Lies/contradictions told by repeatable games sites/reviewers

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"][QUOTE="Arjdagr8"]

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

Arjdagr8

You are taking that review out of context by simplifying the argument.

They said that the variety is used to no good effect, that it was just variety for the sake of variety and inhibited the game's sense of focus. Variety in of itself does not improve a game, it is how the variety effects the experience.

There is a stark difference between what the review said and how you represented the argument they put forth.

This kind of spin has been used to defend Uncharted too and it gets rather tiresome.

but it was put to good effect...

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"][QUOTE="Arjdagr8"]

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

Arjdagr8

You are taking that review out of context by simplifying the argument.

They said that the variety is used to no good effect, that it was just variety for the sake of variety and inhibited the game's sense of focus. Variety in of itself does not improve a game, it is how the variety effects the experience.

There is a stark difference between what the review said and how you represented the argument they put forth.

This kind of spin has been used to defend Uncharted too and it gets rather tiresome.

but it was put to good effect...

gamespot kinda rated both games too harshly because both are nearly AAA on gamerankings.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"][QUOTE="Arjdagr8"]

hey good thread, i think more people should add to this.

ratchet and clank was said to have too much variety when theres a merit for having lots of variety and games are often praised for that.

Arjdagr8

You are taking that review out of context by simplifying the argument.

They said that the variety is used to no good effect, that it was just variety for the sake of variety and inhibited the game's sense of focus. Variety in of itself does not improve a game, it is how the variety effects the experience.

There is a stark difference between what the review said and how you represented the argument they put forth.

This kind of spin has been used to defend Uncharted too and it gets rather tiresome.

but it was put to good effect...

IN YOUR OPINION. Gamespot obviously disagrees with you.

[QUOTE="numba1234"]

Uncharted Drake Fortune-Marked down for being too hard

Ratchet and Clank TOD -Marked down for being too easy

Tragic_Kingdom7

More propoganda.

Uncharted was marked down not for being too hard, but because the gunplay was too hard in relation to the platforming, which was easy. This created an inbalance. Why do you insist on putting words into their mouths?

And they were perfectly justified in marking down R&C for being too easy. The game was laughably easy to the point that there was barely any sense of danger.

For some people it's easier to believe their is a giant multi-national conspiracy in which the world's media is being controlled by a complex collective of businesses than it is to accept that a game wasn't as highly regarded as they would have liked.

gamespot kinda rated both games too harshly because both are nearly AAA on gamerankings.Scar3

That's a fallacy.

You're creating a false causation under the assumption that a unified opinion must exsist. This is an appeal to popularity of sorts.

At best, we can say that GameSpot disagreed with other outlets. That is all.

They cannot have rated it "too harshly" because there is no pre-determined score that the game recieved that reviews must align with.

For some people it's easier to believe their is a giant multi-national conspiracy in which the world's media is being controlled by a complex collective of businesses than it is to accept that a game wasn't as highly regarded as they would have liked.subrosian

Sadly, that is true. These people let emotion get in the way of common sense.

The reason people are looking after contradictions and flaws in a review is because those people are unhappy with the score the game got and want to prove to themselves that the review is not trustworthy.JLF1

I think this pretty much sums it up.

You're point about the Zack & Wiki reviews is flawed, because Eurogamer and IGN have different review standards. PBSnipes

Thats kinda what I was thinking as well.

Other than that, sites have many different contributors to their articles. Maybe one thought the PS3 version looked better and one thought the 360 version looked better, and they each said that when they were writing the articles.

Most people who have both systems can tell you that almost all multiplatforms look so close, it really could be down to the display and the settings that make the difference.

Why do you think GTA4 is a "lie" or a "contradiction?" A bug caused the review score to show before it was final. We already explaine in DETAIL in that link what happened. Scores are adjusted all the time before a review goes live. That's how it works at a fundamental level, and what the peer review process is for. Kevin-V

This has been happening for months,you guys should pull it together

[QUOTE="Scar3"]gamespot kinda rated both games too harshly because both are nearly AAA on gamerankings.Tragic_Kingdom7

That's a fallacy.

You're creating a false causation under the assumption that a unified opinion must exsist. This is an appeal to popularity of sorts.

At best, we can say that GameSpot disagreed with other outlets. That is all.

