<!--quoteo(post=2015699:date=Nov 8 2012, 08:48 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 8 2012, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015699"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->seriously... 'dated graphics' ????<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't read the review because Gamespot is just terrible in general, and I don't particularly care for scores either, because scores are an absolutely awful way of judging a game. (Reviews are subjective and relative, it makes absolutely no sense to assign an objective and abstract number to that.) However, I would agree this is extremely odd, if true. NS2's "graphics" (and I'm not talking about aesthetics or any other term that sometimes confuses such reviewers) are absolutely extraordinary, very few games have textures and models as detailed as this one, and even fewer have such great lighting - animation quality isn't perfect, but when I see games like Assassins Creed being praised for it (and my god is the AC series' character animation awful), I'd say NS2 is definitely "AAA" quality, relatively.
But for the rest of this thread, don't get too pissy about this. Games journalism is a joke for the most part, just have a laugh about it and move on with your life.
(Though I'd understand if you're worried about UWE losing some of its (IMO) deserved sales because idiots go "Oh, low Metacritic score, must be bad! Let's not buy this.", there's just no need to get worked up about it. Plenty of great games get poor scores from idiots because they feel it isn't enough like Call of Duty (no, really, I'm not making a pedantic CoD-kiddies joke, turn on AdBlocker and look at <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/09/18/game-theory-borderlands-2-fails-to-cross-ove/" target="_blank">these</a> <a href="http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-halo-4/" target="_blank">two</a>) or because <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/jim-sterling" target="_blank">being contrarian gets you hits/makes you cool</a>, it's just a matter of making sure there are enough other reviews to even things out.)
######spot gave game X a score of Y. Ermahgerd, whatever shall we do?
It used to be a decent place for reviews in the early 2000's. It's not anymore.
Also, if a game looks interesting, I'd suggest you actually try it for yourself rather than rely on some arbitrary number. Free weekend in a couple months would probably help ;-P .
<!--quoteo(post=2015740:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:33 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 8 2012, 03:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015740"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seriously, this horse has been dead a long time. Any respectable gamer knows that scores are a bad way of rating games and that metacritic is overall an incredibly harmful and abusable system.
If your goal is to fight against every unfair game review score out there, you also have to be prepared to fight the other way. <a href="http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natural-selection-2-review/" target="_blank">http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natu...ction-2-review/</a>
...
So the only valid personal opinion is the popular opinion? what? The entire meaning of <b>personal opinion</b> is to be biased.
*
The point is so what? Why does this matter? Oh no, darksouls got a better score than ns2 and the reviews have no standards! Does this actually surprise anyone? If you enjoy ns2, tell your friends about it - its borderline childish to get all up in arms about bad reviews on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the perfect world, yes, no one would pay attention to video gaming journalism making the article irrelevant. However, in the world where I live in, there ARE people who continue to rely on these articles for their decision making.
In regards to the PCMedia article, if you look at the score alone, then yes, the article is biased. However, the article is actually informative and even though the score does not necessarily reflect my conclusion from reading the article, at least it is readily apparent that the author took his time in the game and research to base his reviewing criteria on everything the game has to offer. Also, I don't see what you are doing are any different than the "borderline childish" behavior displayed thus far by Strayan and the community, except, well, most of us were responding to a published article while you are responding to user comments.
<!--quoteo(post=2015751:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:42 PM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 8 2012, 03:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015751"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's probably better if it stays as the amount of drama it causes brings NS2 more spotlight than a 8.0 or whatever would. :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2015755:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:46 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 8 2012, 03:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015755"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Care to provide quote evidence of said errors? I honestly challenge people to do so. I've yet to see a single quote in support of said gross factual errors besides pricing.
I mean this with all respect, but simply 'hugh confirmed it' does not cut it. He isn't exactly rational when it comes to matters concerning negativity towards ns2 (understandably).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you decided to quote my first sentence and decided to ignore my past few paragraphs explaining how I came to my conclusion. I mean this with all respect, but if you don't feel the need to read all that I have to say, I see no need to repeat myself.
I'm a bit confused about the 'dated graphics' part, as well, as another review that stated NS2s graphics are below average.
What makes NS2 so "dated" looking? Are they drawing a comparison with crysis or something? Cause it looks really good to me on all the highest settings, even when I compare to the top 'AAA' i-paied-for-good-reviews games.
Or is it just because all of the textures and colors in NS2 flow organically, and are believably part of the game world instead of ending up with rampant color variation everywhere? Example being how the marines do not have a highly saturated, bright green and blue color scheme.
It seems to me like NS2s artists just knew what they were doing..
<!--quoteo(post=2015740:date=Nov 8 2012, 07:33 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 8 2012, 07:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015740"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seriously, this horse has been dead a long time. Any respectable gamer knows that scores are a bad way of rating games and that metacritic is overall an incredibly harmful and abusable system.
If your goal is to fight against every unfair game review score out there, you also have to be prepared to fight the other way. <a href="http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natural-selection-2-review/" target="_blank">http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natu...ction-2-review/</a>
How is 100% possible if there are dislikes very similar to the gamespot review? Are we seeing a credible trend in first impression dislikes?
