| forevercloud3000 said: http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4058.html Next to Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, Insomniac's massively anticipated sequel is probably the biggest PlayStation 3 title of 2008, although we're sure the LittleBigPlanet fans may have something to say about that. We are set to start working on Resistance 2 as both Arnold and I will soon provide you with two separate reviews for this blockbuster, but in the meantime, we're sure you're interested in what others are saying. Thing is, when it comes to analyzing a next-gen FPS, the critics tend to differ on what makes for an elite title; some put more emphasis on technicals, others want to focus on intensely robust online gameplay. But in the case of a sequel, you can bet that many reviewers are going to be on the lookout for the improvements and enhancements; in other words, is the sequel better than the original? This is a logical approach, of course, but we're here to warn you about the reviews that continue to harp on words like "innovation." These days, it seems that unless every single major release "innovates" in some way; unless it presents gamers with something entirely fresh and new, the game is automatically less than excellent. This is an absurd theory in our eyes, and in the end, we believe a review should more about inherent quality and fun factor. Thus far, we've seen the low end of reviews from places like GameDaily and Game Informer (8.0 and 8.5 respectively) and the high end from IGN (9.5), Official PlayStation Magazine (9.0), Cheat Code Central (9.6), and Gamer.Blorge (A+,A+). As far as we can tell, though, the central message is pretty simple: Resistance 2 is intense, entertaining, and most worthy of a purchase. Just watch out for reviewers who tend to focus on aspects that simply don't matter much in the larger scheme of things, especially when it comes to the typical consumer. |
This is one of the first "damage control" news articles I've ever seen. "Don't listen to the low reviewers, they just focused on the wrong thing."
This was supposed to be the best game ever(I've denoted an example later in the thread), according to a few hardcore fans(the game is obviously great). This article claims it is "most worthy of a purchase," but is it the infinite shooter of ages it was hyped to be? We don't know that, and we never will, as it is an opinion. The article surprised me with the "most worthy of a purchase" statement, as I feel most Sony fans would consider it a sacralidge not to purchase the game.
Clairification Edit:
1. The article is unneeded damage control for a few less than perfect reviews(it implies we should ignore the low ones).
2. Reviewers aren't biased against the PS3, with very few exceptions, imho.
3. All that said, personal opinion is what determines the quality of a game.
4. The article is filled with shady statements.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
