I think Kevin VanOrd is testing us once again with his KoA review...

Why TC, I LOVE conspiracies!IAmNot_fun

Sure it is connecting the dots and not necessarily true, mabye Amalur deserves it's score but do the COD games?

I mean the big story last year or the year before it was that reviewers were sent to a special vacation resort to play the game... That is an unfair environment because the results will be skewed.

Soooo...

Damage control?

MLBknights58

Pretty much :lol:

Generic? Really lol... Did that really take 3.5 points of the score. What about COD?Cowboy_Sheepbop

It's not that this game isn't generic, it's just that gamespot choose to look over other games that are generic because of hype and or..

[QUOTE="Cowboy_Sheepbop"]Generic? Really lol... Did that really take 3.5 points of the score. What about COD?toast_burner

You may be right, I find it hard to trust any review from "professional" reviewers after the story came out on Activision using resorts to influence the scores of their games and other companies sending reviewers products.

:lol: this thread reeks of damage control weren"t you the one claiming this game would destroy skyrim?

musalala

Generic? Really lol... Did that really take 3.5 points of the score. What about COD?Cowboy_Sheepbop

cod has payed for the next few reviews in the series, i mean, err "it reminds us what makes it great" or something like that according to the reviewer.

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"] he really enjoyed the game dude, so what? Do you enjoy EVERY SINGLE GAME EVER? I'll bet you have enjoyed a couple of stinkers and also hated (probably quite a lot) of games that loads of other people love. Bread_or_Decide

A game review really shouldnt be just down to how much the reviewer enjoyed playing it though. I could review a game I dont like, lets say Infamous as an example. I can still review that game based on its merits and achievements, ie, what it has done well and what it has not, even though I find the game a bit boring.

This is the very reason we have a 10 for UC3 on IGN, becuase they are not reviewing games based on merits, but rather how much the reviewer enjoyed the game. That method places fanboyism above journalism. Its not good for anyone.

I dunno bout all this but will say he blew it when it came to reviewing Lost Odyssey though I bet now that he's seen what's come after L.O. in terms of JRPG's the last 4 - 5 years, he wishes he had scored L.O. AAA - eh, the old hind sight is always 20/20. :P

SecretPolice

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]IGN 9 GS 7.5 I know which review has more credability........ Its not IGN. casharmy

Oh IGN, Ihad some respect for you...I guess it's true what they say, everyone has their price.

"In other words, if you're looking for bang for your buck, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning has it in droves. Then again, if you're looking for an immersive adventure backed by combat that doesn't only put other RPGs to shame, but in fact many action games, too, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning has that as well."

"I'll come right out and say it: Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning will be discussed when Game of the Year 2012 rolls around."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1216517p1.html

How ridiculous do these comments sound now?

How is that second comment ridiculous? All they're saying is it will be a contender in their GOTY awards. Gamespot isn't the only site that has them, you know...

it's the guy that gave Ass Creed 1 a 9.0 and defends it 'til this day.

am i supposed to take him seriously?

7.5 is a good score, not a negative one. It's what's in the review that counts, seems like most is good besides a bland story/world and quests apparantely judging from the good/bad. I don't know how the tone of the review is though, if that's what you're talking about and it sounds negative then you might have a point but if you're just going by score it's a good score. 7.5 = good. I'll actually read the review on my lunch break at work, right now I could only check the score and the good/bad.

:lol: this thread reeks of damage control weren"t you the one claiming this game would destroy skyrim?

musalala

Yup and I still stand by that claim. I'm picking it up tonight so I will report back on if my prediction was correct or not. Seeing as how I found the quality of the KoA demo (of all things) to be more consistent than the entire game of Skyrim, I'm sure I was correct.

I didn't expect to agree, but the review was rather poor. One, he's reviewing it based upon traditional rpg design. Two--the big one--he states that the world is uninteresting and that the player won't care about quest goals. This is for the person playing to decide, and shouldn't really affect the score.

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

A game review really shouldnt be just down to how much the reviewer enjoyed playing it though. I could review a game I dont like, lets say Infamous as an example. I can still review that game based on its merits and achievements, ie, what it has done well and what it has not, even though I find the game a bit boring.

This is the very reason we have a 10 for UC3 on IGN, becuase they are not reviewing games based on merits, but rather how much the reviewer enjoyed the game. That method places fanboyism above journalism. Its not good for anyone.

MFDOOM1983

Or the game is just not as good as you want it to be. Ever think of that?

Or the game is just not as good as you want it to be. Ever think of that?

Wasdie

that could b e true if i didn't see a crapton of other way more mediocre games getting 8 and 9. Dragon age 2 anyone?

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] erp....reviews are opinions...opinions are based on how much they enjoyed the game....erpBread_or_Decide

I get this argument, but still stand by what I said. Being fun to the reviewer does not translate to being fun for everyone else. It depends on how you appraoch a review. My thoughts are the all games should be judged on there merits and flaws, in addition to the fun the reviewer had (or didnt) playing the game.

