This is why you can't always trust reviews...

#61Gen2000Posted 12/20/2012 2:44:50 PM
x2link777 posted...
Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed... Just an FYI, a review without a proper scoring is not a complete review. On top of that, they specifically mention they didnt finish it, hence the lack of score, which proves the other posters point, that they finish games before reviewing. IF they didnt, they would have just thrown a score on that review and not even mentioned they didnt finish it.


Oh man. Reviews without score is another topic in itself, I actually prefer that as it makes more people read the actual review instead of just scanning down to the score first but that wasn't even the point. I know they mention they didn't finish it, that was the entire point since the original post was in response to them always finishing games before a review which is not always the case. Instead of assumptions it was simply a link where the reviewer himself mention not finishing it, that was all. But of course others jump in, rage some, and lose track.

If reviews only matter to you when a score is attached ignore the Tales review and explain God Hand then. Y'know the game which is infamous for the IGN reviewer not even making it past like Level 3 yet reviewing the game as a whole anyways and bashing it to hell and back anyways.
---
The Storm Is About To Rage.....
#62Godstriker8Posted 12/20/2012 3:41:49 PM
Gen2000 posted...
x2link777 posted...
Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed... Just an FYI, a review without a proper scoring is not a complete review. On top of that, they specifically mention they didnt finish it, hence the lack of score, which proves the other posters point, that they finish games before reviewing. IF they didnt, they would have just thrown a score on that review and not even mentioned they didnt finish it.


Oh man. Reviews without score is another topic in itself, I actually prefer that as it makes more people read the actual review instead of just scanning down to the score first but that wasn't even the point. I know they mention they didn't finish it, that was the entire point since the original post was in response to them always finishing games before a review which is not always the case. Instead of assumptions it was simply a link where the reviewer himself mention not finishing it, that was all. But of course others jump in, rage some, and lose track.

If reviews only matter to you when a score is attached ignore the Tales review and explain God Hand then. Y'know the game which is infamous for the IGN reviewer not even making it past like Level 3 yet reviewing the game as a whole anyways and bashing it to hell and back anyways.


Yes, because we should judge IGN based on 1 review 10 years ago, done by a guy who hasnt worked there in 4 years.
---
I'm just dickin aroouunnnd
SHAKE AND BAKE!
#63sonic777Posted 12/20/2012 4:12:17 PM
Lemmywinks13 posted...


Zombi U is not a 4.0 game..


We know. That's why it got 4.5.

Checkmate.
#64Gen2000Posted 12/20/2012 4:18:13 PM(edited)
Yeah because it couldn't (or haven't) happen again.. Nope, no sir.

Original statement: "Except IGN DOES complete their games before reviewing them."
*Proof that they haven't in the past*
"Well er..that doesn't count because blahblah".

Okay man. I gotcha.
---
The Storm Is About To Rage.....
#65x2link777Posted 12/20/2012 4:24:25 PM
Gen2000 posted...
Yeah because it couldn't (or haven't) happen again.. Nope, no sir.

Original statement: "Except IGN DOES complete their games before reviewing them."
*Proof that they haven't in the past*
"Well er..that doesn't count because blahblah".

Okay man. I gotcha.


Lol, grasping at straws so bad. So one single instance, and your own deliberate misinterpretation of another, means you re right.. Sorry, but that only works in our delusions pal. You cant cherry pick one event and old it as proof positive above all else..
---
I am the most fiendish terror that flaps in the darkest night. I am the skunk that pollutes your air. I am Negaduck!!
#6640DribylfPosted 12/20/2012 4:44:21 PM
Yeah, that guy is absolutely hopeless.
---
I am hip
http://www.last.fm/user/KDay1990
#67Reznik00Posted 12/20/2012 4:46:51 PM
Luthor_ posted...
From: Lemmywinks13 | #008
Luthor_ posted...
From: Lemmywinks13 | #005
Regardless of if you agree with what he says or not, how is it a bad idea to have reviewers prove how much of a game they played? It should be a part of every review yet it's part of almost none.

Zombi U is not a 4.0 game. I know reviews are just a matter of opinion, but the Gamespot review was painfully horrible and obvious they didn't play the game for more than 30 minutes.


The game sucks, and the only thing that changes at all after 30 minutes is the "story" and location.

That game is the most shallow grind ever, and it doesn't even look pretty doing it.

I don't want to rain on any parades if some people like it, but the overall quality is almost factually low, as well as the production value. The game earned those low review scores tbh.


Low review scores? DESPITE the couple of bad reviews, their are nearly 10 times as many good/great reviews of the game. I'm sure you will continue to ignore this fact and pretend like it's a horrible game. You were probably just expecting Left 4 Dead. It's fine that you hate it, but to act like it's silly for people to like it when the majority of people do like it just makes you look silly.


So those higher review scores make the low review scores non-existent? I fail to see your logic.

and Correction*: The majority of people who bought a Wii U and wanted something besides 2.5D Mario rehash #4 to play and try and boast about forced themselves into liking it.

That, or they seriously never played Left4Dead, Dead Island, or most other zombie games.. so it seems good in comparison to nothing. Oh, and half of the "critic reviews" involve telling you it is a good game to start a Wii U collection. Of course it got higher scores being one of the first games on a new console.


NSMBU is not a rehash, however NSMB2 was horrible.
I honestly like ZombiU, I can see it's faults but it's still enjoyable.
L4D and especially DI sucked hard.....those games sucked so bad I never wanted to see a zombie game again, and they gave me so much hope after Dead Rising....*sigh.
---
Hello Misinformed Zombie Fodder!
#68DynheartPosted 12/20/2012 5:04:21 PM
I wish people would get through their skulls by now: Games are a matter of preference. End of story.

One man could love a game, while another can hate it. I hate Call of Duty. I cannot fathom how that game scores so high, especially after the reviews seem to contradict themselves (short story line, repetitive game play...same old same old). But it seems to sell well; and people like it. More power to them.

So a few reviewers disagreed with Zombi U. Others love it. I can think of another game, or a few, that didn't do so well with the reviews...but people love them (Deadly Premonition and Nier are just a few of them). Zombi U, perhaps, is one of those games.

But we can't just except that, noooooooo. We have to sit here with our daily threads and try to convince each other how bad or how awesome the game is. Not only that, it get's personal! Over a damn video game. It's pretty laughable honestly.

Zombi U is what it is. A game people enjoy despite the reviews. We call these an anomaly. The quicker people accept this, the less and less these threads will show up. One less thing to worry about on the Wii U boards.

Wishful thinking, though. /sad face
---
Currently suffering Final Fantasy XIII-2
#69mjc0961Posted 12/20/2012 5:05:10 PM
AdamLazaruso posted...
He doesn't 'expose' anything. His entire argument seems to be "I don't agree with their reviews so they didn't play the game".


This. He does nothing to prove any of his points. He claims that the professional reviews have false information in them, but doesn't point out what that false info is OR prove it to be false. He just said "It has false info so that means they didn't play the game because I said so!"
---
"Jak and Daxter does not have a sequel so that doesn't prove anything." - DesperateMonkey
#70mjc0961Posted 12/20/2012 5:12:52 PM
jonsushi posted...
For one, what does he mean by ZombiU being "basically...a new IP"? It is a new IP, isn't it?


No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombi_%28video_game%29

But the first game in the franchise is so god-damn old that ZombiU might as well be a new IP. Thus, calling it basically a new IP. That's about the only thing that article got right, don't knock it for that. Knock it for all the things it got wrong.
---
"Jak and Daxter does not have a sequel so that doesn't prove anything." - DesperateMonkey