I'm just wondering...
Seems to me like GS has been progressively harder on the scores it gives to games. Even games that get highly praised by the majority of other publications.
Just two examples here: Rise of Legends: Rise of Nations and Titan Quest. GS gave those games in the 7's while pretty much all the other reviewers gave them 8's and 9's.
Yeah sure it's just two games out of thousands and I'm sure they give better scores to other games that overall get less, but still I feel like this is a general direction the site has been taking for a while now.
It just feels like GS, which really is the grandest gaming site of them all, is being hard on the games to look more legit than the other gaming sites. Like that episode of The Simpsons where Homer becomes a food critic.
Any thoughts?
Do you think GS is too hard when they review games?
1) It literally IS Diablo 2, every single aspect of the game: Equipment, Health/Exp/MP shrines, ways of teleportation between towns, heck even the way NPCs talk sounds similar.
2) Its a SYSTEM HOG, the game will even have frame rate issues on an expensive high spec computer, because the developers were terrible at making the game run smoothly.
Off of that, yes, some of the people who review games, are much too hard on them. I've seen Bethany flop so many AAA titles (some to 7s) that at some point I wanted to write a very angry letter. But speaking of these days, yeah, they do seem to become harder and harder on games. And too easy on some games, like Oblivion.
The only thing i seem to see is that they are tougher on some games and more lenient with others
I think IGN is better because GS gives remakes/ports low scores but IGN doesnt. kage_53
I think it varies greatly. Sometimes IGN flops games (like KH2) and then theres 1up.. they gave Dreamfall: The longest Journey a god damn 4/10, its not a AAA title by any means, but a 4? Geez, and they give 4-6 for alot of averagely good games. So I usually avoid 1up like the plauge. IGN and Gamespot alternate in good reviews.
most sites give an overall score at the end , and not an average of the categories like Gamespot , so if a game lacks in a few categories its going to score low even though it maybe great
The only thing i seem to see is that they are tougher on some games and more lenient with others
diggyzoom
That's right. Most sites just give a "9.0" if they feel that the game deserveda 9.0. But the GS rating system only allows AAA titles if gameplay and value are high, because they are weighted more than graphics and sound. Overall, I like the GS grading system, since if you buy a AAA on GS's score you can be pretty sure it's a good purchase.
But something like MGS3's score, which the Metal Gear heads were crying about for weeks, is completely understandable given Gamespot's scoring system. MGS3 had a great story, but there is no category for rating a game's story or characters in GS's scoring system.
I was one of the Metal Gear heads who cried for weeks :oops: , but since MGS3 had somewhat outdated controls and a wonky camera, I can understand why Greg gave it an 8.7 using GS's grading system, given its heavy weight on gameplay.
most sites give an overall score at the end , and not an average of the categories like Gamespot , so if a game lacks in a few categories its going to score low even though it maybe great
The only thing i seem to see is that they are tougher on some games and more lenient with others
diggyzoom
That's right. Most sites just give a "9.0" if they feel that the game deserveda 9.0. But the GS rating system only allows AAA titles if gameplay and value are high, because they are weighted more than graphics and sound. Overall, I like the GS grading system, since if you buy a AAA on GS's score you can be pretty sure it's a good purchase.
But something like MGS3's score, which the Metal Gear heads were crying about for weeks, is completely understandable given Gamespot's scoring system. MGS3 had a great story, but there is no category for rating a game's story or characters in GS's scoring system.
I was one of the Metal Gear heads who cried for weeks :oops: , but since MGS3 had somewhat outdated controls and a wonky camera, I can understand why Greg gave it an 8.7 using GS's grading system, given its heavy weight on gameplay.
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
I don't care for any of GS's reviews.
They docked MGS3:S for the manual :|
EDIT:
The Bad:Some of the smaller gameplay issues from the original haven't been touched; skimpy manual doesn't explain online modes.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/mgs3subsistence/review.html
I don't care for any of GS's reviews.
