Guys, you need to stop bumping this thread. Its going no where friendly and all its gonna do is get you all riled up. Thanks Jakob187 for trying to settle this intelligently but obviously its not gonna change the OP's mind. p4ddym1607, if you feel so strongly about this game, then why don't you write your own review of it, instead of creating a hate thread and arguing with everyone who disagrees with you.
The Single Worst Review Ever Written - IGN...
But he very plainly says in the review that diehard fans of football will love it, and he even praised how much power was available at your fingertips. He gave it a bad review based on the fact that the menus were overly complex. That makes me believe that the menus could've been simplified in some way. He said that there is no sound. A game with all these menus and some weak 3D graphics to it, and they can't even put fucking SOUND in the game? Ouch. He mentions that the game was a very unsatisfying experience to him. Granted, Joe Schmo with his Manchester United jersey or whatever may fucking LOVE this whole thing...but the newcomer might find it extremely intimidating and be COMPLETELY turned off because of it.
Face it, we're in an age where games need to be accessible to many people. To me, it sounds like there is this amazing experience to be had in the game, and it is hindered for anyone who is unfamiliar with the franchise and doesn't necessarily have the time to dump into learning every single little thing. Moreover, it's a SOCCER manager. Look at how BIG that sport is. So yes, there is a TON of shit to know, and if you are completely unfamiliar with it...
Look at it like this. If I told you that the world of Oblivion were as large as the planet Earth, and that there was over 350,000 quests you could do, and it can ALL affect how you are perceived, how people interact with you, everything...that's fucking intimidating, man!!!
So I'm glad to see that Burk didn't just cater to the people who love this franchise, but instead was willing to speak his mind and say "hey, never played this before...because if you haven't, then I can tell you it's fucking complicated...and if that ain't your deal, you are better off somewhere else".
"Guys, you need to stop bumping this thread. Its going no where friendly and all its gonna do is get you all riled up. Thanks Jakob187 for trying to settle this intelligently but obviously its not gonna change the OP's mind. p4ddym1607, if you feel so strongly about this game, then why don't you write your own review of it, instead of creating a hate thread and arguing with everyone who disagrees with you."The thing is that I'm not seeing any personal attacks to this. I think this is an absolutely healthy thing that needs to be talked about, as it seems lately that the ideas of review scores, reviews in general, and the state of reviews has been such a HUGE debate as of late...both on our forums and in the press. Seeing such a huge contrast in scores and reviews and trying to break this down to the point of having two sides giving fair and objective reasoning makes me really think a lot more about the reviews I read and how much I feel I can trust someone's opinions.
I'm not really trying to change the OP's mind. I don't want to, to be honest. If I change his mind, then how the hell can I continue to argue? Moreover, I don't want to go out and say "well, if you disagree with me, then you are wrong". I am simply trying to point out that, hey...there are a lot of people that may have read this review wrong and they are letting their own personal emotions and love of this franchise get in the way of something very important:
If this is such an amazing franchise, why the hell is it such a niche audience? Why can't the masses get a little more access to this kind of power and enjoy what everyone else is enjoying?! It sounded to me like that was Burk's biggest problem with the game.
So because it is part of a best-selling series that sells millions of copies each year, that gives it merit to automatically get a good review?Of course not. But he did not mention the history of the game. And if he is going to write a review based soley on his opinion then he should make an extra effort in order to inform people of the games history so that the reader can understand what the game even is. Take the IGN UK reviews intro ... "Perennially topping the PC bestseller lists, the Football Manager series is one of those rare gaming dynasties that exist in their own culturally mainstream vacuum away from the rest of the gaming world. It's commonplace to hear people refuse to acknowledge themselves as 'gamers', but then freely admit to playing marathon, relationship-ending 15 hour FM sessions on a regular basis. You either get it or you don't, and the normal criteria for judging a game barely apply when analysing the latest FM instalment."
If he had said something like this and then gone on to say that this is his first time playing the game and he is going to basically just give us his thoughts then fine. I would have been interested to hear what someone who obviously isnt a fan of soccer would think of the game. He obviosly didnt like it. Fine. But in his written review he did appreciate the game for what is suppose to do. So why does that deserve a 2.0. Way lower than you would expect from actually reading the text of the review. If he had at least informed the readers of what the game is briefly then i wouldnt care at all. But come on. To me its like getting an 80 year old to write her thoughts on MKvsDC. No old person would be interested in the game in the first place. So they arent going to read the review. But someone who does like soccer and might buy the game gets completely misinformed by the review and doesnt buy the game.
