Red Steel Gamespot Review

Edit history:

Gob_Bluth: 2006-11-19 09:08:28 am

2006-11-19 08:54:03 am

There was so much pre-launch hype to this game (Red Steel), that I was shocked that it scored so badly.

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/redsteel/review.html

If you're buying a Wii these Holidays, which games are you going to buy? Has the review changed your mind about buying Red Steel?

Thread title:

Serious_Cacodemon

2006-11-19 12:27:51 pm

Obey the Daleks or be Exterminated! Riiiiiiight...

Honestly I believe Gamespot are biased against the Wii, and are very much graphic fiends, only caring about a game's graphics and not the playability.

It's sad really. I really don't give a damn about their scores anyways.

StrangenessDSS

Edit history:

StrangenessDSS: 2006-11-19 12:41:43 pm

2006-11-19 12:35:49 pm

Sleeping Terror

Quote:

Honestly I believe Gamespot are biased against the Wii...

I heard something about them! I heard they made a video of themselves playing the Wii when they received one, a week or so ago. I heard they couldn't figure out how to use the controller, more or less. And that they kept calling Link "Zelda".

So, I don't think they're biased so much as they're just plain idiots.

That said, Red Steel has been getting kind of iffy preview impressions for a while now. Don't know if it's good or not... and I won't until I've played it.

Smelly Stinks >.&am

Edit history:

Smelly Stinks >.&am: 2006-11-19 01:25:38 pm

2006-11-19 01:25:13 pm

^ A bug called Stinks.

Quote:

There was so much pre-launch hype to this game (Red Steel), that I was shocked that it scored so badly.

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/redsteel/review.html

If you're buying a Wii these Holidays, which games are you going to buy? Has the review changed your mind about buying Red Steel?

Although the population of GameSpots are...well...bad, it's just an opinion. There's a certain board over the inernet on the internet where the two boards are shared/merged. Everyone treats the GameSpot side of the board with disrespect.

But you should see the riots from the 8.8 on Zelda Twilight Princess (Feel free to gannon-ban me).

FuriKuri

Edit history:

FuriKuri: 2006-11-19 02:45:48 pm

2006-11-19 02:45:16 pm

Ride on shooting star

I was never really too interested in Red Steel, anyways.

Rayman is the Wii game to get. Cheesy

Not that I have a Wii, but it's the game that looks best to me.

AquaTiger

Edit history:

AquaTiger: 2006-11-19 03:20:24 pm

2006-11-19 03:17:22 pm

Never give up!

I would NEVER trust a Gamespot review. Or any major reviewing site or organization for that matter.

You want to ask other hardcore gamers - people who've actually PLAYED the game and can discern the problems with it.

(I'm going to keep saying stuff like this until those review places get the point and hire people who actually can figure out how to play these games.)

Satoryu

2006-11-19 03:21:50 pm

Visually Appealing

Quote:

I would NEVER trust a Gamespot review. Or any major reviewing site or organization for that matter.

You want to ask other hardcore gamers - people who've actually PLAYED the game and can discern the problems with it.

(I'm going to keep saying stuff like this until those review places get the point and hire people who actually can figure out how to play these games.)

my thoughts exactly

MissileWaster

2006-11-19 06:17:47 pm

Quote:

So, I don't think they're biased so much as they're just plain idiots.

I believe you mean that they are biased BECAUSE they are idiots. Look at it, every Nintendo game has a bad score, no matter how good it is. Every XBrick game gets a great score no matter how bad it is. It's just the way stupid people work.

Honestly, no review could ever sway my opinion of a game. I'm still getting Red Steel, and I honestly never go by GameSpot's reviews. Although, I can't even get GameSpot to load on my computer, but that's beside the point.

dex

2006-11-19 07:10:53 pm

Invisible avatar

Some review scores:

GameSpot 11/17/2006 5.5 out of 10 55.0%
Computer & Video Games UK 11/19/2006 8 out of 10 80.0%
1UP 11/18/2006 5 out of 10 50.0%
eToychest 11/16/2006 78 out of 100 78.0%
GameBrink 11/17/2006 70 out of 100 70.0%
Ngamer UK 12/1/2006 90 out of 100 90.0%

Anybody willing to say GameSpot isn't biased?...

carwash

2006-11-19 07:12:06 pm

carwa$H^

Gears Of War gets a 9.6....

