2.0 on IGN. Reviewer calls it one of the worst game ever made.

  • 157 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

I think he's overexagerrating, but hey, I guess we all have our opinions. It's clearly not a triple A product, but it's perfectly playable. Unless you're some kind of crippled grinch or something. What do you guys think? Here's the link.  
 
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1216343p1.html
#2 Posted by Ace829 (2083 posts) -

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.

#3 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

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?

#4 Posted by Marcsman (3231 posts) -

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

#5 Posted by BleedingStarX (281 posts) -

@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

#6 Posted by SerHulse (685 posts) -

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?

#7 Posted by Jimbo (9866 posts) -

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

#8 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

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...

#9 Posted by handlas (2700 posts) -

@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...?

#10 Posted by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -

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

#11 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

@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.

#12 Posted by dagas (2864 posts) -

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.

#13 Posted by BeachThunder (12089 posts) -

@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.

#14 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

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.

#15 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

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!

#16 Edited by Commisar123 (1796 posts) -

@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.

#17 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2779 posts) -

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

#18 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

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

#19 Posted by Nux (2383 posts) -

@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.

#20 Edited by Cretaceous_Bob (521 posts) -

@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.

#21 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

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

#22 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -
@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).
#23 Posted by bretthancock (778 posts) -

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

#24 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -
@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.
#25 Posted by mikey87144 (1797 posts) -

@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.

#26 Posted by mikey87144 (1797 posts) -

@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.

#27 Posted by wewantsthering (1578 posts) -

@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. :-)

#28 Posted by Brodehouse (10072 posts) -

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.

#29 Posted by thornie_delete (436 posts) -

Bullshit. The game easily deservers a 2.3.

#30 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (521 posts) -

@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.

#31 Posted by Lime (4 posts) -

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.

#32 Posted by Renahzor (994 posts) -

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

#33 Posted by CptChiken (1987 posts) -

Isnt Amy just one MASSIVE escort mission? 
 
FUCK THAT!

#34 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -
@Cretaceous_Bob: I am pretty sure that is exactly his job. It might even be eerily similar to the definition of the word review.
#35 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

I, for one, bought and played the game. I knew it was going to be a unpolished title right off the bat; gameplay videos that were shown to the public as trailers clearly portrayed how dated/clunky it was going to be. So, I played the first chapter and bought it when it prompted me to. Why? Because I support indie devs who takes risks. This game has been developed by a team of ten or so guys. I also give them credits for making it a full-graphical release, and not only a ''super meat boy  / braid / stealth basard'' simple-looking game. It takes some matter of skill to compress a good graphical-looking game into 2gigs of memory. 
 
That said, the game isn't anything special. So-so voice acting, unpolished graphics, broken melee system. But still, there's  a plethora of good ideas beneath this. Hiding, commanding Amy, the infection, how the main character is just a simple lady and behaves exactly like it. 
 
I think people are being super mean to it because they're probably only used to bother with triple A titles and don't really take the team behind the product into consideration. I'd never call a game '' shit-ass product '' like Jim Sterling and IGN just out of respect for the guys who worked on it. I think it's a huge disrespect to bitch and shit on an indie project just for the sake of it. 
 
While the game sure has fautls, it also has qualities. But as my dad said, 50% of human beings are stupid or heavily flawed to the point of being qualified into stupidity. And when I read shit, insulting reviews such as those given by IGN and the insulting comments of Jim Sterling on Destructoid, it proves his theory once more.
#36 Posted by handlas (2700 posts) -

@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.

#37 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -
@handlas: You will not be missed. Now go you, to those fiery pits of hell.
#38 Posted by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -

@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.

#39 Posted by TheHBK (5506 posts) -

@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.

#40 Posted by President_Barackbar (3467 posts) -
@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.
#41 Posted by wewantsthering (1578 posts) -

@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.

#42 Posted by NTM (7479 posts) -

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.

#43 Posted by Rowr (5818 posts) -

@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."

Online
#44 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -
@TheHBK 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...

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.

Hmm...really regretting my decision not to elaborate in my original post...you can be objective to a degree. You can tell me you didn't like the game (subjective), or you can tell me about the game in support of what you liked or did not (objective). Here's an example.
 
Subjective review: The sound direction was so fucking bad it made me vomit with rage!
 
Objective review: 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.
#45 Edited by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -

@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.

#46 Edited by CornBREDX (5610 posts) -

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: 
 


 Amy's checkpoint system wouldn't necessarily be so unforgiving if the game was even remotely playable, but since so much of the game requires insane amounts of trial and error -- and a myriad of unfair deaths due to terrible controls both in and out of combat -- this might be the most frustrating aspect of the entire experience. 


#47 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

@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.

#48 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -
@President_Barackbar said:


                    @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.

                   

               

We all have opinions, and it's super fine. What I brought up was how disrespectful some so-called critics can be towards a project, disregarding entirely the team who poured their hearts and mind into it. As for my standards, they are considerably lower for indie games. Take Super Meat Boy or The Binding of Isaac. Are they excellent compared to Batman AC, Skyrim and Uncharted? No, they are bad, if leveled to them. However, on an indie standpoint, they are completely outstanding.  It wouldn't be faire to compare multi-million projects to some that costs only a couple of months of living.
#49 Posted by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -

@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.

#50 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -
@EdIsCool: I agree, but my point was more that the review in question featured barely anything of the latter. It was 99% profanities, and briefly mentioned why the control system was bad. It was entirely subjective instead of being a mix of the two.
 
@WinterSnowblind: I'm not sure I follow. The review stating I vomited with rage was the subjective one. I don't think that saying the sound was so bad it make me vomit with rage would tell you enough. Suppose I said that about the likes of Bastion, which a lot of people loved, it's not a very helpful review at all. If I were to explain what the sound direction was like, you'd be free to take your own opinion from it.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.