unfreak-believ's comments

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

It's not that the franchise has no value, it's that they keep making terrible films. There is plenty of potential to be had.

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@garthoknarfle: I don't think it shows up for some people. I'm looking at the top row and I have (from left to right): Notifications > Friends > Events > Messages > Party > Profile > Trophies > Settings > Power

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@g_vakarian I don't think you understand what "despite" means.

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

While I think the score is a little high (I'd go with a 7 myself), I think his points are spot-on. The game is fun in spite of itself. I wish they would have realized that the game excelled in its simplicity and kept the unlockables away from a leaderboard-driven game. Also, removing the local competitive modes is really disheartening. Playing 2v2 with one ship per team was crazy fun.

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By unfreak-believ

@RabbiSchmuley @Kevin-V You do realize you are not only claiming that something's amiss behind the scenes of GS, but also that this claim has no merit, right?

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@sladakrobot The reason why some games are scrutinized for launch issues while others aren't really boils down to how far in advance a reviewer is given a game. If I recall correctly, the reviewer for Driveclub had access to the servers prior to release, which meant the awful launch was not experienced by him. He likely connected to the servers just fine, so he had no complaints. If he had experienced server issues, I can guarantee you the score would have been lower.


On the other hand, Chris clearly states (in that little 'About the Author' section) that he first experienced the multiplayer after the server woes had started. Perhaps this is because he wasn't given the game early enough, or perhaps it's because playing 4 campaigns took extremely long, which delayed his reviewing the multiplayer. Regardless, it isn't bias and it isn't incompetence, it's simply unfortunate. But that's the developer's fault, not the reviewer's. If they don't want things like this to happen, give reviewers more time to review the game prior to release.


That being said, I do think the grade is really harsh considering his overall praise given to the game. But I do understand that it's hard to effectively grade the multiplayer when you can't even play it.

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By unfreak-believ

I love that, whenever an anticipated game gets a great score here, readers cry foul and claim the reviewer was bought out. And whenever an anticipated game gets a lower score here, readers cry foul and claim the reviewer was too incompetent or cynical.

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

So long as you have friends to enjoy it with, Sportsfriends is an absolute blast.

Avatar image for unfreak-believ
unfreak-believ

176

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@liquorun @unfreak-believ Huh?