Because..........

CHAINSAW BAYONETS!!!!!1111!!11oneoneeleven

//Seriously, I only look at reviews that have multiple reviewers, like EGM.

Also, don't let bad reviews detract from your enjoyment of a game.

Gob_Bluth

2006-11-20 12:07:35 am

I don't think Gamespot is biased against Nintendo.
Looking at how they scored the following games, it is obvious there is no anti-Nintendo bias.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - N64: 10 out of 10
Metroid Prime - GC: 9.7 out of 10
Resident Evil 4 - GC: 9.6 out of 10
Super Mario 64 - N64: 9.4 out of 10
GoldenEye 007 - N64: 9.8 out of 10

Also, I can't believe the amount of hearsay spread by fellow forum members.
"I heard this about Gamespot."
"I heard that about Gamespot."
Unless you've seen it with your own eyes or its your own thought/opinion, I wouldn't tell others what I've HEARD from others. (I wouldn't spread hearsay.)

As for Gamespot's reviews, watch their video reviews and if you disagree with a premise, then say so. Don't just say how much you dislike a score. If you actually watch their reviews, their explanations for the scores they give are pretty solid ones.

I also agree with carwash about not looking at just one review, which is why I look at GameRankings.com (which compiles all game critic reviews) and also look at how well a game is selling before I give a game a try.

Has anyone who posted in this topic even watched the Gamespot review for Red Steel? Greg Kasavin makes some pretty good points about the game. His review has caused me to try the game out myself instead of buying it at launch (which is what I was originally planning to do.)

Another good reason to check out Gamespot's reviews is because they have more video game reviews posted online than any other website.

I don't think Gamespot is biased against Nintendo.
Looking at how they scored the following games, it is obvious there is no anti-Nintendo bias.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - N64: 10 out of 10
Metroid Prime - GC: 9.7 out of 10
Resident Evil 4 - GC: 9.6 out of 10
Super Mario 64 - N64: 9.4 out of 10
GoldenEye 007 - N64: 9.8 out of 10

Also, I can't believe the amount of hearsay spread by fellow forum members.
"I heard this about Gamespot."
"I heard that about Gamespot."
Unless you've seen it with your own eyes or its your own thought/opinion, I wouldn't tell others what I've HEARD from others. (I wouldn't spread hearsay.)

As for Gamespot's reviews, watch their video reviews and if you disagree with a premise, then say so. Don't just say how much you dislike a score. If you actually watch their reviews, their explanations for the scores they give are pretty solid ones.

I also agree with carwash about not looking at just one review, which is why I look at GameRankings.com (which compiles all game critic reviews) and also look at how well a game is selling before I give a game a try.

Has anyone who posted in this topic even watched the Gamespot review for Red Steel? Greg Kasavin makes some pretty good points about the game. His review has caused me to try the game out myself instead of buying it at launch (which is what I was originally planning to do.)

Another good reason to check out Gamespot's reviews is because they have more video game reviews posted online than any other website.

rock1644

2006-11-20 12:27:10 am

yes, a man carrying a gimp

Professional reviewers do not say their opinion, they just say whether or not the game will be appeal to a mass audience. Why else would they say phrases like "it won't appeal to everyone?"

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2006-11-20 01:18:20 am

2006-11-20 01:16:41 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

I've been doing my best to promote caution regarding Red Steel... as I've now become expected to say, the game looks like the greatest "might have been" in history.

I think Gamespot was correct, although, without question, they are traditionally biased against Nintendo. While the Gamecube was a thoroughly enjoyable console if you knew on what games to spend your money, Gamespot seemed to relish in its more disappointing developments, which was arguably justified to an extent (as it had many letdowns).

