-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Truly atrocious reviews.
- Thread starter badnewsbeers
- Start date
Most MGS5 reviews? 93 Meta for an unfinished, repetitive mess of a game that lacks everything that made the other games of the franchise so great is pretty atrocious in my book.
I remember some totally clueless IGN reviewer trashing all over Football Manager 2009 (gave it 2/10). They pulled the review and made a public apology.
Eurogamer's review for Oddworld Stranger's Wrath from 2005 still stings me when I recall it. The reviewer clearly never finished the game, or progressed to a pivotal turning point in the games narrative.
https://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/09/12/steinsgate-review
IGN Steins;Gate review where they invented a sexual assault scene from out of nowhere.
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/atelier-meruru-review/1900-6382178/
This Gamespot Meruru review from a guy who just did not want to be there.
IGN Steins;Gate review where they invented a sexual assault scene from out of nowhere.
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/atelier-meruru-review/1900-6382178/
This Gamespot Meruru review from a guy who just did not want to be there.
That was definitely in a different era for reviews. MGS V would have been destroyed in todays climate.
That was literally this gen.
And wasn't that the reception of the game. Story sucks and is unfinished, but it plays very well.
Not anywhere near atrocious, but the IGN review for Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn has a few odd complaints. Why would you ever want waggle (No, they didn't mean pointer functionality as that was a separate complaint) and Mii integration in that kind of game?
His name is Brandon Justice.
When Nintendo Magazine System reviewed Seiken Densetsu 3 and docked the score because it wasn't in English.
Pretty sure they called it "Secret of Mana 3", too...
Pretty sure they called it "Secret of Mana 3", too...
You youngsters, behold, the original Edge's bad review for the original Doom, talk to the monster!
https://web.archive.org/web/20120104155012/http:/www.next-gen.biz/reviews/doom-review
Some quotes:
Was Edge right? was it wrong? we leave this answers for future generations...
https://web.archive.org/web/20120104155012/http:/www.next-gen.biz/reviews/doom-review
Some quotes:
Was Edge right? was it wrong? we leave this answers for future generations...
If you look at average meta scores past 2015 they've dropped significantly since. I'm not talking about gaming generations so I'm not sure why you said that lol. I'm not sure why but games that would have been sure hits in terms of reviews like COD or BF are getting much lower scores.
Lot of games play very well and get way lower scores. A game is more than just pure "mechanics".
The mention of reviews of Alien games has reminded me how Alien Resurrection on the PS1 got bad reviews mainly for the control scheme. An example of that is Gamestop's review.
You said it was a different era. My response was "the one we're still in?"
For reviews man and no one says eras for gaming generations.
IGN's Hot Shots Golf World Invitational Review
It's basically the reviewer complaining that you lose if you screw up badly.
"Say, for example, you spend 30 to 45 minutes on an 18-hole tournament and you keep the lead through 17 holes. On the last hole, you spend agonizing minutes studying the course, noting the wind direction and speed, adjusting your shot, and selecting the spin for the ball. Then, in the seconds before executing your shot, you miss the impact zone by a hair and somehow your ball ends up out-of-bounds, wracking your score with a penalty and plummeting your position in the tournament from 1st to 4th. "
"Wasting 30 minutes of your time with no failsafe mechanic built-in seems harsh for a game that claims to make golf more palatable to non-golfers."
Yeah buddy, I don't agree that you should win tournaments scoring +8.
It's basically the reviewer complaining that you lose if you screw up badly.
"Say, for example, you spend 30 to 45 minutes on an 18-hole tournament and you keep the lead through 17 holes. On the last hole, you spend agonizing minutes studying the course, noting the wind direction and speed, adjusting your shot, and selecting the spin for the ball. Then, in the seconds before executing your shot, you miss the impact zone by a hair and somehow your ball ends up out-of-bounds, wracking your score with a penalty and plummeting your position in the tournament from 1st to 4th. "
"Wasting 30 minutes of your time with no failsafe mechanic built-in seems harsh for a game that claims to make golf more palatable to non-golfers."
Yeah buddy, I don't agree that you should win tournaments scoring +8.
Jim Sterling's original Hellblade review was really bad and he walked it back almost immediately.
this reminds me of the gamespot review for Skyward Sword, reviewer didn't know how to use motion plus and complained about the controls being unresponsive, if only he stopped pointing to the sensor bar
A lot of it is just "they gave X game a score of Y so it's bad" too. Not enough actual critique of the writing.
For a site that published the definitive Pathologic analysis RPS's review of Pathologic 2 yesterday was completely whack. Worried that it turned too many people off of the game.
Nothing in the review fundamentally misunderstands what the game is, like the Football Manager review. They just really, really enjoyed it, and got so into the story and characters that it outshone any issues with the mechanics.
There's nothing truly atrocious about the review except that the reviewer loved the game and you didn't.
Holy shit, now I feel I should engage in that ProJared thread. 4/10.....
They don't mention pretty much any of the negatives of the game though.
10 dollar day 1 DLC for a character, Merill's cutscenes being out of order and spoiling the quest and making your choices meaningless, enemies spawning in mid air, no easy way to tell anders you don't wanna fuck him, literally nothing on the graphics and art style.
It's a bad review.
Game Informer's review for Silent Hill 2 is something, sadly the only snipped that i could find now online is the one in Metacritic, but i believe it says it all:
Most of those complaints sound subjective - maybe none of those things bothered the reviewer. Are there any factual errors they make in the review, or poor writing?
Maybe a lesser-known one is Tom McShae's review for the WiiWare game Lost Winds. The game had been enjoying relatively positive reviews most places and then Tom came along and gave it a 5.5, and he pretty much hammered every single aspect of it right down to the game's length (most people considered three hours a pretty reasonable length for a discount indie game). I might be remembering this incorrectly, but I think this was one of the very first reviews he did for GameSpot in a lot of people just assumed he was trying to be controversial to get some attention. Turned out, that was really just Tom.
It would be a great example for a thread called "Super positive reviews where I feel the reviewer overlooked important negative aspects of the game."
You're ultimately still just disagreeing with the score.
Yes I think a review that fails to mention any aspects which could be perceived as negative is a bad review.
The first thing i found about him is an IGN-thread called "Do not ever Trust EGM reviews again ever"
I love Greg Miller and I agree with his score but the Dead Space 2 review he did for IGN legitimately feels like it was written by someone in junior high.