MontanaHatchet said: Enos, do you ever stop? After searching through your short post history, I can see plenty of grounds for....something....

rewarding him with OWNAGE

http://Enos.justgotowned.com/

Garcian Smith said: An unlockable hard mode doesn't mitigate the fact that you need to play through the "easy" mode to get there first. Someone who doesn't enjoy easy games will probably get bored after the first hour or two. As for the story, the reviewer couldn't say any more than that without giving anything away. Them's the ropes when trying to review a game's story. Also, there's good and bad cliffhangers. See, for example, the Legacy of Kain games as an example of how to use cliffhanger endings while still giving the game some closure. From the review, it looks like ToD just had a "bad" cliffhanger.  So, I really don't see where your confusion lies, nor where there's any need for elaboration.

 I agree you shouldn't have to play a game to unlock hard mode. (Despite dozens of game make you anyways.) But when a reviewer complains so much about difficulty, it's worth a least a single sentence does the Hard mode provide any challenge or is it still a bust and you shouldn't bother.

He could easily give us a better idea where the story stands by simply comparing it to the story in other R&C games. Is the R&C series well known for decent story lines? Seems like a natural comparison, wouldn’t have to spoil anything. How important is the story in this game? Does it beat you over the head with cutscenes you don't want to watch, or is it just empty and plain? (Sounds like the latter, but again, it could of use more clarity.) All things that would be nice to know.

I'm not sure where you got the idea the reviewer didn't like it as much because it was too similar to previous games in the series, his complaint sounded like the complete opposite. Saying the game suffered an identity crisis, and includes too much unnecessary nonsense in the form of mini-games.

 

Gamestop just wants attention ⌐⌐

Gamespot is now officially on my ***list.

The review was crap. Garbage. Junk. Inexcusable. I'll be posting my own review in a few days, but here's the thing: none of the negative reviews mention the game's sense of humor. RC is uproarious, on a whole range of levels, but that issue doesn't come up. Instead, there's this griping about how it was too easy, or some mumbling about how not all the weapons were useful, or how the storyline wasn't interesting enough. This is like watching "Some Like it Hot" and complaining about the saxophone music.

In short, the critics just don't get it. RC is a comedy. It's a fun-filled, splashy, outrageous space pirate caper of a game. It's funny as hell. Humor, as Number 2 said in one of the greatest TV series of all time (The Prisoner), is the very essence of a democratic society. It's also the essence of gaming.

ClaudeLv250 said: BrainBoxLtd said: You should never have to justify a critique if you?re a good critic. The justification should be the review itself. I read their Ratchet and Clank review, and it felt half-hearted. Like someone kinda hurried through parts of it to finish for the weekend or something. Their review complained constantly about the game being to easy, but only briefly mentions you unlock a hard mode after beating the game. Well does that help? It change anything? Was it a bust and the game is still to easy? Same for the story. ?There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting, and the ending is a letdown.? I understand they don?t want to spoilt things for people, but is it not interesting compared to previous R&C titles, or what? He does explain the ending is a cheap cliff hanger however, but is that what ultimately made the story a letdown? Because even a simple story for a game works fine, provided you still get proper closure. Perhaps they do have very good reasons for their scores, but they need to further elaborate on why to avoid these kinds of accusations of favoritism or incompetence. It?s also cop-out to use the collective anonymous asses of the internet to avoid answering valid criticism when you?re confronted with it That's how I felt. The fact that this isn't the first time they've come out to "justify" their review speaks volumes to me, everytime they do so it feels to be done in a condescending matter and if anything is meant to infuriate the people that disagree with the review even more. The last time I recall them justifying a review was for the Twilight Princess 8.8, except the guy defending the review didn't actually write it and his defense pretty much came down to how Twilight Princess sucks because it's like Ocarina of Time, then revealed that he had started playing for about 5 hours. Hardly the person to be backing up a full review. Jeff Gerstmann is gaining more enemies on the internet than that guy IGN fired for calling Nintendo fans nazis.

agreed as well, i don't remember ebert & roeper ever having to go back and justify one of their reviews. these guys are "supposed" to be professionals, they shouldn't have to justify themselves. if they feel the need to, then there must already be an issue. all that being said, i've never valued ANYTHING gamespot has ever said and never use their site anyways. someone called Nintendo fans nazis... now that's kinda funny... the weirdness of the internet, huh?

MontanaHatchet said: Enos, do you ever stop? After searching through your short post history, I can see plenty of grounds for....something....