Still, reviews do matter. I hate it when people dismiss critics like they don't have at least an idea of what they're speaking just because they disagree with them. Not to mention, as someone noted, particular publications (RottenTomatoes or GameRankings) can give one a fairly broad survey of their general verdicts, so it isn't like we don't have justifiable cause to observe the majority trend. And, if you almost always disagree with nearly everything they collectively say, then you're the one with the problem (poor movie tastes for instance; and yes, I absolutely believe matters of opinion can have superior and inferior stances).

Now, Gamespot seems to abhor the majority trend every chance it gets, so it's up to the reader to decide whether that individual entity is credible. Me? No, not for Nintendo products, but I believe them in this particular instance.

Red Steel looks WAAAY underdeveloped, so I'm staying away from it until I'm convinced otherwise.

I've been doing my best to promote caution regarding Red Steel... as I've now become expected to say, the game looks like the greatest  "might have been" in history.

I think Gamespot was correct, although, without question, they are traditionally biased against Nintendo. While the Gamecube was a thoroughly enjoyable console if you knew on what games to spend your money, Gamespot seemed to relish in its more disappointing developments, which was arguably justified to an extent (as it had many letdowns).

Still, reviews [i]do[/i] matter.  I hate it when people dismiss critics like they don't have at least an idea of what they're speaking just because they disagree with them.  Not to mention, as someone noted, particular publications (RottenTomatoes or GameRankings) can give one a fairly broad survey of their general verdicts, so it isn't like we don't have justifiable cause to observe the majority trend.  And, if you [i]almost always[/i] disagree with [i]nearly everything[/i] they collectively say, then [i]you're[/i] the one with the problem (poor movie tastes for instance; and yes, I absolutely believe matters of opinion can have superior and inferior stances).

Now, Gamespot seems to abhor the majority trend every chance it gets, so it's up to the reader to decide whether that individual entity is credible.  Me?  No, not for Nintendo products, but I believe them in this particular instance.

Red Steel looks WAAAY underdeveloped, so I'm staying away from it until I'm convinced otherwise.

Lazylen

2006-11-20 02:04:03 am

fuck you i wont do what you tell me

if you compare gamespot reviews of nintendo games to other game sites, you'll find that gamespot's reviews are generally much lower than them.

Look at IGN, it gave TP a 9.7 (9.6 maybe, i forget). then gamespot gives it an 8.8. They give them bad ratings because they cant be open-minded enough to try the controller and get it to work.

Im not getting RedSteel though, maybe rayman would be better (ive always loved rayman).
"
1.The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - N64: 10 out of 10
2. Metroid Prime - GC: 9.7 out of 10
3. Resident Evil 4 - GC: 9.6 out of 10
4. Super Mario 64 - N64: 9.4 out of 10
5. GoldenEye 007 - N64: 9.8 out of 10
"
1. OoT was one of the, if not the greatest game thus far. everyone gave it 10/10, and if you gave it anything less than a 9.8, someone would send you hate mail. Plus, to give it something lower than a 9.8, you would have had to not play it through.

2. Everyone loved it, its one of the best ones so far, plus it was the first 3D metroid game. Seeing as how it was expected to be terrible by metroid fans (people saying 3D and metroid didnt work), it pulled a tremendous loop on everyone and was one of the greatest games of this gen, bringing many many people into the series.

3. RE4 is awesome, and theres no way to shoot it down. if they had rated it lower than that, there would have been a lower PS2 turnout for the game, and they knew that. Considering how Re4 is so wonderful, everyone rated it awesome.

4. SM64 was the milestone of gaming, the first foray into 3D, and it brought a character that everyone in the industry adored and gave him another dimension to work with. The game was wonderful, and many other games keep copying it's idea.

