Heh, we're complete opposites, then. I've had to defend Gamespot, because so far they've only had TWO reviews I've ever disagreed with. They're usually exactly in tune with my own opinion.
I can't comment on those examples, except for RE4, which I don't doubt is one of the, if not the best game available for the Wii right now. It's a completely amazing game, even if it's just a straight port with new controls, that still makes it a completely amazing game - if maybe a bit older than the first time it showed up.
He never said the controls make it too easy, he meant they seem to make it more of an action game than an adventure game. The first Prime made it very obvious it's not an FPS because it didn't use the dual thumbstick control scheme. No need for precise aiming, more focus on tactics in battles, and exploration outside of them. That little nuance is gone in Corruption. I think that's what he wanted to point out. I do hear it's much more action oriented than the previous games, and less exploration based.
Gamespot's reviews are constantly 10% off the norm? Compared to what? The only sites I actually look at for serious reviews are IGN and Gamespot, and IGN seem to score good games even higher and bad games even lower. Gamespot are extremely good at avoiding handing out perfect ratings. IGN is worse at that. IGN are also much better at focusing so much on minor flaws in games that they consistently forget to mention some of the good things. Gamespot, in my opinion, make it perfectly clear exactly what's good and what's less good about every game they've reviewed lately. That, in combination with the score, paints a really clear picture to me. You shouldn't just go by the score alone, it's more of a compliment to the review itself.
Super Metroid you say? 8.5 seems right to me. Well, I might prefer it a bit closer to 9. Say... 8.8 or something like that. Why, what'd you rate it? Without being blinded by nostalgia, of course. I couldn't, I played Super Metroid for the first time a mere three years ago. I remember finding it too easy, actually, very uninteresting enemies, and extremely strange, floaty controls that took me hours to get used to. Seriously. However, it IS still one of the best exploration based games, the art is great and the music is fantastic. So 8.8 seems fine to me.
I'm not happy because you've brought me to re-read gamespots retarded reviews in an effort to make their stupidity undeniable.
I will put the RE4 Wii version review up against the Prime 3 review.
First, it is clear to note that gamespot did not deduct any points from RE4 because it was a port, they atleast did not state that they did - they didn't list the fact it's a port in the cons list, and he repeatedly delivered stumbled sentences insisting that even though it's a port it's still good etc.
Honestly, the RE4 review isn't written too badly, but I'd still disagree with the score, the best version of the game? probably, but since it's taken them four versions to get it the best it can be I would deduct points.
The MP3 review however is a god damn mess.
like all gamespot reviews it starts off by listing the pros and cons in an effort to save you the brain damage from reading their review.
for the pros, he lists the excellent environmental puzzles, boss fights, level design, and the overall gameplay.
in the cons he lists some of the motion sensitive controls aren't always read successfully, the "streamlined" controls make the game too easy, and points out that it's a sequel.
the first paragraph seems to take no notice of the pros and con list, assuring those that MP3 continues the excellent series, the controls are "terrific and intuiitive", "is a dream",etc.
then further contradictions stating the combat is "easier" and the overall design is "conservative"
the next paragraph he reminds players that the first metroid prime was great, and even though this third game is a "solid successor" somehow it shouldn't stop you from checking it out.
this review is littered with back-handed compliments like this that make no god damn sense and is a clear depiction that this is not a review, this is propaganda disguised as a review and covered up with a "still good score"
Forget the fact that yes there are metroid fanboys complaining about nothing more than the score, and consider that for this review they gave it the score of a 4/10.
It would fit in just as well, the only difference it would make is the fact that no one could argue gamespot's writers are not idiots.
Almost every paragraph starts with "If"s and "But"s, they constantly dance around noting anything substantial about Prime 3, and infact I'd say they make more better points when they reference back to prime1/2
And whenever he finds himself praising some part of the game, he quickly rights himself and brings up the context sensitive controls that he has a problem with.
I'd like to point out that IGN praised the context sensitive controls, and went so far to say they were beautifully implemented and did not feel gimmicky at all.
I'm going to wait until I get the game to pass judgement myself, but I'll also remind you gamespot is home to fat lazy reviewers who tried to bowl sitting on the couch swinging their arm like some sort of handicap and then blamed it on the game when they kept getting gutter-balls.
and then of course in the final paragraph he mentions the disappointing lack of multiplayer.
does it sound like I hate gamespot?
I'm really not trying to hide it, they write like idiots, they do not know how to assess games with their constant use of phrases like "gives the impression" "looks like", I've long since gotten sick of their back handed reviews and their constant stream of contradictory and illogical reviews.
I greatly prefer reviews from IGN and GT, why?
because the guys at IGN and GT to me, are gamers first, and reviewers second.
they're not these pretentious cynical assholes that go into every review with a dozen back-handed compliments and a score they'll scramble to justify in mind.
they just make proper notes of things the game did a good job delivering, or didn't.
Not sure if anyone wants to bother nore care about it, but GS has always been slanted against Nintendo, well at least for 10 years now. I have proof too. Using gamerankings.com you can search how a online/print magazine reviews games PER system. If you check this generation (wii, 360, ps3) you will find that Wii games get scored 2% lower than everyone else AND only 40% of their reviews for Wii are higher than the others (as in they come dead last.) The 360 is down by almost 1% and their average is around 50%, but when it's the PS3 they UPreview over other sites by I think 7% and 67% of their reviews are HIGHER than the rest of the sites.
NOW that's documented slant.
Man, I wasn't going to post about this...
