By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mummelmann said:
headshot91 said:
Mummelmann said:
headshot91 said:
Mummelmann said:

Every single person in the world is biased, including you and me. And as I mentioned in my other post; her being a woman was probably insignificant but her review history is not. Can you not see how different this game will be from anything she's ever reviewed? The closest thing on that list is Matt Hazard, which is still far away (sidescrolling shooter a la Contra). Seeing that list should hint at what this person enjoys and plays most of the time.

Personally, I hate Buzz, I find it meaningless and boring and would rather play a board game than this noise but I love RPG's. Ergo; I'd score Buzz very low (2-3/10) because I can't enjoy it but I might score a mediocre RPG 5 or 6 simply because I enjoy the genre and certain aspects of it. Can't you see where this could create some problems in assessing a games worth on its merit and premise?

This reviewer doesn't just post a review without consulting anyone. It has to be edited and checked before it goes up. Just because she has reviewed only a few 360/ps3 games means nothing, i mean everyone has to start somewhere. We wouldn't be having this conversation if she had given it 10/10.

Its not the score that bothers me, its her silly comment on how the graphics are "decent" when that clearly isn't the case according to the rest of the world and it shows that she doesn't really have a good grasp on things. There are most certainly no games on this genre that have visuals on par with this. Of course, she would know this if she ever played Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil 5, Silent Hill: Homecoming or Dead Space.

Rest of the world? Well so far this thread has one review saying the game has the best graphics. It's all opinion, and just because she doesnt share that same view with you doesnt mean you can automatically bash the review.

Checking all the other reviews up on Meta, the one from Eurogamer is the only one that states the graphics are "decent" while everyone else seem to think they are very good or great and that gives me every right to question that bit of the review. And just because you agree with it (for some reason) doesn't mean I can't "bash" the review. The lowest visual score I saw outside of Eurogamers "decent" was an 8.5, which is several notches above decent as it were. Its fine she didn't love the game and scored it a perfect ten (hell, I didn't expect that to happen at all) but at least she should get a clue about what's what in the genre, on the platform and on the market in general in regards to visuals.

To be fair it's not the only review that talks about "decent* graphics :

Everyeye.it : "La telecamera che indugia spesso sulla maestosità del colpo d’occhio riesce a meravigliare in più di un’occasione lo spettatore. Purtroppo anche l’inquadratura deve tornare necessariamente alle spalle del protagonista, denunciando in questi frangenti non solo il riuso spietato di elementi architettonici e strutturali, ma la presenza di texture poco definite che stonano nel complesso scenico. Altri difetti evidentissimi interessano le routine fisiche, davvero elementari (quasi antiche) e le animazioni dei personaggi secondari, che non sempre durante le sequenze in game mostrano l’espressività gestuale che si conviene ad un titolo del genere. Impressionante, invece, la realizzazione degli effetti atmosferici, della nebbia malefica che si solleva, sferzata dal vento, ad indicare l’arrivo del pericolo, e brillante anche l’uso di effetti speciali, ben dosati ed ammaestrati. Il quadro globale che si compone, ovviamente, non è stupefacente come lo sarebbe stato nel lontano 2006 (quando il gioco fu presentato), ma è comunque intriso di un carattere particolare. La cifra stilistica di Alan Wake, dal punto di vista tecnico, è l’utilizzo distorto delle fonti di luce, esagerate e saturate: i fasci delle torce, dei lampioni, dei fari di un’auto, si allargano a dismisura, fin quasi a diventare pozze oleose e dense, verso cui correre per raggiungere la salvezza. Insomma, pur senza stupire (ed anzi lasciando un retrogusto amaro se si guardano i dettagli, dal morphing facciale alle texture), Alan Wake ha un suo strano sistema per costruire un colpo d’occhio in grado di meravigliare."

"The camera which often lingers on the majesty of the sight mangaes to impress the spectator in more than one occasion. Unfortunately the framing must necessarily return behind the protagonist (in 3rd person view), revealing in those circumstances not only the harsh reuse of architectural and structural elements, but also the presence of poorly defined textures that clash with the scenery. Some other evident flaws are seen in the basic physics (which seem almost outdated) and the support characters animations sometime fail to dispaly in-game the gesture expressivity needed for such a title. Instead the atmospheric effects are very impressive, like the evil mist which dissolves into the wind,  the use of well dosed and mastered special effects is also brilliant in forshadowing impending danger. The global result is obviously not as amazing as it would have been back in 2006 (when the game was unveiled), but is nonetheless imbued with it's own personality. Alan Wake technical signature style is the distorted use of light sources, exagerated and saturated : the torches' beam, the lamps' light, the headlamps, strech out excessively almost turing into dense oily pools you have to run to for salvation. All in all, even if it's not astonishing (leaving you with a bitter after-taste if you look at the details from facial expressions to textures), Alan Wake has its own weird way to build a sight able to amaze."