They cannot have rated it "too harshly" because there is no pre-determined score that the game recieved that reviews must align with.

of course I refering to the universal opinion because when over 60% of reviews think that both games AAA then the universal opinion is that it is an AAA game and using the universal opinion is far more credible then just referring to one source

[QUOTE="dream431ca"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

It all depends on what TV your using and what settings you use for your console.

To be ultimately fair, every review site would have to use the exact same setup for reviewing games, same TV, same cables, same audio system, same settings on the consoles. So if one review site says "this game is sharper on this console" while another review site says "this game is has more blur on this console", that could be the setup they are using and not the game itself.

subrosian

Unless y'know, they simply hook all their consoles into the same TV.

Ya, but there are specific settings on each console (depending on what cable you are using) that can make games look a little better.

Running each console using the same cable into the same port on the same TV makes for a pretty fair comparison. There's no setting on a TV that makes up for AA being on one game, and not on another, or post-processing effects enabled in one version of a game, and not in another.

There's no menu option on my HDTV that says "make the framerate on the _________ version of this game not suck".

You misuderstood me. I was talking about the settings on the consoles themselves and not the TV's. For example the PS3 has Full Dynamic Range lighting which drastically improves the contrast for all games. The 360 has their own version. I forget what it's called but it does basically the same thing, but you get a better effect with the PS3.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="Scar3"]gamespot kinda rated both games too harshly because both are nearly AAA on gamerankings.Scar3

That's a fallacy.

You're creating a false causation under the assumption that a unified opinion must exsist. This is an appeal to popularity of sorts.

At best, we can say that GameSpot disagreed with other outlets. That is all.

They cannot have rated it "too harshly" because there is no pre-determined score that the game recieved that reviews must align with.

of course I refering to the universal opinion because when over 60% of reviews think that both games AAA then the universal opinion is that it is an AAA game and using the universal opinion is far more credible then just referring to one source

of course I refering to the universal opinion because when over 60% of reviews think that both games AAA then the universal opinion is that it is an AAA game and using the universal opinion is far more credible then just referring to one sourceScar3

I think most people would rather get opinions from more sources than just one, but just because there is a majority opinion on a game doesn't make any reviewer in any way less credible for not agreeing with it.

There is not a pre-determined correct opinion. Unless there are lies in the review or indicators that the reviewer did not play the game, the opinion has just as much weight. Popular opinion can have no bearing for fear of thought-based mob rule.

Also, popular opinion does not determine truth. For example, there was a time when most people on earth though the earth was flat.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

For some people it's easier to believe their is a giant multi-national conspiracy in which the world's media is being controlled by a complex collective of businesses than it is to accept that a game wasn't as highly regarded as they would have liked.

PBSnipes

shhhh! You're gonna ruin everything!

[QUOTE="subrosian"]For some people it's easier to believe their is a giant multi-national conspiracy in which the world's media is being controlled by a complex collective of businesses than it is to accept that a game wasn't as highly regarded as they would have liked.Tragic_Kingdom7

Sadly, that is true. These people let emotion get in the way of common sense.

It's pretty much the only constant in System Wars. The most absurd explanation must be true, so long as it supports the conclusion you've already chosen to believe. People here do their research by starting with the conclusion they'd like to reach, then finding only the statements that support that conclusion.

If that involves an international conspiracy, gross incompetence on the part of a dozen companies, and someone with a degree in English Literature somehow knowing more about thermodynamics than Engineers at MIT - so be it.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]The reason people are looking after contradictions and flaws in a review is because those people are unhappy with the score the game got and want to prove to themselves that the review is not trustworthy.Tragic_Kingdom7

I think this pretty much sums it up.

[QUOTE="Scar3"][QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="Scar3"]gamespot kinda rated both games too harshly because both are nearly AAA on gamerankings.JLF1

That's a fallacy.

You're creating a false causation under the assumption that a unified opinion must exsist. This is an appeal to popularity of sorts.

At best, we can say that GameSpot disagreed with other outlets. That is all.

They cannot have rated it "too harshly" because there is no pre-determined score that the game recieved that reviews must align with.

of course I refering to the universal opinion because when over 60% of reviews think that both games AAA then the universal opinion is that it is an AAA game and using the universal opinion is far more credible then just referring to one source

my argument was that gamespot rated too harshly but that doesn't mean I think it was wrong, Comparing it to what the aggregate score was for both games I thought it was scored too harshly and i don't think i ignored reviewers i didn't i agree with.

my argument was that gamespot rated too harshly but that doesn't mean I think it was wrong, Comparing it to what the aggregate score was for both games I thought it was scored too harshly and i don't think i ignored reviewers i didn't i agree with.

