? I think you are missing the point or you just don't 'want' to get the point here. If a person enjoy it, it is NOT a bad game to them, period. People find this game to be an enjoyable game, most have said they won't give it more than a 8/10 but it's a very enjoyable experience to them.

ok let's do this. People have pointed out what they think are misinformation/inconsistencies and such in the reviews such as IGN right...why don't you explain 'why' you think they are wrong? Give a reason..don't give nonsense feedback like, sony fans are supporting a bad game yada yada yada...give a solid reason why they are wrong...you saw reviews by members here right? Why are they wrong? What points they made are wrong?

People shouldn't let meta drive what they enjoy....especially gamers. I take fellow gamer reviews over 'pro' reviews any day....

again stop this silly bickering about how some are defending a mediocre game etc etc cuz sites 'you' think are more accurate than the users. GIve a proper reason, facts to back up your claim...or just don't post and stir trouble like this

How can somebody be wrong about an opinion of a game they played? Did the ign guy lie or something?

Of course it sucks. It's just a broken motion controlled fighting game trying to look hardcore because it has Danny Trejo.

Pretty much, yes.

Although I'd say he didn't lie, he just cocked up the review by not following and remembering the in-game instructions. He claimed that the controls were broken. He was incorrectly calibrating the controls every time he tried to block punches during a fight. When this was pointed out to him he edited the review text but didn't adjust the score. The review also reads as rabid anti-Move fanboy ramblings. It's the most unprofessional review that I've had the misfortune to read.

The iWaggle video review and several other youtube videos show quite clearly that there is nothing wrong with the controls. They're true 1:1 controls and there is no lag whatsoever.

After I read the Video Gamer and IGN reviews I wrote the game off as a load of old bollocks with broken controls, but seeing the iWaggle review completely changed my mind. I just think there are plenty of reviewers out there that're struggling with the early stages of the transition period the industry is in, and in the case of this game there are several reviewers out there that can't punch their way out of a paper bag lol.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't make it bad, it just makes it bad for you.

Well, I couldn't personally care less about the game, but the ruckus here is to hard to ignore, but the only review that said had responsive controls was wagglecontrols... well I couldn't care less about the game anyways

Carry on.

Absolutely true!

BUT we still have to have a way to determine good and bad games.  While I know people have issues with things like Metacritic, that is one good way.  It's a wide variety of opinions and it generally forms some sort of consensus.  There will be outliers, there always are, but you can start to see a trend.

In the cause of The Fight, it's obvious it isn't a good game.  It's also obvious that it isn't the worst game ever made and the upper reviews do hint some people may like that.  Those people that are intrigued by those reviews should then read the reviews and decide for themselves because Metacritic is just a number after all.

-edit-

Also, the expression is I couldn't care care less.  Saying you could care less doesn't really mean much.

Whoops on my part, I guess. The only way I would could consider it bad is that its utterly broken, which I doubt it is.

Only one website linked (iWaggle), no hype from PS fanboys (Playstation Lifestyle gave it a 20) and just a few gameplay videos (gameplay videos, not random fanboys): what are you babbling about?

The problem with reviewers is that they are always biased (a fps-lover would give a low score to an RTS and vice-versa) and that their bias are determined by trends. An uber-example? Just Dance!

Just Dance sits at 49 on metacritic (pretty bad, uh?), but it sold millions (maybe it wasn't so bad afterall), so now the same guys who gave 20's and 30's to Just Dance are rating Just Dance 2 with 70's and 80's (major offender: IGN with a 20 for Just Dance and an 80 for Just Dance 2). Since The Fight is a new type of game (probably the first  1:1 controls, no gesture based fighting game), it's clear that many reviewers are biased toward it: they don't dare to appreciate a game, that they don't know if people like.

Wait, are you trying to argue that a bad game shouldn't sell well?  I know that sounds right but it actually isn't right.  A game selling well often doesn't have a lot to do with its quality, it has more to do with hype, advertising, license, and many other factors.  How good the game is is only of many factors and not even always a large one.

Just Dance got a 49 because it wasn't actually that good of game but it was well advertised, it was very casual, and it was on a system that had a very large target audience.  As long as the kind of game worked it was going to sell well.  It also sold well because at the time there wasn't much like it, the closest probably being DDR which required an expensive accessory.

Also, I'm sorry but The Fight isn't a new type of game.  It's a motion based fighting game, they've been around for a few years now.  The fact that it's 1:1 doesn't make it new, it just makes it different.  The fact that you're also trying to say that the game is getting lower scores from some reviewers because it's a new genre is just plain stupid.  If anything, new genres should actually push scores up because it's something fresh and new.