Official Alan Wake Review Thread (Metacritic)

[binary solo]

NightAntilli said:

 

I kind of feel that some reviewers are simply hating on the game, like the review from Eurogamer. I'll probably be called a fanboy for what I'm about to say, but I don't care. 

The reviewer used arguments like "the game should've been released in 2007", and they use these comparisons:

Games such as BioShock have shown how compelling and original storylines can be told in innovative ways. The likes of Uncharted 2 have offered up not just lush visuals but diverse locations and varied gameplay. With Heavy Rain, Quantic Dream broke the rules of game narrative and forced the player not only to think before pulling the trigger, but to feel.

I haven't played Bioshock. Well I did, but quit on about half since I didn't like it, so I can't comment on that.

UC2 didn't offer varied gameplay at all. It was basically climb/solve puzzle, shoot, watch cutscene, repeat. Though the presentation gave the impression that you were doing something different, in reality, you weren't. Yeah, there were different locations, but he's an explorer, AW goes to a small town to unwind and stays there. That's a completely different story, and you can't criticize a game for having a fixed setting based on a different story. If that's how you wanna criticize a game, why not criticize Uncharted for not being able to go to other planets while in Mass Effect you can? See how absurd that argument really is? See it as the film phone booth. Almost the whole movie takes place in a phone booth, but it's still a freaking good movie.

I don't see why Heavy Rain is relevant at all. Why didn't she use Mass Effect as an example instead if she was arguing to think before pulling the trigger? This game isn't about choice at all, so ME would also be irrelevant, but her choosing Heavy Rain clearly shows something....

And then she says it has "decent" visuals? Oh come on.. She's obviously hating on it because it was in development for such a long time. Basically all her arguments come down to "outdated" because according to her, the game is 3 years old or whatever. It's a critique on what the release date should've been, and not on what the game currently is, and along with that, she drags every aspect of the game down that would be outstanding a few years back, to being only "decent" right now, while it's still way above average nowadays (mainly graphics, lip syncing and animations really could use some work though). I bet this won't happen if she reviews GT5...

 

I kind of feel that some reviewers are simply hating on the game, like the review from Eurogamer. I'll probably be called a fanboy for what I'm about to say, but I don't care.

The reviewer used arguments like "the game should've been released in 2007", and they use these comparisons:

Games such as BioShock have shown how compelling and original storylines can be told in innovative ways. The likes of Uncharted 2 have offered up not just lush visuals but diverse locations and varied gameplay. With Heavy Rain, Quantic Dream broke the rules of game narrative and forced the player not only to think before pulling the trigger, but to feel.

I haven't played Bioshock. Well I did, but quit on about half since I didn't like it, so I can't comment on that.

UC2 didn't offer varied gameplay at all. It was basically climb/solve puzzle, shoot, watch cutscene, repeat. Though the presentation gave the impression that you were doing something different, in reality, you weren't. Yeah, there were different locations, but he's an explorer, AW goes to a small town to unwind and stays there. That's a completely different story, and you can't criticize a game for having a fixed setting or location based on a different story. If that's how you wanna criticize a game, why not criticize Uncharted for not being able to go to other planets while in Mass Effect you can? See how absurd that argument really is? See it as the film phone booth. Almost the whole movie takes place in a phone booth, but it's still a freaking good movie.

I don't see why Heavy Rain is relevant at all. Why didn't she use Mass Effect as an example instead if she was arguing to think before pulling the trigger? This game isn't about choice at all, so ME would also be irrelevant, but her choosing Heavy Rain clearly shows something....

And then she says it has "decent" visuals? Oh come on.. She's obviously hating on it because it was in development for such a long time. Basically all her arguments come down to "outdated" because according to her, the game is 3 years old or whatever. It's a critique on what the release date should've been, and not on what the game currently is, and along with that, she drags every aspect of the game down that would be outstanding a few years back, to being only "decent" right now, while it's still way above average nowadays (mainly graphics, lip syncing and animations really could use some work though). I bet this won't happen if she reviews GT5...

 

 

Not sure what general point you're trying to make with this. One review has used spurious arguments and given it a lower than expected score; so it's a stupid review (that actually game the game 7/10 which in any other medium is still an objectively good score). But that review and any others like it are not the difference between this game being a mid 80's Metascore and a low to mid 90's. After 22 reviews on Meta it's sitting at 83. Are you telling us that's entirely because there are reviewers that want to hate the game?

I think the "I want to not like AW so I'm going to nit pick and find things to mark it down and make inappropriate and inaccurate comparisons" reviewers are the difference between an 83 and an 86. They aren't the difference between an 83 and a 93. Heck if OXM gives the game an 8/10 you know it's not just people with a hidden agenda who think the game falls short of AAA review status.

The game deserves to sell, and we know new games that Meta in the 80's can sell (Heavy Rain).

The funny thing about different reviews of this game is the level of scare the reviewers give it. One reviewer says they had nightmares, another says it never got scary. Now that sounds like they were reviewing completely different games.