Scar3

Some sites rate more harshly, some are much more lenient. There is no universal opinion, and there never will be.

Each review is only a snapshot in time of how a single person (or maybe a few people) felt about a particular thing at a given time. Some will be higher than others, some will be lower. There is no right or wrong review, and no review that could be called too high or too low since it is just a person's opinion.

Don't like the review, that is your prerogative. I disagree with many reviews on this site and others, but I respect that the author felt that way for the reasons given.

You misuderstood me. I was talking about the settings on the consoles themselves and not the TV's. For example the PS3 has Full Dynamic Range lighting which drastically improves the contrast for all games. The 360 has their own version. I forget what it's called but it does basically the same thing, but you get a better effect with the PS3.

dream431ca

They already do this in the form of graphics comparissons. However it's somewhat of a moot point - unless the games are noticeably different, in which case the reviewers will note the differences. The only people who really care about subtle image differences are fanboys - hell most of the graphics showdowns have come down to "well, they both look good" - with the PS3 simply suffering from not being out as long as the 360, and hence not having quite the level of polish in some multiplats.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

You misuderstood me. I was talking about the settings on the consoles themselves and not the TV's. For example the PS3 has Full Dynamic Range lighting which drastically improves the contrast for all games. The 360 has their own version. I forget what it's called but it does basically the same thing, but you get a better effect with the PS3.

subrosian

Your implication is that reviewers should tweak each game and each TV to get the best possible picture, and then publish those results. The reality is that this already occurs in PC game reviews - reviewers post the exact hardware, drivers, settings, etc they have used to reach their conclusions. Unfortunately their is no way to standardize this, because even with two identical systems, running the same game, their can be variations in the panel, cables, hardware, etc.

Console game reviews deals with this by simply not being that sensitive to minute differences between games - for example, comparing the PS3 to the 360, when the game are similar, the only thing to say is "they're about the same". As consoles become more complex, and perhaps having more "options" that affect the end graphics, there may reach a point where that becomes necessary for reviews, or they may simply go the route of "it doesn't really matter that we get into the technical details".

-

And right now they already do address this - they hook the PS3 and 360 up to the same TV, using the same cables, and run the same game, in the same section, and compare. And yes, you can see differences in how each system renders certain things - but this can also have a lot to do with the game itself and not the system. Frankly, for the most part it simply doesn't matter - it's only worth noting when one system gets a version of a game that is noticeably inferior - for example, Oblivion on the 360, or Quake Wars on the PS3.

However, to be fairly blunt, for the most part when you're dealing with a fixed- GPU machine, it really "is what it is" - the only people who are micro-analyzing the graphical differences are fanboys. For people who own both systems, and want a multiplat, it should really be coming down to price, features, and personal interest - or even just a coin flip - because if it really gets to the point where the graphical differneces are so marginal that we have to get extremely technical to notice them, chances are it's not noticeable when the game is in motion.

-

And to be fair and put an equal bash on the PC - I find the same thing happens in GPU reviews and I find it to be absurd. If you're taking a microscope to a still screen, you're missing the point - for example the point of AA is to get rid of the "shimmering" that jaggy lines cause when a game is in motion, not to pump out stunning still screens :P

Stop posting replys that I can't reply back too! ;) It's hard to argue with your replys. LOL, I guess that's more of a good thing :)

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

MetroidPrimePwn

Blue - 100% correct. I just beat the game a couple weeks ago. Did little differently than Prime.

Red - 100% correct. Train controls? fail. Pulling out energy cells? wierd. Other similar actions also feel tacked on.

Green - I personally disagree. It was adventerous enough and I did not find fault in the controls for that. Could have had more variety and it could have been more adventerous, but I wouldn't have suggested it was the fault of the control scheme.

•2. Kaza Mc Donald - Reviewed "Zack & Wiki for both IGN and Eurogamer giving them both different scores

IGN - 9.1

Eurogamer - 8

Credit goes to "FLOPPY JIM"

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=88551

anthonydwyer

different websites and magazines use different mechanisms from which to guage scores. One websites 9 may be another websites 7 based on their standards.

This is the principle reason why GameRankings FAILS. Epically.

