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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gravity Rush scandal review creates a bigger shitstorm than Zelda

 

Why do you think Gravity Rush is good?

Coz its from Sony Japan Studios 47 29.19%
 
Coz it looks really good 89 55.28%
 
Coz it has great reviews on Meta 22 13.66%
 
Total:158
Chandler on 16 June 2012
Runa216 said:
Chandler said:

To be fair, that paragraph, slighty rewritten, could also fit quite nicely for Gravity Rush. The controls are kinda dodgy, some of the missions are superfluous and the gameplay gets kinda repeatitive. So I still don't think that a 6.5 is that outrageous.

The controls were great.  there was a lot to them, but the controls works perfectly in my time in Hekseville.  Some of the side missions were dumb, but they were optional; in skyward sword, you HAD to find the three plant dudes before the plant dude elder king guy remembered where Zelda was.  Optional sidequests are much better than forced fetchquests.  Nothing more to that.  

combat did get a bit repetitive, I admit, but really how is that different than ANY other game.  Call of Duty has you pointing and shooting at guys till the very end, with the occasional quick time event.  inFamous has you using the same powers to fight the same enemies over and over again.  most games ARE repetitive, it's the slight variation that makes it tolerable and the abilities Kat has mixed with the level design mean that every encounter is its own, despite the fact that you're probably using the same stable of about 3 moves over and over again.  

Thats your personal opinion and I can respect that. Just as I can respect the opinion of the reviewer at Gamespot. I found the controls to be clunky, especially swiping on the screen to evade. The fighting is essentially square, square, square, swipe, repeat. I still have trouble aiming with those tiny analog sticks and I fear this will never change for me. Also, the novelty of switching gravity gets old pretty fast and I feel like the developers didn't really expand on this great idea. And thats what a lot of the more neutral reviews are saying, solid game with a lot of lost potential. And I can see how they came to this conclusion.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 16 June 2012
oniyide said:
Fusioncode said:
Gamespot - Nintendo fanboys

Gametrailers - Microsoft fanboys

IGN - Sony fanboys

AMIDOINITRITE?


I thought IGN was MS country?? When did that change??

It's easier my way. Everywhere = PS360 country, Nintendo-specific sites = Nintendo country. Pretty much nothing else works.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

menx64 on 16 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
oniyide said:
Fusioncode said:
Gamespot - Nintendo fanboys

Gametrailers - Microsoft fanboys

IGN - Sony fanboys

AMIDOINITRITE?


I thought IGN was MS country?? When did that change??

It's easier my way. Everywhere = PS360 country, Nintendo-specific sites = Nintendo country. Pretty much nothing else works.


quoted for truth and future references...



Menx64

3DS code: 1289-8222-7215

NNid: Menx064

Turkish on 16 June 2012
DepthAlly said:
Turkish said:
DepthAlly said:

What does it matter? The SS review was yesterdays news once comenting was available, just like this will be in a week. Had the SS review allowed comments the second it was put up you'd see just as many or more comments than the GR review.

My thread is about Gamespot being fair or not, if you are here only to complain about when the comment section came into effect go make your own thread.

Nope, came here to point out how stupid your topic title is. Though, I shouldn't expect much better from you.

You're only causing derailment in my thread, if you have nothing constructive to say leave please.  I'm not here to satisfy anyone and especially not you, I never heard of you before, who are you anyway? popping out of the blue, talking as if you know me telling people "thats so Turkish," and "shouldnt expect better from you"? I hope you're not stalking me.



DepthAlly on 16 June 2012
Turkish said:
DepthAlly said:

Nope, came here to point out how stupid your topic title is. Though, I shouldn't expect much better from you.

You're only causing derailment in my thread, if you have nothing constructive to say leave please.  I'm not here to satisfy anyone and especially not you, I never heard of you before, who are you anyway? popping out of the blue, talking as if you know me telling people "thats so Turkish," and "shouldnt expect better from you"? I hope you're not stalking me.

You post everywhere, I'd have to be clinically blind not to notice you on here. And no, this isn't really derailment. I'm talking about the validity of your thread's topic, which is completely on... topic.



Food for thought: Shove an apple in your brain

Around the Network
Turkish on 16 June 2012
Runa216 said:
Turkish said:
DepthAlly said:
Turkish said:
DepthAlly said:
Runa216 said:
I'm kind of offended by the poll on this thread. it would indicate that we're incapable of thinking for ourselves. I think Gravity Rush is good because I just finished beating it last night and getting Platinum on it this morning.


