-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Latest EGM Scores
- Thread starter threeball
- Start date
sp0rsk said:
ope. I look forward to the fun should he post. /popcorn
Um, at any rate, why just focus on this 4.5? Why not on the comments about the 7.5 and the 6.0? Two other people rating the game lower than what most expected. Does someone have what was said in those comments? 7.5 is a good score, but 6.0 isn't. 2 out of 3 didn't really dig this game, and one downright hated it.
The whole story would be good to hear.
I honestly don't expect this game to score for shit outside of Play
After reading this thread it's funny to see how people are so pissed about the scores their most highly anticipated games received, but games they have panned since day 1 (Bomberman 360) get the scores they undoubtedly deserve and nobody blinks an eye. Why are people letting EGM dictate to them what they're going to play? Just rent the titles you're unsure about and at the worst you're out a few bucks instead of full price.
I am disappointed that all the extra effort put into DoC didn't seem to help at all.
I am disappointed that all the extra effort put into DoC didn't seem to help at all.
When tons of impressions and media have indicated that the game is fun and mechanically sound, it's pretty obvious that the problem is the structure of the game. Most probably the amount of content.
I can't imagine it being anything else.
Either it's over before you know it or gets old fast. Hope for the former.
I can't imagine it being anything else.
Either it's over before you know it or gets old fast. Hope for the former.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Must grab 360.
Drinky Crow
Banned
Dear Mister Parrish,
You were completely high the day you wrote that review. Your little reductive exercise -- paraphrased as "get rid of Arthur and the game is shit" -- doesn't work; I'd be praising this game's superlative level design and creative boss fights even if it had a googly-eyed Rare mascot and gratuitous fur shading. Level 3 and 4 alone are pure platforming brilliance of a kind I haven't experience in ages, and I say that without a single trace of Halverson-esqu irony. This game is the R-Type Delta of the series. Did you even play it on a setting other than beginner (in which case it DOES feel like a different game)?
Anyway, you've penned a pretty embarrassing review. I'm gonna somewhat disingenuously but likewise hopefully pass this off as you simply "not getting it," much like I don't get the RE games and their "tension building" tank controls and wonky save systems. Still, you're way off the mark on this one -- doubly so when I see all the third-rate NES games you're praising on your blog. You've built a pretty comfortable glass house with your nostalgia, yourself, so I'm not sure why you keep so many stones handy -- or why you're so ready to cast them at UGnG. Are you still a gamer, or have you found the yoga of your unfounded academic posturing a little too comfortable these days?
Sincerely,
Drinky Crow, Esq.
You were completely high the day you wrote that review. Your little reductive exercise -- paraphrased as "get rid of Arthur and the game is shit" -- doesn't work; I'd be praising this game's superlative level design and creative boss fights even if it had a googly-eyed Rare mascot and gratuitous fur shading. Level 3 and 4 alone are pure platforming brilliance of a kind I haven't experience in ages, and I say that without a single trace of Halverson-esqu irony. This game is the R-Type Delta of the series. Did you even play it on a setting other than beginner (in which case it DOES feel like a different game)?
Anyway, you've penned a pretty embarrassing review. I'm gonna somewhat disingenuously but likewise hopefully pass this off as you simply "not getting it," much like I don't get the RE games and their "tension building" tank controls and wonky save systems. Still, you're way off the mark on this one -- doubly so when I see all the third-rate NES games you're praising on your blog. You've built a pretty comfortable glass house with your nostalgia, yourself, so I'm not sure why you keep so many stones handy -- or why you're so ready to cast them at UGnG. Are you still a gamer, or have you found the yoga of your unfounded academic posturing a little too comfortable these days?
Sincerely,
Drinky Crow, Esq.
i wonder what difference toastyfrog perceives between his catty blogs and a gaf manchild's filth. i mean...it amazes me that someone would bait "hardcore gamers" and foreign game magazines somewhere besides gaf. well, i suppose it'd be a very brave gafer who'd append the word 'zing' to his own putative zinger...it's good to remember that you're not just talking to yourself when you're 'blogging.' by the by.