They docked MGS3:S for the manual :|
EDIT:
The Bad:Some of the smaller gameplay issues from the original haven't been touched; skimpy manual doesn't explain online modes.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/mgs3subsistence/review.html
-Zaku-
I don't remebere these "small gameplay issues", maybe because they were too small, too small to actually deduct points for it. I will say that it shoulden't get TOO much since it is sort of a extended version of MGS3, BUT MGS3 already had a TOO low score.
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
jechtshot78
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I don't care for any of GS's reviews.
They docked MGS3:S for the manual :|
EDIT:
The Bad:Some of the smaller gameplay issues from the original haven't been touched; skimpy manual doesn't explain online modes.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/mgs3subsistence/review.html
-Zaku-
I always have a problem when people claim that reviews were "docked" for one reason or another. I mean its not like it says "bad manual, -0.5" like an essay you get back from a teacher. I've always that felt regardless of what the reviewers focus on in the review, the end score represents how good the overall game is. It always makes me mad when people say Greg "docked points" from DMC because of the difficulty of the game, as if he would have given it a 10 if the difficulty were more to his liking. Isn't it possible he just felt it wasn't a AAA game?
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
jechtshot78
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
jechtshot78
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
Indeed, I know we've talked before about how the camo system could have been implemented better. I mean it was a cool idea, but nobody wants to be traversing menus every time the terrain changes a little bit.
[QUOTE="fuzzysquash"] [QUOTE="jechtshot78"]
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
jechtshot78
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
Neither did I, actually I loved it for movie like angels.
But people now days only want run of the mill FPS cameras and the same 30 sec of gameplay repeated endlessly.
Greg Claim to love the MGS series but reading his reviews and blog it's quite obvious that he never got the grasp of what makes the series great. He's more like one of those wannabe fans who jumped on the wagon because of the recognition MGS got from none gaming societies like art critics and papers like the Times.
Auto Assualt right? That game was good, but not worth the 15 buck a month price tag. Played better than Halo 2 IMO.
[QUOTE="jechtshot78"] [QUOTE="fuzzysquash"] [QUOTE="jechtshot78"]
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
Team-CSC
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
Neither did I, actually I loved it for movie like angels.
But people now days only want run of the mill FPS cameras and the same 30 sec of gameplay repeated endlessly.
Greg Claim to love the MGS series but reading his reviews and blog it's quite obvious that he never got the grasp of what makes the series great. He's more like one of those wannabe fans who jumped on the wagon because of the recognition MGS got from none gaming societies like art critics and papers like the Times.
So do you guys disagree with Kojima's decision to switch to a 3-D camera in Subsistence and MGS4?
Do you think he should have stayed in line with the rest of the series and kept the old, top-down cam for consistency's sake?
[QUOTE="Team-CSC"][QUOTE="jechtshot78"] [QUOTE="fuzzysquash"] [QUOTE="jechtshot78"]
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
fuzzysquash
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
Neither did I, actually I loved it for movie like angels.
But people now days only want run of the mill FPS cameras and the same 30 sec of gameplay repeated endlessly.
Greg Claim to love the MGS series but reading his reviews and blog it's quite obvious that he never got the grasp of what makes the series great. He's more like one of those wannabe fans who jumped on the wagon because of the recognition MGS got from none gaming societies like art critics and papers like the Times.
So do you guys disagree with Kojima's decision to switch to a 3-D camera in Subsistence and MGS4?
Do you think he should have stayed in line with the rest of the series and kept the old, top-down cam for consistency's sake?
Nono, I loved the top down camera because of the references to the old MSX titles and I still can't forget the movie like feel the first time I leaned up against a wall and watched a guard walking down an ile in MGS for PS (though I played it on PC).
But the camera needs a changed because one miss out on a lot of graphical tidbits, as Greg pointed out about MGS3 looking much better from the new angel.
My issue with the new camera in Subsistence (though I have no personal experience using it due to Konami still haven't released it in Europe) is that it's too ordinary and has lost the movie fell. IMO Kojima needs to tweak it a little more so it change angels while one perform CQC and shakes when there's an explosion near by.
I would also prefer an over shoulder view for aiming instead of the 1'st person view.
It would also be nice if the game didn't pause when one change weapons/equipment but instead slow down like in the latest two James Bond titles (BTW,why in the world did Sony go with another dev for James Bond games? :? ).
