AMY ENDURANCE RUN.

i cant believe people have bought this shit, you guys must have way to much time on your hands

@mandude said:

@Cretaceous_Bob: I am pretty sure that is exactly his job. It might even be eerily similar to the definition of the word review.

Review 6 a: a critical evaluation (as of a book or play)

Evaluation 1 : to determine or fix the value of
2 : to determine the significance, worth, or condition of usually by careful appraisal and study

Critic 1 b: one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances

All of those entail giving a personal assessment of the work, not a description of the work.

Speaking of eerily similar, I know somewhere one of the Giant Bomb guys say on this site that the first thing a reviewer needs to learn is that their job is to tell you why they like or dislike the game, not describe the game. And that's what you'll see a lot of good, respected reviewers publicly state. Somehow I think they might know what they're talking about.

A review is an opinion piece, not a game manual.

AMY ENDURANCE RUN.

Quick perusal of the first few paragraphs:

- He thinks the plot is hard to follow

- He thinks the gameplay's real bad

- Goes into an explanation of a gameplay mechanic he finds frustrating

Shut up, dude.

@Klei: Another annoying IGN thread ... for this game, really? There are other, more credible reviews out there. Hell, even Sterlings comments ooze more integrity than anything from IGN.

And the cycle continues where Jim Sterling says something is bad, various forums have several threads full of people calling him all kinds of horrible things for doing so, and then they realize that he was actually correct.

@Klei said:

I think he's overexagerrating, but hey, I guess we all have our opinions. It's clearly not a triple A product, but it's perfectly playable. Unless you're some kind of crippled grinch or something. What do you guys think? Here's the link.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1216343p1.html

Honest question, can you name a game you played that you thought was worse than this one?

@Jimbo said:

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

They're saving it for when they review themselves.

@jozzy said:

@Klei said:

I think he's overexagerrating, but hey, I guess we all have our opinions. It's clearly not a triple A product, but it's perfectly playable. Unless you're some kind of crippled grinch or something. What do you guys think? Here's the link.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1216343p1.html

Honest question, can you name a game you played that you thought was worse than this one?

Superman 64

Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis

Goldeneye: Rogue Agent

Robocop

Shaq Fu

@Klei said:

I think he's overexagerrating, but hey, I guess we all have our opinions. It's clearly not a triple A product, but it's perfectly playable. Unless you're some kind of crippled grinch or something. What do you guys think? Here's the link.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1216343p1.html

I don't give a poop about his opinion, because his writing is all-around terrible.

                   

@Klei said:

I think he's overexagerrating, but hey, I guess we all have our opinions. It's clearly not a triple A product, but it's perfectly playable. Unless you're some kind of crippled grinch or something. What do you guys think? Here's the link.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1216343p1.html

Honest question, can you name a game you played that you thought was worse than this one?

                   

               

Endurance run.

@buzz_killington said:

Hey guys, Deadly Premonition got the same score about 2 years ago. Coincidence?

Is the coincidence that they're both bad games?

Played this at E3... rather, went eyes on because the game was still in development. From the video I've seen, the game hasn't changed at all. I get giving it a low score, and I respect my brotha Colin on this, but if you like survival horror, I feel like you can justify this game no matter what.

Not that you'd be right in your actions to justify it, though.

Oh boy I clicked on the article to see who the reviewer was and had to alt f4 to close my browser faster because it was a Moriarty joint, how the hell does that man still have a job. For anyone unfamiliar with his writing I'd suggest reading his gems like "why the vita will crush the 3DS" but I don't want to actually give anyone brain damage.

So... Endurance Run then?

@Trilogy said:

@buzz_killington said:

Hey guys, Deadly Premonition got the same score about 2 years ago. Coincidence?

Is the coincidence that they're both bad games?

The Eurogamer review for this (also a 2/10) actually cites Deadly Premonition, but says that, while it is a bad game, it has a uniquely weird charm, whereas Amy is just bland.

I was real suprised to see Amy in the PSN store and purchased it without a second thought. Completely my fault, but as it stands it's a pretty godawful game. It feels like I'm playing an alpha build of the game!

When they turned it from a full fledged product into a budget / download title, I knew it was doomed. There had to be a reason for that you know

This was a situation where I probably should have looked for a review before I decided to buy it. The game is pretty bad on all fronts. Nearly every aspect of the game is terrible. I hate it when I agree with Jim Sterling, but no one should buy this game.

WHAT HAPPENED TO "AMY IS ICO WITH ZOMBIES AND IT'S TOTALLY BRILLIANT"?

