Now I am not about to defend this game.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that I would ever buy it (or even intended to), but if the gaming "journalists" expect to be taken seriously, then they need to stop acting like dicks and adolescent children.   
 
You have to ask yourself the question:  
Are they actually playing the same game? 
  
Take the top end and compare with the bottom from Metacritic: 
  75  GameZone

Those who approach Smash-Up hoping for a solid, enjoyable alternative to Smash Bros. will be pleased, but Turtles fans hoping for a celebration of the franchise will probably be disappointed by the game’s shameful “scratch the surface” approach to Eastman and Laird’s storied 25-year-old franchise.

Smash-Up is a good game for those that really want a decent TMNT fighter, but it doesn’t do a whole lot to make it its own experience.

This brawler has good combat and solid content, but it lacks the refinement and razzle-dazzle to earn a title shot.

Truly, there’s nothing redeeming; you're just going to waste your time playing it. If you have the self-control, please don’t let morbid curiosity get the best of you.

Why? Because reviewers may vary in opinion? I'd say that's more of a plus than a detriment.

All I'm looking for in a review is the writer's personal opinion about the game, along with some basic facts about the gameplay. I don't see anything wrong with any of those reviews.

" Why? Because reviewers may vary in opinion? I'd say that's more of a plus than a detriment. "

" All I'm looking for in a review is the writer's personal opinion about the game, along with some basic facts about the gameplay. I don't see anything wrong with any of those reviews. "

If a personal opinion starts factoring other factors it stops being a personal opinion and just what the sites reader base wants to hear.

As far as I know this isn't a kids game it's just a game about TMNT. That's a pretty wide demographic for a lot of people so he shouldn't have to tailor the review for children, per se. As far as he's concerned the game is complete trash, yet you expect him to ignore what he thinks about the game and review it based on..... what exactly?

" As far as I know this isn't a kids game it's just a game about TMNT. That's a pretty wide demographic for a lot of people so he shouldn't have to tailor the review for children, per se. As far as he's concerned the game is complete trash, yet you expect him to ignore what he thinks about the game and review it based on..... what exactly? "

" If a personal opinion starts factoring other factors it stops being a personal opinion and just what the sites reader base wants to hear. "

I'd say your title is being a bit harsh because it's aimed at a select few who are actually getting paid to write this rubbish and reflects poorly on the rest of the reviewers out there. The example you've given isn't a good reflection on the industry as a whole. 
 
I'd like to think anyone who viewed the quick look of that game here can see it's not worth a zero, no matter what scale the reviewer was rating on. The game was pretty mediocre, even as a children's game, and outclassed by other titles like Smash Bros, but it wasn't broken or glitchy and still played decently enough to be rated higher than that.

It seems to be a good game, and I don't really understand why the reviews have been so negative either.  Complete clone of Smash Brothers, yes.. but that seems to be the biggest complaint. 

Personally, the only thing holding me back from it is the lack of characters from the original show.  There are so many obvious characters missing, I just don't see who they're trying to appeal to with this game.  If it's been released for the Turtles anniversary, why isn't there more stuff for the old school fans?  Nostalgia isn't going to sell it, so I can only assume it's based on the more recent TV show, which I know nothing about.  In my opinion, they really messed up there.  That aside, the gameplay seems solid enough.

" I'd say your title is being a bit harsh because it's aimed at a select few who are actually getting paid to write this rubbish and reflects poorly on the rest of the reviewers out there. The example you've given isn't a good reflection on the industry as a whole.   I'd like to think anyone who viewed the quick look of that game here can see it's not worth a zero, no matter what scale the reviewer was rating on. The game was pretty mediocre, even as a children's game, and outclassed by other titles like Smash Bros, but it wasn't broken or glitchy and still played decently enough to be rated higher than that. "

The fact that the guy gave the game a zero makes me question his stance as a gamer. The game may be a clone, but it's not like the game isn't any fun. What the hell is his problem?

Well, I don't read reviews at all. Ok, sometimes I do, but that's after I own the game. I read them after I own and play a game just to see other people's opinions, which I almost always disagree with.

