ourselves.

If we like the game, fine. If we don't, then we don't.

Despite the reviews being terrible for this issue, in the end, reviews don't really amount to much. After all, it's only one person's opinion. Best reviewer that we can trust is pretty much ourselves.

If we like the game, fine. If we don't, then we don't.

Metamania

Even if they're not a deal-breaker, I think there's some journalistic responsibility for the reviews to be in the "sane" range, and alot of those scores were not.

Oh yeah, hey, didn't you get Castlevania? I never see you playing it. That's one of their better reviews in the issue actually.

My GI subscription ended last month and looks like it will stay that way. Over the last several months I have to question who they have working at that magazine. Seems the only games that get good reviews are the games they think will suck but end up being good. To which they overcompensate by giving a higher review that its worthy of. Or the big huge hyped titles that everyone is going to buy regardless of review scores.

It's as if GI has completely lost their middle ground. It's ridiculous to drop a games score almost 3 points for no other reason than because you think the narrative is bad. Or to give a game a absurdly high score because past games in the series were terrible or on a downward trend and this one isn't.

Not to mention if you follow the GI site and the twitters of the staff. Their overall attitude towards readers who disagree with them or call them out is downright inexcusable. Most people would get fired from their jobs saying the sorts of things they publicly state to paying customers.

My GI subscription ended last month and looks like it will stay that way. Over the last several months I have to question who they have working at that magazine. Seems the only games that get good reviews are the games they think will suck but end up being good. To which they overcompensate by giving a higher review that its worthy of. Or the big huge hyped titles that everyone is going to buy regardless of review scores.

It's as if GI has completely lost their middle ground. It's ridiculous to drop a games score almost 3 points for no other reason than because you think the narrative is bad. Or to give a game a absurdly high score because past games in the series were terrible or on a downward trend and this one isn't.

Not to mention if you follow the GI site and the twitters of the staff. Their overall attitude towards readers who disagree with them or call them out is downright inexcusable. Most people would get fired from their jobs saying the sorts of things they publicly state to paying customers.

keech

Unfortunately, for your money however, they're still the best print magazine in the business, bar none. In fact, they get exclusives before anyone on the Internet does, and that's unheard of these days. So for me, it's still something great to read while taking a dump.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

Despite the reviews being terrible for this issue, in the end, reviews don't really amount to much. After all, it's only one person's opinion. Best reviewer that we can trust is pretty much ourselves.

If we like the game, fine. If we don't, then we don't.

Jbul

Even if they're not a deal-breaker, I think there's some journalistic responsibility for the reviews to be in the "sane" range, and alot of those scores were not.

Oh yeah, hey, didn't you get Castlevania? I never see you playing it. That's one of their better reviews in the issue actually.

Yes, I have picked up Castlevania: Lords Of Shadow. Problem is, I haven't touched the game since I got Halo Reach. Multiplayer on that game can be wildly addicting. :lol:

I'll get around to it this weekend. Hopefully, once I get far in it, I'll post on the CV LOS thread. :)

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]What did they say about the Force Unleashed 2?Grammaton-Cleric

It's a ridiculous review.

They basically admit that every aspect of the game's mechanics has been improved upon but because they disliked the story they give it a lower rating than the original.

The narrative in the first TFU was, like most extended universe SW stories, pretty nonsensical when contrasted against the cannon of the films so I'm not all that worried about the story. What matters to me and what should matter to them is the core game mechanics, which are both vastly improved and incredibly polished.

I usually like most of GI's reviews but lately they've dropped a few that were genuinely mystifying.

So are you saying that they are just big Star Wars nerds that complained that it didn't match up with the novelization of The Empire Strikes Back or something? I actually really enjoyed the story in the Force Unleashed and would say the writing was better than anything Star Wars since KOTOR, and it seemed like the direction they were taking it in 2 looked interesting.

[QUOTE="Jbul"]

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

Despite the reviews being terrible for this issue, in the end, reviews don't really amount to much. After all, it's only one person's opinion. Best reviewer that we can trust is pretty much ourselves.

If we like the game, fine. If we don't, then we don't.

Metamania

Even if they're not a deal-breaker, I think there's some journalistic responsibility for the reviews to be in the "sane" range, and alot of those scores were not.

