If IGN gave it a 2, then you know it's REALLY bad. I might try the demo out just to see how bad it is.

Played the demo. Grabbed a weapon, killed the first enemy, turned it off, deleted it.

It was surely playable, nothing was broken, but it was clunky and ugly and BORING.

Maybe Sterling was right?

I was in, but now I'm out. Never trust a Amy.

@SomeDeliCook said:

Played the demo. Grabbed a weapon, killed the first enemy, turned it off, deleted it.

Exactly the amount of time I gave the game too. Can definitely agree with the clunkiness comment

Yeah, "...easily the worst game I've played in recent memory" may be slightly overdoing it, but hey.

I'm not, nor every was, thinking of picking it up anyway.

Are you playing it? A few of the reviews I've seen complain about the general clunkiness of the controls, thoughts?

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

@mandude said:

He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Sounds like a valid way to review a game...?

Not that surprising really, I could tell from the screenshots that this was not going to be a good game.

@SerHulse said:

Yeah, "...easily the worst game I've played in recent memory" may be slightly overdoing it, but hey.

I'm not, nor every was, thinking of picking it up anyway.

Are you playing it? A few of the reviews I've seen complain about the general clunkiness of the controls, thoughts?

Its pretty mediocre. Just some bad design decisions on some parts. You need to hold down a button to jog, and then tap a different button to sprint while still holding that jog button.

Melee fighting was hold down one button to basically put your dukes up, and then press other buttons to fight. Thats not really a problem by itself, but when there are so many different combinations of controls all in one game, its annoying. Granted, I played for maybe a total of 5 minutes, but it seems like there were too many controls to get used to for seemingly a short game.

Eurogamer also gave it 2/10 if anyone wants to know. I had not even heard of it before this week so whatever, didn't bother reading the review with a score like that.

@Jimbo said:

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

Bioshock Infinite. Just you wait, it will actually turn out to be awful...like Duke Nukem Forever - City in the sky edition.

I've played it and yeah, it isn't good, but it seems like reviewers are enjoying bashing it a bit much. It's controls are clunky to the highest degree of survival horror trope and the checkpoint system is awful, but I've played worse games. I'm about half way through I'd say and I'm more disappointed than anything since I was looking forward to this title.

I am uncomfortable with the fact that this game came out of nowhere and people are talking about it. I don't like the games that sneak up on me!

@AhmadMetallic said:

I am uncomfortable with the fact that this game came out of nowhere and people are talking about it. I don't like the games that sneak up on me!

Like Splinter Cell?

Also watching my friend play it I can tell it is pretty awful.

I'm reminded of a certain game which IGN also gave a 2.0 lol

Hey guys, Deadly Premonition got the same score about 2 years ago. Coincidence?

@handlas said:

@mandude said:

He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Sounds like a valid way to review a game...?

It didn't really seem like he really gave too much examples. He just kinda bashed on it.

@Ace829 said:

If IGN gave it a 2, then you know it's REALLY bad. I might try the demo out just to see how bad it is.

I don't think that's the correct logic. IGN likes to shit on games without an advertising budget to try to prove they have any shred of integrity. If it weren't for those reviews, their average score would be like a 9.1. I don't trust any of their reviews, regardless of the score. This game probably is bad, just saying no actual substance can be derived from an IGN review. A broken clock's right twice.

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Reviews of a medium that relies on user input and user subjectivity cannot be anything but subjective.

EG gave it a 2/10 as well... looks like shit

@mandude said:

He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Sounds like a valid way to review a game...?

Having never played Amy, IGN also gave Deadly Premonition a 2.0

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Reviews of a medium that relies on user input and user subjectivity cannot be anything but subjective.

@buzz_killington said:

Hey guys, Deadly Premonition got the same score about 2 years ago. Coincidence?

That was a love/hate game though. You will find people out there who genuinely believe that game is great.

@mandude said:

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Reviews of a medium that relies on user input and user subjectivity cannot be anything but subjective.

That's not exactly what I'm getting at. He rarely goes into why he felt the game was so bad. If he did, I might be able to establish some sort of common opinion with him, thus making use of the review. He did not explain the game mechanics well enough for me to know whether or not I would like them. He just told me not to like them.

I read the whole thing and he points out why it's bad pretty thoroughly. He talks about the mechanics, the look, the bad framerate, the controls, the combat, the story, etc. All were bad and that's why he felt it is bad game.

@spazmaster666: I'm sorry, but you can't tell if a game will be fun or not based on screenshots. Sure, you can tell if it will look terrible, but that doesn't mean it won't be fun to play/control well. Granted it turned out that you were right, but you really didn't know that at the time. :-)

Maybe the devs will take all that information and go back and clean the game up like they did with Hydrophobia. I played it after the patches, perfectly decent game. Terrible voice acting though. Oh my God.

Bullshit. The game easily deservers a 2.3.

@mandude said:

That's not exactly what I'm getting at. He rarely goes into why he felt the game was so bad. If he did, I might be able to establish some sort of common opinion with him, thus making use of the review. He did not explain the game mechanics well enough for me to know whether or not I would like them. He just told me not to like them.

Um, it's his job to tell you if it's fun, not try to transcribe the experience so that you can try to tell if you'd like it.

It's disappointing to hear that it blows, I was wanting to check this game out. I might still give the demo a try, just to see if I can deal with the controls.

sounds like the makings of a great "Breaking Brad" episode

Isnt Amy just one MASSIVE escort mission? 
 
FUCK THAT!

@mandude said:

@handlas said:

@mandude said:

He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Sounds like a valid way to review a game...?