Welcome to the internet. It's totally impractical to start trying to police every crappy review/er out there. You're making it sound like gamespot has a reputation as a credible source for game reviews anyway.
So the only valid personal opinion is the popular opinion? what? The entire meaning of <b>personal opinion</b> is to be biased.
*
The point is so what? Why does this matter? Oh no, darksouls got a better score than ns2 and the reviews have no standards! Does this actually surprise anyone? If you enjoy ns2, tell your friends about it - its borderline childish to get all up in arms about bad reviews on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
metacritic has no credibility because it can be influenced by any derpy fanboy with a unique email address.
but gamespot is a reputable source for game reviews (at least it was), no doubt there was a big fiasco a while back - but you can't really argue with the majority of their scores in recent years. halo and cod have never been more than 'mediocre' to me, but i can appreciate that they are still quality games and deserve a good score.
ign, another reputable source for game reviews, gave NS2 an 8/10... that's a fair score - saying basically exactly the same as gamespot but overall it's a GOOD GAME as opposed to mediocre (according to gamespot).
with regards to the tutorial videos being a NEGATIVE... what the absolute hell... there's an incredibly stupid over-dependance on tutorials in modern games and it really makes me angry. most of the tutorials are so easy, that it's like they were designed to teach manatee's how to play the game as good as the starter-level chimpanzee. if you want a laugh - play the TF2 tutorial - valve the little beauties clearly put in this stuff as a piss take.
"PREASS SPAECE BAER TO JWUMP OVEAR TEH ROCCK!1111oen"
sorry, but i'd take a youtube tutorial of a skilled player over that braindead drivel any day of the week.
<!--quoteo(post=2015772:date=Nov 9 2012, 06:58 AM:name=Makenshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Makenshi @ Nov 9 2012, 06:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So you decided to quote my first sentence and decided to ignore my past few paragraphs explaining how I came to my conclusion. I mean this with all respect, but if you don't feel the need to read all that I have to say, I see no need to repeat myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, those were seriously your points? Ok then, this is getting deeper into this issue than i initially wanted to go but here it is. This is why you were wrong. Remember we are talking about <b>factual errors</b>. For an example of a review that actually had alot of factual errors, read this <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-media-reviews/truthmedia-review-natural.php" target="_blank">http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-medi...iew-natural.php</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->he makes complaints regarding commanders yelling at newbies who are running around cluelessly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No error here - this does happen. Infact, this isn't even a universal <b>factual assertion</b> at all but a statement of his experience.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another example is the load time that he complains about. While the game does take a long time to load on the first match<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Load times are long. You agree yourself. Whether its only for the 'first match' or not does not make the statement of load times being long <b>false</b>. Who is to say you only play one map every sitting?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, if Mr. Neigher has played over even one single match, he would realize that the player composition of any given server changes every match<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This supposed 'factual error' is based on such tortured logic i don't even know where or how to begin. He did not make a universal factual assertion. He simply complained about pubstomping, skill mismatches and the lack of a skill-graded matchingmaking system. This isn't factually incorrect. It happens, and player composition does not necessarily have to change 'for every match'.
So basically, you were grasping at straws, only managed to come up with 3 points and they were all wrong.
If it were me, If I saw a good review, 8/10, and all the comments saying how nice it is, I would be like, cool story bro, next. If I saw 6/10 and the comments going completely against the reviewer and getting quite confrontational I would be like AWWW HELL NO IMA CHECK DIS ###### OUT FOR MAHSELF.
That's why I do not look at any kind of scores in any kind of reviews.
I prefer to go on youtube and check for "[gamename] gameplay" maybe even sometimes just "[gamename] gameplay review", later one just to hear more about what I can't see, I avoid taking personal opinions to my heart.
There are many games that were bashed really hard, though I enjoyed mutliple hours of them, where other were glorified and I hated everysingle penny I spent on them and hours I wasted on trying to get back my money by enjoying it...
What?????? This game kills CS:GO how did it get an 8.5??? CS GO is not bad but it is the same old counter strike with inferior visuals and little changes. I stopped playing it cause it felt boring. It is basically a rehash of source. I do not get what is happening at all. I guess if you do not pay for a good score, you get a 6. Is there any way I can leave feedback personally for this reviewer?
<!--quoteo(post=2015799:date=Nov 8 2012, 08:25 PM:name=PureHostility)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PureHostility @ Nov 8 2012, 08:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015799"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why I do not look at any kind of scores in any kind of reviews.
I prefer to go on youtube and check for "[gamename] gameplay" maybe even sometimes just "[gamename] gameplay review", later one just to hear more about what I can't see, I avoid taking personal opinions to my heart.
There are many games that were bashed really hard, though I enjoyed mutliple hours of them, where other were glorified and I hated everysingle penny I spent on them and hours I wasted on trying to get back my money by enjoying it...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there are too many games to watch youtube vids of all of them.
what i normally do (and i guess it's the normal thing for a lot of gamers) is browse reviews and take a closer look at any game which gets favorable critic scores of 8 or higher, before deciding whether to buy. gamespot was one of my most reliant sources, as they haven't disappointed me since dead island which i felt should have been an 8-9 score (and they attributed that 7/10 to the huge technical problems and bugs on release, afaik ns2 has only a tiny minority of ppl with gamebreaking issues).
i'm sure i will miss <8 rated games which i would have really liked, but it's just not an efficient use of time and money to wade through the ocean of mediocrity hoping to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.