Yep, that's Turkish, as you probably know. The whole thread itself is pretty sad, though. He seems to be trying to make a point that a Sony game getting a lower review score is a bigger upset than a Nintendo game if as to say people care more about Sony games. I mean his basis is the number of comments, for crying out loud. The Zelda review didn't even allow comments for a while after the review was put up. There isn't a single review on GameSpot that has comments older than 6 months because they didn't allow it until just 6 months ago.


But that still doesn't change the fact that Gravity Rush review has more comments then Skyward Sword does it

What does it matter? The SS review was yesterdays news once comenting was available, just like this will be in a week. Had the SS review allowed comments the second it was put up you'd see just as many or more comments than the GR review.

My thread is about Gamespot being fair or not, if you are here only to complain about when the comment section came into effect go make your own thread.

but that would be redundant.  So let's get this straight: this thread is only for troll hits, not for actual discussion? 

Why would you even think of this thread as only for troll hits? Thats ridicilous. It is a discussion wether gamespot is biased or not with their reviews. I mean its pretty obvious when you look at my questions in the OP.  You felt insulted by the poll, fine, but I'm glad not everyone thinks like you do. I cannot satisfy every individual here and add their choice in the poll. Live with it and stop complaining.



Turkish on 16 June 2012
DepthAlly said:
Turkish said:
DepthAlly said:

Nope, came here to point out how stupid your topic title is. Though, I shouldn't expect much better from you.

You're only causing derailment in my thread, if you have nothing constructive to say leave please.  I'm not here to satisfy anyone and especially not you, I never heard of you before, who are you anyway? popping out of the blue, talking as if you know me telling people "thats so Turkish," and "shouldnt expect better from you"? I hope you're not stalking me.

You post everywhere, I'd have to be clinically blind not to notice you on here. And no, this isn't really derailment. I'm talking about the validity of your thread's topic, which is completely on... topic.

Its good that you notice me and all, but I dont know you, so dont talk like you know me. Next time don't be a lurker but reply to my comments so we can have a discussion.



greenmedic88 on 16 June 2012

Anytime I see a review that deviates too far from mean score either merits a closer look as to what the reviewer saw that everyone else didn't, or I simply don't bother giving that site and the review my time and hit.

The former runs the assumption that the reviewer in question, as it is no longer the review itself that's the point of focus, is either incredibly insightful and perceptive or in rare instances, is simply a reviewer who's written reviews I largely found myself agreeing with in the past.

I have to say that the "incredibly insightful and perceptive" stamp of legitimacy is so rare that it may as well be a platinum leaf embossed stamp of approval and in virtually every case, the review can simply be chalked up to:

a) they just didn't like the game. Not their thing. They like FPS games and instead they're reviewing the latest chapter of Let's Dance.

b) all too common: the reviewer really wants to be relevant, generate hits and create any sort of controversy that will make it happen. They may not even agree with their own words.

c) must be the contrarian. If the vast majority is universally in accord regarding the merits of a given game, they feel it's their duty to tell everyone otherwise.

The one thing all three types of reviews have in common is that none of them matter beyond the opinion that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" which overlooks the fact that some opinions are more valid than others.



JoeTheBro on 16 June 2012

I stopped buying games based off reviews a long time ago. I still care about reviews though because other people do. If a game that I think is great gets bad reviews that means it will sell less. As a result less games will be made similar to it. With Gravity Rush for example if its meta was 95 it would sell millions and tons of systems. If that happened a sequel would almost be guaranteed and more novel games like it would be brought to the system. Instead with these reviews the general public will quickly forget this gem ever existed.



Links

Turkish on 16 June 2012
greenmedic88 said:

Anytime I see a review that deviates too far from mean score either merits a closer look as to what the reviewer saw that everyone else didn't, or I simply don't bother giving that site and the review my time and hit.

The former runs the assumption that the reviewer in question, as it is no longer the review itself that's the point of focus, is either incredibly insightful and perceptive or in rare instances, is simply a reviewer who's written reviews I largely found myself agreeing with in the past.

I have to say that the "incredibly insightful and perceptive" stamp of legitimacy is so rare that it may as well be a platinum leaf embossed stamp of approval and in virtually every case, the review can simply be chalked up to:

a) they just didn't like the game. Not their thing. They like FPS games and instead they're reviewing the latest chapter of Let's Dance.

b) all too common: the reviewer really wants to be relevant, generate hits and create any sort of controversy that will make it happen. They may not even agree with their own words.

c) must be the contrarian. If the vast majority is universally in accord regarding the merits of a given game, they feel it's their duty to tell everyone otherwise.

The one thing all three types of reviews have in common is that none of them matter beyond the opinion that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" which overlooks the fact that some opinions are more valid than others.


Amen brotha. When a site wants to review a game, they should let it review to someone who's open to such games. You let some shooter guy review a JRPG and you will get a low score guaranteed.