" I was using "kids"game as a broad example, not specific to TMNT. 
 
He shouldn't have bothered reviewing the game.  That review just makes him look like a dick and consequently, anything he writes is not worthy of time.  It would be like me reviewing Halo 3.  I would rag on about how boring it is, how ordinary it looks and more and more reasons not to buy it.  However, that review would be shit and I would be a dick for writing it.  However, if I did write a review on Halo 3, it would still get a good score because I could separate my personal tastes from what I write. 
 
Personal opinions on their own, in isolation and without regard to professionalism and the readers is utter crap.  The game industry is full of it. 
 

Lol. 0. Lol. What a joke. They just figured nobody will mind since the game's not excellent AAA and did it for the lulz and hits rather than properly review it. Too bad they hit their integrity harder than anything else. Morons. And Lol @ people defending that attitude.

This is what happens when a review aggregater doesn't screen for the sites it includes. You get places nobody has ever heard of who aren't even sent review copies getting more attention than they deserve. On the other hand, developers shouldn't be looking at review aggregaters to begin with. Its a cycle of bullshit. 
Imagine being turned down for a raise because your company gives them out based on Meta Averages, and your game fell short of the "raise zone" because Game Nice, Gameshoes, and Gametube decided your game was a zero because its a Wii game, or something equally asinine. Its a shitty situation.

Look, we either get reviews that are trying to be consumer reports, which can never ever be accurate, or we get movie critic like assessments where the critic will give their opinion and nothing more.
 
I believe more reviewers should give out 0's or very low scores.  If you average out every review across every site the average is something like 70-some percent.
 
The game doesn't have Bebop & Rocksteady so obviously it's of no value.

" @oldschool said:

" I was using "kids"game as a broad example, not specific to TMNT. 
 
He shouldn't have bothered reviewing the game.  That review just makes him look like a dick and consequently, anything he writes is not worthy of time.  It would be like me reviewing Halo 3.  I would rag on about how boring it is, how ordinary it looks and more and more reasons not to buy it.  However, that review would be shit and I would be a dick for writing it.  However, if I did write a review on Halo 3, it would still get a good score because I could separate my personal tastes from what I write. 
 
Personal opinions on their own, in isolation and without regard to professionalism and the readers is utter crap.  The game industry is full of it. 
 

I still fail to see how this review is making him look like a dick. He wrote a review based on his opinion of the game and his opinion is the game is garbage. End of story. It's trash and no one should play it. How is that a dick review? He makes points and explains his stance in the review so why should he be unable to express to people looking to pick up the game how bad the game may be?   In your case you should be more then welcome to write a negative review and explain your stance on why Halo 3 is a bad game that's not worth someone's time. What would be stupid is to give a game you feel is sub-par a good score. I can't even fathom the reasoning behind that statement. You hated the game so.. it gets a good score..?  If you're separating your personal taste from the review of the game then what the hell are you reviewing the game based on?  Personal opinions are by and large the only thing that matters in a review. It's the entire crux of a review. What are people supposed to be doing if they aren't rendering a verdict based on opinion? Saying that you need to change your opinion because someone might not like it is completely ludicrous. It honestly sounds like you are trying to say that reviews can't be negative. "

This is why Metacritic is here-to ensure that most legitimate reviews are taken into consideration. I'm sure there are a percentage of people who agree with that 0 and therefore will listen to them. Of course, most sensible people will look at the other people as well. This is only annoying when people only look at specific parts of reviews (like, the lower to see whats bad or the higher to see whats good), and, lets face it, they'll never get it right anyway.

Out of curiosity, have you actually read the review or are you just basing this entire thread on the three line quote that Metacritic posted?  I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm legitimately curious.