...now i'm apologizing for gaf. i hate gaf.
the level i referred to as "four" is actually level 2-2. crazy. i just beat that level -- i'm sticking to one credit and no saves for now, but after seeing level 3, i don't know how tenable that method will be. goku makaimura is as close as an action platformer has ever come to r-type -- every situation requires deliberation and strategy, and its pace is magisterially slow. level 2-2 puts you on a moving platform and bombards you from every angle with wee red flying things. at first it seems "cheap" -- there are too many wee red things to intercept. but once you learn to move back and forth on the platform and control the angles from which the flying things approach, it's almost easy. and it's damned fun. i remember hearing that new smb's level designers were instructed to come up with a novel idea for each level. it works...but it shows. goku makaimura combines ideas -- it's rotating sawblades, strong winds, cracking platforms, and earthshaking trolls at once...and then it'll dismiss those ideas and show you entirely new ones every so many steps. every sub-level feels like three levels. it's really difficult to believe.
i think i've stumbled on a format here
...now i'm apologizing for gaf. i hate gaf.
the level i referred to as "four" is actually level 2-2. crazy. i just beat that level -- i'm sticking to one credit and no saves for now, but after seeing level 3, i don't know how tenable that method will be. goku makaimura is as close as an action platformer has ever come to r-type -- every situation requires deliberation and strategy, and its pace is magisterially slow. level 2-2 puts you on a moving platform and bombards you from every angle with wee red flying things. at first it seems "cheap" -- there are too many wee red things to intercept. but once you learn to move back and forth on the platform and control the angles from which the flying things approach, it's almost easy. and it's damned fun. i remember hearing that new smb's level designers were instructed to come up with a novel idea for each level. it works...but it shows. goku makaimura combines ideas -- it's rotating sawblades, strong winds, cracking platforms, and earthshaking trolls at once...and then it'll dismiss those ideas and show you entirely new ones every so many steps. every sub-level feels like three levels. it's really difficult to believe.
i think i've stumbled on a format here
Dear Mister Parish,
You were completely high the day you wrote that review. Your little reductive exercise -- paraphrased as "get rid of Arthur and the game is shit" -- doesn't work; I'd be praising this game's superlative level design and creative boss fights even if it had a googly-eyed Rare mascot and gratuitous fur shading. Level 3 and 4 alone are pure platforming brilliance of a kind I haven't experienced in ages, and I say that without a single trace of Halverson-esque irony. This game is the R-Type Delta of the series. Did you even play it on a setting other than beginner (in which case it DOES feel like a different game)?
Anyway, you've penned a pretty embarrassing review. I'm gonna somewhat disingenuously but likewise hopefully pass this off as you simply "not getting it," much like I don't get the RE games and their "tension building" tank controls and wonky save systems. Still, you're way off the mark on this one -- doubly so when I see all the third-rate NES games you're praising on your blog. You've built a pretty comfortable glass house with your nostalgia, yourself, so I'm not sure why you keep so many stones handy -- or why you're so ready to cast them at UGnG.
Are you still a gamer, or have you found the yoga of your unfounded academic posturing a little too comfortable these days?
Sincerely,
Drinky Crow, Esq.
You were completely high the day you wrote that review. Your little reductive exercise -- paraphrased as "get rid of Arthur and the game is shit" -- doesn't work; I'd be praising this game's superlative level design and creative boss fights even if it had a googly-eyed Rare mascot and gratuitous fur shading. Level 3 and 4 alone are pure platforming brilliance of a kind I haven't experienced in ages, and I say that without a single trace of Halverson-esque irony. This game is the R-Type Delta of the series. Did you even play it on a setting other than beginner (in which case it DOES feel like a different game)?
Anyway, you've penned a pretty embarrassing review. I'm gonna somewhat disingenuously but likewise hopefully pass this off as you simply "not getting it," much like I don't get the RE games and their "tension building" tank controls and wonky save systems. Still, you're way off the mark on this one -- doubly so when I see all the third-rate NES games you're praising on your blog. You've built a pretty comfortable glass house with your nostalgia, yourself, so I'm not sure why you keep so many stones handy -- or why you're so ready to cast them at UGnG.
