This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What game do you disagree most with on pro-reviews

#1Gunvalkyrie2Posted 4/23/2014 4:02:43 AM(edited)
For me it's the Thief review in EGM - a 3.5 out of 10.. The game is not a 10, but a 3.5 to me is basically unplayable... Id give Thief in the high 7 low 8 range - i liked Garrett, loved the environmentsand graphics....A 3.5 by no less than 3 seperate reviewers is ridiculous for a game of its caliber.. Its like they played a different game..i played it on the x1
---
You are ignoring 9 message(s) from users on this page. Manage your list here.
#2Dragon NexusPosted 4/23/2014 4:34:42 AM
Any R* review.
I find I agree with them less and less as time goes on. I thought RDR was fantastic when I first played it, but looking back I really don't want to play the game again. Same deal with GTAIV and V. V especially, ugh. The "meh" feeling kicked in while I was playing V, rather than a month or two later like other games.

R* make fantastically detailed worlds and the writing is often pretty damn good. But their stories are so poorly done and often their game worlds are so devoid of stuff to do that isn't pointless collection BS that gives you no reward and thus no incentive for doing so and is often nearly impossible to do without a guide.
---
"Everything popular is wrong." - Oscar Wilde
#3hoggys2much99Posted 4/23/2014 6:00:42 AM
All Assassin's Crap er I mean Assassin's Creed reviews.

I would love to know just how the hell Assassin's Creed 1 was getting 100%'s like it was going out of fashion when in reality it is one of the worst games ever created. The game was nothing more than a one level repeated ad infinitum padded out repetitive as hell storyless, graphicless, controless beta tech demo.

Ubisoft may have one of the worst gaming companies on the planet but oh boy their hype, marketing and bribing reviewers departments are some of the best on the planet. Ubisoft could sell refrigerators to Eskimos.

Another one is all the Mario reviews. Do the reviewers even review the games? Most of the time I think it goes like this, "Oh look another Mario game. No need to review it just slap another 100% on it"! I mean how else do you explain all those rehashed to death games getting 100%'s on it?
#4Jedi454Posted 4/23/2014 6:03:26 AM
Call of Duty Ghosts
---
[Force Persuade] That is not an opinion, you are just a troll with no life.
#5pothocketPosted 4/23/2014 6:17:31 AM
The issue OXM gave Homefront a higher score than Crysis 2. One of the most bland and generic shooters vs the apex of the genre. Absurd.

Not on 360 but probably the biggest one is the reviews of Octodad, PCgamer especially. It's a game that's a ton of fun to play with a controller but nearly impossible with M+K. Unfortunately, as you may be aware, there's a ton of idiot PC elitist that insist M+K is simply better. That idiot attitude is reflected in the poor scores of Octodad (even PCgamer gave it a 4.5). They reviewed it with the worse control method, and blamed the game.
---
http://i.imgur.com/L2ASIya.gif
http://i.imgur.com/5hUcbcx.gif
#6stawg007Posted 4/23/2014 6:28:03 AM
GTA 4

I believe it has a 98 on metacritic, just ridiculous
#7Halo_ForeverPosted 4/23/2014 8:14:53 AM
Most of mine are on the lower side of the scale stuff. We have stuff like Shellshock 2 Blood Trails and Morph X lower down than Infernal Hell's Vengeance (the two former titles at least functioned well, the same cannot be said about Infernal).

Then there is every Warriors game ever, all of those games come with 70+ hours of stuff to do. For some reason though the most content poor of the bunch, Warriors: Legends of Troy is one of the most highly rated.

There are also a few games where I am slightly wondering whether the critics played the same game that I played. The Battleship licensed game is one such game, the game was a decent FPS, with some nice strategy elements involving the maneuvering of fleets and ordering fire support (which was dynamic). Another one is Call of Juarez the Cartel which was a solid shooter through and through.

Then there are smaller games like The Cursed Crusade, Ninety Nine Nights II, JASF and Sniper Ghost Warrior which have crummy reviews but were quite decent.

Rockstar's exemption is annoying though, how can GTA IV have 98 at meta and 97 at GameRankings when it controlled poorly, including a necrophiliac lock-on?

Also one thing, could someone please kill the fad where in order for a character to be found interesting ve has to be a complete douchebag (if nothing else check Sam Vimes). I am rather tired of the edgy and mature-phase going on right now (not to mention shoehorning story into everything).
---
Poet Eliot had it all wrong....
#8NazanirPosted 4/23/2014 9:27:19 AM
I know it is popular to hate on, but I disagree with most CoD reviews.

The games get overal 8,5 to 9,5.

I am not saying they are bad games, that would be too easy. But the fact that they seem to minimally put effort into the games (4-5 games running on the same engine, recycling maps or part of maps) and make small changes to the gameplay, hardly warrant such numbers.

DO the games have good graphics and good gameplay? Sure, but the past couple of years the game is pretty much the same, so why wouldn't they get a 7 or 7,5?
---
XboX GT - Nazanir
#9snacktimeguyPosted 4/23/2014 9:46:47 AM
Red Dead Redemption. I agree that it's a great game, but not as great as everyone says. I'd turn those 10's to 8's.
---
3DS fc: 0404-6091-6071
#10TentionPosted 4/23/2014 9:55:27 AM
I've never disagreed with a review more than IGN's review for God Hand.