By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DMeisterJ on 24 June 2008
Edit Thread
Bodhesatva said:
DMeisterJ said:
Reviews are always relevant to me. If a game I like get's a low score it's because it sucked, not because anythings wrong with the review scale.

 

Again, I wasn't trying to single you out, but you asked for it.

Eurogamer gives MGO a 7/10:

[DMeister quotes and agrees with]: I think Orange Box is a bad comparison though. Orange Box was a collection of Valve games, some even old. Since no one reviewed the online for Halo 3, Resistance, or Gears of War separately, why should MGS4 get different treatment?

I give this thread a 9.7.

Second Post:

 

DMeisterJ: Wow.

That review was so horrible.

They spent the whole review finding every negative they could in the gameplay and sensationalizing it to the nth degree.

If you read their review, and had no idea what MGO was, you'd think that the mode was absolutely horrible.

Even most negative reviews have some positive in there, but I failed to see any positivity in that review.

 

 

X-Play expresses concern about the length of MGS4 cutscenes:

DMeisterJ: Did we not expect long cutscenes?

Kojima said that MGS4 would be like MGS2, so I expected long cutscenes.

Also, mandatory installs are beginning to be old news, they're only a big deal to people who don't own PS3s as a means to try to downplay the system. Most system owners don't care about taking ten minutes to install something and move on.

I don't think either two are big deals, but I'm sure some reviewers would have lowered the score for the game based off of those two things, since people always want attention nowadays.

 

MGS4 gets a 9.2:

Too much shooting?

Uhh... This is a Stealth-action game... Shooting is somewhat necessary, but most people are able to be taken out by CQC.

 

 

You question reviews all the time, DMeister. At least when it doesn't suit your personal opinion.

I don't talk about the scale though.  I talk about the actual review.

Read my posts, did I ever say anything was wrong with the scores that they got?  I said something was wrong with the actual review.  Like I said before:

If a game i like gets a low score, it's because it sucked, not because anythings wrong with the review scale.

That still stands.  You can critique reviews, but the score still stands, and what I said earlier still stands, I only use IGN reviews to buy games, they haven't steered me wrong before.

The Eurogamer one was not complaining about the number, but about how someone said it was okay to lump MGO into MGS4 when the same happened with the Orange box, and I disagreed with them saying the Orange Box was five different games versus MGS4 which is a game and an online mode, and if MGO got rated online, so should have Halo 3's online mode, Gears' etc.  At that point, I hadn't even read the review.

The second Eurogamer post, was an expansion on that.  I didn't knock the score, but the content of the review, which made it seem like MGO was a game outside of MGS4.  When in reality, they are one in the same.

The X-Play post wasn't about a review, but about what they said about the whole ninety minute cutscene thing.  At that point, they hadn't reviewed the game yet.  That thread was about Konami's restrictions on reviews, not the review itself.  All I stated was that there would be some reviewers who would score it low based off of install times and cutscenes.

The "too much shooting" comment wasn't anything about the review score, but that they said there was "too much shooting" in a stealth action game. 

I don't see anywhere where I "asked for it".

@ Rubang

Looks like this fish got away.

ROFLCOPTER.