Oh yeah, hey, didn't you get Castlevania? I never see you playing it. That's one of their better reviews in the issue actually.

Yes, I have picked up Castlevania: Lords Of Shadow. Problem is, I haven't touched the game since I got Halo Reach. Multiplayer on that game can be wildly addicting. :lol:

I'll get around to it this weekend. Hopefully, once I get far in it, I'll post on the CV LOS thread. :)

Halo: Reach is incredibly addictive overall. If you need an Intervention, let me know. :P

When you play Castlevania, be patient. First few levels are rough!

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]What did they say about the Force Unleashed 2?CarnageHeart

It's a ridiculous review.

They basically admit that every aspect of the game's mechanics has been improved upon but because they disliked the story they give it a lower rating than the original.

The narrative in the first TFU was, like most extended universe SW stories, pretty nonsensical when contrasted against the cannon of the films so I'm not all that worried about the story. What matters to me and what should matter to them is the core game mechanics, which are both vastly improved and incredibly polished.

I usually like most of GI's reviews but lately they've dropped a few that were genuinely mystifying.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]What did they say about the Force Unleashed 2?Elann2008

It's a ridiculous review.

They basically admit that every aspect of the game's mechanics has been improved upon but because they disliked the story they give it a lower rating than the original.

The narrative in the first TFU was, like most extended universe SW stories, pretty nonsensical when contrasted against the cannon of the films so I'm not all that worried about the story. What matters to me and what should matter to them is the core game mechanics, which are both vastly improved and incredibly polished.

I usually like most of GI's reviews but lately they've dropped a few that were genuinely mystifying.

I have a subscription to the magazine so yes, I've read the review.

Firstly, the lock-on system is much improved over the original game. It's tighter, more responsive, and works better. It's still not perfect but it's vastly improved. There's certainly nothing "terrible" about it.

Secondly, they clearly state that the game is a technical marvel (one of the best-looking games of this generation according to that review) and that every facet of the gameplay has been improved upon, yet they give it a lower score predicated almost solely upon the narrative, which in their estimation is subpar.

This rationale is clearly stated in the text and sidebars of their review so don't waste my time with some puerile jab at me about not reading the editorial. I loved the first game but it was a very flawed experience. The second, at least based on the demo, is one of most improved sequels of the generation so I frankly find it a bit mind-numbing that they centered the crux of their review on a narrative which was never that poignant to begin with.

So are you saying that they are just big Star Wars nerds that complained that it didn't match up with the novelization of The Empire Strikes Back or something? I actually really enjoyed the story in the Force Unleashed and would say the writing was better than anything Star Wars since KOTOR, and it seemed like the direction they were taking it in 2 looked interesting.

AtomicTangerine

I actually think the notion of cloning Starkiller is interesting but I personally consider the storyline in the original TFU to be nonsensical if trying to align it with Star Wars cannon, which are the films. Starkiller's power doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that Vader (and Luke) are essentially the most powerful force-wielders in the galaxy, with Palpatine and Yoda in tow. Vader's power is negated only by the extensive damage he incurs from his injuries, which ultimately makes him subservient to the Emperor. Regardless, neither Vader nor the Emperor could have been felled by Starkiller, whose excessive and almost godly power is never explained beyond the superficial exposition of the game. Like most extended SW fiction, it has little bearing on the six theatrical films and aligns only in the vaguest sense of continuity.

I love SW but I take all extended universe offerings with a grain of salt. That's why I personally snicker at the notion that this game offers a lesser tale than the original when the story present in the original was merely there to facilitate storm trooper genocide.

[QUOTE="keech"]

My GI subscription ended last month and looks like it will stay that way. Over the last several months I have to question who they have working at that magazine. Seems the only games that get good reviews are the games they think will suck but end up being good. To which they overcompensate by giving a higher review that its worthy of. Or the big huge hyped titles that everyone is going to buy regardless of review scores.

It's as if GI has completely lost their middle ground. It's ridiculous to drop a games score almost 3 points for no other reason than because you think the narrative is bad. Or to give a game a absurdly high score because past games in the series were terrible or on a downward trend and this one isn't.

Not to mention if you follow the GI site and the twitters of the staff. Their overall attitude towards readers who disagree with them or call them out is downright inexcusable. Most people would get fired from their jobs saying the sorts of things they publicly state to paying customers.