5. See #1, replacing OoT with Goldeneye.

What you've listed are games in the top 10 of everyone who's been around the industry's list. They are games not to be messed with, and you have no point in giving those names, seeing as how everyone already loves them and wont rate them badly.

if you compare gamespot reviews of nintendo games to other game sites, you'll find that gamespot's reviews are generally much lower than them.

Look at IGN, it gave TP a 9.7 (9.6 maybe, i forget). then gamespot gives it an 8.8. They give them bad ratings because they cant be open-minded enough to try the controller and get it to work.

Im not getting RedSteel though, maybe rayman would be better (ive always loved rayman).
"
1.The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - N64: 10 out of 10 
2. Metroid Prime - GC: 9.7 out of 10 
3. Resident Evil 4 - GC: 9.6 out of 10 
4. Super Mario 64 - N64: 9.4 out of 10 
5. GoldenEye 007 - N64: 9.8 out of 10 
"
1. OoT was one of the, if not the greatest game thus far. everyone gave it 10/10, and if you gave it anything less than a 9.8, someone would send you hate mail. Plus, to give it something lower than a 9.8, you would have had to not play it through.

2. Everyone loved it, its one of the best ones so far, plus it was the first 3D metroid game. Seeing as how it was expected to be terrible by metroid fans (people saying 3D and metroid didnt work), it pulled a tremendous loop on everyone and was one of the greatest games of this gen, bringing many many people into the series.

3. RE4 is awesome, and theres no way to shoot it down. if they had rated it lower than that, there would have been a lower PS2 turnout for the game, and they knew that. Considering how Re4 is so wonderful, everyone rated it awesome.

4. SM64 was the milestone of gaming, the first foray into 3D, and it brought a character that everyone in the industry adored and gave him another dimension to work with. The game was wonderful, and many other games keep copying it's idea.

5.  See #1, replacing OoT with Goldeneye.

What you've listed are games in the top 10 of everyone who's been around the industry's list. They are games not to be messed with, and you have no point in giving those names, seeing as how everyone already loves them and wont rate them badly.

UchihaSasuke

2006-11-20 03:23:59 am

Stand: Devil's Call in your Heart

if the controls were gamespot's beef, does that mean the GC version of TP will get 9.x from them?

getter77

2006-11-20 04:27:59 am

100% runs=great to watch

Re Zelda: Nope, they also whine about no voiceovers, lack of orchestrated music, and "classic Zelda...awesome!/Classic Zelda...nostalgia=bad!

So long as Cd-I has no hand in it...Zelda is pretty much a lock of a franchise. Folk that were gonna buy it will still buy it and enjoy it.

Re Red Steel: All I can say for certain is that it I guess it will be speedran by somebody...and probably fairly soon too considering it apparently being pretty linear.

Friend of mine had the game pre-ordered and he's prolly not gonna be swayed by this. His whole thing is this: "I'll play the game like I'd play Red Steel...not Halo, UT, or some other shit. Red Steel will be like Red Steel. Simple."

Otherwise, it presents an interesting situation. Will Ubi make use of Wii Connect24 to grant folk free patches to curb issues that they somehow missed in QC like they should? Or will they be happy to leave their flagship Wii title by the wayside?

The next few week swill be damn interesting to observe development wise.

Re Zelda:  Nope, they also whine about no voiceovers,  lack of orchestrated music, and "classic Zelda...awesome!/Classic Zelda...nostalgia=bad!

So long as Cd-I has no hand in it...Zelda is pretty much a lock of a franchise.  Folk that were gonna buy it will still buy it and enjoy it.

Re Red Steel:  All I can say for certain is that it I guess it will be speedran by somebody...and probably fairly soon  too considering it apparently being pretty linear.

Friend of mine had the game pre-ordered and he's prolly not gonna be swayed by this.  His whole thing is this: "I'll play the game like I'd play Red Steel...not Halo, UT, or some other shit.  Red Steel will be like Red Steel.  Simple."

