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

Forums - Nintendo - Look at me! I am playing badly reviewed games and having fun!

theRepublic said:
pots555 said:
Another thing I just tought about.

The reviews for Cursed Mountain stated that the control scheme was deficient. That your motions were not properly read and that it lead to frustration. I have played the whole thing from beginning to end and LEARNED how to used the controls. Sure, at first they are tough to master but in the end, I got it right EVERY TIME.

This leads me to think that some reviewers give some game a very shallow look before giving their reviews. And in my mind, that's not fair.

That definitely happens.  I think it is more the result of there being so many games and so little time rather than being anything malicious.  The end result of a bad review is the same either way though.

If it's a game they decided beforehand they didn't like, then it is malicious. And there are some of those.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network

im the same way...im currently playing fragile dreams and yes it is very slow, but there is so much the game does that no other does. And the fun park...best game world ever designed. lol.



LordTheNightKnight said:
theRepublic said:
pots555 said:
Another thing I just tought about.

The reviews for Cursed Mountain stated that the control scheme was deficient. That your motions were not properly read and that it lead to frustration. I have played the whole thing from beginning to end and LEARNED how to used the controls. Sure, at first they are tough to master but in the end, I got it right EVERY TIME.

This leads me to think that some reviewers give some game a very shallow look before giving their reviews. And in my mind, that's not fair.

That definitely happens.  I think it is more the result of there being so many games and so little time rather than being anything malicious.  The end result of a bad review is the same either way though.

If it's a game they decided beforehand they didn't like, then it is malicious. And there are some of those.

Of course that would be malicious.  I didn't say that doesn't happen.  I said that I think time constraints are the most common cause of the problem.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

theRepublic said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
theRepublic said:
pots555 said:
Another thing I just tought about.

The reviews for Cursed Mountain stated that the control scheme was deficient. That your motions were not properly read and that it lead to frustration. I have played the whole thing from beginning to end and LEARNED how to used the controls. Sure, at first they are tough to master but in the end, I got it right EVERY TIME.

This leads me to think that some reviewers give some game a very shallow look before giving their reviews. And in my mind, that's not fair.

That definitely happens.  I think it is more the result of there being so many games and so little time rather than being anything malicious.  The end result of a bad review is the same either way though.

If it's a game they decided beforehand they didn't like, then it is malicious. And there are some of those.

Of course that would be malicious.  I didn't say that doesn't happen.  I said that I think time constraints are the most common cause of the problem.

Yeah, just qualifying in case that wasn't clear.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

I agree. I enjoyed crystal bearers too. thought it was pretty good for what they were trying to do. but i stopped trusting critics and reviewers a loooooong time ago anyway.



Around the Network

OP: glad you are enjoying games based on your experience playing them. I thoroughly enjoyed Cursed Mountain because of its story.



UncleScrooge said:
pastro243 said:
UncleScrooge said:
What really annoys me about game reviews is that the reviewers are completely out of touch with 99% of the gaming population. When gamers love a game and reviewers say "It's casual lol!" they don't do their job. The job of a reviewer is to tell people how good a game is. And they don't. They only do it for the handful of core gamers who visit gaming forums and participate in that ridiculous "hype game". And to be honest they'd buy their games anyways, no matter what the reviews say.

So basically reviewers don't do their job, which means they're useless. The only reason why reviewers get paid for their job is because they are part of the "hype game". Their job is to hype games up. If they don't people get mad and shout at them.

The best example I can think of here would be a magazine I've been reading for years and years. They just keep losing thousands of readers each year and they just get more and more "hardcore" (hardcore means that nobody is interest in the BS they write). But they just don't get it. They keep adding "Retro" sections to their magazine, do silly contests only nerds would participate in, are proud because they know when the first Mario game was released and so on. The most annoying one of them even created a "Casual gamer" magazine (!!!) but whenever he gets the chance he talks about "real" gamers and how silly "casual" gamers are and just keeps spitting his "analysis" to you, which is not only completely wrong but also boring because nobody wants to read it.

Reviewers should give you an idea what the game in question plays like, what it is all about and for who it is. They shouldn't rate each game at a score from 1-100 and tell you "this game is bad because you can't do X" because a lot of people just don't care if you can do X or not. Just Dance is the best example here. Reviewers went "Oh my god! Don't buy this! It's trash, you look like an idiot playing it!" Yes! You look like an idiot! That's exactly why people like this game!

Gaming journalism is silly anyways. All you need to do to be a gaming "journalist" is to open a website and write that X game has bad graphics so people shouldn't buy it. Woah, amazing...


Why would gameing sites write reviews according to people that dont even care about them, the guys that would find Just Dance fun dont go in those sites, and people who like GOW, gears or Halo do, so you would be better off reviewing for your audience.

Its the same as saying: "oh these music reviewers are out of touch with 99% of the population because they rate low things like Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, etc..."

Im just saying, if Im the kind of guy that visits gamespot, and they give a game a 2.5, that means I would probably give it a similar score or wouldnt buy it.

Oh now that's cute You actually think people just don't visit gaming websites or don't read gaming mags because they're not interested. The reality is that people are running away because the quality of these websites and magazines just keeps decreasing. The same goes for newspapers by the way. Ever read a newspaper from the 1950's? That's a whole different category of quality.

Again, look at that magazine I mentioned, for instance. In the 1990's those guys sold more than 100k copies of their magazine each month. Now they sell less than 15k copies. So the potential customers are there, the gaming media just keeps screwing them (if you happen to like Just Dance and also happen to read IGN / Gamespot / whatever you probably felt quite screwed when you read their review... or their reviews in general: "lol you look like a jerk playing that!" "Lol that's for casuals!" "REAL gamers would never buy that!")

When the newspaper you read actually insults you by saying "you're not worth reading a newspaper!" you'll probably quit reading it, too.

Yes, the potential consumers are there. It's just that the gaming media is screwing them.

I know that's hard to understand for people who are so much into gaming and who like the games the gaming media also likes. But it's true. You really feel screwed once you happen to leave that "inner circle".

The reality is that a lot of people who own consoles never go into gaming websites or read magazines because its a nerd thing.

Also, magazines arent read as much as in the 90s because of the level of penetration internet has had, who wants a magazine when you can have it all in the internet. But thats not the point.

And really, its as simple as the ones that write those reviews dont share your tastes or standards of defining what a good game is, so why complain about it, people should already know that.



pastro243 said:
UncleScrooge said:
pastro243 said:
UncleScrooge said:
What really annoys me about game reviews is that the reviewers are completely out of touch with 99% of the gaming population. When gamers love a game and reviewers say "It's casual lol!" they don't do their job. The job of a reviewer is to tell people how good a game is. And they don't. They only do it for the handful of core gamers who visit gaming forums and participate in that ridiculous "hype game". And to be honest they'd buy their games anyways, no matter what the reviews say.

So basically reviewers don't do their job, which means they're useless. The only reason why reviewers get paid for their job is because they are part of the "hype game". Their job is to hype games up. If they don't people get mad and shout at them.

The best example I can think of here would be a magazine I've been reading for years and years. They just keep losing thousands of readers each year and they just get more and more "hardcore" (hardcore means that nobody is interest in the BS they write). But they just don't get it. They keep adding "Retro" sections to their magazine, do silly contests only nerds would participate in, are proud because they know when the first Mario game was released and so on. The most annoying one of them even created a "Casual gamer" magazine (!!!) but whenever he gets the chance he talks about "real" gamers and how silly "casual" gamers are and just keeps spitting his "analysis" to you, which is not only completely wrong but also boring because nobody wants to read it.

Reviewers should give you an idea what the game in question plays like, what it is all about and for who it is. They shouldn't rate each game at a score from 1-100 and tell you "this game is bad because you can't do X" because a lot of people just don't care if you can do X or not. Just Dance is the best example here. Reviewers went "Oh my god! Don't buy this! It's trash, you look like an idiot playing it!" Yes! You look like an idiot! That's exactly why people like this game!

Gaming journalism is silly anyways. All you need to do to be a gaming "journalist" is to open a website and write that X game has bad graphics so people shouldn't buy it. Woah, amazing...


Why would gameing sites write reviews according to people that dont even care about them, the guys that would find Just Dance fun dont go in those sites, and people who like GOW, gears or Halo do, so you would be better off reviewing for your audience.

Its the same as saying: "oh these music reviewers are out of touch with 99% of the population because they rate low things like Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, etc..."

Im just saying, if Im the kind of guy that visits gamespot, and they give a game a 2.5, that means I would probably give it a similar score or wouldnt buy it.

Oh now that's cute You actually think people just don't visit gaming websites or don't read gaming mags because they're not interested. The reality is that people are running away because the quality of these websites and magazines just keeps decreasing. The same goes for newspapers by the way. Ever read a newspaper from the 1950's? That's a whole different category of quality.

Again, look at that magazine I mentioned, for instance. In the 1990's those guys sold more than 100k copies of their magazine each month. Now they sell less than 15k copies. So the potential customers are there, the gaming media just keeps screwing them (if you happen to like Just Dance and also happen to read IGN / Gamespot / whatever you probably felt quite screwed when you read their review... or their reviews in general: "lol you look like a jerk playing that!" "Lol that's for casuals!" "REAL gamers would never buy that!")

When the newspaper you read actually insults you by saying "you're not worth reading a newspaper!" you'll probably quit reading it, too.

Yes, the potential consumers are there. It's just that the gaming media is screwing them.

I know that's hard to understand for people who are so much into gaming and who like the games the gaming media also likes. But it's true. You really feel screwed once you happen to leave that "inner circle".

The reality is that a lot of people who own consoles never go into gaming websites or read magazines because its a nerd thing.

Also, magazines arent read as much as in the 90s because of the level of penetration internet has had, who wants a magazine when you can have it all in the internet. But thats not the point.

And really, its as simple as the ones that write those reviews dont share your tastes or standards of defining what a good game is, so why complain about it, people should already know that.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say If gaming websites weren't so nerdy but more mainstream more people would visit them. Don't tell me gaming mags can't be mainstream! We've had such magazines in the past. But to become more mainstream they'd have to cater to segments besides the "core gamer". It's their own fault people think they're nerdy.

Oh and really the reason why magazines sell less today is because their quality decreased. Because of that websites now offer the same quality for free so obviously people will much rather visit a website. But again it's the fault of those magazines they aren't able to offer enough quality writing. Of course the internet is a strong competitor. But sometimes people act like it was all the internet's fault.



LordTheNightKnight said:
pots555 said:
Another thing I just tought about.

The reviews for Cursed Mountain stated that the control scheme was deficient. That your motions were not properly read and that it lead to frustration. I have played the whole thing from beginning to end and LEARNED how to used the controls. Sure, at first they are tough to master but in the end, I got it right EVERY TIME.

This leads me to think that some reviewers give some game a very shallow look before giving their reviews. And in my mind, that's not fair.

I think that as well. I've seen too many reviews that describe parts of games incorrectly, even the positive reviews (so even those are likely decided beforehand).

I've seen that in several games. I saw one Enchanted Arms review that it was obvious that the reviewer only played the first couple hours of the game. They review complained that the game was constantly how do things, how to climb ladders for instance. Enchanted Arms only does that in the initial area of the game. One review for The Last Remnant the reviewer didn't know that if you hit X you can see what attacks each of you characters is going to do. On the other hand for heavily hyped games, they'll be glaring flaws that they over look.



I'm just annoyed that a few pitiful excuses for reviews are accepted on aggregate sites. I'm not talking about a review giving a game i like a low score, that's fair enough most of the time. I mean the reviews that are just bad, embarrassing write-ups.



How technical is your game?