<!--quoteo(post=2015789:date=Nov 8 2012, 04:18 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 8 2012, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh, those were seriously your points? Ok then, this is getting deeper into this issue than i initially wanted to go but here it is. This is why you were wrong. Remember we are talking about <b>factual errors</b>. For an example of a review that actually had alot of factual errors, read this <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-media-reviews/truthmedia-review-natural.php" target="_blank">http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-medi...iew-natural.php</a>
No error here - this does happen. Infact, this isn't even a universal <b>factual assertion</b> at all but a statement of his experience.
Load times are long. You agree yourself. Whether its only for the 'first match' or not does not make the statement of load times being long <b>false</b>. Who is to say you only play one map every sitting?
This supposed 'factual error' is based on such tortured logic i don't even know where or how to begin. He did not make a universal factual assertion. He simply complained about pubstomping, skill mismatches and the lack of a skill-graded matchingmaking system. This isn't factually incorrect. It happens, and player composition does not necessarily have to change 'for every match'.
So basically, you were grasping at straws, only managed to come up with 3 points and they were all wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never once asserted that he made numerous "factual errors." Please go back and read my initial response without your tunnel vision.
So out of the 3 points you replied to, you had to rely on quoting 2 of them in fragments to support your replies. Finally, the so-called tortured logic you are referring to has a name - it's called statistics.
As much as I would like to hold further conversation, it appears that you are lacking some basic understandings of rhetoric and argumentation. As such, I really don't have anything else to say at this point of time.
I only skimmed the article. I imagine there's more, but 4 errors I found from the article (apart from price), were:
1) "Aliens require 'creep' (the green stuff) to spawn structures. The cysts propagate the creep. Marines kill the cysts." The use of the word 'creep' in quotation marks suggests this is the actual Natural Selection 2 term for this. When it is in fact infestation (correct me if I'm wrong).
2) "goal for both teams is simply to destroy the opposing team's commander, but that's a lot more difficult than it sounds." Your goal isn't to kill the commander. This statement is wrong.
3) "Natural Selection 2 "pre-caches" (presumably textures) for as much as five full minutes as maps load, which is an unacceptably long time." This is a complete misrepresentation of performance I feel. My computer's at least 5 years old now and the precaching happens in like 1-2 seconds. The computer he is using must be absolutely terrible for it to have that long a loading time, or he's exaggerating like crazy. I'm not saying ns2 doesn't still have it's share of outstanding performance issues, and that the reviewer should definitely comment on this, but a PC gamer reading this will assume that they're going to have to wait 5 minutes every time they want to have a game, when the likelihood is they're not going to have to wait anywhere near that long. I could be wrong though. Anyone out there getting 5 minute precaching?
4) "a lot of the reason it's difficult is that the game simply fails to sufficiently explain what does what and how things work" Go into explore mode. Every single building has a description of what it does. Sufficiently explained without being overly detailed and convuluted. If you go into the command station or hive, and look through all the buildings there, it a description of what all the buildings do, both in normal games and explore mode. Sure, the game lacks the hand-holding of a tutorial with bots and whatnot, but it's all explained. It's all in there. Maybe not absolute specifics like map specific strategies, structure placement, wall-jumping techniques, but there is a sufficient amount of explanation.
I'm not worked up about the article. There's always bound to be one or two bung reviews. But it is a factual error to state that there are no factual errors in this article.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. NS2 is only a 6/10 or 7/10 game. It is far from perfect. Anyone who thinks it deserves higher is deluded. Flame away...
<!--quoteo(post=2015838:date=Nov 8 2012, 02:11 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Nov 8 2012, 02:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand what all the fuss is about. NS2 is only a 6/10 or 7/10 game. It is far from perfect. Anyone who thinks it deserves higher is deluded. Flame away...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd agree it isn't perfect and for some people it may be a "6" or a "7". However, when you submit your review and it is posted on what claims to be "credible" gaming news site some level of professionalism should be expected. His review is shallow, vapid and doesn't really tell the reader much about the gameplay which could frame why he thinks it deserves the (subjective) 6 it was given. I see reviews as persuasive rather than informative. You really need to sell your reader on why your opinion is valid and I personally think he failed to do that and it comes from a lack of research.
Here is what I posted on that review in response to another user and hopefully it explains a little more why I think this is poorly written:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only time the game was officially priced at $30 was early in the beta. The pre-purchase price since the game appeared in the steam store on Sept 4th has been $24.99 USD. Saying the price is 30 is disingenuous at best and would have required 10 seconds of research to correct.
Now, these other resellers you keep linking are not official distributors of the game. The game is supposed to only be available through these avenues:
The official site only has the deluxe edition available at $39.99 while steam has both including the coveted $24.99 edition people have been mentioning. The resellers you have linked bought keys back when the developers were using the Humble Store. They did not go through UWE. Using them as an example is a red herring which detracts from the real problem.
