rocketpig said:
akuma587 said:
ArtznCraphs said:
Too bad IGN, along with Gamepro, review games with kid gloves on. They can't be trusted to write level headed reviews, imo.
But MGS4 is good stuff regardless |
IGN is actually one of the most accurate reviewers in terms of getting close in numerical terms to the games metacritic/gamerakings average, although I do admit they aren't the harshest reviewer by any means. That probably goes to Eurogamer, Edge, and Gamespot, but I respect all those publications too. There need to be harsh reviewers. That being said, IGN was one of the first reviewers to give Haze a 5 score and also gave Lair a 5 score, so believe me, they aren't biased. In other news, I agree with the IGN review insofar as what my 7 hours into the game has shown me. This game isn't just epic, its LEGENDARY. I just haven't been able to put the damn thing down. Damn you 8-5 workdays!!! I could be playing Metal Gear Solid 4 right now! |
When Two Worlds pulls a 6.8 and Haze pulls a 4.5, you know something is wrong. They're almost the exact same game once you factor in genre. Two Worlds is a shitty Oblivion ripoff that has moments where it's actually fun mixed between massive game faults. Haze is a shitty Halo ripoff that has moments where it's actually fun mixed between massive game faults. For some reason, Two Worlds slipped through with mediocre reviews, just as it deserved. Haze, on the other hand, was given the "Lair Label of Doom" and all reviewers jumped on it for some reason. |
Nice analogy, but perhaps Two Worlds got a higher score than Haze, because Oblivion is a much better game than Halo 3?
Both games are clones, but Two Worlds is a clone of a 10/10 game, while Haze is a clone of a 8/10 game. =)
Or maybe Two Worlds got a decent score just because they needed more of their Oblivion fix. ^^
