Which GS review was the bigger crime? Mass Effect, Twilight Princess, or R&C

[QUOTE="Streetrider9873"]Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeninjaxams

are you on crack? i won't even try to explain it for you.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

It's just another feeling I have. Same feeling I got with Too Human, Lair, Haze, etc. Now, to be honest, I haven't seen the latest videos from TGS, yet, but the last time I saw gameplay videos, I saw a game that had completely failed to live up to the gameplay promises of its original target video, which is what earned all the attention in the first place. Before TGS, the only reason people were still hyped over WKS was that target video and nothing else, despite the fact that more current videos were available, and that, to me, spells F-L-O-P.

However, as I said, I haven't seen the latest TGS videos, which is why I haven't definitively cla$$ified it as a flop yet.

st1ka

what other possible flops are you predicting?

also what is your opinion about Fable 2?

I haven't seen anything on Fable 2 at all. I don't know if I just haven't been paying attention, or if Molyneux is being extra-secretive this time around. I've only seen very specific, gimmicky little quirks so far. Nothing really substantial.

Oh lawd, people actually defending the broken Mako ITT.

:lol:

[QUOTE="Spartan070"]Mass Effect. New ratings scale = 9.5 Old ratings scale = 9.3-9.5.All_that_is_Man

mass effects not that great of a game buddy....

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.mjarantilla

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

Although, I think that's a neat Idea, in fact Game Informer has been doing something like that (They look back a few years later, and rerate them.) I don't know if that should be the Definitive review (Perhpas, though, averaging the two scorees would be fair. ). I have ALWAYS thought that a multiperson team, much like GI, or EGM, is more effective. I don't like the idea of a game getting in the wrong reviewers hands and they just don't get it.

The other problem that may pose, is a game may have a significant impact in it's era, and many things in such a game could become "Standardized" by the industry later. So a retrospective view may not reflect the game's initial impact did for the industry.

Also, some games may benefit from this more than others (Muliplayer games).

That being said, as far as my answer goes, I was answering the TC's question regarding those three games, since he asked what is the biggest crime. It's tough to say, since the reviews are opinions anyways, but I think averaging critics reviews and comparing it to GS seems to be the best way to say "what was the biggest crime."

Oh lawd, people actually defending the broken Mako ITT.

:lol:

inertk

We take the time to learn to play our games that we spend $60 on. If you want instant gratification, then so be it, but I'm not a casual, so I'll take a true gaming experience. Us hardcorest of hardcores are the masters of gaming, and we do not complain about a challenge, we welcome it with open arms.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]I'm fine with all those reviews, honestly. R&C was way too linear, TP was a OOT clone (and felt almost as dated), and Mass Effect had terrible side quests.SolidTy

The best way to see if these reviews are far off is to compare them to Gamerankings, then to MetaCritic.

The Game(s) that are too far off what those two sites say, may actually be a bigger crime, imo.

I wholeheartedly DISagree.

Reviews from pretty much all sites are far too impulsive when they give out their scores. They review based on immediate impression rather than long-term appeal. Game reviewers need to do a "retrospective" review six months to a year after a game's been released, and use that as the "real" review.

Although, I think that's a neat Idea, in fact Game Informer has been doing something like that (They look back a few years later, and rerate them.) I don't know if that should be the Definitive review (Perhpas, though, averaging the two scorees would be fair. ). I have ALWAYS thought that a multiperson team, much like GI, or EGM, is more effective. I don't like the idea of a game getting in the wrong reviewers hands and they just don't get it.

The other problem that may pose, is a game may have a significant impact in it's era, and many things in such a game could become "Standardized" by the industry later. So a retrospective view may not reflect the game's initial impact did for the industry.

Also, some games may benefit from this more than others (Muliplayer games).

That being said, as far as my answer goes, I was answering the TC's question regarding those three games, since he asked what is the biggest crime. It's tough to say, since the reviews are opinions anyways, but I think averaging critics reviews and comparing it to GS seems to be the best way to say "what was the biggest crime."

Multiple reviewers suffer from the same problem as single reviewers: they all still rely on first impressions.

Also, I'm not talking about going back to a game two or three years after it's released. I'm just saying, six months to a year or so, so there's no time for new standards to be implemented. The best example I can think of is probably Oblivion, which people began to realize was only a mediocre game after a few months. Same with COD4 (does ANYONE still talk about it like it's the greatest shooter ever?).

