• 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by squiDc00kiE (340 posts) -

So Knack. You're cute, you remind me of my childhood, your enemy/level design is intelligent, and you're riddled with problems. You have a 56 on metacritic. Which if I was to review you I'd probably give you that same score. I agree with all of the complaints that have been leveled against you.

But I don't care. For some reason I love you Knack. It's not mere nostalgia, but a deeper feeling that the developers love the same games I did as a child. And while you have your problems, for some reason they just don't seem to matter to me.

Has anyone else ever felt this way? You understand and agree with a game's problems, even mentally scoring it a 6/10, but love it unironically anyways? It's put me in a weird place where I don't think scores will ever matter to me again. And I'm glad it did. Thank you Knack.

#2 Edited by Hailinel (22712 posts) -

I've disagreed with critics on numerous occasions.

I still don't see anything enjoyable in Knack.

#3 Posted by squiDc00kiE (340 posts) -

@hailinel: That's the thing. I don't disagree with them. I wholeheartedly believe that Knack deserves a 2/5 in Alex's review. But I enjoy it despite that.

#4 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3595 posts) -

Love it anyways? No. Maybe enjoy, but not love, with other games.

I haven't played Knack but from everything I've seen nostalgia or "hey this is a platformer I used to like those and you probably did too" wouldn't make me say I love it or even like it. I'd rather just go play a good new platformer like the new Sly Cooper or this new Ratchet and Clank.

When I had Gamefly I played through a lot of not that great games because I could for cheap and even then I didn't love those games. But hey, if you liked Knack good for you man.

#5 Edited by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -

It sounds like you do care about reviews, you just like a game independent of what you perceive its value to be to others.

Alpha Protocol is one of my ten favorite games from this gen. I would give that game a 3 out of 5, and if I recommend that game to friends, it's because they like that kind of game and it comes with a caveat that the game is mad busted.

I operate here under the assumption reviews are recommendations, not critiques.

#6 Edited by Petiew (1279 posts) -

I feel the same way about Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2. It becomes a repetitve and at times an unfair slog, but it has this weird charm that makes me remember it fondly.

#7 Posted by Sackmanjones (4609 posts) -

In the end game reviews are just opinions. They are important because they give you an idea of what you are getting into. Whether a game has a great review score or terrible, each person has their own taste. They are meant as a buyers guide for people curious or on the edge.

#8 Posted by TheHT (10281 posts) -

As buying advice they're just that: suggestions. You can gleam some worthwhile technical information about a game, objective stuff, from a review. However when it comes to judging the merit of a product as an effective source of entertainment, their determinations are generally subjective.

Obviously that doesn't mean only the objective parts of a review matter. A review can serve as a heads-up for a game you might not have considered, or a warning that a game you're interested it may not hold up to your expectations, or can assist you in other ways. But they certainly shouldn't ever dictate your own interests.

#9 Posted by Nightriff (4345 posts) -

Always take reviews with as a grain of salt, everyone has different taste and some people are willing to put up with problems in games more so than others. I for one am willing to put up with bad gameplay if the story is amazing.

#10 Posted by yani (413 posts) -

I know how you feel. Alpha Protocol got hammered in most reviews and I think its a piece of crap. It also happens to be one of my favourite games from the last few years.

#11 Posted by Largo6661 (326 posts) -

I never read reviews ever. I respect them and the opinions discussed in them but if I'm interested in something a bad review will not dissuade me from buying it. I read game articles and such but I personally find reviews useless to me personally.

#12 Posted by EXTomar (4125 posts) -

Reviews are opinions and should be taken as such. Opinions have value but one shouldn't over value them either.

#13 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3595 posts) -

I can almost see how people can like Alpha Protocol but the gameplay is so damn bad and the story had me fighting a 12 year old goth girl on a boat who wielded SMGs akimbo. I just couldn't, I just couldn't.

#14 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1271 posts) -

I can almost see how people can like Alpha Protocol but the gameplay is so damn bad and the story had me fighting a 12 year old goth girl on a boat who wielded SMGs akimbo. I just couldn't, I just couldn't.

The good bits in that game buried under a lot of not so good bits, but I still thought it was worth it.