" This is why Metacritic is here-to ensure that most legitimate reviews are taken into consideration. I'm sure there are a percentage of people who agree with that 0 and therefore will listen to them. Of course, most sensible people will look at the other people as well. This is only annoying when people only look at specific parts of reviews (like, the lower to see whats bad or the higher to see whats good), and, lets face it, they'll never get it right anyway. "

Well the fact that you are considering Metacritic to contain all legitimate or reliable reviews may be your big mistake. They don't have a great vetting system and some of their critics are no better a random blog. That's why I really don't give much of a shit about Metacritic. You know, I have a few sites that I read reviews from and keep it to that. Like GiantBomb.com!!!!!

" Out of curiosity, have you actually read the review or are you just basing this entire thread on the three line quote that Metacritic posted? "

If I wrote that Halo 3 review, it wouldn't be worth reading.  It would be like me reading a Halo fanboy's review of Halo 3.  Hell, I may as well read any fan or anti-fan review of a game, they are just opinions as well.  Reviewers should be above that and have objectivity.  Many don't.  Of course reviews can be negative.  That is a spurious point.  The negativity must be contained  that objectivity.  He doesn't like the story, make the point but don't present it as fact.  He doens't like the characters, make that point but don't present it is as fact.  Acknowledge that others may and give it a score based on its playability, not some ridiculous preconceived dislike or bias.  It is like reading Wii reviews these days.  You have to assume the bias and stupidity of many reviewers and learn to ignore all the low scores and look more at those somewhere in the upper middle range to get a fair indication of intrinsic value. "

Firstly, look-up any movie or album on metacritic and you'll get the same variety of opinion.
Secondly, if that reviewer honestly felt like that about the game who are we to say he shouldn't write it or should like it say a 6/10 to go along with the industry trend.Maybe if we all read his full review we'd see his statement backed up by well thought out and well expressed complaints.
 
I do think that people take reviews waaay too seriously in gaming particularly however.Like you said  ''
they are just people with tastes and opinions and nothing else''.My favourite games are mostly in the low 80s/high 70s on metacritic, some of my favourite albums and movies go so low as the 40s on there.

" @dbz1995 said:

" This is why Metacritic is here-to ensure that most legitimate reviews are taken into consideration. I'm sure there are a percentage of people who agree with that 0 and therefore will listen to them. Of course, most sensible people will look at the other people as well. This is only annoying when people only look at specific parts of reviews (like, the lower to see whats bad or the higher to see whats good), and, lets face it, they'll never get it right anyway. "

Metacritic doesn't do that at all. What determines legitimacy? How do you know if you didn't open a site tomorrow and included scores and submitted your site to Metacritic you wouldn't get on? You have no idea what their screening process is or if there even is one, and based on how obscure some review outlets are that they include, they don't do any screening at all. "

" Well the fact that you are considering Metacritic to contain all legitimate or reliable reviews may be your big mistake. They don't have a great vetting system and some of their critics are no better a random blog. That's why I really don't give much of a shit about Metacritic. You know, I have a few sites that I read reviews from and keep it to that. Like GiantBomb.com!!!!! "

" @oldschool said:

If I wrote that Halo 3 review, it wouldn't be worth reading.  It would be like me reading a Halo fanboy's review of Halo 3.  Hell, I may as well read any fan or anti-fan review of a game, they are just opinions as well.  Reviewers should be above that and have objectivity.  Many don't.  Of course reviews can be negative.  That is a spurious point.  The negativity must be contained  that objectivity.  He doesn't like the story, make the point but don't present it as fact.  He doens't like the characters, make that point but don't present it is as fact.  Acknowledge that others may and give it a score based on its playability, not some ridiculous preconceived dislike or bias.  It is like reading Wii reviews these days.  You have to assume the bias and stupidity of many reviewers and learn to ignore all the low scores and look more at those somewhere in the upper middle range to get a fair indication of intrinsic value. "

What your saying is you want reviews to be based on other peoples opinions? What good is this? Why do I need to know that someone might find this game enjoyable? I want to know what the reviewer thinks, not some random person who may or may not exist. For example, take Big Rigs. That game is trash and no one should ever like it. Therefor it gets a 10/10. I mean it's shit and should never be played by anyone but because there might be someone, somewhere that might possibly like the game I gotta take that into consideration.   As far as I can tell he took in the whole game and disliked it. It was a buggy mess, in his experience, and therefor got a terrible score. Why you seem to think it deserves a better score simply because you or someone else may enjoy it is baffling. "

