Ben-DutkaSome games just don't resonate with critics. Most times, they don't resonate with the general gaming crowd, either.
But occasionally, a title comes along that most reviewers really don't like at all (oddly enough); and yet, you love it and can't understand why the scores aren't higher. Which game was like that for you this generation?
For me, it has to be RAGE . Now, I usually avoid reading reviews before I go to start my analysis; after I'm done playing, I'll look at a few. At that point, I can usually predict the scores with a +/- .5 error margin 95% of the time. So I went to check out some RAGE reviews after nailing down the score in my head and I was thinking, "Yeah, this has to be averaging around a 9." Boy, was I wrong. Oh so very wrong and disappointed. And confused .
I was still confused even after reading some of the more lukewarm reviews. I won't go into much detail now, but all I can say is that too many people really missed all the greatness infused in that game. Maybe they were so picky and anal because the title took so damn long to make, or maybe the adventure didn't gel with their expectations; i.e., some were expecting a more open-world RPG feel. Whatever the reasons, I say few of them were legitimate and RAGE deserved far more critical acclaim than it received.
So what about you? I know JRPG fans have been pissed about how critics have handled both White Knight Chronicles titles, and there are many who disagreed with the low Resident Evil 6 scores as well. By the way, my honorable mention is Gran Turismo 5 , but I chalk a lot of that up to simple ignorance on the part of most critics. The bottom line is that most video game reviewers have no clue about the sport of racing and as such, aren't qualified to analyze a simulator of the sport. We've made that plain before.
This year I'd have to say Ninja Gaiden 3. Yes, it had problems, enough so that fans did need to know that it WASN'T a worthy successor to prior entries. The problem I had with critics, and I'm sure it's so tempting to write a scathing review every once and while because most games are good games, is that some of them really kicked the game while it was down. IGN was completely unfair. I read so many false statements about the game while glancing over various sites that it really caused me to question the integrity of some of these professionals. Generalizations were being made about it's game play and difficulty that totally ignored or deceived the user into thinking only one way about the experience. I agree the game shouldn't have been rated higher than a 7'ish but lower than a 6 I say is just pushing it, and a 3 is just wrong. Wrong by any modern gamer who has more than a passing interests in action hack 'n slash games.
Looking back further I'd say games like GT5, as Ben pointed out, were slammed too hard for being what it was and what it promoted itself to be. The quality was impeccable despite preferences.
I say another problem concerns unfairly rating a game TOO high. I love Halo. I do. It totally reset the bar for quality console FPS games. Halo 2, however, received a little too many concessions from critics. I valued Greg Kassavin's opinion at Gamespot back in the day, but I distinctly remember him making a lot of concessions, acknowledged concessions, for the game's shortcomings as if it's weight and fandom circumvented objectivity. I felt that was unfair. Halo 2 was a great game, but it was awarded too much and forgiven too much as well.
I feel this happens a lot these days. Certain franchises carry so much weight and anticipation that I call into question just how rose colored everything is to some critics. That if a certain newer game, or fresher experience, doesn't fit their preferences and ideals a heavy handed verdict may be thrown down on it.
That last paragraph there is how I feel about CoD.
ITA about Rage.. I thought critics would love it. Thoough I didn't like WKC critics were harsh but its their like that with all jrpgs. Im curious how critics will treat NiNo Kuni and Tales of Xillia.
Gotta agree Rage was unfairly trampled on, and for the price it's going for now, what a steal!
I only wish ID make a massively larger Rage 2 for next-gen.
I just got Rage a month or two ago at Best Buy for $10 and I have to agree with you..not sure why so many slammed it.
For me though, I think I'll go with Shadows of the Damned. While some critics liked the game there were more that hated it..
i been told the end is why they slammed it
For me it was GTA IV, which got universal praise for what amounted to nothing more than a pretty city-sim, with some missions thrown in.
Where was the fun, the goofiness, the satire? It's hard to giggle at sexually suggestive store names while deciding who lives or dies.
Where was the interactivity? Surfing the web, watching TV and comedy clubs are passive cut-scenes, and darts and bowling barely pass as something to do.
Heck, even the driving sucked.
Will GTA V be better? I'm not holding my breath, since IV never received the criticism it deserved.
Games evolve too, man. I liked the new realistic approach.
I actually liked the driving. Granted it took a lil bit to get used, but I loved the physics involved with driving (especially on the Bikes)!
I agree with some of it. I didn't play GTA4 very much I got bored of it very quickly after beating the game and put it on my shelf never again to be touched. Let's hope the new one can change that.
