• 59 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for artisanbreads
#51 Edited by ArtisanBreads (8074 posts) -

It's their job.

If you don't care about certain things, you just have to disregard that.

It's just like how Brad said Far Cry 3 was "unplayable" on consoles. He is obsessed with framerate and other graphical issues, so I knew, hey this is probably fine. And it was. The framerate wasn't good, but it was perfectly playable.

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

Some games get beaten down for 'using a mechanic similar to another title'. Others get praised to heaven for 'making clever use of mechanics similar to another title.' All about taste.

Yeah this is so true.

How often do you hear people complain about games all playing the same, then when a shooter comes out, if it doesn't have the CoD control scheme it's criticized? Shit like that bothers me, so going from what I say above, I know to disregard that kind of criticism.

Avatar image for hosstile17
#52 Posted by Hosstile17 (819 posts) -

More than technical performance, the worst problem with ACIII: Liberation is that was boring. You spent entirely too much time in that game in the fancy dress and unable to climb. Stupid and dumb.

Avatar image for willtron
#53 Posted by Willtron (254 posts) -

Being picky is in their job description.

Avatar image for encephalon
#54 Posted by Encephalon (1702 posts) -

Actually, I often think the opposite.

Avatar image for phantomzxro
#56 Posted by phantomzxro (1613 posts) -

I don't think the game got terrible reviews just around average, 7s if i remember correctly. So i don't think reviews out in the wild are being unfair or anything. Its a alright game aside from the performance being a bit shaky. I'm enjoying it far more than assassin creed 3 by a good margin so scores are not everything.

Avatar image for lackingsaint
#57 Edited by LackingSaint (2170 posts) -

@kishinfoulux said:

@Unilad said:

THIS IS SUPER IGNORANT....but what's up with Jim Sterling?

Nothing is. He's one of the better reviewers out there. People just hate him because he doesn't share the common opinion on most things.

I don't dislike Jim Sterling because he doesn't have the same opinion as me, he has just consistently acted uppity and self-righteous whenever i've read or watched something from him. I'm sure that's not always the case, but the degree at which he seems to enjoy talking down to people makes it very difficult for me to enjoy him or his work.

I think critics being "too harsh" really has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Right now it seems like the gaming critique industry is in such a wild spin between sensationalists and laymen it's hard to make sweeping generalisations.

Avatar image for frankfartmouth
#58 Posted by frankfartmouth (1048 posts) -

I don't think they're too picky; in fact, I think they should be much pickier about most things, especially story and dialogue, much of which is praised in the gaming press--or just overlooked--but very little of which is even up to basic Hollywood standards. I think they put too much weight on technical issues and game length relative to other things, but it is a game, and so that stuff is important.

But too picky overall? No, I don't think so. The rampant score inflation in the gaming press is proof alone.

Avatar image for psngamesun
#59 Posted by PSNgamesun (444 posts) -

I feel like video Game reviews can be too harsh or a can sometimes let other games off the hook. For example I found that Mortal Kombat(ps3 360) was bashed for its dialogue and difficultness(cheapness) of their boss battles. The game got mostly 8s(I know it’s not bad but I felt it deserve better) and most reviewers pointed those as flaws and so I played it and found the dialogue amusing(especially for a fighting game its great); always felt the boss battles should be hard(after a while the game was easy for me).

While a game like Red Dead Redemption had raved reviews and I was extremely hyped for it. So I played it and found the first 30 mins or so very good then the main antagonist of the game (the dumb one from the gang) at least for most of the game was lame and the section in Mexico was extremely boring. I found the character with the Indians very cool and felt that guy should have been the main villain but no the business men turn out to be the all mighty bad guys in a western story. I just didn't like the games story and its progression yet the game was flawless according to most game reviews. Of course that's just my feeling lol.

So in the end I feel game reviewers are very picky to games they probably have no right to review or expect the worse from and fall in love with games that are destined to become great. Similar to films where a dramatic film will be put on most best of list while a great action or horror film will not; I feel games have gotten to point where SNOBS exist.

Avatar image for wewantsthering
#60 Posted by wewantsthering (1651 posts) -

I think critics are exactly how they need to be. You just have to read into parts of what they say to see if it's something you care about or not. Many people don't care if a game runs in the 20-30 FPS range because they're used to it on their platform, whereas people like me can't even play it. If graphics are something you don't care about, read through the sections that deal more with gameplay.