Yes. But he didnt even do that very well. He spent an entire paragraph talking about the detail of the jpg background football stand. I dont think he understood that that is just there so you have an idea where the ball is in relation to the pitch.So I'm glad to see that Burk didn't just cater to the people who love this franchise, but instead was willing to speak his mind and say "hey, never played this before...because if you haven't, then I can tell you it's fucking complicated...and if that ain't your deal, you are better off somewhere else"."
I am not saying write a glowing review and then say by the way i hate it. That just wouldnt be right. But at least try and tell people a little more than his opinion. Can you at least agree that it is badly written. Like he didnt really explain anything about the game. He never said that you concentrate on all of your decisional stuff in between playing matches.
He didnt explain how a game is played. Having played the game i would have definitely said that the matches you play last about 5 minutes on the default settings. There is a constant commentary box in the bottom of the screen. And when there is a goal chance or important decision like a penalty the match pitch will appear and you will see the action in a birds eye graphical representative form. Like he didnt explain the gameplay. Other than "Loads of menus everywhere".
So I think that, at this point, it's safe to say that the problem isn't necessarily the REVIEW itself, but rather the fact that the review and the score don't necessarily seem to match? I can absolutely agree that I feel like the written review and the score seem quite skewed from one another. He may not have enjoyed the game at all, but he did recognize and understand WHY people would enjoy the game.
I mean, there is obviously no real resolution to this, because it's not like IGN is going to change the score or anything...but there have been a good handful of times in the history of game reviews where the score and the written review didn't necessarily match to the readers much. Unfortunately...we're the readers. That's why I think reading the text portion of a review is ALWAYS important, because the fuckholes that just look at the score and don't read the review piss me off more than anything, man. Luckily, given that I've read both of the reviews, I could say that I would be interested in playing this game...but I don't know how long I'd be interested in it.
"So I think that, at this point, it's safe to say that the problem isn't necessarily the REVIEW itself, but rather the fact that the review and the score don't necessarily seem to match? I can absolutely agree that I feel like the written review and the score seem quite skewed from one another. He may not have enjoyed the game at all, but he did recognize and understand WHY people would enjoy the game.The score is definitely a bit strange. And the review is too short in my opinion. For a game as complex and sort of hard to understand through words, it would have been nice for a longer, more well layed out and informative review.I mean, there is obviously no real resolution to this, because it's not like IGN is going to change the score or anything...but there have been a good handful of times in the history of game reviews where the score and the written review didn't necessarily match to the readers much. Unfortunately...we're the readers. That's why I think reading the text portion of a review is ALWAYS important, because the fuckholes that just look at the score and don't read the review piss me off more than anything, man. Luckily, given that I've read both of the reviews, I could say that I would be interested in playing this game...but I don't know how long I'd be interested in it."
Damn americans give soccer no time of day lol
And Jakob.... You seem to like the fact that the american review went for the more opinion-sided review which would be better for people who are new to the game or have never really got into soccer. (Fair enough) But surely the UK review does a better job of that anyway. Mainly because it is well written and it actually tells you what you will be doing when playing the game. No?
I can say that the UK review is a bit more in-depth, but at the same time...I can understand exactly what I'm getting into by someone saying:
Lots of menus, huge pool of players, mind-boggling amounts of depth, no sound, poor presentation
The US review is extremely straight-to-the-point about it all, so yeah, it does suck that he doesn't get into some of the depth of what the game has to offer. However, when I hear the word "simulation", I already assume that "depth" goes with that. I don't see the need to write more than what you need to get your own point across as a reviewer. If you write a one page review that condemns the game, then that's what you do. If you write a two page review that heralds the game, that's what you do. I just think that people need to look at Burk's review as something completely different than the UK review, because it offers a different perspective. That's all.
And no...we don't give soccer the time of day. Why?
Because real footballs are oval-shaped. LOL Okay, that was my fascist statement for the thread. Let's move on.