What is the real problem? The lack of research in the article. It is okay to hate a game, even when others like it. There are a lot of aspects in NS2 that frustrate the hell out of me and I have been playing these games since NS1 came out on Halloween in 2002. It is not a perfect game. However, when you write a review you need to paint a picture for your reader and I feel this writer has failed to do just that. A great example, excluding the price, is the constant relation to Starcraft. Now, this in and of itself is not a bad thing. The developers even like that. They know their game has a heavy Starcraft and Alien vs Predator vibe, and they like when people catch onto that and use it to describe the game. Doing that creates a frame.
Eric did just that, he made a frame. The question is, where is the picture he was supposed to paint inside that frame? It is non-existent. This sentence right here is a glaring example "Aliens require 'creep' (the green stuff) to spawn structures." He quotes the word creep as if that is what it is called in the game. This is incorrect, it is called infestation. Now, how could this have been executed better? "Aliens require infestation to spawn structures, which functions much like Starcraft's creep" It is tiny little references to in game terminology, and I am not talking jargon I am talking about actual lore related words, that shows the reader you know what you are talking about. In fact, throughout the entire article there is no reference to the names of marine technology or alien lifeforms. The only time they are mentioned is in a screenshot caption (the same is true with the 'creep' mistake) when he talks about skulks. Why is this the first time we hear about the basic and arguably most important alien? I have seen no mention of basic things like wall-walking, flying, or teleporting which creates a basic idea of the alien gameplay. It is nonexistent.
The way the article is presented screams lack of research and effort. He has a lot of very valid criticisms but they have nothing behind them to give support and credibility. If I didn't know about NS, I would have learned nothing about what the game is and how it functions, and what about those functions makes the game so bad or difficult. All I have read here is the broadest of words paired with screenshots that are looking at walls.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2015705:date=Nov 8 2012, 10:54 AM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 8 2012, 10:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015705"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can i just say something?
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This does matter, not because of the guys words, but because of the numbers. 8's and 9's are games that people check out, 7's people check the reviews to see if it's worth it. There are tons of people who won't even bother reading a review because it's a 6. They just see it and move on because they trust GS. There are games that are literally bad ripoffs of other games that don't even have anything fun about them and they manage to get 7's, or at least a 6.5
<!--quoteo(post=2015866:date=Nov 8 2012, 10:32 PM:name=Bloodshot12)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bloodshot12 @ Nov 8 2012, 10:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015866"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This does matter, not because of the guys words, but because of the numbers. 8's and 9's are games that people check out, 7's people check the reviews to see if it's worth it. There are tons of people who won't even bother reading a review because it's a 6. They just see it and move on because they trust GS. There are games that are literally bad ripoffs of other games that don't even have anything fun about them and they usually get at least a 7.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah I usually hate when people are honest to but listen, lets be thankful the review didn't list all the serious issues the game currently has.
<!--quoteo(post=2015871:date=Nov 8 2012, 09:37 PM:name=luns)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (luns @ Nov 8 2012, 09:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015871"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yeah I usually hate when people are honest to but listen, lets be thankful the review didn't list all the serious issues the game currently has.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well... if you want to go there, it took me 2 days to install my pre-ordered copy of diablo3 because the installer didn't work. plus, it wasn't even fixed by blizzard - i had to manually play around with the installer files/swapping the dvd files with downloaded files etc for about 12 hours, even after searching internet and unsuccessfully trying about a hundred long-winded 'solutions' which didn't work.
on top of the disappointment value due to diablo3 being awful compared to diablo2, which has a sterling reputation.
plus the first two difficulty settings were compulsory and a massive waste of time - you could literally roll your face on the keyboard and progress. i've honestly never been so bored with a video game in my life, the first 2 difficulties of diablo3 were worse than duke nukem forever.
i neglect to mention the server problems/downtime during the first week, because i actually have a high tolerance level for stuff like connectivity which is often externals like service provider at fault - and not blizzard etc.
did diablo 3 get a 6/10?
i also had a nightmare installing max payne 3, because that game would just blackscreen on start up every time. i had to manually fix that one after 6 hours of f***ing around.
<!--quoteo(post=2015705:date=Nov 8 2012, 06:54 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Nov 8 2012, 06:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015705"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can i just say something?
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He says learning how to play is a grind. That's honestly what annoyed me - considering I dislike a lot of modern games for the very reason that I hate grinding, and that's exactly what unlocks and ranks add to a game. In fact there are only 2 game series that have grinding that I can stand to play, and those are TES games (notably daggerfall) and the Diablo series (not 3).
And he also says NS2 having a commander is a recipe for disaster - he's obviously predisposed to thinking games like this won't work, but he doesn't even seem to give it a chance. Reviewing an online game is completely different from a SP game. You can't just play one match, there are tons of games where you will do horrible in some matches, and great in others, and it seems like he gave up after loosing a match.
Review has been pulled and will be re-done by a new author <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-selection-2-review-pulled-6399748" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-select...-pulled-6399748</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2015941:date=Nov 8 2012, 10:18 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Comprox @ Nov 8 2012, 10:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015941"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Review has been pulled and will be re-done by a new author <a href="http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-selection-2-review-pulled-6399748" target="_blank">http://uk.gamespot.com/news/natural-select...-pulled-6399748</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
now i'm scared... if i was gamespot, my priority would be to 'defend' my author by posting an equally bad review.