If it is just based on that persons opinion of 'fun' then it ceases to be profesional. You may aswell write for IGN, or anyone else on this board. Its the difference between being profesional and being ammetuer.

Revewiers should look at each game for what it is, what it has done well, and what it has not, then consider personal enjoyment from the title. Just basing it on personal enjoyment destroys any reviews worth.

As I pointed out, this is why we have a 10 for UC3 on IGN. Its not because it deserves the 10, its because the person that reviewed it enjoyed the game beyond others. A review should be relevant to all, the only way to do this is to judge personal enjoyent after everything else.

Dont get me wrong though, Im not bithing or defending the KOA review, I havent even played it, so it makes no difference to me. I just think its wrong on a profesional level to review a game based solely on your own personal enjoyment of it.

Comparing Amalur to Nier... foxhound_fox

Not directly. I don't think any RPG from this gen could really be compared to Nier.

Don't that this the wrong way but what the hell are you smoking?

Nier was reviewed universally a ta low score for it's lacking combat, lack of depth world, and lack of features. It may of had a goodstory but on the game department it's lacking.

No way is Nier the greatest anything, so don't try to push it like it is because you love it.

On point, his critizium with KoA is that it did well with combat, but did poorly with story and character which make Nier it's invert.

It's clear that the preferace would be a balance ofthe best of what Nier and KoA but with a way better world.(Both games is weak conserning it's world.)

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] I think he wants a press release from publishers. BibiMaghoo

I get this argument, but still stand by what I said. Being fun to the reviewer does not translate to being fun for everyone else. It depends on how you appraoch a review. My thoughts are the all games should be judged on there merits and flaws, in addition to the fun the reviewer had (or didnt) playing the game.

If it is just based on that persons opinion of 'fun' then it ceases to be profesional. You may aswell write for IGN, or anyone else on this board. Its the difference between being profesional and being ammetuer.

Revewiers should look at each game for what it is, what it has done well, and what it has not, then consider personal enjoyment from the title. Just basing it on personal enjoyment destroys any reviews worth.

As I pointed out, this is why we have a 10 for UC3 on IGN. Its not because it deserves the 10, its because the person that reviewed it enjoyed the game beyond others. A review should be relevant to all, the only way to do this is to judge personal enjoyent after everything else.

Dont get me wrong though, Im not bithing or defending the KOA review, I havent even played it, so it makes no difference to me. I just think its wrong on a profesional level to review a game based solely on your own personal enjoyment of it.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand this. I agree 100%, and have been saying something to this effect for quite awhile:)

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] I think he wants a press release from publishers. BibiMaghoo

I get this argument, but still stand by what I said. Being fun to the reviewer does not translate to being fun for everyone else. It depends on how you appraoch a review. My thoughts are the all games should be judged on there merits and flaws, in addition to the fun the reviewer had (or didnt) playing the game.

If it is just based on that persons opinion of 'fun' then it ceases to be profesional. You may aswell write for IGN, or anyone else on this board. Its the difference between being profesional and being ammetuer.

Revewiers should look at each game for what it is, what it has done well, and what it has not, then consider personal enjoyment from the title. Just basing it on personal enjoyment destroys any reviews worth.

As I pointed out, this is why we have a 10 for UC3 on IGN. Its not because it deserves the 10, its because the person that reviewed it enjoyed the game beyond others. A review should be relevant to all, the only way to do this is to judge personal enjoyent after everything else.

Dont get me wrong though, Im not bithing or defending the KOA review, I havent even played it, so it makes no difference to me. I just think its wrong on a profesional level to review a game based solely on your own personal enjoyment of it.

Nier was reviewed universally a ta low score for it's lacking combat, lack of depth world, and lack of features. dreman999

[QUOTE="dreman999"]Nier was reviewed universally a ta low score for it's lacking combat, lack of depth world, and lack of features. foxhound_fox

Nier is garbage, these hipster gamers these days are beyond pathetic :lol:

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] Who cares how technically well made a game is if it's no fun to the reviewer? For me that game is LA Noire. A game that is polished and plays exactly as it should but it bored me to tears so I'd never give it a 9.

Heirren

I get this argument, but still stand by what I said. Being fun to the reviewer does not translate to being fun for everyone else. It depends on how you appraoch a review. My thoughts are the all games should be judged on there merits and flaws, in addition to the fun the re

viewer had (or didnt) playing the game.

If it is just based on that persons opinion of 'fun' then it ceases to be profesional. You may aswell write for IGN, or anyone else on this board. Its the difference between being profesional and being ammetuer.

Revewiers should look at each game for what it is, what it has done well, and what it has not, then consider personal enjoyment from the title. Just basing it on personal enjoyment destroys any reviews worth.

As I pointed out, this is why we have a 10 for UC3 on IGN. Its not because it deserves the 10, its because the person that reviewed it enjoyed the game beyond others. A review should be relevant to all, the only way to do this is to judge personal enjoyent after everything else.