P.S. - the only sport I like is golf.
"And i thought it was just the reviewer that was ignorant...no, a review doesn't have to be "fair" - like you said, reviews are opinions.
Reviews are opinions. Fine. But a review has to be fair. How would you like it if you made a game and the reviewer said it was shit for all the wrong reasons. Saying that the graphics are terrible and sound are terrible when the game is not at all about that. Its fine to say that the graphics are shit and the sound sucks. But to say that is why the game is overall a bad game is terrible.
"
If anything, the 'fault' lies with the management getting someone who they should know has little knowledge in football reviewing a niche game (and it is a niche game genre, let's not kid ourselves) like this.
"p4ddym1607 said:Well yes. But that was my point all along. They got someone with no knowledge and obviosly didnt care enough to write good review. And i dont mean anything about score."And i thought it was just the reviewer that was ignorant...no, a review doesn't have to be "fair" - like you said, reviews are opinions.
Reviews are opinions. Fine. But a review has to be fair. How would you like it if you made a game and the reviewer said it was shit for all the wrong reasons. Saying that the graphics are terrible and sound are terrible when the game is not at all about that. Its fine to say that the graphics are shit and the sound sucks. But to say that is why the game is overall a bad game is terrible.
"
If anything, the 'fault' lies with the management getting someone who they should know has little knowledge in football reviewing a niche game (and it is a niche game genre, let's not kid ourselves) like this."
You have to write a review based on the perspective of the people its aimed at. He did not. Its not like i am the only one who thinks so either....
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=344523& http://boards.ign.com/sports_management_simulation_games/b7512/174592514/p1
"p4ddym1607 said:No he gave it that score because he thought the sum of its parts were utter crap, the lasting appeal being only one of those parts."jakob187 said:He gave the game a terrible score (2.0) because he found it wouldnt appeal to anyone outside of who it was designed for. The game is made for football lovers. You wouldnt believe the detail of the game. The IGN UK review is very well written and the person writing it obviously understands what it is all about.""You are really missing the point greatly.".....I'm sorry, I'm missing what the problem is here. It's a soccer manager game, kind of like NFL Head Coach? I don't like football much, so I have no interest in playing Head Coach at all. I think most people that don't care for football aren't going to play Head Coach."Seems like it would be the same way for this soccer manager thing.So no problem that I see.I mean, what....did you want IGN to give Cars, Sneak King, and Big Bumpin higher scores too? I mean, THOSE are for niche audiences as well...
This brings up an age old argument of whether a game should be reviewed with it's core audience in mind or the reviewers distinct personal opinion.
Fact of the matter is that anyone who is a soccer fan will probably find much, much, much more to entertain them even if the game isn't a good game by previous edition standards.
Point I'm trying to make is: the games subject matter probably won't appeal to some... but even if it is niche, shouldn't it be scored appropriately for the audience that would lap it up?
It's a bit like Wii Music - should it have been rated as a childs toy (which it obviously was designed to be) or should it be put on the same scale as -- Gears Of War 2 for example?
"p4ddym1607 said:In the bigger picture that is why he gave it a bad score. That covers things like complicated menus etc. Look his review is the equivalent of reviewing MGS4 and saying it sucked because you didnt get to snowboard on shadow moses island. Things like graphics and sound should get very little weight in this review to be more than a point deduction."p4ddym1607 said:No he gave it that score because he thought the sum of its parts were utter crap, the lasting appeal being only one of those parts.""jakob187 said:He gave the game a terrible score (2.0) because he found it wouldnt appeal to anyone outside of who it was designed for. The game is made for football lovers. You wouldnt believe the detail of the game. The IGN UK review is very well written and the person writing it obviously understands what it is all about.""You are really missing the point greatly.".....I'm sorry, I'm missing what the problem is here. It's a soccer manager game, kind of like NFL Head Coach? I don't like football much, so I have no interest in playing Head Coach at all. I think most people that don't care for football aren't going to play Head Coach."Seems like it would be the same way for this soccer manager thing.So no problem that I see.I mean, what....did you want IGN to give Cars, Sneak King, and Big Bumpin higher scores too? I mean, THOSE are for niche audiences as well...