<!--quoteo(post=2015945:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:21 PM:name=tarquinbb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinbb @ Nov 8 2012, 03:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015945"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->now i'm scared... if i was gamespot, my priority would be to 'defend' my author by posting an equally bad review.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that this may happen, but the original author was a freelance reviewer. You can find his reviews on other sites like IGN as well in the last month.
I would understand the 6 if they gave other games with huge problems bad scores, but they don't. There are some games that are released in a broken state that still get 8's, and they say "these issues won't be a problem once the patches roll out" or something along those lines. That's what made the other review so bad. On top of that, a review is supposed to be as objective as possible (it never is, but still, it should try to be) and that review did not even try to list any good points about the game, other then "cool artwork" and how the game is described by UWE.
<!--quoteo(post=2015958:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:30 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Nov 8 2012, 03:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well this is getting more and more interesting. Has GS pulled a review before?
I doubt they will turn around to give NS2 another 6.0, not after that ###### storm in the comments section
7.0-8.0 range
8.5 maybe<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been told they have pulled a few reviews before, but not many. I have never seen it so I am not sure what games it has happened to in the past.
<!--quoteo(post=2015958:date=Nov 8 2012, 04:30 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Nov 8 2012, 04:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well this is getting more and more interesting. Has GS pulled a review before?
I doubt they will turn around to give NS2 another 6.0, not after that ###### storm in the comments section
7.0-8.0 range
8.5 maybe<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't expect the number they assign will be based some marginal increase on the first. They will likely not assign a freelancer this time which means you'll get a score based on a staff reviewer's genuine opinion of NS2. I expect it will be quite good.
<!--quoteo(post=2015958:date=Nov 8 2012, 10:30 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Nov 8 2012, 10:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015958"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well this is getting more and more interesting. Has GS pulled a review before?
I doubt they will turn around to give NS2 another 6.0, not after that ###### storm in the comments section
7.0-8.0 range
8.5 maybe<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
being somewhat schooled in gamespot rating lingo, i predict a safe 8.0...
it wouldn't cause too much of a stir, because ign called an 8.0... it can't really be called 'too high' nor 'too low'.
for a game of this quality, appeal and innovation i personally think it should be a 9 - but remember that guild wars 2 got 9 and that is a COLOSSAL game. sadly, quantity of 'slightly less quality' does trump straight up quality, that's just the way it goes :/
edit: unless my previous point is true, where they make a point of biting back at the angry (mostly pretty insulting and rude) comments, by double-stamping NS2 with a mediocre review.
Comments
I didn't read the review because Gamespot is just terrible in general, and I don't particularly care for scores either, because scores are an absolutely awful way of judging a game. (Reviews are subjective and relative, it makes absolutely no sense to assign an objective and abstract number to that.)
However, I would agree this is extremely odd, if true. NS2's "graphics" (and I'm not talking about aesthetics or any other term that sometimes confuses such reviewers) are absolutely extraordinary, very few games have textures and models as detailed as this one, and even fewer have such great lighting - animation quality isn't perfect, but when I see games like Assassins Creed being praised for it (and my god is the AC series' character animation awful), I'd say NS2 is definitely "AAA" quality, relatively.
But for the rest of this thread, don't get too pissy about this. Games journalism is a joke for the most part, just have a laugh about it and move on with your life.
(Though I'd understand if you're worried about UWE losing some of its (IMO) deserved sales because idiots go "Oh, low Metacritic score, must be bad! Let's not buy this.", there's just no need to get worked up about it. Plenty of great games get poor scores from idiots because they feel it isn't enough like Call of Duty (no, really, I'm not making a pedantic CoD-kiddies joke, turn on AdBlocker and look at <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/09/18/game-theory-borderlands-2-fails-to-cross-ove/" target="_blank">these</a> <a href="http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-halo-4/" target="_blank">two</a>) or because <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/jim-sterling" target="_blank">being contrarian gets you hits/makes you cool</a>, it's just a matter of making sure there are enough other reviews to even things out.)
It used to be a decent place for reviews in the early 2000's. It's not anymore.
Also, if a game looks interesting, I'd suggest you actually try it for yourself rather than rely on some arbitrary number. Free weekend in a couple months would probably help ;-P .
If your goal is to fight against every unfair game review score out there, you also have to be prepared to fight the other way.
<a href="http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natural-selection-2-review/" target="_blank">http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natu...ction-2-review/</a>
...
So the only valid personal opinion is the popular opinion? what? The entire meaning of <b>personal opinion</b> is to be biased.
*
The point is so what? Why does this matter? Oh no, darksouls got a better score than ns2 and the reviews have no standards! Does this actually surprise anyone? If you enjoy ns2, tell your friends about it - its borderline childish to get all up in arms about bad reviews on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the perfect world, yes, no one would pay attention to video gaming journalism making the article irrelevant. However, in the world where I live in, there ARE people who continue to rely on these articles for their decision making.
