Gamepro reviews The Conduit, 3.5/5 wich is 70%

[vaio]

Words Of Wisdom said:

vaio said:

Speed reading it and actually reading the shit he wrote is not the same thing.

If that is the case you explain to me how this could be a (and i qoute you here) : As a whole it's a fairly decent review that touches on gamemplay, length, controls, and visuals.

When he starts the rewiev with:

I'm not sure who I should blame for The Conduit's shortcomings. Do I blame the developer for making a rather generic shooter with a convoluted storyline that isn't as epic or mysterious as it wants to be or do I blame Nintendo for creating a console whose lack of hardware power essentially handcuffs every developer who tries to create a "next-gen" game for it?

And also says this in the review:

what does it say about the Wii that The Conduit doesn't blow Goldeneye's graphics out of the water the way Halo 3 outshines the original Halo or Killzone 2 completely destroys the original Killzone? 
 

Please explain how in the world the review could be fairly decent whe it starts with those two things on the first page?

How could the Bible be a good book if I smeared feces on the cover?  Well the first step to finding out is, of course, looking past the cover.  Journalists often sensationalize mundane things to make them seem more than they are.  By polarizing things, they attract more attention.  Unlike you and other posters, I'm secure enough in my beliefs to not offended by these attempts.  The first is just asking "Is HVS a mediocre developer or were they limited by the Wii's capabilities?"  The point of the second that the graphics aren't jaw-dropping.

Normaly you are a great poster and I often agree with you but this time you have sunk to the level of the worst trolls here no names but you know who they are.

I dont feel threatend at all I would have gotten this game even if it was rated 1 or 0, the problem I have is:

1. He passes himself of like a proffesional but does a review that is everything but proffesional.

2. He spits in the face of the developers who have put 1000 and 1000´s of hours making this game by not treating it fairly and this could possibly do more damage to the game then any pirating or fanboy troll out there and thats not how a proffesional gamejournalist should behave.

3. *Blaming any shortcomings he thinks the game has on Nintendo is ridiciolus and then saying the less powerfull Wii is to blame for the developer for making a rather generic shooter with a convoluted storyline that isn't as epic or mysterious is even more ludiciriss one thing has nothing to do with the other.

4. Saying that the jump from golden eye to conduit is less then from halo 1 to 3 is a straight out lie, if he said Perfect dark I could maybe agree.

5. Dissing the story because he didnt get it when he skiped the cutscenes is moronic.

6. Giving a game a full review when he didnt even play the full game or try its features as the costumization abd online features is equally moronic.

Nothing about the above can be considered as you said: a fairly decent review that touches on gamemplay, length, controls, and visuals.

It touches gameplay but he never fully explored it.

Length I´ll give him that

Controlls he never tried the different settings

Visuals he compares this game to the PS 3 and 360 why? it this was a multipatform game I could understanut an wii exclusive game? He had no buisness comparing it to HD games.

There is nothing in this review that is fair and balanced and I am very suprised he gave it such a high rating considering what he wrote and not to mention all the times he contradicted himself.

I dont have a problem with him not liking the game or the Wii but the manner he did this review is disqusting and I find it very suprising that you consider it fair and balanced.