Otherwise, it presents an interesting situation.  Will Ubi make use of Wii Connect24 to grant folk free patches to curb issues that they somehow missed in QC like they should?  Or will they be happy to leave their flagship Wii title by the wayside?

The next few week swill be damn interesting to observe development wise.

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2006-11-20 04:52:47 am

2006-11-20 04:51:04 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

^ I'd like to think so, but patches for games typically can't salvage them from utter mediocrity. They can smooth the edges, but they can't build the birdhouse.

The 360 patches have mostly been minor expansions and additions, with some compatibility corrections, initially. They're pretty limited, really, in how much they can realistically improve a game, overall.

Psonar

2006-11-20 07:22:37 am

Long live SF64!

I've read 100's of gamespot reviews, so I feel my comments are justified...

I've found (among other things) that they tend to be very biased towards the "cutting edge" and they tend to rate games by comparing them to the competing games in the genre in the same year - making the rating an assessment of "how it stacked up" alongside competitors. I've seen many games get something like a 5-7 that were admittedly great games in their element, with the complaint that they broke little ground or that the game had limitted long-term replay value...

How can someone decide 2 days after a game comes out that it has no long-term replay value? Take Mario Kart 64 for example! The review is very harsh and the score is low, and yet 10 years later I couldn't get it cheaper than $20 on ebay, and people still play it all the time!

That and if I want a classic RPG, I might go looking for a highly rated title, only to find that half of the best titles were rated 5-7 because they adhered too closely to the beaten path... well? What if that's what it was made to be? And then they'll spend 2 days with a game and give wishy washy comments about why a game isn't good and their only solid comment will be that it has a difficult control system and a steep learning curve or something... often using liberal comparisons to a "proven" game within the same genre... like how all RTS's get compared to Starcraft or something...

Ok, ok I'll stop... but I'm a level 11 at Gamespot and have perused around there enough to have something to say against their scoring system. I generally look for indepth user reviews and the distribution of responses Gamespot gives for the User ratings... (the pie graph...)

And they never re-evaluate bad scores... some games that became Nintendo's Player's Choice games got crappy ratings because 1 reviewer expressed his bias ... now the scores stand forever...

I spent too much time enjoying Gamespot before gradually realizing that in my opinion they are slightly more commited to being a flashy company than to serving gamers. Oh and their forums are a mirror of GameFAQs forums, but on gameFAQs I'm a level 1... it's a really sucky system... now I'm stuck on Gamespot if I want the privilages of having a higher level, but if I decide I'd rather see the forums from the gameFAQ's perspective, I have to endure some silly posting restriction and then treating you like you don't know what a forum is.

sorry, forgive my tirade... felt good to get those thoughts out though...

I've read 100's of gamespot reviews, so I feel my comments are justified...

I've found (among other things) that they tend to be very biased towards the "cutting edge" and they tend to rate games by comparing them to the competing games in the genre in the same year - making the rating an assessment of "how it stacked up" alongside competitors.  I've seen many games get something like a 5-7 that were admittedly great games in their element, with the complaint that they broke little ground or that the game had limitted long-term replay value...

How can someone decide 2 days after a game comes out that it has no long-term replay value?  Take Mario Kart 64 for example!  The review is very harsh and the score is low, and yet 10 years later I couldn't get it cheaper than $20 on ebay, and people still play it all the time!

That and if I want a classic RPG, I might go looking for a highly rated title, only to find that half of the best titles were rated 5-7 because they adhered too closely to the beaten path... well? What if that's what it was made to be?  And then they'll spend 2 days with a game and give wishy washy comments about why a game isn't good and their only solid comment will be that it has a difficult control system and a steep learning curve or something... often using liberal comparisons to a "proven" game within the same genre... like how all RTS's get compared to Starcraft or something...

Ok, ok I'll stop... but I'm a level 11 at Gamespot and have perused around there enough to have something to say against their scoring system.  I generally look for indepth user reviews and the distribution of responses Gamespot gives for the User ratings... (the pie graph...)