" @dbz1995 said:

" This is why Metacritic is here-to ensure that most legitimate reviews are taken into consideration. I'm sure there are a percentage of people who agree with that 0 and therefore will listen to them. Of course, most sensible people will look at the other people as well. This is only annoying when people only look at specific parts of reviews (like, the lower to see whats bad or the higher to see whats good), and, lets face it, they'll never get it right anyway. "

Metacritic doesn't do that at all. What determines legitimacy? How do you know if you didn't open a site tomorrow and included scores and submitted your site to Metacritic you wouldn't get on? You have no idea what their screening process is or if there even is one, and based on how obscure some review outlets are that they include, they don't do any screening at all. "

" Well the fact that you are considering Metacritic to contain all legitimate or reliable reviews may be your big mistake. They don't have a great vetting system and some of their critics are no better a random blog. That's why I really don't give much of a shit about Metacritic. You know, I have a few sites that I read reviews from and keep it to that. Like GiantBomb.com!!!!! "

" @iAmJohn said:

" Out of curiosity, have you actually read the review or are you just basing this entire thread on the three line quote that Metacritic posted? "

Of course I base it on the summary.  A summary is supposed to be a ......... summary ....... a wrap-up and indicative of the whole review.  When you write a summary, it is meant to summarise your position.  I only read the odd review in full and the summary is what I base it on.  If they write a dumb summary, then they are fools. "

"  I did not say that and I am sorry, but I am not continuing this circular discussion with you when you fail to keep the points in perspective. "

Also, "buggy mess" is an objective complaint, not subjective, so you'd think all reviewers would experience it. It's not like with PCs where depending on one's setup he may encounter issues someone else doesn't. Most will have the same experience.

And yes, you can dislike things personally but use common sense and logic and deduct that your opinion doesn't make them universally bad. I don't like Halo's art style, but I have enough knowledge and experience to know the models, the textures, the levels, are profesionally crafted and quality stuff, so I wouldn't rate it with a 5/10 even if Sci-Fi in general is a torture for me. If a reviewer doesn't see that, he shouldn't be a reviewer.

" @MB said:

" All I'm looking for in a review is the writer's personal opinion about the game, along with some basic facts about the gameplay. I don't see anything wrong with any of those reviews. "

I may be interested in what parts they enjoy and for what reasons, and the same for a dislike, but a personal opinion has to be balanced with the readers in mind.  Unless they are writing to try and sound cool or appeal to a narrow demographic.  Personal opinions are only worthwhile with that balance. "

Hell, every site has a different way of ranking their scores.
 
Maybe Game Revolution or whatever likes to throw down 0s, and likes to act all 'radical' and 'revolutionary' with numbers.
 
Who cares, Metacritic is only good to find reviews of websites you trust... You need to take scores with a grain of salt especially when everyone and their mom gets included in Metacritic reviews.

"People are different. Even within a given online community, personalities differ. For instance, I am not interested in about 95% of all sports games. Yet, I'm sure you could find plenty of people on this site who feel otherwise. I come to this site for reviews and content because I like their personalities. I like their honesty, and I like their opinions. They don't do much content on sports games here, because they're not interested in them. I'm glad they're willing to say that, instead of going out and reviewing a bunch of those games, and giving them sub-par ratings, simply because they do not enjoy the genre.
 
You're asking that these reviewers limit their personal opinion on the quality of an entertainment product. Personal opinion is the most important factor in deciding the value of entertainment. Sure, you have to take that person's taste into consideration when reading that review, but would you really rather that they pretend to have found more, or less, value in a game because their reader base might disagree with them?"

This thread is why Giant Bomb users rarely deserve respect.

The internet just owned you son !

A 0?  Wow.....

