What in the world??

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/143/14354710/vids_1.html

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

So there was this and then actually only 16 minutes later you posted your review. hmm.. sounds like someone who wrote a review of a game they had not completed.. where have i heard that before?

And to those who ask "so what" I say that has been answered many times in this thread. The integrity of the reviewer goes out the window when they write a review of a game they have not even finished. Like someone mentioned earlier that would be like a movie critic watching the first quarter of a movie, deciding it was garbage, leaving, and writing their review. Whether it was in fact garbage is not the point the point is it is a misleading representation of the game as a whole especially when they make things up about the parts they never experienced. If you are okay with reviews that are unfinished you might as well only read previews of games or reviews of game demos. There are more discerning gamers who choose to get their information from people who have at least put forth the effort to finish the games they review.

piratedrunk

I have completed it, and guess what, there are no changes I need to make to my review, so it all ended up good.

Don't believe me, well you are just going to miss out on some seriously good gaming if you ignore madworld

That's all well and good but wasn't the point. It isn't the end result of the review of the problem it is the method. I think it is great you found a game you enjoy but play along with me for a second here..

Imagine you played the first two levels of madworld and you hated it (remember play along and imagine). Then imagine you wrote your review of the game based on those levels. Now imagine the rest of the game was actually really fun and your review misled the people who read it into thinking the entire game was something it wasn't. Do you think people would trust your reviews after that? I hope they wouldn't unless you made a formal apology and vowed to never do such a poor job reviewing a game again.

I am not saying This IGN dude's review would have been any different (aside from the completely false parts) after finishing the whole game.. it is the fact that he clearly didn't finish the game before writing his review that is a problem. A big problem for a lot of gamers who use reviews as a means of obtaining information about games not neccessarily opinions. I could care less about opinions but if the facts are wrong then there is a problem.

[QUOTE="Dingerious"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

You're gonna want to take a gander at what Gabs put

If you still support that fraud after that then there is no hope

Jaysonguy

You are really bad at this. Your best argument is pointing at Gab's argument because none of yours make sense. But, I digress, I suppose I should respond to Gab's argument.

EDIT: On second thought, I'll just take your own approach and say you're gonna want to take a gander at what Strider212 put. If you still think he's a fraud after that then there is no hope.

Hmmm

No Kid Icarus

I showed you how he manipulates scores

And Gabs has video evidence he doesn't review games

You are Strider can hang out in wrongville though, no harm there, hear it's nice in the spring so things are looking up for you two

[QUOTE="Strider212"]

You are not understanding me. How did he lie by pointing out the fact that a game was poorly designed? You do not have to play through an entire game to realize that the camera system is awful or that the controls are broken. Do you think that suddenly after the "false" ending the basic mechanics of the game suddenly fix themselves and the game is totally redeemed? Absolutely not.

100% of Matt's complaints with the game revolve around its design and nothing else. His entire second page is dedicated to this, so your point is useless. You are a sonic fan and are upset that he left out a small portion of the game, not including it in his review. But who the hell cares about a second portion of a bad game? Do you think anyone would care if there were bonus missions on the Atari version of E.T.? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, I listened to the podcast again. Bozon clearly points out that there are extra missions after a two hour playthrough. Therefore, he isn't lying only withholding unnecessary information. At it's core: he's not wasting his time. Nothing redeems the game, so there's no use trying to keep it above the water. End of story.

EDIT:

The Sonic series has jumped the shark.

GabuEx

Here, I'll go through every single one of his complaints in the review (except for the online stuff, which I haven't tried out yet) just to illustrate the factual inaccuracy in them:

"Imagine the trademark intense speed, loop-de-loops, corkscrews, jumps and pinball mechanics that have helped define the Sonic name over the years. Good. Now throw all of that tried-and-true stuff out the window,"

Already we run into falsehoods. Loop-de-loops, jumps, and pinball mechanics are all present in the game. I don't remember if there are any corkscrews, but even if there aren't, that's only 1 for 4 - not a terribly good start.

"slow down the action to a relative crawl,"

False again. The only way the action slows down to a relative crawl is if you take the time out of your life to kill every single enemy that comes forth, an entirely unnecessary and pointless endeavor. And that was the case in the Genesis games too.

"give the blue hedgehog a big sword, and throw enemy after enemy in his path."

Now this is technically true, but it's rather easy to either just ignore enemies or plow right through them if you know what you're doing - a quality that Matt seems to lack.

"This is the backbone of the offensively awful design template that is a succubus, perpetually draining fun away from the experience. To make matters worse, Sonic himself is controlled clumsily with the nunchuk's analog stick -- he moves like a tank, barely able to nudge to the left and right so that he might sidestep approaching obstacles --"

False, false, false. There is nothing difficult whatsoever about controlling Sonic.

"and he is constantly locked in stupid swordplay."

False once again. Again, this is only the case if you have OCD and feel the need to make your experience worse by obsessively killing every single enemy in the game.

"His trusty sword is controlled with the WIi remote. There's an incredible amount of unresponsive waggle -- not gestures -- in the game. You simply shake, shake and shake some more to slice enemies down as they approach. The title does not consider vertical or horizontal motion, so you can just waggle the controller mindlessly and win."

For once, this is actually a valid complaint, if you care about waggle.

"It's one of the worst control choices I've had to endure for any Wii game, not only because your movements actually have noticeable lag before they are translated on-screen,"

...and now we're back to a false claim.

"but because you battle so many enemies throughout any given level that you arm is sure to be sore by the time you're done."

I played the game for hours on end and my arm was not sore at any moment.