Comparing GS reviews to GameRankings only proves that some of GS's reviews are aberrations, not that they are injustices. Rather, I think GS reviews need to be compared to an objective perspective, which can only be attained by a bit of distance from the game, ideally by allowing it to sink in.

[QUOTE="inertk"]

Oh lawd, people actually defending the broken Mako ITT.

:lol:

BioShockOwnz

We take the time to learn to play our games that we spend $60 on. If you want instant gratification, then so be it, but I'm not a casual, so I'll take a true gaming experience. Us hardcorest of hardcores are the masters of gaming, and we do not complain about a challenge, we welcome it with open arms.

LOL hardcore.

I never said it was difficult to drive. I said it was broken.

If in the future you should ever confuse the two, especially on this subject. Just remember this;

Difficult - not easily or readily done; requiring much labor, skill, or planning to be performed successfully; hard

Broken - not functioning properly; out of working order.

Just because it's broken, doesn't mean I can't drive it. Although as a result, it's ultimately less rewarding. GG try again.

We take the time to learn to play our games that we spend $60 on. If you want instant gratification, then so be it, but I'm not a casual, so I'll take a true gaming experience. Us hardcorest of hardcores are the masters of gaming, and we do not complain about a challenge, we welcome it with open arms.

BioShockOwnz

:lol: are you serious?

Mass Effect was at best a second rate RPG, The only people who think it's good are people who never played any other WRPGs

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

We take the time to learn to play our games that we spend $60 on. If you want instant gratification, then so be it, but I'm not a casual, so I'll take a true gaming experience. Us hardcorest of hardcores are the masters of gaming, and we do not complain about a challenge, we welcome it with open arms.

MarloStanfield

:lol: are you serious?

Mass Effect was at best a second rate RPG, The only people who think it's good are people who never played any WRPGs

I think he's mocking the hardcore.

Mass Effect's review was poorly written, had inaccuracies and was full of nit-picking. Kevin really screwed up big time while reviewing Mass Effect. Personally, I don't even think Kevin completed the game by doing all the side quests, exploring, ect. Stevo_the_gamer

Mass Effect was garbage mate, not everyone has such low standards

Uncharted was bette and Uncharted isn't even that good

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

We take the time to learn to play our games that we spend $60 on. If you want instant gratification, then so be it, but I'm not a casual, so I'll take a true gaming experience. Us hardcorest of hardcores are the masters of gaming, and we do not complain about a challenge, we welcome it with open arms.

MarloStanfield

:lol: are you serious?

Mass Effect was at best a second rate RPG, The only people who think it's good are people who never played any other WRPGs

I've played every game on this planet. I'm hardcore and that's a matter of fact.

I think he's mocking the hardcore.

mjarantilla

:lol: doh!

I do find it funny that people make excuses for such poor games though

[QUOTE="MarloStanfield"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

We take the time to learn to play our games that we spend $60 on. If you want instant gratification, then so be it, but I'm not a casual, so I'll take a true gaming experience. Us hardcorest of hardcores are the masters of gaming, and we do not complain about a challenge, we welcome it with open arms.

mjarantilla

:lol: are you serious?

Mass Effect was at best a second rate RPG, The only people who think it's good are people who never played any WRPGs

I think he's mocking the hardcore.

I thought Mass Effect was a interesting hybrid game with a new spin on things.. Its story wasn't bad, the dialogue was top notch.. The atmosphere felt great and unique being able to really pull away from the stereotypical sci fi enviroments imo.. The combat wasn't bad, I thought it was a refreshing change of pace..