Jbul

Unfortunately, for your money however, they're still the best print magazine in the business, bar none. In fact, they get exclusives before anyone on the Internet does, and that's unheard of these days. So for me, it's still something great to read while taking a dump.

I actually like GI just fine but I would argue that currently, the new Gamepro is the most intellectually satisfying gaming magazine on the market.

[QUOTE="Jbul"]

[QUOTE="keech"]

My GI subscription ended last month and looks like it will stay that way. Over the last several months I have to question who they have working at that magazine. Seems the only games that get good reviews are the games they think will suck but end up being good. To which they overcompensate by giving a higher review that its worthy of. Or the big huge hyped titles that everyone is going to buy regardless of review scores.

It's as if GI has completely lost their middle ground. It's ridiculous to drop a games score almost 3 points for no other reason than because you think the narrative is bad. Or to give a game a absurdly high score because past games in the series were terrible or on a downward trend and this one isn't.

Not to mention if you follow the GI site and the twitters of the staff. Their overall attitude towards readers who disagree with them or call them out is downright inexcusable. Most people would get fired from their jobs saying the sorts of things they publicly state to paying customers.

Grammaton-Cleric

Unfortunately, for your money however, they're still the best print magazine in the business, bar none. In fact, they get exclusives before anyone on the Internet does, and that's unheard of these days. So for me, it's still something great to read while taking a dump.

I actually like GI just fine but I would argue that currently, the new Gamepro is the most intellectually satisfying gaming magazine on the market.

I didn't know there were changes made! In my mind, the magazine was a kiddy-rag, and a total joke. Did they change the staff?

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

So are you saying that they are just big Star Wars nerds that complained that it didn't match up with the novelization of The Empire Strikes Back or something? I actually really enjoyed the story in the Force Unleashed and would say the writing was better than anything Star Wars since KOTOR, and it seemed like the direction they were taking it in 2 looked interesting.

Grammaton-Cleric

I actually think the notion of cloning Starkiller is interesting but I personally consider the storyline in the original TFU to be nonsensical if trying to align it with Star Wars cannon, which are the films. Starkiller's power doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that Vader (and Luke) are essentially the most powerful force-wielders in the galaxy, with Palpatine and Yoda in tow. Vader's power is negated only by the extensive damage he incurs from his injuries, which ultimately makes him subservient to the Emperor. Regardless, neither Vader nor the Emperor could have been felled by Starkiller, whose excessive and almost godly power is never explained beyond the superficial exposition of the game. Like most extended SW fiction, it has little bearing on the six theatrical films and aligns only in the vaguest sense of continuity.

I love SW but I take all extended universe offerings with a grain of salt. That's why I personally snicker at the notion that this game offers a lesser tale than the original when the story present in the original was merely there to facilitate storm trooper genocide.

OK, thanks man. I guess I just don't take my Star Wars as seriously. I know enough to know that the first game's events were improbable when taken in context with the rest of the story, but as a self-contained thing it worked pretty good. Of course, one of those endings is a straight-up reimagining of the Star Wars universe, so there's that.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Jbul"]

Unfortunately, for your money however, they're still the best print magazine in the business, bar none. In fact, they get exclusives before anyone on the Internet does, and that's unheard of these days. So for me, it's still something great to read while taking a dump.

Jbul

I actually like GI just fine but I would argue that currently, the new Gamepro is the most intellectually satisfying gaming magazine on the market.

I didn't know there were changes made! In my mind, the magazine was a kiddy-rag, and a total joke. Did they change the staff?

There was some sort of major overhaul that occured recently and the transformation is staggering. It's a serious enthusiast magazine now, with text and articles that mine a much deeper and richer content area.

OK, thanks man. I guess I just don't take my Star Wars as seriously. I know enough to know that the first game's events were improbable when taken in context with the rest of the story, but as a self-contained thing it worked pretty good. Of course, one of those endings is a straight-up reimagining of the Star Wars universe, so there's that.

AtomicTangerine

I too look at this story as self-contained and in that vein it's plenty of fun. I also think the overall acting and writing in the first game was solid and frankly, the notion of being a renegade clone strikes me as interesting for this next outing.

I'll just get Rock Band 3 for now this month, I'm on a tight budget atm, would love to get Vanquish but I'll wait for a price drop .