Are you still a gamer, or have you found the yoga of your unfounded academic posturing a little too comfortable these days?
Sincerely,
Drinky Crow, Esq.
Community Forum
Member
How big of an ego thing is it if a reviewer changes his/her mind later on? I mean, take Chromehounds for instance. Online is KILLER, and reviewers had NO chance to see this when reviewing the title early.
Alternatively so, maybe someone reviews a game and "doesn't get it", and changes his mind. This MUST happen. Hell, it happens to me all the time.
Why should a review be set in stone, especially when sometimes the game isn't even beaten?
I didn't used to like mushrooms, and now I do. I thought my new hat looked cool, but everyone else thought it looked dumb, so I stopped wearing it. Etc.
Alternatively so, maybe someone reviews a game and "doesn't get it", and changes his mind. This MUST happen. Hell, it happens to me all the time.
Why should a review be set in stone, especially when sometimes the game isn't even beaten?
I didn't used to like mushrooms, and now I do. I thought my new hat looked cool, but everyone else thought it looked dumb, so I stopped wearing it. Etc.
White Man said:
i wonder what difference toastyfrog perceives between his catty blogs and a gaf manchild's filth. i mean...it amazes me that someone would bait "hardcore gamers" and foreign game magazines somewhere besides gaf. well, i suppose it'd be a very brave gafer who'd append the word 'zing' to his own putative zinger...it's good to remember that you're not just talking to yourself when you're 'blogging.' by the by.
...now i'm apologizing for gaf. i hate gaf.
the level i referred to as "four" is actually level 2-2. crazy. i just beat that level -- i'm sticking to one credit and no saves for now, but after seeing level 3, i don't know how tenable that method will be. goku makaimura is as close as an action platformer has ever come to r-type -- every situation requires deliberation and strategy, and its pace is magisterially slow. level 2-2 puts you on a moving platform and bombards you from every angle with wee red flying things. at first it seems "cheap" -- there are too many wee red things to intercept. but once you learn to move back and forth on the platform and control the angles from which the flying things approach, it's almost easy. and it's damned fun. i remember hearing that new smb's level designers were instructed to come up with a novel idea for each level. it works...but it shows. goku makaimura combines ideas -- it's rotating sawblades, strong winds, cracking platforms, and earthshaking trolls at once...and then it'll dismiss those ideas and show you entirely new ones every so many steps. every sub-level feels like three levels. it's really difficult to believe.
i think i've stumbled on a format here
Well said. And yeah, UGNG destroys mario it just about every aspect. the moment i stepped into the windy rain stage it became alot more than just a "really ****ing hard platformer" for me.
also for 2-2
theres a secret chest at the beginning that gives you the homing weapon which makes the cloud part of the stage really really easy
Mr. Spinnington
Banned
This is true. While EGM grades games a little harder than average [along with Gamespot], they're my best source for reviews. Used to be I didn't even consider a game if it got a score lower than an 8.5 and maybe I'd let it go to 8 if I really wanted it. That's why I'm a small bit saddened by Dead Rising. It's passed, that's for sure... but it's not the "wow" I wanted it to be. 7-8 means you'll surely enjoy yourself. God of War got scores similar to that, and look how much people talk about it now, there's a God damn sequel! If Dead Rising got 8-9's then it would have gotten me double-hyped for this game. These scores [fortunately] don't mean I won't buy/enjoy the hell out of it. And as I stated before, co-op probably would have bumped those scores up, and who knows if Capcom will eventually release a patch for that in the future? If they do, ROCK ON; if not, it'll be a damn fun game anyway. I'm happy with Dead Rising... I just hate that initial shock of a lower score than I hoped for.beelzebozo said:
However... this does also raise my interest in Okami like a million per-cent. I really want this freaking game, never had a doubt it wouldn't garner excellent reviews.
Overall, I applaud EGM for having the balls to publish the scores that they honestly saw fit to the games, and not just polishing up their reviews in order to sell more copies of the magazine and play nice with the gaming community. This isn't the first time people have been disappointed about scores... I recall a certain Final Fantasy X not receiving straight 10's and gamers throwing a massive fit.