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]Why do you think GTA4 is a "lie" or a "contradiction?" A bug caused the review score to show before it was final. We already explaine in DETAIL in that link what happened. Scores are adjusted all the time before a review goes live. That's how it works at a fundamental level, and what the peer review process is for. dackchaar

but can you explain burnout paradise contraditction BUM BUM BUNA!

I second that

[QUOTE="dackchaar"]

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]Why do you think GTA4 is a "lie" or a "contradiction?" A bug caused the review score to show before it was final. We already explaine in DETAIL in that link what happened. Scores are adjusted all the time before a review goes live. That's how it works at a fundamental level, and what the peer review process is for. thejakel11225

but can you explain burnout paradise contraditction BUM BUM BUNA!

I second that

Could it be possible that the person that said BP was crisper on PS3 and the person that said it was blurrier were two different people? After all, if I recall, Alex Navaro (I think that's his name) was the one who said it was crisper and he left, didn't he?

[QUOTE="thejakel11225"][QUOTE="dackchaar"]

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]Why do you think GTA4 is a "lie" or a "contradiction?" A bug caused the review score to show before it was final. We already explaine in DETAIL in that link what happened. Scores are adjusted all the time before a review goes live. That's how it works at a fundamental level, and what the peer review process is for. Tragic_Kingdom7

but can you explain burnout paradise contraditction BUM BUM BUNA!

I second that

Could it be possible that the person that said BP was crisper on PS3 and the person that said it was blurrier were two different people? After all, if I recall, Alex Navaro (I think that's his name) was the one who said it was crisper and he left, didn't he?

just because it was vague doesn't mean it was a contradiction. only that they didn't go into enough detail.

The cars could be crisper, while the environment is blurrier.

the environment could be crisper while the cars lack the same detail.

but for anyone to suggest it was a lie or a contradiction is unfounded and misguided at best. blame lack of detail, not a non-existant issue.

Forza 2 was said to have lackluster environments but did not get points taken off for it because they said in a racing game you do not pay attention to environments. PS3 version of FNR3 was said to have lackluster crowds and got punished for it...because when you are boxing you are supposed to look at the crowds...Kahuna_1

Doubt it. here's my take:

just because it was vague doesn't mean it was a contradiction. only that they didn't go into enough detail.

The cars could be crisper, while the environment is blurrier.

the environment could be crisper while the cars lack the same detail.

but for anyone to suggest it was a lie or a contradiction is unfounded and misguided at best. blame lack of detail, not a non-existant issue.

Dreams-Visions

Well, I'm pretty sure that it was not the original reviewer who made this later statement, but I agree. The causation I implied is probably wrong, because if you look at the actual graphics comparison (which I hadn't read until now) they say that the PS3 version looks cleaner is some areas, which is probably what the original reviewer was reffering to.

So your take is probably accurate.

Here's the link supporting what I said: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6191251/p-5.html

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]Forza 2 was said to have lackluster environments but did not get points taken off for it because they said in a racing game you do not pay attention to environments. PS3 version of FNR3 was said to have lackluster crowds and got punished for it...because when you are boxing you are supposed to look at the crowds...JLF1

My point is why are crowds even factored into the graphics review when they are completely pointless. The character models, lighting, ring detail...that is important...crowds, useless.

[QUOTE="JLF1"][QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]Forza 2 was said to have lackluster environments but did not get points taken off for it because they said in a racing game you do not pay attention to environments. PS3 version of FNR3 was said to have lackluster crowds and got punished for it...because when you are boxing you are supposed to look at the crowds...Kahuna_1

My point is why are crowds even factored into the graphics review when they are completely pointless. The character models, lighting, ring detail...that is important...crowds, useless.

Very good post man, I and many others have known about all these contradictions of those review sites, but I have said nothing. There are a lot of people who know about the bias against systems (Mainly the PS3) but it does not stop.

I don't know why these reviewers are doing this, and probably never will understand. But I do know that I have seen comparisons done in person and got to say that a lot of games on the PS3 are just as good if not better.

Only on the games where the developer was sloppy are the graphics better in comparison on the 360, hence Splinter Cell.

Very good post man, I and many others have known about all these contradictions of those review sites, but I have said nothing. There are a lot of people who know about the bias against systems (Mainly the PS3) but it does not stop.

I don't know why these reviewers are doing this, and probably never will understand. But I do know that I have seen comparisons done in person and got to say that a lot of games on the PS3 are just as good if not better.