Mass Effect - score was appropriate

Uncharted - 9.4

Ratchet and Clank - 9.1

Twilight Princess - 9.5

Rafinator

why was it appropriate?,because it's a xbox 360 game? :roll:

I thought Mass Effect was a interesting hybrid game with a new spin on things.. Its story wasn't bad, the dialogue was top notch.. The atmosphere felt great and unique being able to really pull away from the stereotypical sci fi enviroments imo.. The combat wasn't bad, I thought it was a refreshing change of pace..

sSubZerOo

IMO the combat was rubbish, the characters were horrible (I cant even remember half of them), the dialgue systemw as overhyped, the side-quests were the worst i have ever seen in a game. The game was way too short, the mako stuff was ridiculously bad, the names of items werestupid (gun 1, gun 2 etc), the skill system was broken and the magic powers were useless, the level design was terrible

There were 3 good things about this game. The Graphics. The Citadel and the dialogue if you play as the renegade, other than that it was one of the worst RPGs I ever played and I cant imagine anyone who has played good RPGs liking it

[QUOTE="ninjaxams"][QUOTE="Streetrider9873"]Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeMarloStanfield

Gears of War got a 9.6 buddy

yeah well gears is a pos as well. there isn't a damn thing about that title that makes it AAA...ninjaxams

co-op was awesome but it was still real overrated

Half Lif 2 was a masterpiece though. It had horror, believable characters, giant enemies, great AI and setpieces and a great ending

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I thought Mass Effect was a interesting hybrid game with a new spin on things.. Its story wasn't bad, the dialogue was top notch.. The atmosphere felt great and unique being able to really pull away from the stereotypical sci fi enviroments imo.. The combat wasn't bad, I thought it was a refreshing change of pace..

MarloStanfield

IMO the combat was rubbish, the characters were horrible (I cant even remember half of them), the dialgue systemw as overhyped, the side-quests were the worst i have ever seen in a game. The game was way too short, the mako stuff was ridiculously bad, the names of items werestupid (gun 1, gun 2 etc), the skill system was broken and the magic powers were useless, the level design was terrible

There were 3 good things about this game. The Graphics. The Citadel and the dialogue if you play as the renegade, other than that it was one of the worst RPGs I ever played and I cant imagine anyone who has played good RPGs liking it

Side quests arn't that bad it depends entirely on the ones you had.. I will agree that alot of the them were monotonus.. And most agree that was its main weakness.. The dialogue system was a regular dialogue system thats it, there is nothign wrong with that it was just as good as any toher.. The characters were based on preference, the majority of the characters were interesting.. And I am interested to what characters you are basing this upon for comparison..

The items were annoying but it wasn't the main draw of the game.. And it can be easilly fixed in the new one.. The skill system wasn't that bad, it was alright.. Being a avid fan of wrpg's.. There are very few skill systems that are above.. IMO the best skill system was Diablo 2's talent trees.. This system is not bad, by any means and I would be fine iwth this or DnD's one any day..

magic powers useless? Clearly you never played anything above easy/normal.. Magic powers are amazing and neccesary in alot of fights.. Just because you played ona lighter difficulty and gunned down guys because you didn't feel like exploring the powers is not the games fault.

How was the level design terrible? I suppose for the side planet missions but we have already talkeda bout that.

But this game is far from the biggest crime.. If you must go after over-rated wrpgs go no further then Oblivion.. A game that scored awful that is 10 times as shallow/worse.

MGS3

Lost Oddesy

System Shock 2

D2: Lord of Destruction

Fire Emblem: Raidiant Dawn

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I thought Mass Effect was a interesting hybrid game with a new spin on things.. Its story wasn't bad, the dialogue was top notch.. The atmosphere felt great and unique being able to really pull away from the stereotypical sci fi enviroments imo.. The combat wasn't bad, I thought it was a refreshing change of pace..

MarloStanfield

IMO the combat was rubbish, the characters were horrible (I cant even remember half of them), the dialgue systemw as overhyped, the side-quests were the worst i have ever seen in a game. The game was way too short, the mako stuff was ridiculously bad, the names of items werestupid (gun 1, gun 2 etc), the skill system was broken and the magic powers were useless, the level design was terrible

There were 3 good things about this game. The Graphics. The Citadel and the dialogue if you play as the renegade, other than that it was one of the worst RPGs I ever played and I cant imagine anyone who has played good RPGs liking it

wrong ...there were 4 good things about the game, The Graphics The citadel and the dialogue, and WHEN IT ENDED! ...Ha!

but all it was to me was a game what made me long for a kotor game

But this game is far from the biggest crime.. If you must go after over-rated wrpgs go no further then Oblivion.. A game that scored awful that is 10 times as shallow/worse.

sSubZerOo

Oblivion was an overrated disaster as well but so is Mass Effect

The level designwas really bad. It was all corridors that went on forever and elevator rides that went on forever (even on a quad core PC for some reason). The itemisation was horrible, absolutely horrible. It was just sticking random numbers on the name of weapons, and magic wasn't really needed if you used the upgrade slots on the guns, I never really had much use for magic.