I'm sure Dead Rising will average an 84% or so on Gamerankings when all is said and done.
My God... he's right!A Link to the Past said:
jparish said:
http://www.toastyfrog.com/verbalspew/pivot/entry.php?id=166#comm
Don't think he'll be coming around here to back himself up.
cartman414
Member
Ditto. I'd suggest going over to his blog to post your opinions. In a civil manner of course.
Mr. Spinnington
Banned
Well that doesn't sound bad at all, in fact it sounds exactly like what I expected!pr0cs said:
Hooray!
A Link to the Past
Banned
MarkMacD said:As you'll see in The 1UP Show tomorrow, I generally agree with the EGM scores, and will be buying Dead Rising the day it comes out to play through it again
But you're PAID to agree with them!
MarkMacD said:As you'll see in The 1UP Show tomorrow, I generally agree with the EGM scores, and will be buying Dead Rising the day it comes out to play through it again
sweet, i cant wait for this game.
about the save system and the "only one save" thing... is that only one save per person playing or does that mean only one person can play dead rising at a time (ie if my brother wanted to play the game on my 360)?
jiji said:
Yes, far better to ignore the tastes of your readership and deliberately steer them towards a title you know they won't like in order to appease the die-hard posters on videogame messageboards. After all, they're the ones buying your magazine in order to make informed purchases, right?
Wrong.
I'd say 99% of the people here who obsessively pore over and debate magazine review scores aren't looking for advice. What they're looking for is affirmation. They've already made their picks for best in show - they're just waiting for the judges to pin blue ribbons on the winners. When the titles they liked score well, they're pleased - the 'pros' agree that they chose well, which not only justifies the confidence they placed in their choices, but 'proves' that the reviewers in question are competent. When the titles they liked score poorly, there's much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and accusations of bias or ineptitude - obviously the games they think are good (or just want to see proven good, if they haven't been released yet) are, and the judgment of anyone who says otherwise is evidently suspect.
And these are the people getting bent out of shape over reviewers scoring games based on what they feel their readership may actually be interested/disinterested in. After all, the thinking seems to go, if reviewers only concentrated on their personal gaming preferences when penning their reviews, games would get the scores they 'deserve'. ('Deserve' meaning 'the scores we thought they should get, or wanted them to receive', the assumption once again being that if good reviewers are free to express their real tastes, they'll prove to be in line with those of the 'true gamers' here. Which is highly debatable, but that's another discussion.)
The truth of the matter is that whether a review expresses the idiosyncratic tastes of the author or is written with the preferences of a hypothetical target reader in mind is irrelevant. One says, 'This is what I like,' and leaves it to the reader to determine whether his tastes are similar enough to the author's for that advice to be meaningful. The other says, 'This is what I think you'd like', once again leaving it to the reader to decide whether his personal preferences match the tastes of the hypothetical reader the review is written for. The reader and the author aren't personally acquainted in either case, so both are equally meaningful. However, assuming that the author has a halfway decent handle on his audience, I think the latter approach has a better chance of giving worthwhile buying advice to the typical reader - and that's what they're paying for.
So in the end, I'd much prefer reviewers to take the preferences of their readership into account when reviewing games. If that means that the scores are less likely to reflect the tastes of the self-styled 'hardcore', so be it. Let them seek validation elsewhere (or ideally, become more confident in their own choices and ignore review scores altogether - not heaping derision on them, as they do now when a score that they dislike is handed down, just dismissing them as irrelevant to their own needs.)
never mind whether toastyfrog shows. he has that within which passes show. he's a gafer of the spirit. i hereby declare toastyfrog a gafer in absentia. in perpetuity. giving goku makaimura a 4 is about the gafiest thing anyone has ever done. matlock would've blushed. to then congratulate oneself about it on one's blog...well!