(My opinion of course, don't let me spoil your fun)
Last edited by Clamedeus on 11/19/2012 5:57:49 PM
I would have to go with Asura's Wrath. I just beat it about 2 weeks ago and loved it! I understand the "cheesy-ness" everyone was talking about, but I think it fits just right if you're an anime fan.
The action was over the top and extremely epic, (a freaking sword through the entire planet!)and I loved the episode feel it had (reminded me of Alan Wake).
Last edited by Snorge on 11/19/2012 1:01:23 PM
Dante's Inferno. I think it got panned for being a God of War clone and nobody paid attention to the loving care developers took in their level and monster designs and careful interpretation of the epic poem's contents as they brought it into the realm of gaming with strong characters and a great story plus a very versatile battle system with RPG elements and varied approaches to events that spice up your trip through Hell in a way that made God of War III feel like tinkering around in Hell's basement for 7 hours before the epic Zeus fight.
I felt Dantes got good to great praise from reviewers (without looking at it's review scores) as well as consumers. The problem with it was just what you pointed out, it was GoW with different story and characters. It's hard to go up against a game and do everything the same. In all fairness it needed to do something a little more special to separate itself.
In regards to GoW3 the game wasn't about running around "hell", that absolutely wasn't the focal point of the atmosphere like in Dante's. So it should feel a little less ambitious.
Not the Christian Hell of course, but what I mean was you were in a more constrained area in Tartarus that wasn't much to look at or marvel over.
Too many.
Games scored way too highly and games scored way too low.
WKC and Duke Nukem come to mind.
Haze wasn't as bad as critics made out, but it wasn't much compared to Timesplitters.
Yakuza, although reviewing extremely well, deserves a lot more as i thought 3 and 4 were two of the best games i've ever played. 5 will probably receive the love though as it has an up-to-date new engine which, let's face it, is too much of a factor in western reviews.
Resi 5 and 6 were still overrated in my eyes and paled in comparison to 4 which is a near perfect game.
Any high review for the american Silent Hill's is just comedy also!
Yakuza 3 and 4 were reviewed relatively harshly by critics (I don't think that I've seen a single Yakuza game score over 80 on metacritic). I personally love the games, but I guess that critics wanted them to have less arcade-like combat, or more open world elements. I find it even more strange that people were critical of the stories in the series, which at least in my eyes have very engaging characters and are generally very well written, especially compared to the vast majority of games.
Either way, I can't wait for Yakuza 5, and don't really care what critics or fans think of it, but I would like to see the series get more recognition.
Last edited by ddsfan2 on 11/20/2012 1:38:36 AM
For me its a close one between a few titles.
The obvious one for me is GT5. That's actually the on highest on the list, as there isn't another simulator like it. And the level of detail in the cars isn't matched. I do however think the idea of having some "premium" cars was a mistake. I know their were a lot of cars and development was already long but, that wasn't a good idea, and most reviews and consumers agree. However, that's hardly cause for ridicule.
Many of the problems like the blocky shadows, simply get overlooked in other games and that's not right to me. But on top of that the game is completely different today than it was when it released, and it's a game because of progression that needs to be followed, a lot like MAG!
Which leads me to the next game, MAG. This game when it released was a great shooter. Huge maps, big games, great variety, and realistic feel. It had it all. It truly was a battfield, not an arena where k/d ratio reigns over any other accomplishment.
The game 6 months after it released blossomed into one of the best online games, and being an MMO-FPS was a first of it's kind and should have been respected for that. But instead because it was different I feel it didn't get that respect. Again just like WoW, this is an MMO and should be followed. I don't know if a second review was in order 6 months after release, but the respect should have grown. Unfortunately first impressions are everything.
Lastly and maybe one that's not worth mentioning, but will as I got a fully enjoyable experience was MoH: Warfighter. I think being in the shadow of CoD affects every other FPS review. And not to blame CoD but with all the launch hiccups both notably experienced and comparing eaches gameplay, which are both solid one of them was given unfair scores IMO. I also distincly remember reviews poijting out that, MoH was nothing new, but weve been playing the same CoD every year. There is nothing notably different to separate Black Ops 2 from the other CoD entries.
There's a lot that was overlooked in MoH that a lot actually praise when compared to CoD, and when CoD reigns of course the comparisons exist. But when even the king releases with issues, it doesn't affect it like it did MoH. Not Fair! 😉
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/19/2012 1:40:32 PM
I didn't go with GT5 because this game, despite many reviews being lower than they should have was not impacted.
GT5 has sold 9 million copies.