As a side note, I'm glad to see that Kojima is playing with the idea of letting the question marks stay in MGS4 so it will keep its MGS identity.
[QUOTE="jechtshot78"] [QUOTE="fuzzysquash"] [QUOTE="jechtshot78"]
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
Team-CSC
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
Neither did I, actually I loved it for movie like angels.
But people now days only want run of the mill FPS cameras and the same 30 sec of gameplay repeated endlessly.
Greg Claim to love the MGS series but reading his reviews and blog it's quite obvious that he never got the grasp of what makes the series great. He's more like one of those wannabe fans who jumped on the wagon because of the recognition MGS got from none gaming societies like art critics and papers like the Times.
I think that Greg, along with the rest of game-playing public, has the right to love or hate the series for whatever reason he sees fit. I don't really see what he would have to gain by claiming to love a game that he doesn't really like.
Nono, I loved the top down camera because of the references to the old MSX titles and I still can't forget the movie like feel the first time I leaned up against a wall and watched a guard walking down an ile in MGS for PS (though I played it on PC).But the camera needs a changed because one miss out on a lot of graphical tidbits, as Greg pointed out about MGS3 looking much better from the new angel.
My issue with the new camera in Subsistence (though I have no personal experience using it due to Konami still haven't released it in Europe) is that it's too ordinary and has lost the movie fell. IMO Kojima needs to tweak it a little more so it change angels while one perform CQC and shakes when there's an explosion near by.
I would also prefer an over shoulder view for aiming instead of the 1'st person view.It would also be nice if the game didn't pause when one change weapons/equipment but instead slow down like in the latest two James Bond titles (BTW,why in the world did Sony go with another dev for James Bond games? :? ).
As a side note, I'm glad to see that Kojima is playing with the idea of letting the question marks stay in MGS4 so it will keep its MGS identity.
Team-CSC
Well, I remember when Koji was asked what the camera would be like for MGS4, he said it would be a "mix" of Subsistence and the older cam.
I don't know what that means, though, but it might be something like what you suggested.
[QUOTE="Team-CSC"][QUOTE="jechtshot78"] [QUOTE="fuzzysquash"] [QUOTE="jechtshot78"]
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
Teufelhuhn
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
Neither did I, actually I loved it for movie like angels.
But people now days only want run of the mill FPS cameras and the same 30 sec of gameplay repeated endlessly.
Greg Claim to love the MGS series but reading his reviews and blog it's quite obvious that he never got the grasp of what makes the series great. He's more like one of those wannabe fans who jumped on the wagon because of the recognition MGS got from none gaming societies like art critics and papers like the Times.
I think that Greg, along with the rest of game-playing public, has the right to love or hate the series for whatever reason he sees fit. I don't really see what he would have to gain by claiming to love a game that he doesn't really like.
I fully agree. :)
I'm just pointing out that when Greg calls him self a fan of the series he isn't like... I don't know how to put it but there's different levels of fans just like with Star Trek where we have the 30 years old Treckies living in their parents' basements and then there's those who occasionally like to watch the series and movies.
Greg likes playing the games but he doesn't replay the games several times to get even the smallest pieces of the storyline puzzle nor does he experiment with all the combinations made possible in the gameplay.
Nor does Greg spend time finding the references to movies, books and other games and debate the possible storyline for ages before the game is released.
Greg likes MGS as a game but the things that makes MGS stand out from other games don't interest him enough for him to dig into the games.
When it comes to MGS Gamespot just isn't a very good source as they are always behind with the news (often GS doesn't even get the news, even important plot trailers are left out) and the question they ask Kojima in interviews could have hen directed to any game/director (due to lack of sufficient background research).
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"] [QUOTE="Team-CSC"][QUOTE="jechtshot78"] [QUOTE="fuzzysquash"] [QUOTE="jechtshot78"]
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
Team-CSC
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
Neither did I, actually I loved it for movie like angels.
But people now days only want run of the mill FPS cameras and the same 30 sec of gameplay repeated endlessly.