i don't see how a review in which the reviewer invents a reader and then decides what he would think is at all meaningful. game reviewers have a hard enough time telling us how good a game is or isn't -- better they didn't take on the burden of characterization. i'm all for idiosyncratic game reviews, but deliberately bashing good games is a very mean sort of idiosyncracy. there's a lot of talk about a reviewer's obligations to readers, but what about a reviewer's obligation to creators? toastyfrog says "zing" after he says that deep labyrinth is better than goku makaimura. wherefore "zing?" that "zing" speaks volumes, but let's excerpt the relevant material. if goku makaimura is obvious trash, and if its advocates are a set of specialized phonies, then o deep labyrinth where is thy "zing?" toastyfrog knows he's praising a bad game at the expense of a good one -- that to prefer deep labyrinth to goku makaimura is to insult goku makaimura. therefore "zing."
i've only read the first post here, said "way too low" at Prey's score, "wtf" at GnG's score, and "DR probably got the usual 'too low' crappy review from EGM"
but by far my biggest question is why is this thread 8 pages exactly? it's just ****in review scores. did i miss something in the 8 pages?
but by far my biggest question is why is this thread 8 pages exactly? it's just ****in review scores. did i miss something in the 8 pages?
SatelliteOfLove
Member
omg rite said:i've only read the first post here, said "way too low" at Prey's score, "wtf" at GnG's score, and "DR probably got the usual 'too low' crappy review from EGM"
but by far my biggest question is why is this thread 8 pages exactly? it's just ****in review scores. did i miss something in the 8 pages?
C'mon, it's good drama, read it all!
cartman414
Member
It really does make for some good reading.
BTW SatelliteofLove, what inspired the Miles Copeland avatar?
BTW SatelliteofLove, what inspired the Miles Copeland avatar?
Game reviews in general are so bullshit that it's one of the reasons why video gaming hasn't been accepted as a main media form like movies or music..
Games are about interactivity, not stories. Complaining about weak story in a game where you kill zombies in mall? No multiplayer? Does everygame have to have multiplayer? Too short? Does everygame need to be 20+ hours?
Now, I don't know if Dead Rising is a good game, I obviously haven't played it yet. But these kinds of reviews with such complaints make me cringe. There really needs to be a total change of thinking when it comes to game reviews (and I'm not talking about adding pseudo-artistic or philosophical bullshit either), but more along the lines of analyzing the game concepts and mechanics rather than complaing that the story sucked or whatever.
Oh and do away with the score system and instead have a one paragraph abstract about the review.
Games are about interactivity, not stories. Complaining about weak story in a game where you kill zombies in mall? No multiplayer? Does everygame have to have multiplayer? Too short? Does everygame need to be 20+ hours?
Now, I don't know if Dead Rising is a good game, I obviously haven't played it yet. But these kinds of reviews with such complaints make me cringe. There really needs to be a total change of thinking when it comes to game reviews (and I'm not talking about adding pseudo-artistic or philosophical bullshit either), but more along the lines of analyzing the game concepts and mechanics rather than complaing that the story sucked or whatever.
Oh and do away with the score system and instead have a one paragraph abstract about the review.
Exactly. Trying to review a game objectively just leads to giving out similar scores to everything, ignoring highs and lows that may be a little too specific to affect everyone but will piss off or excite someone. It's good to have radically different opinions of games in print. That way it is much easier to figure out if a game is going to appeal to one personally.Jonnyram said:
I had it happen many times that a game that was generally considered good as the sum of its parts was completely unappealing to me because of some specific flaws - no matter how good the rest is. With subjective reviews, at least there is potential to hear about such things.
tahrikmili
Member
Jonnyram said:
Fixed for you.
I think the so called weaknesses the reviewer bullet pointed are pretty unfair considering the genre and gameplay the game offers. It's a zombie mash game for ****'s sake. Giving this game a 7 for poor story is like saying Night of the Living Dead sucks because the plot sucks.
tahrikmili
Member
Wow, so now unfair game reviews are de facto fun? Contraversy does not equate worthiness.
I'll just repeat something mentioned earlier on this thread and be done: What score did they give Chrome Hounds?
EGM is over for me..
I'll just repeat something mentioned earlier on this thread and be done: What score did they give Chrome Hounds?
EGM is over for me..