#15 Posted by Jimbo (9710 posts) -

Alpha Protocol was exactly the 4th best game of 2010.

#16 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3595 posts) -

@ll_exile_ll said:

@artisanbreads said:

I can almost see how people can like Alpha Protocol but the gameplay is so damn bad and the story had me fighting a 12 year old goth girl on a boat who wielded SMGs akimbo. I just couldn't, I just couldn't.

The good bits in that game buried under a lot of not so good bits, but I still thought it was worth it.

I liked how the story could go all over the place, that's awesome, but some of it was so crap that I can't see why people like it that much. That part on the boat with that boss was cringe worthy. And there were other parts I thought were pretty lame that don't stand out in my mind as much as that truly ridiculous one.

But to each their own.

#17 Posted by PSNgamesun (373 posts) -

Reminds me of one of those cheesy horror flicks that are bad but I still get the enjoyment of fun out of em.

#18 Posted by TowerSixteen (538 posts) -

It's good not to just mindlessly follow reviews and to know what you like and where you differ from critics. But I think there's also a lot of good to be said for having someone identify potential problems with a game before purchasing? I mean, if your not paying any attention to reviews, at that point your buying decisions are beings made based on hype and trailers, to a degree(unless you don't count the oft-editorial Quick Looks as a type of review? I lump them together, though I guess others probably don't). I'm grateful, for instance, for the feedback on what went wrong with Crimson Dragon.

I know that I'll probably like an RPG more, a shooter much less, and I give extra points for good art direction over what reviewers do, and take that into account. I guess if your opinions are just completely and eternally divorced from the critical consensus though, I understand. Or (and I mean this in the best way possible) your just one of those types that just enjoys things easily, even if they do have severe flaws.

#19 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2812 posts) -

I can't believe that in 2013 anyone actually "believes" in critics at all.

They're all just as dumb/uneducated/confused/biased/emotional/susceptible to group-think as the rest of us.

No one working for any website has an opinion that is worth more to me than anyone posting in these forums.

#20 Posted by tourgen (4236 posts) -

Yeah, I'm at the same point with games. It's just a matter of knowing what I'm in the mood for and what things I enjoy about gaming. Also what I'm in the mood for tolerating.

Knack was alright. I finished it. I had a decent time. Bosses were kind of fun. Combat was responsive and controlled well. The variety in enemies was better than most games. New stuff even towards the end of the game.

Alpha Protocol, Deadly Premonition, any number of half-busted grindy MMOs and RPGs, that bad Walking Dead action game, so many more. I enjoyed them all, loved a few of them, they all reviewed badly.

#21 Posted by cloudymusic (919 posts) -

Yeah, there are plenty of games that I can recognize as being bad but that I still really like anyway. Don't worry about it!

#22 Posted by micemoney (85 posts) -

Here's the thing, if I was 9 or 10 years old, I would probably be pretty fucking pumped for knack (and SM3DW). I've always had a soft spot for adventure/platformers and when I do eventually get a PS4, Knack will be one the first games I get for sure. It just has that charm, and I think if you look at it under that light, and know exactly what you are getting, then it will probably be a enjoyable experience. A lot of the complaints were (while totally legit) bit nit-picky in my opinion. This game would have probably benefited from being presented as a non $60 downloadable indie title, or PS+ game. The audience just isn't there anymore.

#23 Edited by AmatureIdiot (982 posts) -

Yeah, totally. One of my favourite games of the last generation was the Persona 2: Innocent Sin remake. While I love that game, I accept that it has a bunch of problems that would put a lot of people off the game. I could not in good faith recommend the game everyone, but it's still one of the best games ever.

#24 Posted by crusader8463 (14313 posts) -

The only thing I want from a review is to know if a game is broken, nickle and dimes content, or has missing content. I hold no desire to read someones opnion on a game because it never jives with my feelings. All of my favourite games of all time got piss poor reviews and most of the games I dislike or hate get nothing but glowing reviews and praise.

#25 Posted by squiDc00kiE (340 posts) -

@towersixteen: I apologize for not being clear but I do still care about reviews. Just not scores. I love Knack. I'd give it a 6/10. Scores to me don't carry as much weight as they used to.