In regards to the PCMedia article, if you look at the score alone, then yes, the article is biased. However, the article is actually informative and even though the score does not necessarily reflect my conclusion from reading the article, at least it is readily apparent that the author took his time in the game and research to base his reviewing criteria on everything the game has to offer. Also, I don't see what you are doing are any different than the "borderline childish" behavior displayed thus far by Strayan and the community, except, well, most of us were responding to a published article while you are responding to user comments.
<!--quoteo(post=2015751:date=Nov 8 2012, 03:42 PM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 8 2012, 03:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015751"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's probably better if it stays as the amount of drama it causes brings NS2 more spotlight than a 8.0 or whatever would. :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sad but QFT
I mean this with all respect, but simply 'hugh confirmed it' does not cut it. He isn't exactly rational when it comes to matters concerning negativity towards ns2 (understandably).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you decided to quote my first sentence and decided to ignore my past few paragraphs explaining how I came to my conclusion.
I mean this with all respect, but if you don't feel the need to read all that I have to say, I see no need to repeat myself.
What makes NS2 so "dated" looking? Are they drawing a comparison with crysis or something? Cause it looks really good to me on all the highest settings, even when I compare to the top 'AAA' i-paied-for-good-reviews games.
Or is it just because all of the textures and colors in NS2 flow organically, and are believably part of the game world instead of ending up with rampant color variation everywhere? Example being how the marines do not have a highly saturated, bright green and blue color scheme.
It seems to me like NS2s artists just knew what they were doing..
If your goal is to fight against every unfair game review score out there, you also have to be prepared to fight the other way.
<a href="http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natural-selection-2-review/" target="_blank">http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natu...ction-2-review/</a>
How is 100% possible if there are dislikes very similar to the gamespot review? Are we seeing a credible trend in first impression dislikes?
Welcome to the internet. It's totally impractical to start trying to police every crappy review/er out there. You're making it sound like gamespot has a reputation as a credible source for game reviews anyway.
So the only valid personal opinion is the popular opinion? what? The entire meaning of <b>personal opinion</b> is to be biased.
*
The point is so what? Why does this matter? Oh no, darksouls got a better score than ns2 and the reviews have no standards! Does this actually surprise anyone? If you enjoy ns2, tell your friends about it - its borderline childish to get all up in arms about bad reviews on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
metacritic has no credibility because it can be influenced by any derpy fanboy with a unique email address.
but gamespot is a reputable source for game reviews (at least it was), no doubt there was a big fiasco a while back - but you can't really argue with the majority of their scores in recent years. halo and cod have never been more than 'mediocre' to me, but i can appreciate that they are still quality games and deserve a good score.
ign, another reputable source for game reviews, gave NS2 an 8/10... that's a fair score - saying basically exactly the same as gamespot but overall it's a GOOD GAME as opposed to mediocre (according to gamespot).
with regards to the tutorial videos being a NEGATIVE... what the absolute hell... there's an incredibly stupid over-dependance on tutorials in modern games and it really makes me angry. most of the tutorials are so easy, that it's like they were designed to teach manatee's how to play the game as good as the starter-level chimpanzee. if you want a laugh - play the TF2 tutorial - valve the little beauties clearly put in this stuff as a piss take.
"PREASS SPAECE BAER TO JWUMP OVEAR TEH ROCCK!1111oen"
sorry, but i'd take a youtube tutorial of a skilled player over that braindead drivel any day of the week.
I mean this with all respect, but if you don't feel the need to read all that I have to say, I see no need to repeat myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, those were seriously your points? Ok then, this is getting deeper into this issue than i initially wanted to go but here it is. This is why you were wrong. Remember we are talking about <b>factual errors</b>. For an example of a review that actually had alot of factual errors, read this <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-media-reviews/truthmedia-review-natural.php" target="_blank">http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-medi...iew-natural.php</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->he makes complaints regarding commanders yelling at newbies who are running around cluelessly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No error here - this does happen. Infact, this isn't even a universal <b>factual assertion</b> at all but a statement of his experience.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another example is the load time that he complains about. While the game does take a long time to load on the first match<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Load times are long. You agree yourself. Whether its only for the 'first match' or not does not make the statement of load times being long <b>false</b>. Who is to say you only play one map every sitting?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Finally, if Mr. Neigher has played over even one single match, he would realize that the player composition of any given server changes every match<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This supposed 'factual error' is based on such tortured logic i don't even know where or how to begin. He did not make a universal factual assertion. He simply complained about pubstomping, skill mismatches and the lack of a skill-graded matchingmaking system. This isn't factually incorrect. It happens, and player composition does not necessarily have to change 'for every match'.
So basically, you were grasping at straws, only managed to come up with 3 points and they were all wrong.
If it were me, If I saw a good review, 8/10, and all the comments saying how nice it is, I would be like, cool story bro, next.
If I saw 6/10 and the comments going completely against the reviewer and getting quite confrontational I would be like AWWW HELL NO IMA CHECK DIS ###### OUT FOR MAHSELF.
I prefer to go on youtube and check for "[gamename] gameplay" maybe even sometimes just "[gamename] gameplay review", later one just to hear more about what I can't see, I avoid taking personal opinions to my heart.
There are many games that were bashed really hard, though I enjoyed mutliple hours of them, where other were glorified and I hated everysingle penny I spent on them and hours I wasted on trying to get back my money by enjoying it...