And they never re-evaluate bad scores... some games that became Nintendo's Player's Choice games got crappy ratings because 1 reviewer expressed his bias ... now the scores stand forever...

I spent too much time enjoying Gamespot before gradually realizing that in my opinion they are slightly more commited to being a flashy company than to serving gamers.  Oh and their forums are a mirror of GameFAQs forums, but on gameFAQs I'm a level 1... it's a really sucky system... now I'm stuck on Gamespot if I want the privilages of having a higher level, but if I decide I'd rather see the forums from the gameFAQ's perspective, I have to endure some silly posting restriction and then treating you like you don't know what a forum is.

sorry, forgive my tirade... felt good to get those thoughts out though...

Gob_Bluth

2006-11-20 08:57:44 am

Quote:

What you've listed are games in the top 10 of everyone who's been around the industry's list. They are games not to be messed with, and you have no point in giving those names, seeing as how everyone already loves them and wont rate them badly.

My point was, if a game was deserving of an epic rating, it got an epic rating, regardless of the fact that it was made by Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft.

Also, Gamespot usually does not follow trends, lazylen. Most of the time, they are one of the first 5 sites to review a game.

Psonar, you make really good points. I agree with most of what you said but. . .

Critics and sales hardly ever agree; the exact same thing happens in Movies. Most of the top box-office movies were not critically acclaimed. This happens in games too because critics are usually hard core gamers who have played a lot more games than the average gamer and average gamers do not get to play so many games so get their information from advertising. Most of the highest selling games of all time were marketed well, but not well-received critically.

As for Mario Kart 64, they gave it a bad rating from a technical standpoint but they probably kept on playing it in their offices when it was first released.

I don't think people should go back and change their reviews just because a game sold well/became a Nintendo Player's Choice. Look at Cruisin' USA and Star Wars Shadows of the Empire; those games STUNK! But that didn't stop it from selling well. Once again, it was all marketing.

[quote]What you've listed are games in the top 10 of everyone who's been around the industry's list. They are games not to be messed with, and you have no point in giving those names, seeing as how everyone already loves them and wont rate them badly.[/quote]

My point was, if a game was deserving of an epic rating, it got an epic rating, regardless of the fact that it was made by Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft.

Also, Gamespot usually does not follow trends, lazylen. Most of the time, they are one of the first 5 sites to review a game.

Psonar, you make really good points. I agree with most of what you said but. . .

Critics and sales hardly ever agree; the exact same thing happens in Movies. Most of the top box-office movies were not critically acclaimed. This happens in games too because critics are usually hard core gamers who have played a lot more games than the average gamer and average gamers do not get to play so many games so get their information from advertising. Most of the highest selling games of all time were marketed well, but not well-received critically.

As for Mario Kart 64, they gave it a bad rating from a technical standpoint but they probably kept on playing it in their offices when it was first released.

I don't think people should go back and change their reviews just because a game sold well/became a Nintendo Player's Choice. Look at Cruisin' USA and Star Wars Shadows of the Empire; those games STUNK! But that didn't stop it from selling well. Once again, it was all marketing.

dex

Edit history:

dex: 2006-11-20 03:42:57 pm

2006-11-20 03:40:21 pm

Invisible avatar

Quote:

As for Mario Kart 64, they gave it a bad rating from a technical standpoint but they probably kept on playing it in their offices when it was first released.

You just said that they look at technicalities, not gameplay when reviewing.

"From a technical standpoint..." - So, you're saying a game with outdated graphics released today can't have the best of the best gameplay? You're saying "Hell, let's ignore that we will play this game for months, and it will probably have many fans for years or more, let's give it a poor score because it has a steep learning curve/a little hard controls/graphics outdated by a year"? Because that's essentially what you said. I'd give Deus Ex, Starcraft, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, MGS, Unreal Tournament, Quake, [insert any good game you might think of] 10 and 9 even if they would be first released today. Why? Because i want to play those games all the time, i want to repeat them. And 'technical standpoint" can go to hell.