" @iAmJohn said:

" Out of curiosity, have you actually read the review or are you just basing this entire thread on the three line quote that Metacritic posted? "

Of course I base it on the summary.  A summary is supposed to be a ......... summary ....... a wrap-up and indicative of the whole review.  When you write a summary, it is meant to summarise your position.  I only read the odd review in full and the summary is what I base it on.  If they write a dumb summary, then they are fools. "

I don't understand what you're trying to say. 
 
Yeah, they said they don't like the game and/or hate the game. 
 
So.... what?  You're basing your complaint on the stupid ass lines Metacritic chooses to put on their sites as a "summary". 
 
Also your example fails miserably since you said you haven't played the game so you can't ask "Are we even playing the same game?".

oldschool, for once, I do agree with you.  
 
A review SHOULD take into account the audience it's written for. If a reviewer doesn't consider anything else but his own personal opinion, that's called BIAS. A biased review only takes into account the author's preferences, so you can't really use a biased review for yourself if the reviewer's tastes differ from your own.  
 
For example, if you love sports games, and you read a review from a guy who hates them, if the reviewer doesn't look from a "sports lover's" point of view, and bashes it because it's not what he likes, then the review is not helpful to ANYONE.  

I find it hard to believe any game could get a 0. Even Big Rigs deserves something higher than that.

" oldschool, for once, I do agree with you.   A review SHOULD take into account the audience it's written for. If a reviewer doesn't consider anything else but his own personal opinion, that's called BIAS. A biased review only takes into account the author's preferences, so you can't really use a biased review for yourself if the reviewer's tastes differ from your own.   For example, if you love sports games, and you read a review from a guy who hates them, if the reviewer doesn't look from a "sports lover's" point of view, and bashes it because it's not what he likes, then the review is not helpful to ANYONE.   "

Well some reviewers like at game Revolution, want to write a review with their heart and not their brain.  Smash up could piss people off because it is just reskinning Smash Bros, but it just shows that that core game of Smash Bros is good and could work with other franchises other than those from Nintendo.  Somethig like this could be done, to say, the Capcom Vs series, take the same fighting and put in dbz characters.  Or take any genre and reskin some games so they play the same but have different characters.  Oh how I wish this had been the case with Terminator Salvation.

" I find it hard to believe any game could get a 0. Even Big Rigs deserves something higher than that. "

" Let me get this straight: you're basing an entire thread on how terrible most games criticism is on one review - from a site that most people don't actively follow, no less - and how that review is indicative of the overarching problems with said medium, and yet you've only read the score and last line of the review that someone at Metacritic, not the author, decided best encapsulated the author's opinion on the game?  Certainly you can see how some people would take issue with this argument, right? "

" @TheJollyRajah said:

" oldschool, for once, I do agree with you.   A review SHOULD take into account the audience it's written for. If a reviewer doesn't consider anything else but his own personal opinion, that's called BIAS. A biased review only takes into account the author's preferences, so you can't really use a biased review for yourself if the reviewer's tastes differ from your own.   For example, if you love sports games, and you read a review from a guy who hates them, if the reviewer doesn't look from a "sports lover's" point of view, and bashes it because it's not what he likes, then the review is not helpful to ANYONE.   "

But that's the thing - any legitimate outlet isn't going to put someone who doesn't have an interest in the genre or the type of game on a review.  That wouldn't make sense. "

" @iAmJohn said:

" Let me get this straight: you're basing an entire thread on how terrible most games criticism is on one review - from a site that most people don't actively follow, no less - and how that review is indicative of the overarching problems with said medium, and yet you've only read the score and last line of the review that someone at Metacritic, not the author, decided best encapsulated the author's opinion on the game?  Certainly you can see how some people would take issue with this argument, right? "

It's called an example. It would be quite hard to assemble a list of all the horribly written reviews ever. "

He read a part of it (yes, the metacritic summary is a part of the original review, even if the author wouldn't have chosen it as representative of the whole piece), saw the score, and made a logical conclusion using common sense. I'm sure that if he reads the review now, his opinion and point won't change. Which will mean his common sense worked out alright and shouldn't be questioned derailing the discussion.