By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Does anyone notice the double standard and the bias?

Barozi on 29 May 2010
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Barozi said:
 

Sure, GTA IV is overrated. Never deserves a 98.

I would give it a 92, but I think an average score of 90 is fair. (+/- 10 points for the individual taste) Anyone rating it below that (80) is either lying to themself or simply never played a game that would really fit in that department.

The only game where I really don't agree with high score is LBP. Low 80s for me.

Everything else lies within +/- 5 points and some others within +/- 10, which I would say is the normal value for a margin of error (error being the average of critics OR yourself !)

Well, sir, I think we share an opinion on a great many things, according to that post.

Indeed sir. Now excuse me, it's 5:43AM here in good ol' Europe and I haven't slept yet.



Around the Network
Lurker on 30 May 2010
Slimebeast said:
Just face the truth dude. Obsidian is only a slightly above average developer who mostly get to make second-rate expansions. Kinda like what Treyarch was to Infinity Ward.

I am sure it will show in Fallout Vegas too. It will not reach Fallout 3 level of quality and reviews.

I bet they had their second team develop Alpha Protocol the while main team is making Fallout Vegas.

With everything they're adding Fallout 3 will look like a joke. People can't use miniguns properly with 2 strength now.



vlad321 on 30 May 2010
RageBot said:
Welcome... to the MACHINE...

I am solely posting because this comment was absolutely awesome. You added one too many "the"s though.

 

 

OT: This has been beeong on and on the entire generation. It's quite sad really.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Garnett on 30 May 2010
disolitude said:
I stopped listening to reviews after Sonic Unleased got like 4/10 on IGN and I honestly enjoyed it more than Gears of war 2...

I am also picking up ALpha protocol so I'll see if the aiming is broken first hand. It can't be any more broken than in MAss Effect 1 :)

Thats not hard to do :P

 

and i know the 360 version of Fallout 3 wasnt broken, at least mine wasnt.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

CollectiveCynic on 30 May 2010
Barozi said:
CollectiveCynic said:
FaRmLaNd said:
Agreed.

I personally think that fallout 3, whilst a good to great game certainly wasn't as amazing as the originals and I think that games critics do have a sheep like mentality when its comes to reviewing hight profile releases.

It's been an on going trend amongst critics during this generation of gaming. Many games receive "rave" reviews despite their obvious flaws, they're so caught in the hype, that they become oblivious to the flaws.

Examples:

  • Grand Theft Auto IV (Excellent game, but not worthy of a 98 average rating)
  • Gears of War 2 (Great single-player mode and horde mode is a lot of fun, but the multi-player...)
  • Modern Warfare 2
  • Oblivion
  • Any Halo title after the Combat Evolved
  • Fable II
  • Fallout 3

They're all good games, but hardly deserving of the accolades that the influx of the media give it.

Total disagree and I'm not a game critic. All those games easily deserve 90+ scores and are the best of their respective genres. (Fable 2 being the exception).

conspiracy theory rejected.

It's not a conspiracy, it's buisness and marketing.


Then again, the Gerstmann Gate incident was wildly exaggerrated. So is the notion that critics are being bribed.

Also, Modern Warfare 2 was a clusterfuck multi-player experience. It tries to add too much, it failed miserably, Infinity Ward need to understand that less is more. I could make a 12 pages rant about the balance issues. The single-player was a lot of fun, but it was too short and a bit too Michael Bayish, the plot was also more nonsensical than anything Hideo Kojima churned out. Spec-Ops was the best thing about the game, one of the best co-op experiences I've played.



Around the Network
vlad321 on 30 May 2010
Barozi said:
CollectiveCynic said:
FaRmLaNd said:
Agreed.

I personally think that fallout 3, whilst a good to great game certainly wasn't as amazing as the originals and I think that games critics do have a sheep like mentality when its comes to reviewing hight profile releases.

It's been an on going trend amongst critics during this generation of gaming. Many games receive "rave" reviews despite their obvious flaws, they're so caught in the hype, that they become oblivious to the flaws.

Examples:

  • Grand Theft Auto IV (Excellent game, but not worthy of a 98 average rating)
  • Gears of War 2 (Great single-player mode and horde mode is a lot of fun, but the multi-player...)
  • Modern Warfare 2
  • Oblivion
  • Any Halo title after the Combat Evolved
  • Fable II
  • Fallout 3

They're all good games, but hardly deserving of the accolades that the influx of the media give it.

Total disagree and I'm not a game critic. All those games easily deserve 90+ scores and are the best of their respective genres. (Fable 2 being the exception).

conspiracy theory rejected.

He is actually completely correct on everything he listed. Should have added a few more for good measure.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Chairman-Mao on 30 May 2010
CollectiveCynic said:
Chairman-Mao said:
Dude Fallout 3 was fucking amazing.

Alpha Protocol isn't out yet so how do you know its as good as fallout, or that the reviews are biased?

To me, it was far from a memorable and amazing experience. The game was just a watered down version of two classic RPGS from the late nineties. I'm not exactly sure If I would enjoy Alpha Protocol, but the criticisms I see against the game from critics, are rather weak. Not that I hate Fallout 3, I kinda liked it but I wish Bethesda just left the Fallout series alone and work on something new. I'm a huge fan of the first two Fallout games, some of my favorites. Not that I'm encouraging you to dislike Fallout 3 or to not like it as much the other two, hell, I wouldn't mind if you liked it more than the first two Fallouts. 

I never played the first 2 fallouts so I can't comment on them, but I certainly loved Fallout 3, that's why I got a bit defensive.



theprof00 on 30 May 2010

tunnel snakes rule, and alpha protocol drools.



Slimebeast on 30 May 2010
Lurker said:
Slimebeast said:
Just face the truth dude. Obsidian is only a slightly above average developer who mostly get to make second-rate expansions. Kinda like what Treyarch was to Infinity Ward.

I am sure it will show in Fallout Vegas too. It will not reach Fallout 3 level of quality and reviews.

I bet they had their second team develop Alpha Protocol the while main team is making Fallout Vegas.

With everything they're adding Fallout 3 will look like a joke. People can't use miniguns properly with 2 strength now.

Let's hope so!

Btw did u just change your avatar?



C_Hollomon on 30 May 2010

They get paid so they don't care.

You know different poeple review certain games.