• 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by SharkCopter (43 posts) -

This post was mostly to see if I could do this on the new site, but did anyone else happen to notice that the game Alex (and most other game journalists) says to avoid like the plague rated one point off from a perfect 10 on EGM? A blurb from metacritic is "it serves as one of the most robust story-driven co-op experiences to date." If Patrick was well it would be kind of interesting to see an interview or something with the editorial staff at EGM to see how they peer reviewed or justified such a statistical anomaly of a review. Not that I think that they should have looked at other people's reviews, but someone else had to have ok'd the review before it went up right? It's sad, but this is basically the topic that they were talking about on the Bombcast a few (?) weeks ago with regard to games journalism, trust, "payoffs" from developers etc. One of the reasons I usually weight reviews from this site higher than others.

Side note, the bio about the reviewer indicates he spent "the last 17 years in the game industry wearing hats as an annoying retail weasel . . " I don't think being in retail selling games can count toward your years in the game industry. Not unless selling DVDs at Best Buy also counts as being in the movie industry.

#2 Edited by EXTomar (4627 posts) -

As much as people bitch and moan about their favorite game is getting something other than 10/10, no one should be surprised when the opposite happens. Why should anyone care if a game they don't like some reviewer seems to like?

#3 Posted by JasonR86 (9649 posts) -

Yeah, I saw this yesterday. I didn't read the full review so I don't totally get where he's coming from. But it's cool that he liked it. I skimmed the comments of the review and the just insane comments that were there were really gross. One person proclaimed the reviewer a liar. As if he had something to gain for saying the game was good. Morons.

#4 Edited by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Game didn't look nearly as bad as everybody is making it out to be judging from the QL.

#5 Edited by zoozilla (978 posts) -

I saw the EGM review earlier, and thought something was up.

It's certainly within the realm of possibility that the guy genuinely loved the game, but from what I've seen it's unlikely. I never really went to EGM for reviews before, and I won't start now.

#6 Posted by sirdesmond (1234 posts) -

For every bad game and every bad film, there is someone out there somewhere who thinks it is the best game/film ever made. Sometimes, this unusual case happens with a reviewer.

#7 Edited by Zornack (193 posts) -

Reviewed by the man who gave Inversion a higher score than Halo 4 and said this about Dead Island:

"...and the team pulls no punches when it comes to mature, engrossing storylines that echo the game’s famous trailer that transfixed the Internet back in February."

He certainly has a unique view of video games.

#8 Edited by EXTomar (4627 posts) -

Why is it unlikely a reviewer likes a game another does not? It seems to happen all of the time.

#9 Posted by dungbootle (2457 posts) -

It's probably their opinion

#10 Posted by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

Pretty surprising. EGM was really reliable back in the 80s and 90s when they had a Famitsu-style review panel. They're definitely not what they used to be. Opinions are opinions, but it seems pretty weird when everyone else is ripping its asshole apart and EGM gives it a 9. You don't see that kind of disparity very often. Definitely raises an eyebrow, but who knows.

#11 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Their entire site is plastered in Aliens logos. The game is bad broken scripting and muddy textures left and right. The gun play is crappy and you get blind sided all most 80% of the time

Maybe he did like some parts of it but the "Gripping story" is way to much to take at face value.

Also as for the "Trailer" in February. Is that the one that had gameplay that was not even in the final game?

#12 Edited by MistaSparkle (2148 posts) -

The reviewer seemed to really like the co-op experience, and basically said it was a significant step forward in the FPS genre. I haven't seen much of this game, but i have seen some. At first glance the co-op doesn't exactly seem to revolutionary, but again I haven't played it so I dunno.

#13 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

EGM still exists?

#14 Posted by The_Hiro_Abides (1260 posts) -

Well there is always someone that goes against the grain.

#15 Edited by Grimluck343 (1149 posts) -

@cl60 said:

Game didn't look nearly as bad as everybody is making it out to be judging from the QL.

Jeff was shitting on it so hard during that quick look.

#16 Edited by EXTomar (4627 posts) -

I am not saying that EGM is full of crap or something else is going on but that simply put: Life is too short to waste energy wondering if EGM is "corrupt". They might be taking money for a positive review. They also might be doing a shoddy rush job on the review and didn't uncover the problems. They might be Alien super fans that can't take the truth. Or they also might honestly like it. Dunno and don't care because it is their opinion and can say whatever they want.

#17 Posted by Sticky_Pennies (2019 posts) -

Well, okay, that's his opinion, but that doesn't stop the game from being a fucking travesty.

#18 Posted by Godzilla_Sushi (1084 posts) -

Sometimes on gaming podcasts the writers from different places will talk about a game being significantly different before release and reviewing something that isn't necessarily a final product.

