I don't need to present my point any better or clearer to people who insist on telling you something that they've never experienced.   People who can't even provide objective evidence as to why it sucks.   What exactly is broken about the controls?   I'm curious to see.   Being hard (Having basic fundamental fighting skills) , tiring (1:1 Fighting Motion Controlled game)  are not excuses. 

-     "Eating sucks, it's un-enjoyable and horrible, trust me I read it somewhere".  
-     "Sex?  Doesn't feel good, my Dad told me about it once".

Why is saying Ghostbusters is a flat-out bad game ridiculous?   Story was mediocre.  Linear game.  Really only a game 'for' the fans.  Short lengthed game.  (5-6 hour completion time).

"   But it’s not an even game.  Whether the fact that the game was meant to play out like a third movie or not, Ghostbusters is so linear in it’s storytelling it feels like an 8-bit game.  You’re ultimately only ever given one path to walk down, the script will loop until you’re in the right spot, and despite some impressive opening sections the game descends into a standard shooter at about the midpoint and never picks up again.  Even the story itself, revolving around the player joining the Ghostbusters as a rookie, fails to excite as much as it could and the key devices in the story are ill-explained and poorly delivered."

" So, despite a smart, exciting start, towards the end you’ll be tired of the game.  The pacing slows considerably during the last act, which takes far to long to get through and never really fulfills its promises – the story twist isn’t nearly as satisfying as it could have been and the final boss pay-off is weak.  "

I think it's perfectly justified.  Ghostbusters was a broken, downright terrible game. 

Figured as much.  You care about wasting your time (Looking for something that actually would make light of your opinion and an opinion that all these well-established sources have experienced).  You'll just waste your time telling everyone how bad the game is.  Gotcha.  ;)

When 74(PS3 version) and 53 (X360 version) reviewers give a ~80 meta to a game, and the user score in meta is higher than 85, it can't be a terrible game. You can say that it's worse than this number implies, or that you didn't enjoy it, but you can't say it's terrible. And using it to bully another member, an ex moderator and one of the most loved here, it's a really stupid thing to do. Shame on you.

We'll have to wait and see what happens when more reviews come in I guess. I'm surprised we've only seen 18 reviews so far. Who knows...perhaps other reviewers are taking the time to get over the learning curve, progress a reasonable part of the way through the single player campaign, play and review the splitscreen multiplayer and play and review the online multiplayer before they give it a score..?

As I've said before, now that the world and his wife knows that Stephen Lambrechts has written a review and given a score after playing the game whilst incorrectly calibrating the controls every time he's tried to block, perhaps other reviewers are going to look at the game differently..? The reviews from the other IGN regions are going to be very interesting to say the least. Needless to say I haven't received a reply from my email to the IGN editorial staff asking why Lambrechts didn't adjust his review score after it was pointed out to him that he'd cocked up the control calibration lol.

I don't know where else people have doubts about this discussion, this guy already made the whole point of this thread clear.

The answer is, he couldn't and didn't.  Which is funny, because all those who are trying to slam the game will ignore that fact.  Or another reviewer who said there's no point to a stanima bar because you will tire out quicker than your fighter will.  Really?  How big was this guy, 500 lbs?  I mean your stanima bar drops pretty quickly at the start of the game, before you get the chance to level up your character.  Speaking of leveling up, it seems most people have only played this for a short period of time, since some of the complaints come from the fact you have to improve your character in the gym to increase "accuracy" and "speed" of your punches, RPG style.  It seems many were looking for a casual fighter, which this game is NOT.

I also find it funny how people who bash this game on here have never played it, and are basing their opinions on reviews that have been proven for a fact to be inaccurate (in other words, it's not about opinion).  But those who say they like it, actually have played it.  And they give the game a 7 or 8, not a 10, while acknowledging some of the flaws it truly has (unlike a fanboy would).  So who is the true biased ones here?