Greg Claim to love the MGS series but reading his reviews and blog it's quite obvious that he never got the grasp of what makes the series great. He's more like one of those wannabe fans who jumped on the wagon because of the recognition MGS got from none gaming societies like art critics and papers like the Times.
I think that Greg, along with the rest of game-playing public, has the right to love or hate the series for whatever reason he sees fit. I don't really see what he would have to gain by claiming to love a game that he doesn't really like.
I fully agree. :)
I'm just pointing out that when Greg calls him self a fan of the series he isn't like... I don't know how to put it but there's different levels of fans just like with Star Trek where we have the 30 years old Treckies living in their parents' basements and then there's those who occasionally like to watch the series and movies.
Greg likes playing the games but he doesn't replay the games several times to get even the smallest pieces of the storyline puzzle nor does he experiment with all the combinations made possible in the gameplay.
Nor does Greg spend time finding the references to movies, books and other games and debate the possible storyline for ages before the game is released.
Greg likes MGS as a game but the things that makes MGS stand out from other games don't interest him enough for him to dig into the games.
When it comes to MGS Gamespot just isn't a very good source as they are always behind with the news (often GS doesn't even get the news, even important plot trailers are left out) and the question they ask Kojima in interviews could have hen directed to any game/director (due to lack of sufficient background research).
Interesting, I see what you mean. Where do you usually get your MGS info?
Interesting, I see what you mean. Where do you usually get your MGS info?
Teufelhuhn
*cough* excuse me for chimin' in here
1up does full-week cover stories from time to time.
Here's their MGS one:
http://egm.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3146189
[QUOTE="Team-CSC"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"] [QUOTE="Team-CSC"][QUOTE="jechtshot78"] [QUOTE="fuzzysquash"] [QUOTE="jechtshot78"]
How can the controls be outdated if it is the same controller....
Teufelhuhn
Well, this is how Greg put it:
"The Bad: Too much exposition; story gets off to a slow start.; very little gameplay at first.; cumbersome controls take getting used to....the gameplay itself--despite an all-new setting in a Soviet jungle during the 1960s--really hasn't changed much since the last installment, and it's aged noticeably during these past few years. Consequently, the mechanics of Metal Gear Solid 3 can be just as confounding as the storyline.."
I think his criticism is apt. I found the camo system clumsy, and the touch sensitive controls were a bit clutsy as well. The aiming, mixed with the awkward camera, was tricky too (although much of this was fixed in Subsistence).
I seriously NEVER had one single problem with the camera.
Neither did I, actually I loved it for movie like angels.
But people now days only want run of the mill FPS cameras and the same 30 sec of gameplay repeated endlessly.
Greg Claim to love the MGS series but reading his reviews and blog it's quite obvious that he never got the grasp of what makes the series great. He's more like one of those wannabe fans who jumped on the wagon because of the recognition MGS got from none gaming societies like art critics and papers like the Times.
I think that Greg, along with the rest of game-playing public, has the right to love or hate the series for whatever reason he sees fit. I don't really see what he would have to gain by claiming to love a game that he doesn't really like.
I fully agree. :)
I'm just pointing out that when Greg calls him self a fan of the series he isn't like... I don't know how to put it but there's different levels of fans just like with Star Trek where we have the 30 years old Treckies living in their parents' basements and then there's those who occasionally like to watch the series and movies.
Greg likes playing the games but he doesn't replay the games several times to get even the smallest pieces of the storyline puzzle nor does he experiment with all the combinations made possible in the gameplay.
Nor does Greg spend time finding the references to movies, books and other games and debate the possible storyline for ages before the game is released.
Greg likes MGS as a game but the things that makes MGS stand out from other games don't interest him enough for him to dig into the games.
When it comes to MGS Gamespot just isn't a very good source as they are always behind with the news (often GS doesn't even get the news, even important plot trailers are left out) and the question they ask Kojima in interviews could have hen directed to any game/director (due to lack of sufficient background research).
Interesting, I see what you mean. Where do you usually get your MGS info?
Sorry, I forgot all about replying to your post. :oops:
Anyway, 1UP and Game Informer are the best gaming sites for MGS info as they look up/travel to Kojima Production staff members and also collect a lot of background info before doing an interview.