Having seen hours of impressions and true game play from this game over the past two days for the sake of interest and entertainment, I find that EGM web-page of words to be really disingenuous.

#19 Posted by Animasta (14667 posts) -

@zornack said:

Reviewed by the man who gave Inversion a higher score than Halo 4 and said this about Dead Island:

"...and the team pulls no punches when it comes to mature, engrossing storylines that echo the game’s famous trailer that transfixed the Internet back in February."

He certainly has a unique view of video games.

wow. so is he just mini jim sterling?

#20 Posted by Kinapuff (244 posts) -

Just read it, and like the Facebook comments on that review suggests, it's way too vague and CLEARLY bought off. He should've settled for a 7.5 or something almost, almost believable.

#21 Posted by Pr1mus (3855 posts) -

I read the review. Different opinions set aside it's a pretty poor review. Short reviews for games are almost always terrible. It makes sense for movies or music reviews. But games are more substantial in content than movies and you can't really cover them adequately with a few short paragraphs.

#23 Posted by Tobli (149 posts) -

@animasta said:

wow. so is he just mini jim sterling?

What is with people, and Jim Sterling? I understand that he also has some controversial reviews, but not in the same way.

#24 Edited by BigBoss1911 (2426 posts) -

$$$$ talks

#25 Posted by deathstriker666 (1337 posts) -

It's mediocre at worst, but 9/10? Come on, EGM

#26 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

That's fishy, so clearly fishy. I have a really hard time believing everything's sound and pure with that review. Just his opinion? C'mon people. It doesn't take a completely cynical world view to see past that. I could totally be wrong, though.

#27 Posted by LiquidPrince (15899 posts) -

Game looked incredibly boring and generic in the quick look, but not fundamentally broken in any way. From my brief glance at the game, I don't think I'd rate it a one star game, but I'd most definitely wouldn't rate it a 9/10 game either.

#28 Edited by EVO (3889 posts) -

@cl60 said:

Game didn't look nearly as bad as everybody is making it out to be judging from the QL.

Yeah, 1 star seems pretty harsh.

#29 Posted by PokeIkzai (385 posts) -

I don't see how EGM is responsible to give a game a score that resembles what most others thought about it.

#30 Posted by PolygonSlayer (424 posts) -

Everyone has the right to their opinion and all, and mine is that that EGM review smells of money under the table.
You can say that opinions are opinions and all that, BUT people are rightfully asking questions when it is quite clear that we are looking at the very least a mediocre game getting such a high score sticking out like a sore thumb from a forest of negative ones.

#31 Edited by Tennmuerti (8057 posts) -
  • While everyone has a right to their own opinion, a review is not pure opinion. There are many objective things that can be said and judged about a game that do not rely purely on opinion. That's what separates an actual game review from someone just posting a few lines of opinion on a game on some forums.
  • It barely reads like a review, rather it reads like promo material, being extremely vague and short. Almost nothing in that written pile of words actually requires playing the game over simply massaging some PR bullet points and seeing some gameplay footage
  • The site is currently covered in Aliens imagery all over including the huge Aliens background.
#34 Posted by BaconBuTTy (172 posts) -

i think calling this guy a liar is justified when he describes "solid AI" and good graphics.

Because they're lies.

#35 Posted by Yummylee (21466 posts) -
  • While everyone has a right to their own opinion, a review is not pure opinion. There are many objective things that can be said and judged about a game that do not rely purely on opinion. That's what separates an actual game review from someone just posting a few lines of opinion on a game on some forums.
  • It barely reads like a review, rather it reads like promo material, being extremely vague and short. Almost nothing in that written pile of words actually requires playing the game over simply massaging some PR bullet points and seeing some gameplay footage
  • The site is currently covered in Aliens imagery all over including the huge Aliens background.

Yo ^

Seriously, ''opinions!'' doesn't fly here. It is a terrible 'review', and while opinions do obviously factor into writing reviews blahblahblah, there's still a layer of objectivity under it all and he's clearly overselling a lot of the features, such as the AI. C'mon now, we've all seen the evidence to know that this is not a game with ''solid AI''. And I don't think randomly reviving Hicks from the dead for whatevers sake is ''respect for the source material'', either.

Online
#36 Posted by ThePaleKing (613 posts) -

An 8 paragraph review and only 2 paragraphs dedicated to talking about actual content in the game, and even then extremely vaguely. He calls the game awesome and epic yet he never brings up an actual example of any "awesome" experience that he had. The whole review reads like a strung together series of those game box review blurbs.

This line is particularly laughable: "The main show offers a 4-player co-op experience that’s a significant step forward from the storytelling in Borderlands—which, in my book, makes it a pretty big event for the genre as a whole."