I prefer to go on youtube and check for "[gamename] gameplay" maybe even sometimes just "[gamename] gameplay review", later one just to hear more about what I can't see, I avoid taking personal opinions to my heart.
There are many games that were bashed really hard, though I enjoyed mutliple hours of them, where other were glorified and I hated everysingle penny I spent on them and hours I wasted on trying to get back my money by enjoying it...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there are too many games to watch youtube vids of all of them.
what i normally do (and i guess it's the normal thing for a lot of gamers) is browse reviews and take a closer look at any game which gets favorable critic scores of 8 or higher, before deciding whether to buy. gamespot was one of my most reliant sources, as they haven't disappointed me since dead island which i felt should have been an 8-9 score (and they attributed that 7/10 to the huge technical problems and bugs on release, afaik ns2 has only a tiny minority of ppl with gamebreaking issues).
i'm sure i will miss <8 rated games which i would have really liked, but it's just not an efficient use of time and money to wade through the ocean of mediocrity hoping to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.
No error here - this does happen. Infact, this isn't even a universal <b>factual assertion</b> at all but a statement of his experience.
Load times are long. You agree yourself. Whether its only for the 'first match' or not does not make the statement of load times being long <b>false</b>. Who is to say you only play one map every sitting?
This supposed 'factual error' is based on such tortured logic i don't even know where or how to begin. He did not make a universal factual assertion. He simply complained about pubstomping, skill mismatches and the lack of a skill-graded matchingmaking system. This isn't factually incorrect. It happens, and player composition does not necessarily have to change 'for every match'.
So basically, you were grasping at straws, only managed to come up with 3 points and they were all wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never once asserted that he made numerous "factual errors." Please go back and read my initial response without your tunnel vision.
So out of the 3 points you replied to, you had to rely on quoting 2 of them in fragments to support your replies. Finally, the so-called tortured logic you are referring to has a name - it's called statistics.
As much as I would like to hold further conversation, it appears that you are lacking some basic understandings of rhetoric and argumentation. As such, I really don't have anything else to say at this point of time.
1) "Aliens require 'creep' (the green stuff) to spawn structures. The cysts propagate the creep. Marines kill the cysts." The use of the word 'creep' in quotation marks suggests this is the actual Natural Selection 2 term for this. When it is in fact infestation (correct me if I'm wrong).
2) "goal for both teams is simply to destroy the opposing team's commander, but that's a lot more difficult than it sounds." Your goal isn't to kill the commander. This statement is wrong.
3) "Natural Selection 2 "pre-caches" (presumably textures) for as much as five full minutes as maps load, which is an unacceptably long time." This is a complete misrepresentation of performance I feel. My computer's at least 5 years old now and the precaching happens in like 1-2 seconds. The computer he is using must be absolutely terrible for it to have that long a loading time, or he's exaggerating like crazy. I'm not saying ns2 doesn't still have it's share of outstanding performance issues, and that the reviewer should definitely comment on this, but a PC gamer reading this will assume that they're going to have to wait 5 minutes every time they want to have a game, when the likelihood is they're not going to have to wait anywhere near that long. I could be wrong though. Anyone out there getting 5 minute precaching?
4) "a lot of the reason it's difficult is that the game simply fails to sufficiently explain what does what and how things work" Go into explore mode. Every single building has a description of what it does. Sufficiently explained without being overly detailed and convuluted. If you go into the command station or hive, and look through all the buildings there, it a description of what all the buildings do, both in normal games and explore mode. Sure, the game lacks the hand-holding of a tutorial with bots and whatnot, but it's all explained. It's all in there. Maybe not absolute specifics like map specific strategies, structure placement, wall-jumping techniques, but there is a sufficient amount of explanation.
I'm not worked up about the article. There's always bound to be one or two bung reviews. But it is a factual error to state that there are no factual errors in this article.
I'd agree it isn't perfect and for some people it may be a "6" or a "7". However, when you submit your review and it is posted on what claims to be "credible" gaming news site some level of professionalism should be expected. His review is shallow, vapid and doesn't really tell the reader much about the gameplay which could frame why he thinks it deserves the (subjective) 6 it was given. I see reviews as persuasive rather than informative. You really need to sell your reader on why your opinion is valid and I personally think he failed to do that and it comes from a lack of research.
Here is what I posted on that review in response to another user and hopefully it explains a little more why I think this is poorly written:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only time the game was officially priced at $30 was early in the beta. The pre-purchase price since the game appeared in the steam store on Sept 4th has been $24.99 USD. Saying the price is 30 is disingenuous at best and would have required 10 seconds of research to correct.
Now, these other resellers you keep linking are not official distributors of the game. The game is supposed to only be available through these avenues:
<a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/4920/" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/app/4920/</a>
<a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com" target="_blank">http://www.naturalselection2.com</a>
The official site only has the deluxe edition available at $39.99 while steam has both including the coveted $24.99 edition people have been mentioning. The resellers you have linked bought keys back when the developers were using the Humble Store. They did not go through UWE. Using them as an example is a red herring which detracts from the real problem.