"This brings up an age old argument of whether a game should be reviewed with it's core audience in mind or the reviewers distinct personal opinion.Yea. I think the review can cover both in nearly all situations. I think that a game should be reviewed with strong perspective going towards who it was intended for. And that doesnt mean that the review written by someone who is its intended audience isnt going to help someone who wants to know if they would enjoy it. You know what things might annoy people, or be difficult to understand in a game that you play. So you would talk about them in your review and probably be much more informative than the review written by someone who doesnt understand the game at all.
Fact of the matter is that anyone who is a soccer fan will probably find much, much, much more to entertain them even if the game isn't a good game by previous edition standards.
Point I'm trying to make is: the games subject matter probably won't appeal to some... but even if it is niche, shouldn't it be scored appropriately for the audience that would lap it up?
It's a bit like Wii Music - should it have been rated as a childs toy (which it obviously was designed to be) or should it be put on the same scale as -- Gears Of War 2 for example?"
After having read both reviews and reading the arguments in this thread I can concur it's a very tricky topic. For me, the US review does absolutely fuck all in explaining anything to those people who might be fans of the sport, series or game. In fact it explains nothing, at all.
I respect the reviewer for saying they didn't understand it but a review is written to inform mainly. The US review informed me of nothing apart from that the menu system might not be up to scratch.
And to the person that says reviews don't have to be "fair" -- they have to at least be objective in my opinion. And while he was to a degree ("soccer fans will love this") why didn't they just use the UK review which actually, you know, gives some information to those people who may want it?
The US reviewer still could have pulled all the usual strings of "it's a niche market", "it's cluttered", "it's hard to get into", etc. They are all fair criticisms. But he still has to actually, you know, give an oversight of the game.
Equivalents would be:
get2sammyb on C&C "I've no doubt people who like strategy games would enjoy this but I don't really have a clue what I'm doing and neither the gameplay nor subject material really appeal to me." Fair? No.
get2sammyb on Madden "The graphics look awesome but I'm not really sure what the objective of the sport is nor do I have a clue what the rules are but people who like Madden can be reassured that the game has all your favourite players and stuff." Fair? No.
This is a bad review because it doesn't achieve what it sets out to do: a review should give objective opinion and inform. It's not the reviewers fault - it's just clear that he wasn't up to the task of tackling this game. At least he admits that.
"get2sammyb said:To be honest my friend, I think you might be taking this a mite too seriously. Granted I can understand why you are making the case for your argument I don't know why you felt the need to Email IGN asking them to take the review down. You like the game. That should be sufficient."This brings up an age old argument of whether a game should be reviewed with it's core audience in mind or the reviewers distinct personal opinion.Yea. I think the review can cover both in nearly all situations. I think that a game should be reviewed with strong perspective going towards who it was intended for. And that doesnt mean that the review written by someone who is its intended audience isnt going to help someone who wants to know if they would enjoy it. You know what things might annoy people, or be difficult to understand in a game that you play. So you would talk about them in your review and probably be much more informative than the review written by someone who doesnt understand the game at all."
Fact of the matter is that anyone who is a soccer fan will probably find much, much, much more to entertain them even if the game isn't a good game by previous edition standards.
Point I'm trying to make is: the games subject matter probably won't appeal to some... but even if it is niche, shouldn't it be scored appropriately for the audience that would lap it up?
It's a bit like Wii Music - should it have been rated as a childs toy (which it obviously was designed to be) or should it be put on the same scale as -- Gears Of War 2 for example?"
If every review that seemed biased and lacking in journalistic credibility from a subjective point of view were taken down none would exist. I read the review, it seemed concise and said what needed to be said about the game. I think the biggest issue is the actual score he gave the game. You're are smart person and I think you know better than to put so much faith into a few numbers.
I might say that rather than make a point to call out a specific review you don't agree with that you write your own as a counterpoint that illustrates your opinion.
Also, while it may seem unfair, the review does create a screen for those that might not know what they are getting into when they see this game. Some people may be fans of soccer but they may not want the responsibility of running a franchise. In the end, it is simply another perspective in the myriad spectrum of video game reviews.