MAG is the most underrated shooter next to the Resistance series of this generation..I still play MAG when I want true team action..and people with mics who actually want to plan our attack
That's very true Max. The game ultimately was not hindered by criticism.
Slugga- I unfortunately have moved on. I just had a feeling that after Zipper disbanded, that any support for MAG would halt. But since you play it has it been supported, and is it still very enjoyable?
Well there hasn't been anything since the last update. The servers are still up though and you'd be surprised at the amount of people who still play it. It's very enjoyable still and with most the game modes open to all and you still get all the XP bonuses like the happy hour etc. However, Raven doesn't have anywhere close to the amount of members as SVER and Valor
Well that's good to hear. I may jump back into it then! Thanks for the update.
Now while I feel this is a great idea Ben, it could open a can of worms! 🙂 As a disclaimer to this post, PSXE is by far the most professional review site out there, not perfect, but you I have always sensed a "keep getting better" vibe here. I really do appreciate your labor of love Ben.
Anyways, on to my choice, which happens to be easy for me.
Medal of Honor Warfighter.
Yes, this game is not the best FPS out there, but when you think about it, not many are. The scores this game recieved by just about everyone were unfair and are THE example of what is wrong with the developer/publisher/reviewer system in place. I won't go off that on that tangent though. However, I will give a few of my viewpoints on why that game was treated unfairly when compared to other AAA titles.
1 – Controls
MOHW has some top flight controls that come close to rivaling COD. The controls are precise and smooth. Absolutely nothing wrong here, yet one can see how it scored.
2 – Graphics
Sure, MOHW had a few "standard" (yes, that is a GT5 thing) graphical problems, but from a graphical standpoint it was beautiful. Some of the lighting bordered on Uncharted quality. Once again, yes you guessed it, ripped here as well.
3 – Technical issues
This is the one that is a travesty to me. Using Skyrim as my exhibit, that game was given a free pass yet it was completely broken. MOHW? It was placed over a cheese grader without any sort of leniency. Take Black Ops 2 as another one. Nines accross the board, yet many PS3 players had issues with the online features.
It is time this billion dollar industry start running like one and change the negative stigma in place. I can't think of better place to start.
Last edited by maxpontiac on 11/19/2012 1:37:56 PM
Agreed. This game is high on my list, but I feel as if I've said my peace about it.
Your spot on in your evaluation. I think the control is as good as it gets in MoH. I think the graphics are spectacular, aside from any technical glitches which I didn't experience.
If we are saying that Black Ops 2 should get a high 8 to low 9 score even with those issues the game is still having, then MoH was absolutely scored unfairly.
Now I have nothing against either game, and I do feel Black Ops 2 should get that score. But based on MoH scores there's some unfair nature in there.
I never have any problems playing online with MoH. I was pointed to some forums to see some ongoing issues, and to that point, none were as extensive as BO2. My very first time getting into the mp in BO2, it froze, then froze again. My buddy and I then couldn't get into a party. And these are all very notable issues. It appears a lot of people are going through the same issues, and it's nothing new either. Yet, it doesn't get affected.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/19/2012 4:29:44 PM
You're not understanding a few things, Max.
On the issue of Control, that has to encompass things like hit detection, which is really not that good in Warfighter. It also has to include aspects of the interface, as well as other elements beyond just moving the character.
Graphically – and I've said this before – the issue of clarity and detail is only a part of the analysis. There's also variety, coloring, and level design. I didn't find any of the three anything more than mediocre in Warfighter, and I'm not the only critic who mentions it. Pretty pictures are nice…they have to be put together in a way that makes the entire presentation pretty, and I don't think MoH did that at all.
The technical issues are just flagrantly awful, and for someone who didn't experience them, I can understand they don't quite get it. Skyrim PS3 didn't have anything wrong with it – literally nothing – for the first 30-40 hours of play for the majority of PS3 owners. I had three crashes and freezes in MoH in the first HOUR. And again, I wasn't the only one.
The multiplayer also pales in comparison to just about any CoD, whether I like it or not, and the story had obvious holes. The design was essentially "run here, shoot a bunch of people, repeat." The AI was pathetically sad in some areas and while CoD has a lot of "run there, shoot things," at least it tried new mechanics and the set pieces were WAY better.
These are things that I believe should be acknowledged in regarding MoH. 😉
Ben –
Thank you for taking the time to clarify a few things for me. With the things you have mentioned in past I either didn't catch it or forgot about it.
Anyways, the "issues" that MOHW had with a majority of people will be something that I don't agree with.
Skyrim.