Like a lot of other people, I was kind of surprised to see the 8.5, especially given IGN's review and the seeming consensus that this is a top-notch game, and probably Wii's finest thus far. But, hey -- I respect a diversity of opinion, and anyways, most people are right: no sense in whining about the score a game gets when we haven't even played it yet. Right?
But then I read the review and... boy, it submarines this game! I'm sure you've heard the expression "damned by faint praise." The idea being that if you call something "fairly good," "decent," or "passable" it has the same negative effect (and sometimes stronger) than calling it "bad." Well the idea of "faint praise" is too strong for this review. It reads almost as though the reviewer wants the game to fail. Conspiracy-theory much? Yeah, I don't want to go down that road, but let's take a look:
The game is an 8.5, right? That's a high score. Should mean that this is a very good game, right? It is, after all, "a high-quality continuation of the series" with "terrific and intuitive" controls. Now... if this is a high-quality continuation of a series that has thus far scored 9.7 and 9.1, it should be pretty darned good. Yet the remainder of the opening paragraph -- more than half -- starts to run negative, saying that the game "does exactly what you expect it to do, no more and no less." Hmm...
The second paragraph digs in hard, comparing this game to its lauded progenitor: "{w}hile Metroid Prime spectacularly ushered Metroid gameplay into a 3D vision, Corruption is content to be a solid successor." "Content" makes the designers sound lazy, and "solid" isn't a very enthusiastic description. Are 8.5s "solid"? Then, the reviewer assures us that "{we} shouldn't let some spurts of predictability dissuade you from checking it out"... well, I should hope not if it's an 8.5... I mean, that's really good, right? "Terrific and intuitive" controls, right? I mean, why does the reviewer start to sense that his review of this 8.5 game might dissuade us from even checking it out? But he can't even let it rest there... not just anyone should check this out, but "particularly if you are a Metroid enthusiast." Here the review starts to insinuate that the game is good, not just for people who enjoy games like Prime, but for those who are specifically Metroid-people. "Enthusiasts," which is a not-too-subtle euphemism for Fanboys.
The reviewer seemingly cannot compliment the game without immediately following up with some sort of an insult or criticism. Check out this from the fourth paragraph: "The obvious change here is in the controls, and Corruption leaves behind the methodical maneuvering of its GameCube brethren with an intuitive and configurable scheme that sets the standard for first-person shooting controls on the Wii, despite Corruption's battles not being all that challenging." Good God, what a sentence. First, he cheapshots the GameCube with its "methodical maneuvering"... which... I guess... would be roughly equivalent to the methodical maneuvering currently found on all the other consoles, right? Then, he states that this control set-up "sets the standard...on the Wii"! Excuse me, but... why the modifier? Consensus seems to be that this control set-up "sets the standard" period. For the 360. For the PS3. For all of them. Then, and despite the fact that it doesn't strictly relate to the quality of the controls, he ends the sentence by slighting the game's challenge. I won't count them all out to you, but I dare you to comb through the article and take a look at the "compliments" -- they almostalways go hand-in-hand with a slight.
Not that the reviewer needs the excuse of balancing a compliment to slam the game. In the third paragraph, in referencing the idea that the reviewer doesn't plan on spoiling us, he takes a gratuitous pot shot: "(Not that the Prime games have ever strived to set standards for gaming fiction.) " Well, great. What does that mean? That the story's weak? No -- the reviewer wouldn't go so far; his goal is, apparently, to make his review seem positive while infusing it with insults and complaints.
All in all, we learn that the control scheme "{has} been done before, of course," that the game is "without a sense of challenge," and that it is too much a FPS (apparently due to the smooth controls) which "keep{s} it from being as special as the other Prime titles." Indeed, that "Corruption loses some of its sense of wonder and strangeness on the Wii. Rather than being a true action adventure, it's hard to lose the sense that it's merely an FPS with trimmings."
Wow. Now... how do we reconcile the idea that it's lost its "sense of wonder" when the game "features superb art direction, so every level is even more incredible to explore than the last"? Or that it's no longer a "true action adventure" when "you'll need to use your wits as much as you use weapons that turn alien scum into goo" and "{e}nvironmental puzzles are generally as good in Corruption as they've ever been"? Furthermore, how do we reconcile any of these serious criticisms with such a high score?
I guess it doesn't matter, that we don't have to worry ourselves about it, because "any fan ought to enjoy this outing in spite of those quibbles" {read "fan" as Metroid enthusiast}, "[t]he exotic worlds of Corruption will excite series fans" and "{i}f you're a Metroid fan, there's no need to convince you to play Metroid Prime 3: Corruption." In other words, the reviewer is saying that Metroid Fanboys will like this game no matter what...
...but the true point of this review is: if you're not already a "series fan," then despite the 8.5, you don't really need to bother with it.
The review is muddled, self-contradictory, and worse: against my better judgment, I walk away thinking that it sets out to intentionally sabotage the game that it purports to praise (remember: 8.5 is "high"). I don't know why; I can't fathom motive; but it's in the review, if you read it carefully.
I know it's been said before, but, do we even have to speculate that, when Halo 3 comes out, its reviewer will talk about how the game "feels familiar"? Or how Halo's controls don't match up to the industry leader (Metroid Prime 3, for the Wii), as Wii reviews nearly always mention how the graphics just can't compare to those of other systems? Will we be told that it's been "done before"?Of course not. We know Halo 3's review won't have any of that. Maybe this isn't a double standard. But, if it's not a double standard, then I guess I just don't know what "double standard" means.
another interesting thing is I've found a lot of intelligent comments from people who are disgusted by gamespot, and none from people who favour them.
I guess it's just easier to be an elitist cynic because you aren't obliged to explain yourself.