Sorry if that's a little harsh, but i just can't understand this reasoning...i agree with the rest of what you said. I agree that the sales shouldn't change what we think of the game.

[quote]As for Mario Kart 64, they gave it a bad rating from a technical standpoint but they probably kept on playing it in their offices when it was first released.[/quote]
You just said that they look at technicalities, not gameplay when reviewing.

"From a technical standpoint..." - So, you're saying a game with outdated graphics released today can't have the best of the best gameplay? You're saying "Hell, let's ignore that we will play this game for months, and it will probably have many fans for years or more, let's give it a poor score because it has a steep learning curve/a little hard controls/graphics outdated by a year"? Because that's essentially what you said. I'd give Deus Ex, Starcraft, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, MGS, Unreal Tournament, Quake, [insert any good game you might think of] 10 and 9 even if they would be first released today. Why? Because i want to play those games all the time, i want to repeat them. And 'technical standpoint" can go to hell.

Sorry if that's a little harsh, but i just can't understand this reasoning...i agree with the rest of what you said. I agree that the sales shouldn't change what we think of the game.

Gob_Bluth

2006-11-20 07:31:23 pm

Quote:

You just said that they look at technicalities, not gameplay when reviewing.

"From a technical standpoint..." - So, you're saying a game with outdated graphics released today can't have the best of the best gameplay? You're saying "Hell, let's ignore that we will play this game for months, and it will probably have many fans for years or more, let's give it a poor score because it has a steep learning curve/a little hard controls/graphics outdated by a year"? Because that's essentially what you said. I'd give Deus Ex, Starcraft, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, MGS, Unreal Tournament, Quake, [insert any good game you might think of] 10 and 9 even if they would be first released today. Why? Because i want to play those games all the time, i want to repeat them. And 'technical standpoint" can go to hell.

Sorry if that's a little harsh, but i just can't understand this reasoning...i agree with the rest of what you said. I agree that the sales shouldn't change what we think of the game.

I think you misunderstood and yeah, you did go overboard for me using a vague word like technical.

I was explaining why I think the Gamespot reviewer gave Mario Kart a 6.8, even though he probably was playing it a lot with his friends. Technicalities like poor AI routines, extra wide tracks, super-large battle courses, completing the entire game in very few hours played.

When did I ever say, "a game with outdated graphics released today can't have the best of the best gameplay" ?

Please don't make assumptions.

[quote]
You just said that they look at technicalities, not gameplay when reviewing.

"From a technical standpoint..." - So, you're saying a game with outdated graphics released today can't have the best of the best gameplay? You're saying "Hell, let's ignore that we will play this game for months, and it will probably have many fans for years or more, let's give it a poor score because it has a steep learning curve/a little hard controls/graphics outdated by a year"? Because that's essentially what you said. I'd give Deus Ex, Starcraft, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, MGS, Unreal Tournament, Quake, [insert any good game you might think of] 10 and 9 even if they would be first released today. Why? Because i want to play those games all the time, i want to repeat them. And 'technical standpoint" can go to hell.

Sorry if that's a little harsh, but i just can't understand this reasoning...i agree with the rest of what you said. I agree that the sales shouldn't change what we think of the game.[/quote]

I think you misunderstood and yeah, you did go overboard for me using a vague word like technical.

I was explaining why I think the Gamespot reviewer gave Mario Kart a 6.8, even though he probably was playing it a lot with his friends. Technicalities like poor AI routines, extra wide tracks, super-large battle courses, completing the entire game in very few hours played.

When did I ever say, "a game with outdated graphics released today can't have the best of the best gameplay" ?

Please don't make assumptions.

Gob_Bluth

Edit history:

Gob_Bluth: 2006-11-24 10:12:59 pm

2006-11-21 12:23:41 am

Edited Message:
It appears that Gamespot isn't alone in giving Red Steel a bad score. They really made fun of people who bought Red Steel on Attack of the Show (G4 TechTV) today.