@Nux said:

@handlas said:

@mandude said:

He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

Sounds like a valid way to review a game...?

It didn't really seem like he really gave too much examples. He just kinda bashed on it.

I think that is how IGN reviews every game :P i do like a FEW reviews though, some are better than Gamespots most recent ones with that VanOrd guy -_- his voice annoys me for some reason and i cant help but think about his dumb voice when i read his reviews too

@CaptainCody said:

@Jimbo said:

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

They're saving it for when they review themselves.

Lazy joke. Put some more effort into it.

They gave Deadly Premonition 2.0 or something so IGN reviews literally mean nothing to me.

Colin Moriarty actually writes reviews? I assumed he only wrote pro-Sony "articles".

Cant wait for the Quick Look

Colin Moriarty actually writes reviews? I assumed he only wrote pro-Sony "articles".

Did Amy forget to buy ad space on IGN?

See what I did there?

@Zenaxzd said:

@TheKing said:

Colin Moriarty actually writes reviews? I assumed he only wrote pro-Sony "articles".

Unfortunately they let him out of doing guides about a year ago and moved to editorial, honestly can't stomach even listening to their playstation podcast anymore because of him which is a shame because I actually found it entertaining otherwise. It's so weird too because on any podcast he isn't on other members of the staff talk about how he is fucking out of his mind, and yet he somehow manages to keep a job there.

IGN is the McDonalds of games journalism, popular but pure shit.

@Klei said:

@President_Barackbar said:

@Klei: This is the kind of attitude I don't like. Being an indie dev doesn't suddenly give you a pass on quality. If the game sucks, indie or not, it deserves to be called out for it. I had the same feeling about that Garshasp game after the Quick Look when people started defending it due to the production circumstances.

We all have opinions, and it's super fine. What I brought up was how disrespectful some so-called critics can be towards a project, disregarding entirely the team who poured their hearts and mind into it. As for my standards, they are considerably lower for indie games. Take Super Meat Boy or The Binding of Isaac. Are they excellent compared to Batman AC, Skyrim and Uncharted? No, they are bad, if leveled to them. However, on an indie standpoint, they are completely outstanding. It wouldn't be faire to compare multi-million projects to some that costs only a couple of months of living.

I do not agree with this

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

I'm kind of confused by your comment. Going through the mechanics of a game and giving examples that explain why he thinks the mechanics suck is a bad way to review a game?

@TheKing said:

@Zenaxzd said:

@TheKing said:

Colin Moriarty actually writes reviews? I assumed he only wrote pro-Sony "articles".

Unfortunately they let him out of doing guides about a year ago and moved to editorial, honestly can't stomach even listening to their playstation podcast anymore because of him which is a shame because I actually found it entertaining otherwise. It's so weird too because on any podcast he isn't on other members of the staff talk about how he is fucking out of his mind, and yet he somehow manages to keep a job there.

IGN is the McDonalds of games journalism, popular but pure shit.

You'd eat your own shit if McDonald's Marketed it well enough

@TheVideoHustler said:

@TheKing said:

@Zenaxzd said:

@TheKing said:

Colin Moriarty actually writes reviews? I assumed he only wrote pro-Sony "articles".

Unfortunately they let him out of doing guides about a year ago and moved to editorial, honestly can't stomach even listening to their playstation podcast anymore because of him which is a shame because I actually found it entertaining otherwise. It's so weird too because on any podcast he isn't on other members of the staff talk about how he is fucking out of his mind, and yet he somehow manages to keep a job there.

IGN is the McDonalds of games journalism, popular but pure shit.

You'd eat your own shit if McDonald's Marketed it well enough

Speak for yourself.

@PrivateIronTFU said:

@CaptainCody said:

@Jimbo said:

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

They're saving it for when they review themselves.

Lazy joke. Put some more effort into it.

About as lazy as IGN reviews!

@PrivateIronTFU said:

@CaptainCody said:

@Jimbo said:

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

They're saving it for when they review themselves.

Lazy joke. Put some more effort into it.

About as lazy as IGN reviews!

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

I'm kind of confused by your comment. Going through the mechanics of a game and giving examples that explain why he thinks the mechanics suck is a bad way to review a game?

@mandude said:

@Hunkulese said:

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

I'm kind of confused by your comment. Going through the mechanics of a game and giving examples that explain why he thinks the mechanics suck is a bad way to review a game?