As far as controls go, they are far from broken.  Broken controls are either ones that are just WAY too awkward to EVER get used to, and in terms of motion controls, ones that fail to recognize your gestures most of the time (like Fighters Uncaged).  Punches in the The Fight are ALWAYS registered.  Now, whether they make contact or not is up to your distance and how you throw them.  I'll admit, moving your character took a little while to get used to, but after doing it for a few fights it becomes second nature.  And I'm not even going to argue about the look and feel of the game, as that is entirely opinion based.  I personally liked them, but others may not.  The only real downfall of the game is not having your character slightly transparent, which there is a patch on the way for that.  That and the fact the AI fighters do start to look very similar after a few fights.

Now, you can continue to use reviewers who played the game with incorrectly calibrated controls their entire playthrough as support to your argument, but it really only shows your bias against a game you have never played.  As for me, I will continue to enjoy playing the game, which has never lost calibration in any fight.  This even includes walking out of sight of the camera and then walking back into view, or handing the Move controllers over to someone else mid-fight.

I can't believe this game has 12 pages!!!! The thread goes from "IGN and its mom are biased" to "the dudes that recorded a review at their home are right" anyway at the end it's own opinion what really matters, because we decide what game is good or not, Not metacritics or a game board. Anyway I decided to try this game; but because none of my friends have this title and I have no intention to blow more than 100 bucks in a camera, control and game I decided to find a demo in a store, and I found one.

Control: It's not as bad. Had problems with my left punches and a couple of movements weren't registred, but nothing drastic. After a while I got tired and bored, mostly because this game is really slow paced; somebody actually told here that the matches get fast after a while but after 3 matches things were at the same speed. The game has some RPG elements you have to build and "fix" your character constantly so I you like that kind of things you can spend a good amount of time with this.

Sound: The sound was turned off.

Graphics: I stand in my opinion. This's one of the ugliest games that I have seen this generation. The lack of colors really hurt the design of the game, the models are bland and poorly done; the background are dirty, dark and boring the word that I can use to describe this game is "unpleasent"I suppose they tried to emulate the world of "underground fights" but this goes too far.

Every game has elements from real life. It could be a mushroom, a conflict or even the character's feelings but at the end it remainds as a game, something that you could enjoy without being bothered about the consecuences from real life and that's the reason of why I hate every single second that I spent with this title. They tried really hard to recreate somethng that I found plain disguisting in real life, this's a game for the same audience that enjoy real fights in tape, the same guys that giggle at Bum Fights and the dudes that cheer freaks like Kimbo Slice. For me it's way too close to reality to be enjoyed. I enjoy things like The Fight Club but only because at the movie the story and characters are way more important that the fights, this game is nothing but stupidity at its best in that aspect.

So yes, you like fights? Maybe you'll like this game, but I don't recomend it

So, you spent all of 3 matches with the game and didn't reach the matches where the opponents get faster and harder, so the game is still slow?  Though, in all honesty, you probably spent more time with it then the guy from IGN.    Maybe the game isn't to your liking, but I would also hope you wouldn't just label it a "horrible game" like some others. 

I also don't like to be labeled as a proponent of bum or street fighting.  I mean you do realise that this is only a game, right?  It would be like saying people who love gory FPS's want to go out and shoot people, or support those who do.

The fights were hard but not particulary fast, proably because I like Street Fighter and BlazBlue way more so I found The Fight slower than these titles. Yes I know it's a game but nothing in the presentation or the game reinforces that idea, even in FPS there're things that help to keep the game separated from real life like being attacked by aliens or regenerating your heal easily but The Fight has nothing I'm not going to say that this title is bad it's simply that I'm not the audience but still I feel like I waste my time playing this.

Well, I doubt the fights are as fast or hectic as Blazblue, but the opponents do get much quicker then the first 3-5 guys you fight.  Which is why you have to level yourself to be any good against them.  As for the bolded, I don't see why I need to be reinforced in the idea that I'm playing a game.  I mean I did buy the game for the PS3, put a game disc in, and am controlling a character using glowing balls.  So, I don't think I really need to be reminded while I'm playing that it's a game.  Anyway, I'm just glad you admit that might not be for you, but that doesn't make it "shit."