Only on the games where the developer was sloppy are the graphics better in comparison on the 360, hence Splinter Cell.

Delsage

Don't you think you're getting ahead of yourself claiming bias without establishing a motive?

And haven't you been reading the thread? Alot of these premises supporting claims of bias have been reffuted.

•2. Kaza Mc Donald - Reviewed "Zack & Wiki for both IGN and Eurogamer giving them both different scores

IGN - 9.1

Eurogamer - 8

Credit goes to "FLOPPY JIM"

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=88551

http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/845/845282p1.html

anthonydwyer

Did anyone stop to think that maybe IGN and Eurogamer have completely different scoring standards? That maybe Eurogamer is generally harsher and IGN generally more lenient in their grading, which is obvious if you compare their reviews?

Just kidding, I know nobody stops to think here.

Just kidding, I know nobody stops to think here. Zeliard9

I think the only person having anything close to resembling a point is that guy that posted contradictions in the MP review, but to me, it really just reads like a sloppy review, not a biased one.

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

Dreams-Visions

Blue - 100% correct. I just beat the game a couple weeks ago. Did little differently than Prime.

Red - 100% correct. Train controls? fail. Pulling out energy cells? wierd. Other similar actions also feel tacked on.

Green - I personally disagree. It was adventerous enough and I did not find fault in the controls for that. Could have had more variety and it could have been more adventerous, but I wouldn't have suggested it was the fault of the control scheme.

The thing isn't that those are wrong, it's that they contradicted each other. He said that the game did little differently than the first two Metroid Prime games, yet they gave it a medal for being a great sequel. He said that some actions didn't control well, but he gave it a medal for sharp control. And of course, the green part said it was fun to explore, but also that it wasn't adventurous.

The MP3 review is riddled with contradictions.

First the reviewer gives the game a Great Sequel Emblem which states "Games may be the only medium in which the sequel is routinely better than the previous installment--but just tweaking a few things and adding two moves isn't enough to merit this commendation. Sequels that make significant, exiting improvements are what we're looking for." But then he turns right around in the bad section and says it "doesn't do much different than the previous two Metroid Prime games."

The reviewer also states the game "feels less like a probing adventure than a regular shooter", but then turns right around a few paragraphs later and says "But this is Metroid, so of course you'll need to use your wits as much as you use weapons that turn alien scum into goo. Environmental puzzles are generally as good in Corruption as they've ever been, and you'll need to survey your surroundings carefully to find the path to your next goal". That last statement sure sounds like Prime 1 and 2 to me, instead of just a regular shooter. which is pretty much what the reviewer categorized the game as all through the review.

But if the reviewer really thinks the game's gameplay has turned to much into a FPS, then why in his closing argument does he say "In the end, you may not be able to shake the feeling that you've done all this before."

The reviewer gives the game a Sharp Control Emblem as well which reads "Modern games that earn the Sharp Control medal do for their respective games what Super Mario Bros. did for midair control. In the end , it just feels right." But then turns right around in the bad again and says, "some of the contextual actions don't control all that well." He then goes on to say that the "streamlined controls make things a little too easy and a little less adventurous."

Another thing I can't stand is that Gamespot reviewers have been real critical of Nintendo for not adding voice acting to their games, but when they actually did, this is what gets said. "The voice acting is fine, though its presence does reinforce just how effective the ghostly silence was in the first two Prime games."

So in the end, the reviewer states that it doesn't feel like previous Prime games, but then deducts points because it is too much of the same. One hell of a messy contradictory review.

Now even if you agree with the reviewer about the game feeling more like a shooter and on some of the other points I mentioned, you have to at least admit he did contradict himelf.peaceful_anger

I do think that review is sloppy and there does seem to be contradictions, but that doesn't indicate bias. It only really indicates lazy reviewing.

I think you might be taking one of the points out of context. Just because some of the actions don't control well doesn't mean the game can't feel "right" in the end.

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

Dreams-Visions

Blue - 100% correct. I just beat the game a couple weeks ago. Did little differently than Prime.

Red - 100% correct. Train controls? fail. Pulling out energy cells? wierd. Other similar actions also feel tacked on.

Green - I personally disagree. It was adventerous enough and I did not find fault in the controls for that. Could have had more variety and it could have been more adventerous, but I wouldn't have suggested it was the fault of the control scheme.