#26 Posted by Canteu (2814 posts) -

I don't think I've read a review in over 10 years now.

#27 Edited by Marokai (2636 posts) -

Vinny said something that irked me (I know, I'm in dangerous territory now) during the Knack QL, and it went something along the lines of, when responding to Brad's question if it impressed him at all, saying "If you're asking if I look at this and think "Whoa!!! That's fucking amazing!" then no." As if that was the only condition to him ever playing a game, at this point; unconditionally blowing him away in every conceivable way.

I agree with you OP, there is something appealing about Knack in spite of the fact that it still looks one-note and weirdly shallow, and I'll buy it when I get a PS4 sometime next year to give it a shot. Alex's review is totally fair, it doesn't look like it deserves a great score. And yet, it bothers me that it seems like many critics can't tolerate anything that is any less than ground-breaking-mind-fucking-orgasmic-amazing, and aren't willing to try and enjoy or spend time with something that is subpar. Everything these days is so hyperbolic whenever something isn't a 9/10; if it's not incredible, nothing worthwhile is ever remembered of it. Assassin's Creed 3 got four stars on this site, but you'd certainly never know it if you never saw the review.

Most individuals aren't exactly high-standards individuals, I understand that, but it does come off as a bit snobbish at times. There is a value in playing and talking about games that are not necessarily amazing, but can nonetheless be enjoyed and worthwhile in some way. It keeps yourself grounded and is an interesting way to remember why, if nothing else, the games we consider so great really are that great. Not keeping that perspective is what leads people to end up whining, at the end of every year, at how so much of the year was disappointing and sucky. There are interesting and worthwhile games all around, getting released all the time, and if you're not at least trying different things out once in awhile, you're doing yourself a disservice.

I guess in a long and vaguely incoherent rambling way, what I'm really getting at here is that I kind of miss how Giant Bomb used to give more middling-tier games more coverage and discussion. I miss when Vinny used to insist on playing Wet, and spend days on The Wheelman, when Jeff pissed away a weekend on Godfather 2, when Brad used to finish a game outside of one he was reviewing, and they could come away from these experiences thinking "Not the greatest game ever, but hey, here's a silly/dumb part I really liked." In the last year and ahalf, it's like everyone on the staff aged ten years, are always ten minutes late for something, and can barely cover the tentpole releases, let alone anything else.

#28 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3595 posts) -

The fact that Giant Bomb didn't like Knack really proving they are all jaded sell outs. So true.

Shook me to my core.

Every time Giant Bomb doesn't like some game, for someone that means they are just jaded now. This went on a long while back and it continues today. It's all taste. Mid tier games are only going to appeal to you if they hit something you like doing.

They don't like Knack's story, or it's combat. I mean, that about sums it up.

#29 Posted by DonutFever (3515 posts) -

Outlast had some problems, but they never got in the way of me having a great time. It received a better response then Knack did, though.

#30 Posted by Superkenon (1191 posts) -

@marokai:

The recent upsurge of indie games has a lot to do with this phenomenon, I'd say. Paying $60 for a fun but shallow game has quickly become something of an absurdity, when you could easily use that same money for, like, three or four better games. Gameplay-wise, Knack's not doing anything that a more affordable game isn't doing better or more interestingly (sure, arguably). So then, what are we paying so much more for? The production value -- meaning... graphics. And if that stuff's not impressive, I think it's perfectly reasonable for it to be a point of scrutiny.

I think the game looks like good fun, too. I definitely want to try it out. But the value proposition just isn't there. If I didn't have somewhat of a disposable income, and wasn't a crazy video game collector, I wouldn't know why I'd bother.

#31 Posted by Slag (3339 posts) -

@squidc00kie: Yeah all the time. My personal favorite game of 2012 got a 3/5 from Giant Bomb (Dragon's Dogma) and a 78 on Metacritc. I like games in general so I can usually have fun with most of them regardless of objective critical quality.

@marokai said:

Vinny said something that irked me (I know, I'm in dangerous territory now) during the Knack QL, and it went something along the lines of, when responding to Brad's question if it impressed him at all, saying "If you're asking if I look at this and think "Whoa!!! That's fucking amazing!" then no." As if that was the only condition to him ever playing a game, at this point; unconditionally blowing him away in every conceivable way.