But surprisingly the best MGS4 related interview was actually from PSM (never thought that would happen).
The best place for MGS info must be www.MetalGearSolid.org as many of the most rabid fans are there and they'll allways post even the tiniest bit of info they can gather (I guess this goes for most dedicated fan sites).
The members also look up people who worked on the games like voice actors for interviews plus they go through history books, movies, music and so on to find references.
The owner of the site even got a review copy of MGS3 before Greg K said in his blog that he had it.
I feel IGN goes way too easy on a lot of games. I mean 9.9 to Jade Empire?
The only genre I feel they could do better is in the RPG genre. I mean sure, I know they have to review games for everybody and not just fans of the genre, but I don't think the main RPG (specially JRPG) elements are going to go anywhere, so anybody who has ever played an RPG prob knows what he/she's getting into. So no need to keep whinning about the things that have always been there.
I feel IGN goes way too easy on a lot of games. I mean 9.9 to Jade Empire?
The only genre I feel they could do better is in the RPG genre. I mean sure, I know they have to review games for everybody and not just fans of the genre, but I don't think the main RPG (specially JRPG) elements are going to go anywhere, so anybody who has ever played an RPG prob knows what he/she's getting into. So no need to keep whinning about the things that have always been there.
IGN mixes from hard to easy on games. I mean 9 for Chromehounds, yet 7.8 for NSMB? EGM is probably the harshest people, but I respect them for it.
I feel IGN goes way too easy on a lot of games. I mean 9.9 to Jade Empire?
The only genre I feel they could do better is in the RPG genre. I mean sure, I know they have to review games for everybody and not just fans of the genre, but I don't think the main RPG (specially JRPG) elements are going to go anywhere, so anybody who has ever played an RPG prob knows what he/she's getting into. So no need to keep whinning about the things that have always been there.
IGN mixes from hard to easy on games. I mean 9 for Chromehounds, yet 7.8 for NSMB? ...and don't forget Kingdom Hearts II - 7.6. Their review scores are all over the place - no consistency.
I feel IGN goes way too easy on a lot of games. I mean 9.9 to Jade Empire?
The only genre I feel they could do better is in the RPG genre. I mean sure, I know they have to review games for everybody and not just fans of the genre, but I don't think the main RPG (specially JRPG) elements are going to go anywhere, so anybody who has ever played an RPG prob knows what he/she's getting into. So no need to keep whinning about the things that have always been there.
IGN mixes from hard to easy on games. I mean 9 for Chromehounds, yet 7.8 for NSMB? EGM is probably the harshest people, but I respect them for it.9 FOR CHROMEHOUNDS?!?!?
Who the heck paid who for that review?????
Titan Quest I ended up getting, they reviewed it harshly and appropriatly for 2 reasons:
1) It literally IS Diablo 2, every single aspect of the game: Equipment, Health/Exp/MP shrines, ways of teleportation between towns, heck even the way NPCs talk sounds similar.
2) Its a SYSTEM HOG, the game will even have frame rate issues on an expensive high spec computer, because the developers were terrible at making the game run smoothly.
Off of that, yes, some of the people who review games, are much too hard on them. I've seen Bethany flop so many AAA titles (some to 7s) that at some point I wanted to write a very angry letter. But speaking of these days, yeah, they do seem to become harder and harder on games. And too easy on some games, like Oblivion.
PeeEsPee
Oblivion is amazing. It definately deserved at least AAA.
[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]Honestly I like harsh reviews, I mean like Oscar Wilde said: liking everything is worth as much as liking nothing.IGN mixes from hard to easy on games. I mean 9 for Chromehounds, yet 7.8 for NSMB? EGM is probably the harshest people, but I respect them for it.
I feel IGN goes way too easy on a lot of games. I mean 9.9 to Jade Empire?
The only genre I feel they could do better is in the RPG genre. I mean sure, I know they have to review games for everybody and not just fans of the genre, but I don't think the main RPG (specially JRPG) elements are going to go anywhere, so anybody who has ever played an RPG prob knows what he/she's getting into. So no need to keep whinning about the things that have always been there.
BlazeDragon132
NSMB got 9.5.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment