This is probably all reviews that we have so far :
Gamingtrend - 9.5/10
Planet Xbox 360 - 9.2/10
Computer and Video Games - 9.0/10
VideoGamer - 9.0/10
Meristation - 9.0/10
Destructoid - 9.0/10
IGN - 9.0/10
GamePRO.de - 8.7/10
Gametrailers - 8.6/10
IGN AU - 8.5/10
NZgamer - 8.5/10
Gameplanet - 8.5/10
Examiner - 8.4/10
1UP - 8.3/10
GamePRO - 8.0/10
Games Radar - 8.0/10
GiantBomb - 8.0/10
Eurogamer Spain - 8.0/10
Eurogamer - 7.0/10
Gamereactor Sweden - 7.0/10
First Alan Wake thread to survive? 
The game looks very good. Then again i can't understand the obviously misplaced hype and disappointment, having seen the actual gameplay in the videos for a while you can't possibly expect it to get 10/10 reviews...
Disappointing reviews. 
| Sh1nn said: This is probably all reviews that we have so far : |
UPD :
OXM UK - 8.0/10
I kind of feel that some reviewers are simply hating on the game, like the review from Eurogamer. I'll probably be called a fanboy for what I'm about to say, but I don't care.
The reviewer used arguments like "the game should've been released in 2007", and they use these comparisons:
Games such as BioShock have shown how compelling and original storylines can be told in innovative ways. The likes of Uncharted 2 have offered up not just lush visuals but diverse locations and varied gameplay. With Heavy Rain, Quantic Dream broke the rules of game narrative and forced the player not only to think before pulling the trigger, but to feel.
I haven't played Bioshock. Well I did, but quit on about half since I didn't like it, so I can't comment on that.
UC2 didn't offer varied gameplay at all. It was basically climb/solve puzzle, shoot, watch cutscene, repeat. Though the presentation gave the impression that you were doing something different, in reality, you weren't. Yeah, there were different locations, but he's an explorer, AW goes to a small town to unwind and stays there. That's a completely different story, and you can't criticize a game for having a fixed setting or location based on a different story. If that's how you wanna criticize a game, why not criticize Uncharted for not being able to go to other planets while in Mass Effect you can? See how absurd that argument really is? See it as the film phone booth. Almost the whole movie takes place in a phone booth, but it's still a freaking good movie.
I don't see why Heavy Rain is relevant at all. Why didn't she use Mass Effect as an example instead if she was arguing to think before pulling the trigger? This game isn't about choice at all, so ME would also be irrelevant, but her choosing Heavy Rain clearly shows something....
And then she says it has "decent" visuals? Oh come on.. She's obviously hating on it because it was in development for such a long time. Basically all her arguments come down to "outdated" because according to her, the game is 3 years old or whatever. It's a critique on what the release date should've been, and not on what the game currently is, and along with that, she drags every aspect of the game down that would be outstanding a few years back, to being only "decent" right now, while it's still way above average nowadays (mainly graphics, lip syncing and animations really could use some work though). I bet this won't happen if she reviews GT5...
Truth does not fear investigation
| NightAntilli said:
I kind of feel that some reviewers are simply hating on the game, like the review from Eurogamer. I'll probably be called a fanboy for what I'm about to say, but I don't care.
The reviewer used arguments like "the game should've been released in 2007", and they use these comparisons:
Games such as BioShock have shown how compelling and original storylines can be told in innovative ways. The likes of Uncharted 2 have offered up not just lush visuals but diverse locations and varied gameplay. With Heavy Rain, Quantic Dream broke the rules of game narrative and forced the player not only to think before pulling the trigger, but to feel.
I haven't played Bioshock. Well I did, but quit on about half since I didn't like it, so I can't comment on that.
UC2 didn't offer varied gameplay at all. It was basically climb/solve puzzle, shoot, watch cutscene, repeat. Though the presentation gave the impression that you were doing something different, in reality, you weren't. Yeah, there were different locations, but he's an explorer, AW goes to a small town to unwind and stays there. That's a completely different story, and you can't criticize a game for having a fixed setting based on a different story. If that's how you wanna criticize a game, why not criticize Uncharted for not being able to go to other planets while in Mass Effect you can? See how absurd that argument really is? See it as the film phone booth. Almost the whole movie takes place in a phone booth, but it's still a freaking good movie.
I don't see why Heavy Rain is relevant at all. Why didn't she use Mass Effect as an example instead if she was arguing to think before pulling the trigger? This game isn't about choice at all, so ME would also be irrelevant, but her choosing Heavy Rain clearly shows something....
And then she says it has "decent" visuals? Oh come on.. She's obviously hating on it because it was in development for such a long time. Basically all her arguments come down to "outdated" because according to her, the game is 3 years old or whatever. It's a critique on what the release date should've been, and not on what the game currently is, and along with that, she drags every aspect of the game down that would be outstanding a few years back, to being only "decent" right now, while it's still way above average nowadays (mainly graphics, lip syncing and animations really could use some work though). I bet this won't happen if she reviews GT5...
I kind of feel that some reviewers are simply hating on the game, like the review from Eurogamer. I'll probably be called a fanboy for what I'm about to say, but I don't care. The reviewer used arguments like "the game should've been released in 2007", and they use these comparisons: Games such as BioShock have shown how compelling and original storylines can be told in innovative ways. The likes of Uncharted 2 have offered up not just lush visuals but diverse locations and varied gameplay. With Heavy Rain, Quantic Dream broke the rules of game narrative and forced the player not only to think before pulling the trigger, but to feel. I haven't played Bioshock. Well I did, but quit on about half since I didn't like it, so I can't comment on that. UC2 didn't offer varied gameplay at all. It was basically climb/solve puzzle, shoot, watch cutscene, repeat. Though the presentation gave the impression that you were doing something different, in reality, you weren't. Yeah, there were different locations, but he's an explorer, AW goes to a small town to unwind and stays there. That's a completely different story, and you can't criticize a game for having a fixed setting or location based on a different story. If that's how you wanna criticize a game, why not criticize Uncharted for not being able to go to other planets while in Mass Effect you can? See how absurd that argument really is? See it as the film phone booth. Almost the whole movie takes place in a phone booth, but it's still a freaking good movie. I don't see why Heavy Rain is relevant at all. Why didn't she use Mass Effect as an example instead if she was arguing to think before pulling the trigger? This game isn't about choice at all, so ME would also be irrelevant, but her choosing Heavy Rain clearly shows something.... And then she says it has "decent" visuals? Oh come on.. She's obviously hating on it because it was in development for such a long time. Basically all her arguments come down to "outdated" because according to her, the game is 3 years old or whatever. It's a critique on what the release date should've been, and not on what the game currently is, and along with that, she drags every aspect of the game down that would be outstanding a few years back, to being only "decent" right now, while it's still way above average nowadays (mainly graphics, lip syncing and animations really could use some work though). I bet this won't happen if she reviews GT5...
|
I see your point. As 2 of my 3 favorite games are Dead Space and FFXIII (86 and 83 meta respectively) [Also whether you liked those 2 games is not my point] (my other favorite was ME2).
However, they didn't like the game because they felt the game should have had this or that and the game would benefit form it. But a game like uncharted 2, would not benefit from an added feature. That's why it's important to read the review, and see if the reasons they don't like the game is a reason why you would not like the game.
Such as for me Grand Theft Auto 4 and , you can do everything... and it's non-linear, but I felt extremely underwhelmed by it while others loved it (I loved GTA:SA though)
I would have rated it relatively low. That's why to me, reviews are an inaccurate way, at measuring a game. But the reviewer assigns a numerical value to what they feel
based on irrational emotion and feelings (Or the score is bought :D)
Hopemy point made sense, it's late and I am tired, if not. I'm sorry I wasted your time by you reading it.
What I have never understood is peoples obsession with a game achieving some specific number in reviews. If you love the game then how can it receiving a 7,8 or 9 detract from your enjoyment? I've read nothing in any review to deter me from buying the game personally and that is the only thing that would have disappointed me.
| NightAntilli said:
I kind of feel that some reviewers are simply hating on the game, like the review from Eurogamer. I'll probably be called a fanboy for what I'm about to say, but I don't care.
The reviewer used arguments like "the game should've been released in 2007", and they use these comparisons:
Games such as BioShock have shown how compelling and original storylines can be told in innovative ways. The likes of Uncharted 2 have offered up not just lush visuals but diverse locations and varied gameplay. With Heavy Rain, Quantic Dream broke the rules of game narrative and forced the player not only to think before pulling the trigger, but to feel.
I haven't played Bioshock. Well I did, but quit on about half since I didn't like it, so I can't comment on that.
UC2 didn't offer varied gameplay at all. It was basically climb/solve puzzle, shoot, watch cutscene, repeat. Though the presentation gave the impression that you were doing something different, in reality, you weren't. Yeah, there were different locations, but he's an explorer, AW goes to a small town to unwind and stays there. That's a completely different story, and you can't criticize a game for having a fixed setting based on a different story. If that's how you wanna criticize a game, why not criticize Uncharted for not being able to go to other planets while in Mass Effect you can? See how absurd that argument really is? See it as the film phone booth. Almost the whole movie takes place in a phone booth, but it's still a freaking good movie.
I don't see why Heavy Rain is relevant at all. Why didn't she use Mass Effect as an example instead if she was arguing to think before pulling the trigger? This game isn't about choice at all, so ME would also be irrelevant, but her choosing Heavy Rain clearly shows something....
And then she says it has "decent" visuals? Oh come on.. She's obviously hating on it because it was in development for such a long time. Basically all her arguments come down to "outdated" because according to her, the game is 3 years old or whatever. It's a critique on what the release date should've been, and not on what the game currently is, and along with that, she drags every aspect of the game down that would be outstanding a few years back, to being only "decent" right now, while it's still way above average nowadays (mainly graphics, lip syncing and animations really could use some work though). I bet this won't happen if she reviews GT5...
I kind of feel that some reviewers are simply hating on the game, like the review from Eurogamer. I'll probably be called a fanboy for what I'm about to say, but I don't care. The reviewer used arguments like "the game should've been released in 2007", and they use these comparisons: Games such as BioShock have shown how compelling and original storylines can be told in innovative ways. The likes of Uncharted 2 have offered up not just lush visuals but diverse locations and varied gameplay. With Heavy Rain, Quantic Dream broke the rules of game narrative and forced the player not only to think before pulling the trigger, but to feel. I haven't played Bioshock. Well I did, but quit on about half since I didn't like it, so I can't comment on that. UC2 didn't offer varied gameplay at all. It was basically climb/solve puzzle, shoot, watch cutscene, repeat. Though the presentation gave the impression that you were doing something different, in reality, you weren't. Yeah, there were different locations, but he's an explorer, AW goes to a small town to unwind and stays there. That's a completely different story, and you can't criticize a game for having a fixed setting or location based on a different story. If that's how you wanna criticize a game, why not criticize Uncharted for not being able to go to other planets while in Mass Effect you can? See how absurd that argument really is? See it as the film phone booth. Almost the whole movie takes place in a phone booth, but it's still a freaking good movie. I don't see why Heavy Rain is relevant at all. Why didn't she use Mass Effect as an example instead if she was arguing to think before pulling the trigger? This game isn't about choice at all, so ME would also be irrelevant, but her choosing Heavy Rain clearly shows something.... And then she says it has "decent" visuals? Oh come on.. She's obviously hating on it because it was in development for such a long time. Basically all her arguments come down to "outdated" because according to her, the game is 3 years old or whatever. It's a critique on what the release date should've been, and not on what the game currently is, and along with that, she drags every aspect of the game down that would be outstanding a few years back, to being only "decent" right now, while it's still way above average nowadays (mainly graphics, lip syncing and animations really could use some work though). I bet this won't happen if she reviews GT5...
|
Not sure what general point you're trying to make with this. One review has used spurious arguments and given it a lower than expected score; so it's a stupid review (that actually game the game 7/10 which in any other medium is still an objectively good score). But that review and any others like it are not the difference between this game being a mid 80's Metascore and a low to mid 90's. After 22 reviews on Meta it's sitting at 83. Are you telling us that's entirely because there are reviewers that want to hate the game?
I think the "I want to not like AW so I'm going to nit pick and find things to mark it down and make inappropriate and inaccurate comparisons" reviewers are the difference between an 83 and an 86. They aren't the difference between an 83 and a 93. Heck if OXM gives the game an 8/10 you know it's not just people with a hidden agenda who think the game falls short of AAA review status.
The game deserves to sell, and we know new games that Meta in the 80's can sell (Heavy Rain).
The funny thing about different reviews of this game is the level of scare the reviewers give it. One reviewer says they had nightmares, another says it never got scary. Now that sounds like they were reviewing completely different games.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
| binary solo said: Not sure what general point you're trying to make with this. One review has used spurious arguments and given it a lower than expected score; so it's a stupid review (that actually game the game 7/10 which in any other medium is still an objectively good score). But that review and any others like it are not the difference between this game being a mid 80's Metascore and a low to mid 90's. After 22 reviews on Meta it's sitting at 83. Are you telling us that's entirely because there are reviewers that want to hate the game? I think the "I want to not like AW so I'm going to nit pick and find things to mark it down and make inappropriate and inaccurate comparisons" reviewers are the difference between an 83 and an 86. They aren't the difference between an 83 and a 93. Heck if OXM gives the game an 8/10 you know it's not just people with a hidden agenda who think the game falls short of AAA review status. The game deserves to sell, and we know new games that Meta in the 80's can sell (Heavy Rain). The funny thing about different reviews of this game is the level of scare the reviewers give it. One reviewer says they had nightmares, another says it never got scary. Now that sounds like they were reviewing completely different games. |
My general point is that her review is not objective. That review has the lowest score on Metacritic until now, out of 22 reviews.. That says something.. And the "I want to not like AW so I'm going to nit pick and find things to mark it down and make inappropriate and inaccurate comparisons" should be the difference between 83 and 86, but in this case, it's a 7 that probably should be an 8 compared to the other reviews. And she's also inconsistent. One moment saying it has "impressive visuals" and then in the conclusion saying it has "decent visuals". And as soon as you do that as a reviewer, I'll throw your credibility out the window, because you are contradicting yourself, and if you do it in your conclusion, it's obvious you used that to drag your score down to your pleasing.
Truth does not fear investigation
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