I see what you are saying but to be fair to Vinny, Brad didn't ask him if he liked it or enjoyed it, just if it impressed him. Those are admittedly pretty different questions with probably pretty different answers.

I do think though Vinny probably doesn't game as much as he used to though given his kid is getting older, it happened to all my friends in his situation. Is what it is, you just have less dedicated free time as a Dad. So it is possible he has to pick his shots more with what he plays, perhaps making him less excited to play mediocre games...If that's true can't say I blame him.

It's a lot different mentality when you know you can maybe meaningfully play 5-6 games a year vs say 30-40

#32 Posted by shinjin977 (707 posts) -

Nier is one of my favorite game of all time. Despite poor mechanics and executions but the way the story unfolds, especially after you beat it the first time. That was an amazing game but maybe not a good one.

#33 Edited by Tajasaurus (660 posts) -

yo this is kinda how i feel about ryse tho

#34 Posted by mano521 (1202 posts) -

to each their own. Hell i love the new Worms game even though it was rated poorly. It was a cruddy game but i still liked it cuz you know, its Worms! Loved Worms as a kid and still do now

#35 Edited by Levio (1781 posts) -

Due to unpredictable genetic mutations and recombinations, everyone is going to have their own unique personality quirks that deviate from the shared personality traits which developed from millenia of natural selection which will inevitably lead to different emotional reactions to certain stimuli.

AKA: u r a spcial snwflak

#36 Posted by Darji (5295 posts) -

Alpha Protocol is great if you think of it as a RPG and not Mass Effect. If you think it is Mass Effect than the combat for example is pretty bad. But Alpha Protocol has kind of a dice system and stats matter not your aiming skill. And with a full developed Stealth character you can go up very close to people. And it is not broken in any way it is stats based.

Also Alpha protocol has the best implementation of a dialogue wheel as well. These choices you had very actually really interesting and tense and also a lot of your choices matter a lot if you see some levels or who the villain is in the end. It was absolutely a great game I wish would get a proper sequel....

#37 Posted by JZ (2125 posts) -

Is this the first time you've ever disagreed with someone?

#38 Posted by CornBREDX (4456 posts) -

I'll tell you a secret.

Scores never mattered.

#39 Posted by yinstarrunner (1171 posts) -

It's OK to like things that are bad. I like plenty of bad films and music, etc. They're called "guilty pleasures".

The good thing is that you understand it has a lot of reasonable problems to criticize.

#40 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1357 posts) -

@slag said:

@squidc00kie: Yeah all the time. My personal favorite game of 2012 got a 3/5 from Giant Bomb (Dragon's Dogma) and a 78 on Metacritc. I like games in general so I can usually have fun with most of them regardless of objective critical quality.

@marokai said:

Vinny said something that irked me (I know, I'm in dangerous territory now) during the Knack QL, and it went something along the lines of, when responding to Brad's question if it impressed him at all, saying "If you're asking if I look at this and think "Whoa!!! That's fucking amazing!" then no." As if that was the only condition to him ever playing a game, at this point; unconditionally blowing him away in every conceivable way.

I see what you are saying but to be fair to Vinny, Brad didn't ask him if he liked it or enjoyed it, just if it impressed him. Those are admittedly pretty different questions with probably pretty different answers.

I do think though Vinny probably doesn't game as much as he used to though given his kid is getting older, it happened to all my friends in his situation. Is what it is, you just have less dedicated free time as a Dad. So it is possible he has to pick his shots more with what he plays, perhaps making him less excited to play mediocre games...If that's true can't say I blame him.

It's a lot different mentality when you know you can maybe meaningfully play 5-6 games a year vs say 30-40

I don't have any opinion one way or another with Knack, but @marokai's brings up something I've been noticing as well. To add to the Assassin's Creed III example, I think the way all involved casually dismissed Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword as not worth playing during the Wind Waker discussion was disconcerting. These professional game critics sitting around a table deciding that two of the most beloved games of the generation were obviously skippable (because, I don't know, some people said it on Twitter?) didn't sit right with me. At the very least, thinking like this strikes me as a good way to get stuck in your ways and apathetic about games.

