One way the above can go pear shape is the amount of hype you’ve personally built up in waiting for the game and the memories of a previous title. I tend to go by gut feeling and confidence in the developer’s passion for the game, as well as its history. I have read a lot of reviews which are suspect, to say the least, so really you should not take them for granted. I take reviews as a guide and a means to getting useful information about a possible purchase of and like the scientific method I’ll check a variety of sources to get a more objective and reasonable impression of the game. ‘Nuff said.Ĭan you buy a PS5 in time for Christmas in the UK? Latest on Amazon and Currys stock Zelda: Twilight Princess 8.8 from GameSpot. The locations, authenticity, and random, organic-feeling events stay with you long after you stop playing, which can’t be said for pressing aim and flicking the right trigger up, even if you can’t make out your target on screen, and getting the umpteenth headshot in a row. The game is a strange case though, because I can’t think of another example where the average gameplay has been bolstered so much by other aspects of the game. I also think a point that GC made was also an interesting one, which was something along the lines of the narrative forcing the reader into a course of action that they wouldn’t necessarily have taken themselves (which in Red Dead Redemption 2 was Dutch’s insistence that you do one last job, despite your pocketful of cash by that point). My reasons are the pedestrian gameplay and chore-like maintenance of things like stamina, which are well-noted at this point.
GOD HAND GAME COVER FULL
I think any reviewer that awarded Red Dead Redemption 2 full marks would be the standout for me, as reviews I disagree with. But then some people never like to hear the truth. Often I think this is more from fear of a fan lynch mob though, which is a very real fear in these days of social media. I think generally the standards of game reviews are higher than they used to be, although there’s clearly still a hesitancy to give big names low reviews. I mean, when even Official Xbox Magazine is giving it ‘only’ 60% you know you’ve messed up. Then it’s Planet Xbox 360, whoever they are, and Game Informer, who I have heard of and should have known better. Then Games Master UK, which is weird because usually UK publications are harsher than others. Play Magazine gave it 85%, which is the highest score of anyone, and I assume had to do with some kind of cover exclusive bribery. Their still far from my first port of call for a review but at least they’re not laughably bad anymore.Īnyone that gave Sonic The Hedgehog 2006 anything above 50% deserves to be mocked and laughed at for their rest of their lives and looking at Metacritic there are a few. To be fair to them they are a lot better nowadays and you can tell the people reviewing are a lot more knowledge and they use much more of the full marking scale. Anything less and they got the cleaners to review it and you get scores like this and Deadly Premonition. This was in the mid-2000s when IGN was still pretty terrible and almost everything with any kind of hype got a minimum of 7.0. God Hand, one of the best action games of all time (and well due a remaster or remake, if you ask me).
I bet someone mentions the IGN review for Deadly Premonition, which was awful, but the one that always stuck out to me was the 3.0 they gave to God Hand. Maybe, maybe not but, in this case, I certainly won’t take notice of anything EGM ever says. In some cases though there are a very few instances where you wonder what went on and if it was related to some kind of advertising deal. People talk about game journalists being bribed but I’ve never really believed it. I just don’t know how anyone who pretends to know anything about video games can justify that score at all, especially when you see what everyone else gave it. The thing that made me laugh though was not so much that they gave it 90%, which is clearly ridiculous, but that if you look at Metacritic the next highest mark is 68%, which is totally justified. I don’t read EGM but I’ve heard of it and always assumed it was at least reasonably well respected, since it’s been around for ages.
One that always sticks out to me is the EGM review for Aliens: Colonial Marines. That should be something any sensible person is able to cope with without sending death threats over the internet. If you disagree with a review and it’s from someone you trust, like GC, that just means your taste is different. In my experience, the people that complain have been hyping a game up for months in their own head and when anyone dares to suggest that reality is different they get upset.
0 kommentar(er)