Not really. Calling something bad is pretty devoid of anything objectively informative. Something actually useful in his line of work would be saying why something is bad/good. He does this very infrequently (or at least in contrast to the frequency of cursing the game out).

oh i see what you mean. Saying they are bad but not saying why they are bad.

Apologies sir. I didn't read the review. Cuz I'm lazy and don't care about this game. I shouldn't be on this forum...i bid you farewell.

@wewantsthering said:

@spazmaster666: I'm sorry, but you can't tell if a game will be fun or not based on screenshots. Sure, you can tell if it will look terrible, but that doesn't mean it won't be fun to play/control well. Granted it turned out that you were right, but you really didn't know that at the time. :-)

Not necessarily. If a game looks terrible, that means the developer likely didn't put much effort into the game, meaning that it's also unlikely that the gameplay will be any good. How many games come out that look terrible, but actually end up having great gameplay? Not many. Also, this is a PS3/Xbox 360 game, not a Wii game. We have come to expect a certain level of fidelity for 360/PS3 (especially if the game isn't going for stylized artwork) games, especially this deep into the product cycle.

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

I think that sounds like a good way to go about describing what is wrong with a game... and reviews are not supposed to be objective, otherwise every game would get a 10 because then you have to admit, at least one person in the world thinks it is amazing.

@spazmaster666 said:

@wewantsthering said:

@spazmaster666: I'm sorry, but you can't tell if a game will be fun or not based on screenshots. Sure, you can tell if it will look terrible, but that doesn't mean it won't be fun to play/control well. Granted it turned out that you were right, but you really didn't know that at the time. :-)

Not necessarily. If a game looks terrible, that means the developer likely didn't put much effort into the game, meaning that it's also unlikely that the gameplay will be any good. How many games come out that look terrible, but actually end up having great gameplay? Not many. Also, this is a PS3/Xbox 360 game, not a Wii game. We have come to expect a certain level of fidelity for 360/PS3 (especially if the game isn't going for stylized artwork) games, especially this deep into the product cycle.

There are plenty of games that look terrible, but are loads of fun. Look at Minecraft. Everyone who sees that game without context says, "Did this game come out ten years ago?" Whether or not you find it fun, there are a lot of people who think it's fun, but it looks crappy. Conversely, there are plenty of games that look amazing (Crysis), but aren't actually fun to play (Crysis). My point is that the graphics MAY tell you something about a game, but you really have to play the game to know if it's fun or not. Even watching videos of games won't necessarily tell you everything you need to know. I like how Yahtzee put it. He said trailers are for movies and demos are for games. You have to play part of it to know if it's fun/your cup of choice beverage.

My brother bought it yesterday, and while it doesn't look great, not even good in more aspects, I think the reviewers are a little harsh. I'd say 5.0 seems about right.

@spazmaster666 said:

Not that surprising really, I could tell from the screenshots that this was not going to be a good game.

That's like saying, "I can tell by your avatar that your kind of a tool."

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

I think that sounds like a good way to go about describing what is wrong with a game... and reviews are not supposed to be objective, otherwise every game would get a 10 because then you have to admit, at least one person in the world thinks it is amazing.

@mandude: I dont want to read review number 2 at all. Boring as shit, and you can train a chimp to do it. Review number 1 will help me avoid certain games if the hated problem is a problem that I hate.

What all reviews should be:

The sound direction was so fucking bad it made me vomit with rage! For instance, the characters lips continue to move for minutes after they have stopped talking, and in addition to that, the music plays so loudly over what they're saying that I had to turn on subtitles.This is not acceptable.

For me the only  off putting thing is the checkpoint system which is incredibly annoying. As you get farther in the game you can be set back a whole hour if you die and go back to a check point. That and you lose everything in your inventory. 
 
That part really sucks and makes it hard for me to play it. Game isn't good enough for me to want to do stuff over again. 
 
This actually sums it up correctly: 
 

@mandude: I don't see why reviews need to be so formal. A completely subjective look at something is often not the best indication of a product.. If the sound was really so bad that it made someone vomit with rage, then that tells me a lot more about the game than your subjective version ever could.

I think the biggest reason most people come to GiantBomb is to hear the staff's opinion on games, not for a doctoral thesis on whether or not it's an acceptable product.

                    @Klei: This is the kind of attitude I don't like. Being an indie dev doesn't suddenly give you a pass on quality. If the game sucks, indie or not, it deserves to be called out for it. I had the same feeling about that Garshasp game after the Quick Look when people started defending it due to the production circumstances.

                   

               

@wewantsthering said:

There are plenty of games that look terrible, but are loads of fun. Look at Minecraft. Everyone who sees that game without context says, "Did this game come out ten years ago?" Whether or not you find it fun, there are a lot of people who think it's fun, but it looks crappy. Conversely, there are plenty of games that look amazing (Crysis), but aren't actually fun to play (Crysis). My point is that the graphics MAY tell you something about a game, but you really have to play the game to know if it's fun or not. Even watching videos of games won't necessarily tell you everything you need to know. I like how Yahtzee put it. He said trailers are for movies and demos are for games. You have to play part of it to know if it's fun/your cup of choice beverage.

Minecraft does not look "terrible." It actually has some great lighting effects not to mention being a stylized game. The screenshots and videos I saw of Amy just looked sloppy and unfinished, hence terrible. While screenshots and videos don't necessarily indicate a game's quality, more often than not, when the graphics look sloppy or unfinished, it's not likely that the gameplay is going to be much better. When developers make games, they generally don't go "Let's not give a fuck about the graphics and just focus on the gameplay." They generally focus a lot of effort in both gameplay and graphics since video games are a graphical medium. As I said, how good or how bad a game looks visually isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of the actual quality of the game, but when a game looks bad, it does not give a good impression about it's quality.