Bethesda knew the game had problems. It's why you recieved a 360 version instead of the PS3 one. And while I agree that Skyrim ran problem free for about 30 hours or so, once you exceeded that time frame, a world of problems began to surface. I won't go into great detail over this, but I had 7 quests permanently glitch out. All of this is inexcusable to me, especially for a much heralded GOTY.
Skyrim completely broken??? Hmm that's funny, I can put the game in my PS3 at any point in time and play several hours, until I get bored or need to do something else… Course to ME "broken" means unplayable, which I've come across only 1 game that falls into that catagory and that's Far Cry 2, I managed to get that pesky glitch right at the start of the second part of the game (when you move to the "southern" game map) where you go to meet your first contact on that boat and he falls through the floor making it impossible to complete the story, THAT makes a game "broken" to me… Yes, Skyrim had it's issues, but it's FAR from "broken".
Crysis 2 landed a meta that placed it in the middle of a flock of decent shooters. But it was better than that. It really is the best shooter I've played in years.
FEAR2 landed on around 78%, and that is a game that I think clearly belonged in the 80+ bag. I'd say 82-84%.
But RAGE takes the cake. It were the most visually impressive game I've ever played on the ps3. Seriously. The combination of map size and visual quality is something I've never seen neither before or after. The animations, details, map layouts, visual atmosphere, oh man what a production.
I'll admit one thing though; I agree with those who say Rage was impressive in a very tech-demo'ish way. But boy was it impressive.
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/19/2012 1:41:26 PM
I think we should nominate all Wii games, they just get a totally unfair pass right down the line.
Been looking into buying a new game. Looks like RAGE it is.
You can't go wrong with it. It's great
Nas,
Just make sure to get it new so you'll also get all of the locked-out sewer missions too.
And if you search around for it, it can be had new for as little as $9.99 now too.
Another advice I can't say often enough regarding Rage: Make sure you got *plenty* of space on your hard drive, more than the requirement. Rage is insanely HDD-dependent, so a fragmented install gives read-speed issues like pop-ups and so forth.
Yakuza Dead Souls. I had just as much fun with this game as I did Yakuza 4, it was fun, had an engaging story, very good characters, and they somehow managed to perfectly blend the zombie genre with the Yakuza game history. I have a feeling that most people panned this game just because they didn't want to enjoy it. The thought that every one is hopping on the zombie game bandwagon now because it has proven it sells well is not why Dead Souls was made, it was made because the people who made it wanted to make a fun spin off game.
Yakuza Dead Souls was better than Resi 5 and 6 combined. An absolutely brilliant game. Yet hardly heard of.
There's too many crimes happening in our industries.
I agree, another reason they made it is because it was the director's signal OF THE END to the Yakuza you know. It was him cleverly getting rid of the old engine and game to make way for a new era with Yakuza 5.
Last edited by Lotusflow3r on 11/19/2012 7:23:41 PM
The second WKC reviews wouldn't have been so hard to swallow if it hadn't been so blatently obvious they hadn't played certain parts. There were things that were literally just factually incorrect. One reviewer said the second felt even slower in regards to the battles. But they were not only faster, it was like a night/day difference in terms of how much faster the battles ran. ESPECIALLY when fighting in the knight. Unfortunately, D3 decided to take that anger out on the fans, so I'm a lost fan, anyways. :p
Black Ops 1 ticked me off a lot because of how many problems it had, yet it got a free pass. MW3 probably earned what it got, but BO1 was not a 9+ game…
A lot of those issues still exist in Black Ops 2, which makes me wonder. Because of sales, do they feel they don't need to address those issues?
Dante's Inferno and GT5, GT5 should be averaging 9s while Dante's Inferno should be averaging 8.5s
I don't know RAGE or RE6, but of the ones mentioned I would obviously pick WKC/WKC2(especially part 2) and GT5 as having been very unfairly treated.
WKC2 received some scores that were nothing less than derisory, the kinds of score that you give to game that are utterly broken and unplayable, and it wasn't always the score, sometimes the review was scathing to say the least, but the score was at least a 5/6, but to read the review you'd think the game had killed the writer's favorite puppy.
Thanks for the downvotes – morons.
Brother, don't let the thumbs downs bother you.
RAGE swept various E3 awards shows, which seemed like absurd over praise so the lukewarm reviews may have been a counter reaction to that. I played RAGE and the game seemed like very generic and forgettable. Just standard shooting and driving with a throwaway story. What was the greatness to it?
My current pick for most overlooked: LBP Vita. Wow, that game is just so much fun and most sites act like it doesn't exist.