Dont get me wrong though, Im not bithing or defending the KOA review, I havent even played it, so it makes no difference to me. I just think its wrong on a profesional level to review a game based solely on your own personal enjoyment of it.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand this. I agree 100%, and have been saying something to this effect for quite awhile:)

I Think its down to such a big divide in what a person expects from a review. It seems most simply want anothers opinion, regardless of who they are and what they do. Personally, I read reviews for profesional opinions of a product, not a persons view on art as has been suggested.

I expect more than someones opinion of fun when reading a profesional review of a game. By the very definition of the word, a review is an evaluation of a product. Levels of 'fun' cannot be evaluated by one person in regards to everyone. The merits and flaws of a product can be.

Nier is garbage, these hipster gamers these days are beyond pathetic :lol:

GD1551

Says a grown man who still lives with his mother...

[QUOTE="dreman999"]Nier was reviewed universally a ta low score for it's lacking combat, lack of depth world, and lack of features. foxhound_fox

In YOUR opinion.

From what I've seen of Nier, it's looks terrible, but I've never played it.

As for KoA, people are once again going way overboard. 7.5 is a good score and VanOrd made some great points.

[QUOTE="dreman999"]Nier was reviewed universally a ta low score for it's lacking combat, lack of depth world, and lack of features. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

I get this argument, but still stand by what I said. Being fun to the reviewer does not translate to being fun for everyone else. It depends on how you appraoch a review. My thoughts are the all games should be judged on there merits and flaws, in addition to the fun the re

viewer had (or didnt) playing the game.

If it is just based on that persons opinion of 'fun' then it ceases to be profesional. You may aswell write for IGN, or anyone else on this board. Its the difference between being profesional and being ammetuer.

Revewiers should look at each game for what it is, what it has done well, and what it has not, then consider personal enjoyment from the title. Just basing it on personal enjoyment destroys any reviews worth.

As I pointed out, this is why we have a 10 for UC3 on IGN. Its not because it deserves the 10, its because the person that reviewed it enjoyed the game beyond others. A review should be relevant to all, the only way to do this is to judge personal enjoyent after everything else.

Dont get me wrong though, Im not bithing or defending the KOA review, I havent even played it, so it makes no difference to me. I just think its wrong on a profesional level to review a game based solely on your own personal enjoyment of it.

BibiMaghoo

Unfortunately, most people don't understand this. I agree 100%, and have been saying something to this effect for quite awhile:)

I Think its down to such a big divide in what a person expects from a review. It seems most simply want anothers opinion, regardless of who they are and what they do. Personally, I read reviews for profesional opinions of a product, not a persons view on art as has been suggested.

I expect more than someones opinion of fun when reading a profesional review of a game. By the very definition of the word, a review is an evaluation of a product. Levels of 'fun' cannot be evaluated by one person in regards to everyone. The merits and flaws of a product can be.

It is what it is. Some will agree with it, while others will disagree. Same goes for any game. I have played games that have scored 9.0-9.5 and thought they were average at best. On the flip side, I have played games that scored 4.0-5.0 and thought they were fun as hell, despite the flaws. At the end of the day, the only reviews that matter to me are my own. I sure as hell am not going to get upset because someone is not as fond of a particular game as I am. Besides, a 7.5 qualifies as being a 'good' game in my book. But maybe I am just old fashioned, lol.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Nier is garbage, these hipster gamers these days are beyond pathetic :lol:

Kandlegoat

Says a grown man who still lives with his mother...

I know right?

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="dreman999"]Nier was reviewed universally a ta low score for it's lacking combat, lack of depth world, and lack of features. Animal-Mother

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

Unfortunately, most people don't understand this. I agree 100%, and have been saying something to this effect for quite awhile:)

Bread_or_Decide

I Think its down to such a big divide in what a person expects from a review. It seems most simply want anothers opinion, regardless of who they are and what they do. Personally, I read reviews for profesional opinions of a product, not a persons view on art as has been suggested.

I expect more than someones opinion of fun when reading a profesional review of a game. By the very definition of the word, a review is an evaluation of a product. Levels of 'fun' cannot be evaluated by one person in regards to everyone. The merits and flaws of a product can be.

To seperate completely yes, I agree. But this should be the last factor used in judging a games worth, not the first.

If a game is 'fun' is far less relevant to any reader than if a game has poor frame rate for example. I can judge if the mechanics of a game are flawed or good, and relate that to the reader. I cannot relate how good something is based on my personal level of fun, because it simply doesnt carry to everyone. What I consider fun doesnt match what others do, so assigning a score based on my fun, makes it worthless.

To assign a score based on levels of polish, workable mechanics and depth of a game etc, can be translated universally to all. Reviews must be done this way, or they mean nothing at all. I may aswell pop into a game store in town and ask them what they think of a game. I would get an answer based on how much they enjoyed it, not what the game does or doesnt do well.

Yep!He's just teasing us. KOA Recokning is godly.

[spoiler] I have to do this for a bet I lost everyone so what I'm saying isn't my true opinion. [/spoiler]