Even the citadel which was a cool place had those dumb spirally pathways. The only good character was rex and even he was rubbish compared to most of the characters in kotor, never mind baldurs gate 2 or planescape. The dialogue was just a normal dialogue system but it was being hyped as this revolutionary system where you had to keep an eye on the expressions of people, thats why it's so dissapointing

It was a bad RPG period

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

But this game is far from the biggest crime.. If you must go after over-rated wrpgs go no further then Oblivion.. A game that scored awful that is 10 times as shallow/worse.

MarloStanfield

Oblivion was an overrated disaster as well but so is Mass Effect

The level designwas really bad. It was all corridors that went on forever and elevator rides that went on forever (even on a quad core PC for some reason). The itemisation was horrible, absolutely horrible. It was just sticking random numbers on the name of weapons, and magic wasn't really needed if you used the upgrade slots on the guns, I never really had much use for magic.

Even the citadel which was a cool place had those dumb spirally pathways. The only good character was rex and even he was rubbish compared to most of the characters in kotor, never mind baldurs gate 2 or planescape. The dialogue was just a normal dialogue system but it was being hyped as this revolutionary system where you had to keep an eye on the expressions of people, thats why it's so dissapointing

It was a bad RPG period

You've never played oblivion on the pc than, and oblivion was release toward the launch of the 360 so it had lower expectation at the time

if Perfect dark zero got a 9 than oblivion deserves a 36/10

You've never played oblivion on the pc than, and oblivion was release toward the launch of the 360 so it had lower expectation at the time

if Perfect dark zero got a 9 than oblivion deserves a 36/10

All_that_is_Man

no offence dude but i've probably played more WRPGs than you will ever play and both oblivion and bethesda are rubbish

[QUOTE="MarloStanfield"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

I thought Mass Effect was a interesting hybrid game with a new spin on things.. Its story wasn't bad, the dialogue was top notch.. The atmosphere felt great and unique being able to really pull away from the stereotypical sci fi enviroments imo.. The combat wasn't bad, I thought it was a refreshing change of pace..

All_that_is_Man

IMO the combat was rubbish, the characters were horrible (I cant even remember half of them), the dialgue systemw as overhyped, the side-quests were the worst i have ever seen in a game. The game was way too short, the mako stuff was ridiculously bad, the names of items werestupid (gun 1, gun 2 etc), the skill system was broken and the magic powers were useless, the level design was terrible

There were 3 good things about this game. The Graphics. The Citadel and the dialogue if you play as the renegade, other than that it was one of the worst RPGs I ever played and I cant imagine anyone who has played good RPGs liking it

wrong ...there were 4 good things about the game, The Graphics The citadel and the dialogue, and WHEN IT ENDED! ...Ha!

but all it was to me was a game what made me long for a kotor game

mass effect deserved a 9. Best game on the 360 so far. Even IGN agrees.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Mass Effect's review was poorly written, had inaccuracies and was full of nit-picking. Kevin really screwed up big time while reviewing Mass Effect. Personally, I don't even think Kevin completed the game by doing all the side quests, exploring, ect. MarloStanfield

Mass Effect was garbage mate, not everyone has such low standards

Uncharted was bette and Uncharted isn't even that good

Again, my point still stands about the review. Your personal gaming preference is not my concern, and frankly, I don't give a flying rat's ass what you like and don't like.

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn. It scored a 6.0 here and was a much better game than that. The reviewer scored it so low because he said it was too "hardcore" even on the easy setting. So essentially he scored it low because he couldn't beat it.

I beat it on normal setting which is the hard setting in Japan, wasn't that hard. :?

Bigboi500

Wait, so everybody constantly bashes the Wii because it's "casual" but here we have a reviewer who underrated an exclusive Wii game because it was too "hardcore" for him, thus preventing him from beating it?

That sounds like irony! :o

R&C by a mile. The other games scored pretty close to their average.