Thank you Ben. I feel the same way about Rage. I personally don't really like the Fallout gameplay, but do love those post apocalyptic type worlds. So when I played Rage, it was perfect for me. It felt like a watered down version of Fallout, but with better action and beautiful character designs. Watered down might sound bad, but at least for me, in this case, it was exactly what I wanted.
To this day though I still wonder if it was just my system or if the textures were as bad as they were. It would have been one of the best looking games, but those textures were so blurry and would take about a second to sharpen up whenever you looked around. At first, it made the game almost unplayable, and then I just learned to ignore it.
Can anyone tell me if that was just my system? Cause I looked around, and the reviews didn't mention it.
the one that sticks out for me is Mafia II. i know it had issues with its design and mission structure but in terms of its presentation in storytelling. its art direction. voice work. it was really incredible and mature. some really epic gun fights to.
definitely among my favorites of the generation.
I just finished Mafia 2 & all of it's DLC & have to agreed, now one of my favorites.
Plus it holds a little extra weight for me, because it was the very first game I've gotten a Platinum in.
i've finished it 3 times. i think i'll be running though again soon.
i got the joes adventure DLC but got stuck on a mission and never finished it xD
I know it isn't one from this generation, but "The Legend of Dragoon" was definitely one of them.
oh so so many.
RAGE is definetly one of them, it pisses me off so much how 99% of the time someone would say rage sucks than id ask why and their responce would be because it does not have a shooter MP component, it has crappy buggies.
really?
so the WHOLE game sucks, the co-op mode, the SP, just because they tried to do something different with the MP.
not sucks because it sucks, but sucks because its a different genre.
right.
RAGE was a brilliant game, one of the best games this gen!
crysis 2, mafia 2, and just cause 2 were also a few games that were unfairly reviewed.
if i had a nickel for every game i read slagging mafia 2 because of its "dead" open world id be the richest man alive by now!
so unfair too because its not suppose to be a hustling open world like GTA, the open world was simply there because of the narrative.
or just cause 2 because it was so cheap and cheesy, that was the point of the whole game!
oh and both MoH games too.
the original did not receive the praise it deserves.
and the second, well it got slated because it had a poor story.
since when do shooters have good stories?
it got slated for having boring faceless characters.
since when do games have emmy award winning characters?
it got slated for having a uninspired confusing plot.
since when are games written by MR Spielberg?
warfighter was something very few games get right, it was FUN!
funny how reviewers forget to mention how amazing the weapons sound, then cheese their pants when BO2 releases.
the sound effects in warfighter were amazing, each gun sounded exactly spot on and the explosions, the falling debris, the visual effects, ah it was a masterpiece!
it may have been buggy as hell, repetitive and short but that is about it.
it was still a brilliant game!
I have found reading reviews over the past several years that certain established franchises basically get a "get out of jail" card for every one of there installments. Everybody want's their favorite franchise to continue producing high scoring titles, even if that means ignoreing some glaring flaws (like Halo's story campaign going from a good 10-12 hours to complete to a VERY disappointing 6 hours by the 3rd game, these number are how long it took ME to finish the games) while almost entirely focusing on the best parts of the games.
Another problem I think some sites/critics have is that the right people aren't doing the reviewing. Why give a critic a game that falls into a genre that they don't care for or even hate, that is going to bias them to that game and you can almost guarentee a poor score. My last issues is that a LOT of critics come up w/ prenotions of what a game SHOULD be instead of taking a game for what it IS and going from there.
I don't play games going (going to use Dante's Inferno as an example here) "oh THIS game is going to be EXACTLY like God of War because after all, it's a story about a hero going into hell to face his fears, just like in God of War." If anything I would base my game expectation on what the game is based on, Dante Alighieri's 14th-century epic poem "Divine Comedy", and NOTHING else. A LOT of people forget that in some way or another just about EVERYTHING has already been done. Video games have been around for 30 odd years, movies for nearly a centory now, and books/stories go back for more then a couple mellenia, you'd be hard pressed to come up w/ something truely NEW and ORIGINAL in this day and age…
I can't pick any certain game that I feel really got screwed over by critics, there are just WAY too many of them, plus I rarely ever listen to a critics ramblings about a certain game cause I know what I like, and don't really care about what others like cause I'm not them. Personally the whole scoring system is completely broken, since when is "average" a 8.5-9.0 instead of 5-6? And when it comes to "score whores" why is it that if a game isn't a 9+ it's complete garbage and not worth playing? Both critics AND consumers (and probably the manufacturers and game producers) are to blame for THIS problem…