"You encounter the occasional boss in fights that are supposed to be epic, but the ensuing battles are over in seconds -- all you have to do is shake continuously and you'll lay waste to your enemies before they are done with their opening dialogs."

I tried just shaking continuously and died. So, false again. Although the complaint about them not being epic is true - but then again, that's just his impression of what they're "supposed to be".

Don't believe me and still think that this is just a difference of opinion? Well, that's why I made this video. Gameplay starts at around the 2:30 mark. Watch that, and then come back and try to tell me that Matt is correct in saying that Sonic and the Black Knight "slows to a relative crawl", that Sonic "moves like a tank", that Sonic is "constantly locked in stupid swordplay", that loop-de-loops, jumps, and pinball mechanics have been "thrown out the window". Go on, I'll wait.

1) Compared to SatSR, this game is slower.

2) I counted the time between obstacles (whether they be enemies or environmental objects), and there is not a single time in your video where the gameplay isn't slowed down by one of these things within 10 seconds. What happened to the speed from Sonic Adventure 1 and 2?

3) Sonic slows down every time you jump, so your point about the game not slowing down due to groups of enemies is moot.

4) That was a pitiful excuse for a loop-de-loop. Remember the loop-de-loops from Sonic Adventure 1 and 2? Maybe the 5 second long one on the forest stage from SA2?

5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhtAdWp9Rkc

Watch this. The reviewer literally turns around backwards, holds "up" on the analog control stick and waggles his way to victory.

6) This is clearly a badly designed Sonic game with bad design decisions made. I'll grant you that Matt's review has large amounts of sarcasm and exaggeration, but I don't expect any Pulitzer-prize-winning journalism on a badly designed game. If he were reviewing Super Mario Galaxy, a new Zelda, or anything that people actually cared about, then we might have something to talk about. But in the meantime, you might as well criticize him for taking a few liberties on Anubis 2 or Ninjabread Man. Why no criticisms there? There is just as much sarcasm and exaggeration. Let's leave the real writing for the real games.

[QUOTE="Strider212"]And... this proves what? Do you honestly think that most reviewers have the time to play through every game to perfect completion? Have you ever been involved in any kind of journalism. You work on deadlines--your life revolves around them. Like any reviewer, he played the game to the point at which he had what he felt was a proper grasp on the game, which apparently doesn't take very long judging from other reviews I've read. In the long run, who the hell cares that he gave the game a bad score. It hasn't gained favorable reviews, and your bias towards poor sonic games won't change the fact that he exposed the game for what it is--a bad game. GabuEx

When not playing through a game to completion makes it so that at least 80-90% of the complaints in your review are factually inaccurate, and when it makes it so that your review does not include any mention of some fundamental gameplay mechanics, probably because you were 100% unaware of their existence, then it seems to me that there is a problem there, one that cannot be rectified by simply saying "my bad" (and even that hasn't been done yet).

I don't care about the score if it's just a matter of opinion, but when it's fundamentally based on things that are flat-out untrue, I begin to care a little bit more, if for no reason other than that I know for a fact that many people were led not to buy the gamebased off of the falsehoods in the review. The job of a reviewer is to tell the truth about the game being reviewed. Matt did not do so. Thus, Matt failed at his job. "I was on a deadline" is not a valid excuse for lying to your readers.

You are not understanding me. How did he lie by pointing out the fact that a game was poorly designed? You do not have to play through an entire game to realize that the camera system is awful or that the controls are broken. Do you think that suddenly after the "false" ending the basic mechanics of the game suddenly fix themselves and the game is totally redeemed? Absolutely not.

100% of Matt's complaints with the game revolve around its design and nothing else. His entire second page is dedicated to this, so your point is useless. You are a sonic fan and are upset that he left out a small portion of the game, not including it in his review. But who the hell cares about a second portion of a bad game? Do you think anyone would care if there were bonus missions on the Atari version of E.T.? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, I listened to the podcast again. Bozon clearly points out that there are extra missions after a two hour playthrough. Therefore, he isn't lying only withholding unnecessary information. At it's core: he's not wasting his time. Nothing redeems the game, so there's no use trying to keep it above the water. End of story.

EDIT:

The Sonic series has jumped the shark.

[QUOTE="Strider212"]Actually that's not entirely true. He said in a recent NVC podcast that he did in fact play the new Sonic game, even to completion if I remember correctly. Check your facts Jaysonguy. Your bias is showing...GabuEx

He played it to what he thought was completion, but which was actually a false ending occuring after only three or four hours of gameplay, and after which the real game really begins. He did the equivalent of playing the first chapter in an RPG or going through the tutorial levels in a game and then writing the review.

This fact is made very evident in his review on account of the fact that he says you unlock additional characters when you beat the game, when in fact those characters are unlocked after that false ending.

[QUOTE="kardine"]

Jasonguy you cannot discredit a reviewer because he rates a game low esp when Matt gives some of the most well written reviews in the industry. You cant say a reviewer is lame with literally no reason. I say you have no reason because saying he did not like Obscure is NOT a reason.

How about you come back to me when you do have a good reason, in the mean time dont talk trash if you cannot back it up (logically).

Obscure is obviously not a good game by many reviewers standards. Maybe you like it but thats a very niche opinion. Theres definite flaws in the game whether you like to admit that or not.

Jaysonguy

It's still not showing up for you?

You have no idea what he did?

He lowered someone else's review to keep the reviews area doctored

Also he reviewed the new Sonic game without playing it

Yeah. Doctoring reviews and not playing the games he reviews, who'd be angry at that? lol

Yessiree:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=thtwRi5Z_S8

Song after weird techno intro-thingy.