[QUOTE="SSCyborg"]

[QUOTE="Streetrider9873"]Half-Life 2, GS's biggest crimeejstrup

No giving a movie a 10 was.

lame... come back when you've played the game.

Then I won't have to leave. :|

[QUOTE="Gamingcucumber"]People talk about Twilight Princess, but forget about Majoras Mask.Shinobishyguy

Majora's mask however was a master piece for it's time....and it got 8.3 because it was too different :?

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

MM was AAA quality. D:

At first i really really liked mass effect. It was gorgeous and it had great atmosphere. It really left a good first impression, it was very reminicent of KOTOR with a more real time action oriented combat. Of course, as i played more the flaws became apparent.. AI was terrible and i found it useless to order commands to my allies. It hadn't a fraction of kotor's depth story/character wise which is a shame as Bioware really created an interesting universe. The inventory was disgusting, being terribly slow and a bore to navigate - though the pc version has fixed some of the problems. The sidequests were also poor.. while on the citadel they seemed neat, and i remember citing them as a great plus when i first started playing.. but it really went downhill. All in all, i enjoyed the game for its cinematics... the achievement wh*re in me led to two more playthroughs(on the unlockable higher difficulties), but it was a dissapointment none the less. A "very great" label is too much imo, it's a good game.

EDIT: oh yes, and the mako segments were meh. It was not fun driving that thing, and yes the turret was a pain in the butt. Sometimes the retical would show you targeting an enemy, but if you were on an incline the mako's turret couldn't actually hit it. This wasn't always a problem, as this was only when enemies were below the mako's "line of sight" but it did get annoying thinking you might be able to hit something when you could not.

I've not played R&C yet, so i cannot comment. Though i hope to rectify this soon :)

Twilight Princess has become my favourite game, nudging out Ocarine of Time and StarCraft. It is not without its flaws(it was dated, due to it being a cube game released in the "HD era"), but those are mostly technical. The game is incredible, with the deepest and most engaging zelda story yet. Not to mention the most refined zelda combat, the best zelda soundtrack, and some of the greatest dungeons/weapons in a zelda game. The design is superb, i do believe there is enough new things to make the game very compelling, and the game took my breath away many times. By the end of the game, you had done all sorts of cool things. This was the 06 GOTY and very underrated by gamespot and system wars imo.

So let me get this straight -- you dislike a certain game, and that makes it automatically garbage? In that case -- Halo, Half-Life, Crysis, Stalker, Battlefield, Fear, and Counter Strike are all garbage considering someone must hate it -- right? Aw, I see -- someone using their personal gaming preference and shoving down one's throat as facts. Very SystemWars like.

Again, my point still stands about the review. Your personal gaming preference is not my concern, and frankly, I don't give a flying rat's ass what you like and don't like.

Stevo_the_gamer

I explained why i didn't like it and like I said I played a lot of RPGs in my time so I have experience with the genre

Why are you getting so defensive? Different people have different tastes and different standards

[QUOTE="Spartan070"]Mass Effect. New ratings scale = 9.5 Old ratings scale = 9.3-9.5.All_that_is_Man

Thats your opinion, buddy. And unfortunately, its wrong. :D

Yeah, I have to go with Mass Effect. Not to mention I didnt play the other two, so I dont have any qualifications to go by for them.

mass effects not that great of a game buddy....

Thats just your opinion, buddy. Unfortunately, its wrong. :D

Back to subject, I would have to go with Mass Effect. I havent played the other two, so I dont have any basis to go on with them, but from what I heard, all three pretty well got shafted.

I will never forget KVO's review of Mass Effect, where he stated you couldnt turn the cannon on the Mako. Jeez, whatever.

Rachet and clank should have gotten atleast an 8 or 8.5

the other 2 were fine

Twightlight princess should of got 9.2 and mass effect was just rightAll_that_is_Man

agreed. The TP score is what really makes me not trust this site's review scores... that and THPS3's infamous 10 making it one of the greatest games of all time according to GS.

They were too critical. I feel Mass effect should have got 9.0, TP 9.0 and R and C 9.0 too.

However it could be argued that GS made the right decision. I mean, TP was last gen stuff, Mass effect had technical issues and there wasnt anything exciting in R and C to truly distinguish it from the previous games. Stil, all three were great games and deserved higher.