I'm playing Skyward Sword now, and it's not connecting with me as much as I'd have hoped, but I'd never assume that to be the case or casually dismiss it without trying it for myself.

#41 Posted by Animasta (14460 posts) -

I've stopped trusting game reviews because they gave Nier a metacritic of under 95

(serious though, whatever whatevs)

#42 Edited by Klei (1768 posts) -

So Knack. You're cute, you remind me of my childhood, your enemy/level design is intelligent, and you're riddled with problems. You have a 56 on metacritic. Which if I was to review you I'd probably give you that same score. I agree with all of the complaints that have been leveled against you.

But I don't care. For some reason I love you Knack. It's not mere nostalgia, but a deeper feeling that the developers love the same games I did as a child. And while you have your problems, for some reason they just don't seem to matter to me.

Has anyone else ever felt this way? You understand and agree with a game's problems, even mentally scoring it a 6/10, but love it unironically anyways? It's put me in a weird place where I don't think scores will ever matter to me again. And I'm glad it did. Thank you Knack.

I loved a lot of bad games. Tenchu Z for instance. I like Ryse too, for what it's worth.

#43 Posted by mosespippy (3751 posts) -

I think Borderlands 2 is hot garbage. An absolutely terrible game from beginning to end in every aspect. I have 10 characters over level 20 and 3 characters done the game, two of which are level 50. I have just about every orange tier item at level 50. It's taken at least 100 hours. Probably closer to 200. It's not a good game. I had a lot of trouble quitting it.

#44 Edited by Grimace (374 posts) -

I haven't played Knack yet as I'm Australian, but I'll play it and probably say that it isn't the worst thing ever. Gameplay-wise from what I've seen it looks like a NES game with modern graphics what with it being rather punishing and straightforward.

My biggest gripe is actually the games' length - I've heard reports of it being 10-12 hours? Waaay too long for a game like this.

#45 Edited by Three0neFive (2275 posts) -

I don't even understand why people read reviews. I read/watch game coverage to see what the games are - the mechanics, how they work, if they look interesting to me - not to know what some dude I don't know thinks of it. It's not that I don't trust them or anything, it's just not relevant to me.

I guess I've transcended the zeitgeist or whatever, because the vast majority of the time I don't give a shit about discussing new releases or the politics of the industry or whatever. Like, who the fuck cares. Just play videogames.

#46 Posted by ProfessorK (797 posts) -

I like Dynasty Warriors... God help me.

#47 Posted by Slag (3339 posts) -

I don't have any opinion one way or another with Knack, but @marokai's brings up something I've been noticing as well. To add to the Assassin's Creed III example, I think the way all involved casually dismissed Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword as not worth playing during the Wind Waker discussion was disconcerting. These professional game critics sitting around a table deciding that two of the most beloved games of the generation were obviously skippable (because, I don't know, some people said it on Twitter?) didn't sit right with me. At the very least, thinking like this strikes me as a good way to get stuck in your ways and apathetic about games.

I'm playing Skyward Sword now, and it's not connecting with me as much as I'd have hoped, but I'd never assume that to be the case or casually dismiss it without trying it for myself.

What video/cast was that in? The Wind Waker HD Quick Look? I don't think I watched that one.

#48 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

Kane & Lynch 2 was okay, you guys.

#49 Edited by ArbitraryWater (11008 posts) -

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with critics or having guilty pleasures. I will admit to sort of enjoying Resident Evil 6 despite fully acknowledging that it is not a good game in any sense of the word. I also think Dragon Age 2 is alright.

#50 Posted by ILikePopCans (713 posts) -

I really like Ninety-Nine Nights, but that is for nostalgia felling more than anything, but I also really enjoy playing Darkest of Days even though it is pretty bad. I like it because it tries to have a shit tone of AI troops to fight, which is not done in many places.

Enjoying something ≠ of high quality. Reviews still have their place, don't see why people shits on them, but they can never tell how YOU will fill about a game, only how they feel about a game.

Also I concur, Kane & Lynch 2 was okay