What is the real problem? The lack of research in the article. It is okay to hate a game, even when others like it. There are a lot of aspects in NS2 that frustrate the hell out of me and I have been playing these games since NS1 came out on Halloween in 2002. It is not a perfect game. However, when you write a review you need to paint a picture for your reader and I feel this writer has failed to do just that. A great example, excluding the price, is the constant relation to Starcraft. Now, this in and of itself is not a bad thing. The developers even like that. They know their game has a heavy Starcraft and Alien vs Predator vibe, and they like when people catch onto that and use it to describe the game. Doing that creates a frame.
Eric did just that, he made a frame. The question is, where is the picture he was supposed to paint inside that frame? It is non-existent. This sentence right here is a glaring example "Aliens require 'creep' (the green stuff) to spawn structures." He quotes the word creep as if that is what it is called in the game. This is incorrect, it is called infestation. Now, how could this have been executed better? "Aliens require infestation to spawn structures, which functions much like Starcraft's creep" It is tiny little references to in game terminology, and I am not talking jargon I am talking about actual lore related words, that shows the reader you know what you are talking about. In fact, throughout the entire article there is no reference to the names of marine technology or alien lifeforms. The only time they are mentioned is in a screenshot caption (the same is true with the 'creep' mistake) when he talks about skulks. Why is this the first time we hear about the basic and arguably most important alien? I have seen no mention of basic things like wall-walking, flying, or teleporting which creates a basic idea of the alien gameplay. It is nonexistent.
The way the article is presented screams lack of research and effort. He has a lot of very valid criticisms but they have nothing behind them to give support and credibility. If I didn't know about NS, I would have learned nothing about what the game is and how it functions, and what about those functions makes the game so bad or difficult. All I have read here is the broadest of words paired with screenshots that are looking at walls.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This does matter, not because of the guys words, but because of the numbers. 8's and 9's are games that people check out, 7's people check the reviews to see if it's worth it. There are tons of people who won't even bother reading a review because it's a 6. They just see it and move on because they trust GS. There are games that are literally bad ripoffs of other games that don't even have anything fun about them and they manage to get 7's, or at least a 6.5
yeah I usually hate when people are honest to but listen, lets be thankful the review didn't list all the serious issues the game currently has.
well... if you want to go there, it took me 2 days to install my pre-ordered copy of diablo3 because the installer didn't work. plus, it wasn't even fixed by blizzard - i had to manually play around with the installer files/swapping the dvd files with downloaded files etc for about 12 hours, even after searching internet and unsuccessfully trying about a hundred long-winded 'solutions' which didn't work.
on top of the disappointment value due to diablo3 being awful compared to diablo2, which has a sterling reputation.
plus the first two difficulty settings were compulsory and a massive waste of time - you could literally roll your face on the keyboard and progress. i've honestly never been so bored with a video game in my life, the first 2 difficulties of diablo3 were worse than duke nukem forever.
i neglect to mention the server problems/downtime during the first week, because i actually have a high tolerance level for stuff like connectivity which is often externals like service provider at fault - and not blizzard etc.
did diablo 3 get a 6/10?
i also had a nightmare installing max payne 3, because that game would just blackscreen on start up every time. i had to manually fix that one after 6 hours of f***ing around.
did max payne 3 get a 6/10?
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He says NS2 has dated graphics.....
He says NS2 is "too hard" for him.....
Yeah.
And he also says NS2 having a commander is a recipe for disaster - he's obviously predisposed to thinking games like this won't work, but he doesn't even seem to give it a chance. Reviewing an online game is completely different from a SP game. You can't just play one match, there are tons of games where you will do horrible in some matches, and great in others, and it seems like he gave up after loosing a match.
now i'm scared... if i was gamespot, my priority would be to 'defend' my author by posting an equally bad review.
Not that this may happen, but the original author was a freelance reviewer. You can find his reviews on other sites like IGN as well in the last month.
I doubt they will turn around to give NS2 another 6.0, not after that ###### storm in the comments section
7.0-8.0 range
8.5 maybe
I doubt they will turn around to give NS2 another 6.0, not after that ###### storm in the comments section
7.0-8.0 range
8.5 maybe<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been told they have pulled a few reviews before, but not many. I have never seen it so I am not sure what games it has happened to in the past.
I doubt they will turn around to give NS2 another 6.0, not after that ###### storm in the comments section
7.0-8.0 range
8.5 maybe<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't expect the number they assign will be based some marginal increase on the first. They will likely not assign a freelancer this time which means you'll get a score based on a staff reviewer's genuine opinion of NS2. I expect it will be quite good.
I doubt they will turn around to give NS2 another 6.0, not after that ###### storm in the comments section
7.0-8.0 range
8.5 maybe<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
being somewhat schooled in gamespot rating lingo, i predict a safe 8.0...
it wouldn't cause too much of a stir, because ign called an 8.0... it can't really be called 'too high' nor 'too low'.
for a game of this quality, appeal and innovation i personally think it should be a 9 - but remember that guild wars 2 got 9 and that is a COLOSSAL game. sadly, quantity of 'slightly less quality' does trump straight up quality, that's just the way it goes :/
edit: unless my previous point is true, where they make a point of biting back at the angry (mostly pretty insulting and rude) comments, by double-stamping NS2 with a mediocre review.