I despise games like that
"p4ddym1607 said:"He gave the game a terrible score (2.0) because he found it wouldnt appeal to anyone outside of who it was designed for. The game is made for football lovers."p4ddym1607 said:"The IGN UK review is very well written and the person writing it obviously understands what it is all about."p4ddym1607 said:"He gave the game a terrible score (2.0) because he found it wouldnt appeal to anyone outside of who it was designed for. The game is made for football lovers."So basically, what you are saying is that the game was reviewed by a US site where the premise and appeal of the game is not necessarily understood, and he found it to be extremely boring and something he couldn't be interested in because he didn't really care much about soccer. Meanwhile, a dood at a UK site reviewed the same game, digs "football", liked the game because he was able to get into it, and understood all of it.Again...failing to see the problem. Reviews are opinions, and in turn...a US dood gave a US review, while a UK dood gave a UK review. Do you really want to hold it against the guy from the US that he couldn't get into the game and didn't understand it? If anything, that tells me exactly how I might walk into that game: little interest, might not understand it all, and could very easily see it as being a game for a niche audience...which you yourself even said "the game is made for football lovers". That's a pretty niche audience if you ask me.I'm sure it's a great game, but the fact is that it isn't a game for EVERYONE, and for anyone walking into the game that didn't understand it, it could very much have been an unplayable game. So, I understand where the US IGN dood is coming from. Is he right? Probably not...but it's his opinion."
I would say the SCORE is based on an opinion. That is why scores are useless.
The review itself should provide facts about the game, and pros and cons so the reader can make an informed decision. The review can include positive and negative opinions for the pros & cons, the reader will know if the game is for them or not depending on what they agree and/or disagree with.
"p4ddym1607 said:Yea. Well when i clicked the guys name it gave me an option to email pc review section. I emailed and said that the review sucked. Not in them words of course."get2sammyb said:To be honest my friend, I think you might be taking this a mite too seriously. Granted I can understand why you are making the case for your argument I don't know why you felt the need to Email IGN asking them to take the review down. You like the game. That should be sufficient."This brings up an age old argument of whether a game should be reviewed with it's core audience in mind or the reviewers distinct personal opinion.Yea. I think the review can cover both in nearly all situations. I think that a game should be reviewed with strong perspective going towards who it was intended for. And that doesnt mean that the review written by someone who is its intended audience isnt going to help someone who wants to know if they would enjoy it. You know what things might annoy people, or be difficult to understand in a game that you play. So you would talk about them in your review and probably be much more informative than the review written by someone who doesnt understand the game at all."
Fact of the matter is that anyone who is a soccer fan will probably find much, much, much more to entertain them even if the game isn't a good game by previous edition standards.
Point I'm trying to make is: the games subject matter probably won't appeal to some... but even if it is niche, shouldn't it be scored appropriately for the audience that would lap it up?
It's a bit like Wii Music - should it have been rated as a childs toy (which it obviously was designed to be) or should it be put on the same scale as -- Gears Of War 2 for example?"
If every review that seemed biased and lacking in journalistic credibility from a subjective point of view were taken down none would exist. I read the review, it seemed concise and said what needed to be said about the game. I think the biggest issue is the actual score he gave the game. You're are smart person and I think you know better than to put so much faith into a few numbers.
I might say that rather than make a point to call out a specific review you don't agree with that you write your own as a counterpoint that illustrates your opinion.
Also, while it may seem unfair, the review does create a screen for those that might not know what they are getting into when they see this game. Some people may be fans of soccer but they may not want the responsibility of running a franchise. In the end, it is simply another perspective in the myriad spectrum of video game reviews."
"OK so basically, OP you got owned by Weltal and Jakob, and we're done here.That's not right though. Just because you think that doesn't mean the review is "allowed to be" bad. He could have made all the same points in his review but actually, you know, given some context to the game. Which the review doesn't.
I didn't know so many people had a fantasy about managing a football team but hey, whatever floats your hooliganistic boat!"
Again another equivalent:
On Gears 2: "So the graphics look awesome but I'm not really a fan of taking control of being this dude who shoots things. Some people will love it though."