The host of AOTS (Kevin Pereira) is a huge Wii fan. He has stated many times that the system to get this Christmas is a Nintendo Wii. On the night of the release, he bought every release game and and every accessory he could get his hands on (including many nunchucks) and then later got drunk at his Wii party.

When he woke up the next day, Kevin and the other people at G4 joked about how normally when people get drunk, they wind up next morning next to someone unfavorable, but when Kevin gets drunk, he wakes up next to a copy of Red Steel the next morning. Pretty witty, I thought.

Also, it looks like IGN has followed suit again by giving Red Steel a 6.0 (a slightly higher score to a game Gamespot has already reviewed). You'll see this pattern a lot with IGN. It's most likely coincidence, however.

Original Message:
"Wow, they really made fun of people who bought Red Steel on Attack of the Show (G4 TechTV) today. I guess Gamespot isn't the only one who thinks the game is awful.

They did however, call Gamespot's review of Zelda: Twilight Princess "unforgiving and harsh." :)"

Edited Message:
It appears that Gamespot isn't alone in giving Red Steel a bad score. They really made fun of people who bought Red Steel on Attack of the Show (G4 TechTV) today.

The host of AOTS (Kevin Pereira) is a huge Wii fan. He has stated many times that the system to get this Christmas is a Nintendo Wii. On the night of the release, he bought every release game and and every accessory he could get his hands on (including many nunchucks) and then later got drunk at his Wii party.
 
When he woke up the next day, Kevin and the other people at G4 joked about how normally when people get drunk, they wind up next morning next to someone unfavorable, but when Kevin gets drunk, he wakes up next to a copy of Red Steel the next morning. Pretty witty, I thought.

Also, it looks like IGN has followed suit again by giving Red Steel a 6.0 (a slightly higher score to a game Gamespot has already reviewed). You'll see this pattern a lot with IGN. It's most likely coincidence, however.

Original Message:
"Wow, they really made fun of people who bought Red Steel on Attack of the Show (G4 TechTV) today. I guess Gamespot isn't the only one who thinks the game is awful.

They did however, call Gamespot's review of Zelda: Twilight Princess "unforgiving and harsh." :)"

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2006-11-22 04:53:42 pm

2006-11-22 04:50:35 pm

Red Steel really isn't as bad as the stupid game reviewers think.

After playing the game and noticing the occasional bad production values (Dated graphics such as unopenable doors that look like they were rendered into the wall, comic book cutscenes, etc.) I figured they'd give it a bad score.

Yes, it's bugged. If you swipe the Wiimote away from the sensor bar, your character takes a second to regain control, and you have difficulty zooming in, but that's about it.

But overall, it's a great game. On any other system, it would receive a bad score in my book, yes. It'd just be another mediocre shooter. The fact that it's the only half-way decent shooter on release makes it worthwhile.

Wahoo

2006-11-22 09:37:23 pm

They're not biased against the wii completely, it depends on the reviewer. The guy who reviewed zelda, lots of people complained before he even did the review that he would be biased against it, and look how it turned out.

But, Madden wii = 8.4 on gs, madden PS3 = 7.9

Gob_Bluth

2006-11-23 08:03:08 am

Quote:

They're not biased against the wii completely, it depends on the reviewer. The guy who reviewed zelda, lots of people complained before he even did the review that he would be biased against it, and look how it turned out.

But, Madden wii = 8.4 on gs, madden PS3 = 7.9

Yeah, I don't know why people think Jeff Gerstmann is biased against Nintendo. Maybe it was the Super Mario Sunshine review that did him in, but if you watch the review (which is a free thing to do), you understand why he gave the score he did. He puts forth some pretty compelling arguments, though I bet he was nitpicking errors in the game instead of looking at the whole picture. People should remember Jeff was, after all, the guy who gave Ocarina of Time a 10 out of 10. Watching many of his reviews, he's one of the most fair reviewers out there, possibly the best video game reviewer in my mind.