 

Well he is Hus. Or just an amazing facsimle.  So of course not.  Or at least, not until he gets banned again.

vizunary said: ClaudeLv250 said: BrainBoxLtd said: You should never have to justify a critique if you?re a good critic. The justification should be the review itself. I read their Ratchet and Clank review, and it felt half-hearted. Like someone kinda hurried through parts of it to finish for the weekend or something. Their review complained constantly about the game being to easy, but only briefly mentions you unlock a hard mode after beating the game. Well does that help? It change anything? Was it a bust and the game is still to easy? Same for the story. ?There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting, and the ending is a letdown.? I understand they don?t want to spoilt things for people, but is it not interesting compared to previous R&C titles, or what? He does explain the ending is a cheap cliff hanger however, but is that what ultimately made the story a letdown? Because even a simple story for a game works fine, provided you still get proper closure. Perhaps they do have very good reasons for their scores, but they need to further elaborate on why to avoid these kinds of accusations of favoritism or incompetence. It?s also cop-out to use the collective anonymous asses of the internet to avoid answering valid criticism when you?re confronted with it That's how I felt. The fact that this isn't the first time they've come out to "justify" their review speaks volumes to me, everytime they do so it feels to be done in a condescending matter and if anything is meant to infuriate the people that disagree with the review even more. The last time I recall them justifying a review was for the Twilight Princess 8.8, except the guy defending the review didn't actually write it and his defense pretty much came down to how Twilight Princess sucks because it's like Ocarina of Time, then revealed that he had started playing for about 5 hours. Hardly the person to be backing up a full review. Jeff Gerstmann is gaining more enemies on the internet than that guy IGN fired for calling Nintendo fans nazis.     agreed as well, i don't remember ebert & roeper ever having to go back and justify one of their reviews. these guys are "supposed" to be professionals, they shouldn't have to justify themselves. if they feel the need to, then there must already be an issue. all that being said, i've never valued ANYTHING gamespot has ever said and never use their site anyways. someone called Nintendo fans nazis... now that's kinda funny... the weirdness of the internet, huh?

Actually Ebert has had to go back and justify a couple of his reveiws.  He had to defend his "Revenge of the Sith" review from rabid Star Wars fans for one.  You might see a paralel here.  Of course those were rabid star wars fans who thought ROTS sucked.

 

"Star ratings are the bane of my existence, because I consider them to be relative and yet by their nature, they seem to be absolute," writes Roger Ebert, who in his recent Movie Answer Man column took on complaints of his three and a half star rating for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Ebert wrote in his review: "The dialogue throughout the movie is once again its weakest point: The characters talk in what sounds like Basic English, without color, wit or verbal delight, as if they were channeling Berlitz" yet somehow he gave the movie 3.5 stars. "I got a lot of messages saying there was a disconnect between my star rating and my review," wrote Ebert. "Perhaps there was." Ebert defends his review saying that Episode III "returned to the space opera roots of the original film and succeeded on that level," and because of that he wanted to honor it, while "regretting that it did not succeed at the levels of intelligence and wit as it did on the levels of craftsmanship and entertainment."

http://www.cinematical.com/2005/05/30/ebert-defends-star-wars-review/

People do make too big a deal about review scores. When a movie gets a 3 star rating it's a good movie, when a game gets the equivelent 7.5 it's dissapointing. I'm not a big fan of Gamespot, but it's all subjective. I always look to multiple reviews, never to just one.

MikeB said: @ Garcian Smith The gameplay is basically the same as it was in the first four R&C games. I think they have added to the gameplay and there's a great deal of gameplay varierity. I can imagine a Ratchet & Clank fan getting upset if they buy a next generation R&C game and being nothing like they loved before. Similarly the average Madden fan, may not like it if Madden 2008 would really be Fifa soccer 2008. Buying sequels usually sets expectations appealing to fans of previous releases. IMO it's a weak argument unless you didn't like R&C in the first place, but the various PS2 releases was rated at 8.6 at minimum, this release does most definitately take the R&C games to a new level I would say.

 

It's not a matter of doing something radicaly different, it's a matter of proposing new things. I'm having fun with Halo 3 in MP, but frankly, the solo campaing was disappoiting because it brings nothing new to the franchise. Clearly a weakness IMO.

One important thing about games and rating systems : they are done by comparing games to each others. Often, a good game is a game that do things better than other/previous did. Expecting something new, something more (and visuals are only part of it) is normal.

Now see, I have a problem with inconsistent reviews, and because of that I no longer read gamespot's reviews because not only are their scores rarely justified, but they are also poorly written. The point of my previous post was to show that opinion can vary between different gamers, but I agree that review sources should be consistent and well written which gamespot reviews rarely are.

Honestly, for people looking for in depth review content I'll always recommend Gametrailers and IGN above anything else. After that look for well written user reviews.