Well I still standby everything I said in my last thread/blog post (http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/gungravetza/critics-sometimes-have-no-idea-what-theyre-talking-about/30-83024/). Critics really have no idea what they are talking about sometimes, espicially in the case on AiTD and DNF. But the way I said this was *somewhat* stupid. My argument didn't make much sense as I just gave an example of a badly reviewed game that I liked and then went "SO YEAH CRITICS ARE IDIOTS". I just needed to rant somewhere game-related where people would seem to pay attention, and since I registered I figured this would be a good place to do it. It'd be a good excuse to get into this site.
So for that, I am sorry. I'll probably re-do that argument some other time when I fully explain my points, but not right now. Can't really be bothered. But yeah, let's start again. I'm going to start posting on the forums more, and I was going to make a signature shop thread but then everyone pointed out there isn't on.
Critics really piss me off sometimes. I don't mind if they critisise a game fairly and mention fair points, like generic gameplay or a poor story. But the thing that really annoys me is when they don't take a game for what it is.
For example, 2008. Alone In The Dark comes out. Torn apart by critics complaining that all off the cool features are too clunky and the last half of the game becomes too much of a grind. But all of these so-called "clunky" features was what made it unique. Like swinging your analogue stick to use melee weapons was somewhat rough. I've never seen any game since that one attempt anything like it. It was a really memorable game for everything it tried to do and had some really cinematic moments, like the driving sequence early on in the game (many said that it was too hard but somehow I managed to finish it first time). Even if some of these attempts didn't work too well. I'd give it maybe a 7.5 or 8 out of 10.
And now, the exact same thing is happening with Duke Nukem Forever. Critics are destroying it, calling it awful with it's clunky shooting, dated design and poor visuals. While I can agree that the shooting is somewhat clunky, this can be remedied by simply turning up the aiming sensitivity, and while the visuals are bad, they are just dated. There is nothing really awful about them, it just looks a few years old. All of these issues are expected for a game in development for 14 years. I think the problem is that people have inflated expectations because of this rather than sensible ones. I never had this as I knew a long development time usually meant a worse design philosophy, not a better one. So I expected a 6.5/10. And what did I end up with? An 8.5. Feel free to read my review to see why.
Anyway, tl;dr: Critics are pissing me off and have no idea what they are talking about because they approach games with what they should be aiming for and not what they are actually aiming for. For example, AiTD just aimed to be a cinematic ride with some cool mechanics, not a third person survival horror with amazingly in-depth melee combat. And now with Duke Nukem Forever, the game just aims to be a really fun and enjoyable return to the world of Duke Nukem, not a FPS with fast, sharp controls and a emotionally moving story.
Critics need to learn to take a game for what it is, not what it should be.
Because if they don't, the consumers won't either. And they won't even give these great games a chance.
P.S: Don't keep going "shut the fuck up bad game is bad game". It gets old fast.
And on another note, I ended up in a Gametrailers gameplay video for DNF multiplayer. Check it out here if you want: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-duke-nukem/716273
Log in to comment