[The thing isn't that those are wrong, it's that they contradicted each other. He said that the game did little differently than the first two Metroid Prime games, yet they gave it a medal for being a great sequel. He said that some actions didn't control well, but he gave it a medal for sharp control. And of course, the green part said it was fun to explore, but also that it wasn't adventurous.MetroidPrimePwn

As I've all ready explained, just because some actions didn't control well doesn't mean that the game doesn't control well as a whole.

Also, just because it's fun to explore the environments doesn't mean that the actual story/level progression itself is adventurous.

Still, I do think the review could have been written better, but I don't see teh bias.

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".MetroidPrimePwn

You're taking that review out of context. They said that the gameplay was unique, but things like the environment lacked personality.

Good thread.

In the review of Wii verson of The Legend Of Zelda Twilight Princess it says in the "Bad" section: "Graphics and sound sometimes go from nostalgic to dated." Now we know that graphics of a game rated based on the graphic capabilities of the system it's on. So there won't be something ridicilous as comparing ps2 graphs with Xbox 360 visuals. It is somewhat true considering TP is a fundementally a GC game so no problem here.

The problem is, when we look to GC review of the game, same complaint is still there. So what the hell! TP's visuals are great for a last gen game for a GC game. It should be evaluated on the standarts of it's system which is Gamecube and it looks great for the Gamecube standarts goes. It looks far better than any Ps2 game out there but it's still dated? If it's dated because now there are next gen games, shouldn't all the ps2, GC and Xbox games that came after the launch of Xbox 360 considered as having dated visuals because of the Next-gen games?

Where is the logic of this please someone explain.

All you have to do is take reviews witha pinch of salt, and not take them as the gospel truth. There are many factors at play when someone reviews a game, such as how they feel on that day, what consoles they like the best ect. They may be reviewers but they are still human and make mistakes like the rest of us.

At the end of the day it is just one mans opinion and shouldn't be given to much importance. The only opinion that matters on a video game is your own.

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

MetroidPrimePwn

:lol: i remember that review, i got upset and i thought the game might not be as good as the others. Turns out i was wrong, i loved this one. The controls are fine, i never really had problems with any of them besides the grapple beam boss battle with Rundas.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

Nice post. I also love how GameSpot said that LostWinds "lacked personality", yet they gave it an emblem for being "unique".

-

EDIT: Oh, and of course...

MetroidPrimePwn

Blue - 100% correct. I just beat the game a couple weeks ago. Did little differently than Prime.

Red - 100% correct. Train controls? fail. Pulling out energy cells? wierd. Other similar actions also feel tacked on.

Green - I personally disagree. It was adventerous enough and I did not find fault in the controls for that. Could have had more variety and it could have been more adventerous, but I wouldn't have suggested it was the fault of the control scheme.

The thing isn't that those are wrong, it's that they contradicted each other. He said that the game did little differently than the first two Metroid Prime games, yet they gave it a medal for being a great sequel. He said that some actions didn't control well, but he gave it a medal for sharp control. And of course, the green part said it was fun to explore, but also that it wasn't adventurous.

Good thread.

In the review of Wii verson of The Legend Of Zelda Twilight Princess it says in the "Bad" section: "Graphics and sound sometimes go from nostalgic to dated." Now we know that graphics of a game rated based on the graphic capabilities of the system it's on. So there won't be something ridicilous as comparing ps2 graphs with Xbox 360 visuals. It is somewhat true considering TP is a fundementally a GC game so no problem here.

The problem is, when we look to GC review of the game, same complaint is still there. So what the hell! TP's visuals are great for a last gen game for a GC game. It should be evaluated on the standarts of it's system which is Gamecube and it looks great for the Gamecube standarts goes. It looks far better than any Ps2 game out there but it's still dated? If it's dated because now there are next gen games, shouldn't all the ps2, GC and Xbox games that came after the launch of Xbox 360 considered as having dated visuals because of the Next-gen games?

Where is the logic of this please someone explain.

Requem

I looked at the review and I came to this conclusion: in the Bad Section "they said graphics and sound can be dated" but in the review they said that the visuals are mostly great with a few rough edges. So, yes, those two things don't exactly line up, but the remark in the Bad Section was one freaking line! In the review, they mostly gave the visuals compliments! How can that be biased?

So that remark and the actual text didn't match as well as they could have! Big deal.

The sound complaints are valid. No voice acting and sythesized sound is dated.