Hehe, I just layed my controller down playing Ninja Gaiden II. There are a few things I do to set reviews in perspective. When you game somewhat long you probably know what matters to you in a game and can see which type of criticism is relevant to you. Also, if you continue to read on the same videogame sites, you get to know which games the reviewers prefer and can incorporate this in your personal rating. Then I try to see some Video Reviews / play demos, with some experience, you can easily see if a game looks interesting to you or not from a few minutes video footage. If two reviews state different opinions on the exact same concept (this happens really rarely from what I recount) you can still judge the single statements on your impressions of the site/author of the review and argumentation in it (whos more trustworthy?) - AND You can always read MOAR reviews. When I'm interested in a game I go to metacritic an see which sites reviewed it. I prefer Giant Bomb and Destructoid for reviews, I added 1Up recently and RPG Gamer for RPGs. Then I watch Video Reviews on Gamespot and IGN. Ah, to answer your question: The score matters in general, but the reviews still have to foster interest in the game, I'm not only interested because it's well rated - whereby great reviews form giantbomb and destructoid give me generally a fairly high interest in a game to begin with since I know how to translate their writing in my personal taste (but these are the only video game sites I "trust"). For example with Ninja Gaiden 2 the opinions where quite congruent: Nice core game mechanics and fast pace, satisfyingly gory graphics but definitly not top notch and a horrible camera. I say: while the models are nice and the enemies are somewhat diverse the levels simply look bad (empty!).
I'm just curious because in the next forum I will read complaint (of maybe some of the same people) how stupid a game is for proving just too many fetching quests. It's interesting. Two variables come to my mind: a) the reviewer will mention it as a negative point (whereas in Fable II they mentioned the flawed economics, which gamers must prove right) b) fable IIs jobs a voluntary, whereas fetching quests are often a must do.
There was one thing I really didn't like about Oblivion: The need to efficiently level up, since the enemies become stronger with each level you gain. I tend to play crazy assemblings of heroes, so basically, after investing 20 hours I realized I will be screwed soon. This took the fun out of the game for me. I really, really loved morrowind though (does it have the same leveling-up mechanics?).
Jayge: I couldn't see where his post is self-contradictory. Yes, I read that reviews claim Fallout 3 being overloaded. Still, I think it's great someone takes his time to share his opinion (even if it's not braniac, which he should have stated). Also, where do all this crazy people complaining about deviating opinions come from? Why has there to be one official norm-giving forum opinion on each big topic? I thought giant bomb was a safe heaven, in the very culminating pot of puberty of internet gaming communities.
You know. Reptile would be a lot of similar looking ninjas for 11 chars. And then would you rather leave out sub or scrop? But why the hack has subzero a teleport? I just wanna freeze people :D. Why did they leave Kung lao out? I like Kitana, but I think Sonya is boring. Also why Jax? Is he so popular? I don't know, not alot of MY favourite MK chars in there. At least I have Raiden and Sub Zero (I miss Kabal, Stryker (Ninja-Robot!) and Kung Lao).
In reviews of a configuration of this laptop with similar specs someone ran Crysis medium with a avg of 27.8 frames (on 1280). He benchmarked COD on two different levels on a mixture between medium and high settings with 37.9 respective 50 fps average. The processor is actually called Intel Core Duo 2 Mobile (the model is P8400) - but as far as I know its the C2.
Log in to comment