I guess he just forgot about a game called Left 4 Dead, a game in which the story actually manages to acknowledge the presence of more than just the hosting player.

#38 Posted by Superfriend (1540 posts) -

The guy gave Halo 4 a lower score because it doesn´t have ironsights, right?

I firmly believe he has absolutely no fucking clue what he is talking about. Note that I don´t think H4 deserves all those really high scores either, like the 9.5 from IGN- that was just absolutely ridiculous.. but a Halo game does not need aiming down the sights, I´m sorry. So, I guess there´s a good chance the reviewer just has no idea about games in general and the review wasn´t paid for.

#39 Edited by granderojo (1778 posts) -

The last time this reviewer gave a 'controversial' score I defended the asshat on twitter by saying reviewer is entitled to his opinion. Now he follows me. After reading this garbage I'm disappointed that I ever wasted time defending this asshat.

This game is objectively bad, I don't see how you could have such a positive experience with something that is so objectively bad.

#40 Posted by Hippie_Genocide (564 posts) -

@yummylee said:
@tennmuerti said:
  • While everyone has a right to their own opinion, a review is not pure opinion. There are many objective things that can be said and judged about a game that do not rely purely on opinion. That's what separates an actual game review from someone just posting a few lines of opinion on a game on some forums.
  • It barely reads like a review, rather it reads like promo material, being extremely vague and short. Almost nothing in that written pile of words actually requires playing the game over simply massaging some PR bullet points and seeing some gameplay footage
  • The site is currently covered in Aliens imagery all over including the huge Aliens background.

Yo ^

Seriously, ''opinions!'' doesn't fly here. It is a terrible 'review', and while opinions do obviously factor into writing reviews blahblahblah, there's still a layer of objectivity under it all and he's clearly overselling a lot of the features, such as the AI. C'mon now, we've all seen the evidence to know that this is not a game with ''solid AI''. And I don't think randomly reviving Hicks from the dead for whatevers sake is ''respect for the source material'', either.

Yes, I have to agree. Some games are factually bad, and need to be called out as such or you're doing a disservice to your readership. You can't just excuse a shitty review by saying "Opinions, they sure are a motherfucker!". Although I'm fully content to just believe this journo is wholly incompetent; I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that EGM was on the take here. That seems unfair.

#41 Edited by Nictel (2399 posts) -

I don't think its $$$ that was in play here, more likely he didn't play it and was like "oh yeah aliens that will probably be good".

#42 Edited by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

If he thinks this is a 9/10 video game experience, he should probably consider retiring. It isn't a 1/5 either though. I'd personally land on a 2/5, because it included the music/sound fx.

What a terrible game. Gearbox gets a license. They create a game using the license and expect fans not to react when it shoots totally wide from what they promised and from the videos of gameplay shown back in the days. If anything it should be better than what they showed not miles worse with none of that gameplay included at all, just some of the settings and even those seem like placeholders because you just rush through them and it hardly ever matters.

#43 Posted by Superfriend (1540 posts) -

@nictel said:

I don't think its $$$ that was in play here, more likely he didn't play it and was like "oh yeah aliens that will probably be good".

Yeah videogame journalists have it rough. They barely have the time to play videogames these days. Joking aside, he probably played it. Not all of it, but enough to form his own twisted opinion- twisted by marketing spin, as is apparent in the final review.

Like in any field of work, there are assholes who just don´t identify with the job one bit. Like the TV journalist who refuses to actually know a thing or two about politics- yeah, they exist. This reviewer might just be one of these people. He doesn´t really play a lot of games, you know, since he´s busy not being a nerd and all that. He probably has such a limited frame of reference for what actually makes a game good, that he really believes the things the fine people at Gearbox told us before the release of this game.

#44 Posted by believer258 (11771 posts) -

He's getting exactly what he wants - attention.

#45 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

@believer258: Absolutely. It is what he aims for with that score, without a doubt.

#46 Edited by Quarters (1664 posts) -

I'm not one to call conspiracy on reviews generally, but this is sketchy as crap. I don't even think the game looks terrible (though the changes from the early demos are crazy, and it's clearly dated in its mechanics), but this review just sounds like promotion. From what I've seen of the game, I don't know how it can objectively get a 9. Can you enjoy it? Sure, that's no problem, and I know some people are. I might even like it. But that review seemed like it was ignoring any potential flaws of the game, just to gush with joy about it. The game that I've seen does not match the things he's saying.

#48 Posted by Winternet (8012 posts) -

The dude has bad taste. He likes bad games. Done.

#49 Posted by Nilazz (613 posts) -

Opinions? FUCK EM'!