Lots of the reviews for this game highlight my problems with the system for reviewing things at the moment. "It's not quite a competitive fighter, but it's not Smash Bros."
That's the kind of commentary I'd expect if I was asking one of my friends who had played the game to describe it to me, not a paid reviewer. I want them to tell me what the game is. What it does well; what it doesn't. All of them cover this but most of them do it after spending a good while telling me what the game is not.
Additionally, I can accept criticism that if two things have been put together which traditionally haven't been, it might not work so well. Tell me why. Don't say "It ends up being adequate at both but master of neither" when you've complained that it's too much like a traditional fighting game with a steep learning curve and many moves to master. Clearly it's good at that half of the comparison - or all that stuff you've said about it earlier is rendered completely pointless.
Minor gripes aside though, I've read/watched a good portion of reviews and the majority of them seem extremely fair & balanced. The IGN review in particular I thought was a good one. I know Colin has been a big fan of the game but he kept that all to one side and did an objective review and gave it a fitting score afterwards.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