But he didn't really explain why he thought they were bad, so much as just stated they were bad. It was mostly just him spouting profanities, and when he did go into why something was bad, he stayed extremely vague about it. I'm just hearing now that his is in keeping with all of IGN's reviews though, so I guess it's ordinary...

He made it very clear that all the mechanics were junk, urged people not to buy it. Good review.

The game seems to be getting bad reviews throughout, however I hate Colin Moriarty, his articles are poorly written and are just shit. Also the UK IGN review of Deadly Premonition gave it a 7.5 and it's surprisingly a well written review.

"since the game literally does nothing even remotely well whatsoever"

Now there's a well-written sentence for you.

@Ace829 said:

If IGN gave it a 2, then you know it's REALLY badgood.

Its the greatest game ever made, right? They called God Hand awful.

Wonder if the controversy of the GH review will be mirrored with Amy or does no one care about this game?

They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.

Eurogamers closing comments were

"Amy fails on all counts. It's plagued by jerky movement, poor scripting, weak puzzles and shoddy checkpointing, but it's also a characterless mess of themes and ideas swiped from a dozen better horror titles. Neither quirky enough to be forgiven its unfinished feel nor polished enough to satisfy the base gaming itch, Amy is a crushing disappointment with little to recommend it. With classic titles from both the Silent Hill and Resident Evil series getting HD re-releases there's absolutely no reason to suffer this shambolic imitation in search of your survival horror fix."

so its not just IGN that thought it was utter shite. don't waste you TIME or MONEY basically.

@mandude said:

@Hunkulese said:

@mandude said:

Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...

I'm kind of confused by your comment. Going through the mechanics of a game and giving examples that explain why he thinks the mechanics suck is a bad way to review a game?

But he didn't really explain why he thought they were bad, so much as just stated they were bad. It was mostly just him spouting profanities, and when he did go into why something was bad, he stayed extremely vague about it. I'm just hearing now that his is in keeping with all of IGN's reviews though, so I guess it's ordinary...

"Several chapters in, you'll still be puzzled as to what exactly is going on around you"

"this great idea rapidly becomes monotonous and cumbersome, and even the lone bright spot in Amy quickly becomes yet another thing to resent."

" the controls only work sometimes."

"Want to pick up that item on the ground? You better be positioned in a pixel-perfect fashion. Want to hit that enemy? You better cross your fingers and hope the game's collision detection works. Want to dodge an enemy attack? Might as well roll the dice. The most important thing about any game ever made is how it plays, and in this regard, Amy is an outright abomination."

"How many times can a gamer possibly be expected to do the same few things over and over again?"

"an equally infuriating checkpoint system that is so terrible that you may actually take it as one big joke from the developers"

"so much of the game requires insane amounts of trial and error"

"because after replaying the same 20-minute segment of a chapter a dozen times as you try to figure out what you're actually doing wrong, you're more likely to chuck your console through the nearest window than have the patience to see it through for attempt number 13."

"lengthy load times following getting stuck in the environment and dying"

Are those not all reasons why someone may think a game is bad? Were there any profanities in any of the quotes I posted? Do you expect him to go into intricate detail about each and every moment of the game that caused him frustration? He gave more than enough reasons as to why he gave the score he did and I'm really not sure what you expect from a review.

I played the trial on the xbox 360 and you know what, screw IGN i hate them so much. 2.0 SERIOUSLY! no, not even close. The game is differntly playable, it has the music and the background soundeffects. The only thing dumb about the game is the diolog and the controles. also the mini games are pretty terrible but 2.0 REALLY? come on IGN i know you guys are cold hearted and Ps3 forever and all that. but really 2.0. i played the trial till i finished and i wouldn't mind playing it some more. But i wouldn't buy it thats for sure.

@TheVideoHustler said:

@Klei said:

@President_Barackbar said:

@Klei: This is the kind of attitude I don't like. Being an indie dev doesn't suddenly give you a pass on quality. If the game sucks, indie or not, it deserves to be called out for it. I had the same feeling about that Garshasp game after the Quick Look when people started defending it due to the production circumstances.

We all have opinions, and it's super fine. What I brought up was how disrespectful some so-called critics can be towards a project, disregarding entirely the team who poured their hearts and mind into it. As for my standards, they are considerably lower for indie games. Take Super Meat Boy or The Binding of Isaac. Are they excellent compared to Batman AC, Skyrim and Uncharted? No, they are bad, if leveled to them. However, on an indie standpoint, they are completely outstanding. It wouldn't be faire to compare multi-million projects to some that costs only a couple of months of living.

I do not agree with this

Neither do I, especially not on the last part.