Would you really consider that a fair review because that's the equivalent of what's being said in this Football Manager review. I'm not saying the reviewer is wrong - I'm just saying he gives absolutely no context at all to what the player might expect from the game. He can still say the menus are clunky and it's a niche audience but surely he has to actually INFORM the reader about... you know the actual game. Just because 95% of gamers are not interested in this franchise doesn't mean that someone is going to go on a professional website expecting an objective opinion on the game. This review gives absolutely no detail on the game at all - in fact it's whole review hinges on "some people might like it but I don't understand it really". To me that's not, right?
What the hell is your pic supposed to be get2sammy? You post in every other thread I read so I have to see it all the time. I glance at it and it looks like a big breasted cow-woman in a dress.
I'm not one of these people saying, "Well a review is just that persons opinion," because we all know a review on a major game site carries a lot more weight than some random guy's opinion, which is why the OP started this thread instead of ignoring the issue. I understand that. The score is very low for a game that doesn't appear to be as bad as, lets say, the countless shitty Japanese Wii games or that 18 wheel trucker game or something. But even within this niche, the game isn't blowing anyone away, it just serves its purpose for those who want to play it adequately enough for them to buy it. And buy the hell out of it, if the Steam numbers are an indication. It's not a game that really should be reviewed on traditional merits, but this review is obviously not hurting sales numbers. It's a fantasy sports team management game that you play while listening to a podcast or your favorite music. What do want from reviews? Even the positive ones mention that it's not a big step forward for the series, it's like any other sports game, only it's a management one.
No one in America is buying this anyway, I don't see why this review matters, other than to point out a flaw in the game criticism industry, and if that is your problem, I'd worry about all the sites that gave GTAIV perfect scores before this niche game. It's like bitching about global warming in America without realizing what China is doing across the ocean.
"What the hell is your pic supposed to be get2sammy? You post in every other thread I read so I have to see it all the time. I glance at it and it looks like a big breasted cow-woman in a dress.It's a big breasted cow woman in a dress.
"
It seems that IGN pulled the review.
IGN wrote:
"After seeing the community feedback and having more editors look at the title, we agree with the readers that our original review didn't give Worldwide Soccer Manager 2008 a fair shake. Unfortunately, our critical analysis of WWSM '08 focused more on what the author wanted it to be rather than what the product actually was. We review games at IGN based on their own merits, and agree that it was unreasonable to compare WWSM '08 with action-oriented sports titles like FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. Because of the unfair comparison, we have deemed the review unacceptable and have removed it from the site. "Hopefully we'll now see a fair review of the game. Gotta give props to IGN for cleaning up their own shitty mess.
Yea. Just seen that they pulled the review. Good news.
"It seems that IGN pulled the review.So now everyone that argued IGN's corner can eat humble pie.
IGN wrote:"After seeing the community feedback and having more editors look at the title, we agree with the readers that our original review didn't give Worldwide Soccer Manager 2008 a fair shake. Unfortunately, our critical analysis of WWSM '08 focused more on what the author wanted it to be rather than what the product actually was. We review games at IGN based on their own merits, and agree that it was unreasonable to compare WWSM '08 with action-oriented sports titles like FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. Because of the unfair comparison, we have deemed the review unacceptable and have removed it from the site. "Hopefully we'll now see a fair review of the game. Gotta give props to IGN for cleaning up their own shitty mess."
And agreed - mega props to IGN.
"Dalai said:All 5 people? Who takes IGN reviews seriously? Ever since they fired David Smith and Dave Zydr left for Sega, I don't think I've read a single review on IGN that was even 1/10 the worth of David Smith reviews."It seems that IGN pulled the review.So now everyone that argued IGN's corner can eat humble pie.
IGN wrote:"After seeing the community feedback and having more editors look at the title, we agree with the readers that our original review didn't give Worldwide Soccer Manager 2008 a fair shake. Unfortunately, our critical analysis of WWSM '08 focused more on what the author wanted it to be rather than what the product actually was. We review games at IGN based on their own merits, and agree that it was unreasonable to compare WWSM '08 with action-oriented sports titles like FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer. Because of the unfair comparison, we have deemed the review unacceptable and have removed it from the site. "Hopefully we'll now see a fair review of the game. Gotta give props to IGN for cleaning up their own shitty mess."
And agreed - mega props to IGN."
Also note that IGN often contracts out reviews to "contributing editors" which is basically fanboys and friends of staff.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment