The Video Game Critic

This topic will be to post the worst reviews you can find.  Not reviews that you disagree with, but reviews that look like morons written them. And not user reviews either, because that would be too easy. Here are mine.


Gamespot -excite truck  http://www.gamespot.com/wii/driving/excitetruck/review.html

What a lousy review.  This review almost made me not get Excite Truck.  I wouldn't have gotten it if every here wasn't raving about it so thanks.He makes it sound like nothing is there.  He says "you will be done with the game in almost no time." and "Ultimately, it feels more like a tech demo than a full-fledged game."   Uh what????  There are at least 19 courses with multiple difficulties and about 15 trucks.   And the game itself is insanely fun.   I've been playing this for 12 hours and I still keep coming back to it.   Does this guy expect racing games to have 200 hour campaigns like Gran Turismo?   BS, that would drive me insane.  I'll take a fun 15 hour game (which he implies is only about 4 hours) over some long boring game like Gran Turismo any day.  It has at least as much depth as any Mario Kart game, so what's the deal?

Castlevania Double Pack - Maxim Online

http://www.maximonline.com/entertainment/reviews.aspx?p_id=11277
I guess this is why you don't turn to Maxim for game reviews.  They spend the review talking about the Olsen twins, then complains that the games are "old."   Whatever... how did this guy get his job?

[QUOTE=Edward M]This topic will be to post the worst reviews you can find.  Not reviews that you disagree with, but reviews that look like morons written them. And not user reviews either, because that would be too easy. Here are mine.


Gamespot -excite truck  http://www.gamespot.com/wii/driving/excitetruck/review.html

 It has at least as much depth as any Mario Kart game, so what's the deal?

[/QUOTE]

The deal is that Gamespot didn't give a glowing review to mario kart 64 either and even went as far to say that Diddy Kong Racing was an imcomplete miediocre game. Naturally, they would butcher excite truck as well.

I second the Gamespot Excite Truck review. These guys are normally pretty good with reviews, but like you said, I almost didn't even consider getting this game. Thank God I did. The controls are perfect, the game is insanely fun, I've played it for 12 hours and haven't finished the Diamond Cup. Speed racers, demolision debriests, and daredevils all can play like they want have a chance to win.

Terrible review.

FUNK

[QUOTE=Atarifever]

The Donkey Kong Jr. review on Gamespot.  The guy basically claims that you'll "finish" it too quickly.  He says that once you've seen the four levels, then that's it.  It is clearly written by a guy who doesn't have a clue about how to play traditional arcade games and who has no understanding of the videogame industry as having existed before 1996 or so. 

[/QUOTE]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think the problem here is the audience that Gamespot is writing for.  A huge number, the majority actually, of their readers were born not that long before 1996.  Kids these days have a harder time appreciating a game where every new thing can be seen on one play-through.  The arcade version is better in a sense because you have to play through four stage-cycles to see every individual stage (same with Donkey Kong), but the NES versions throw everything at you in the first stage.

Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Jr. were among my absolute favorites growing up in the arcade years.  They were only replaced ultimately when I first played the arcade version of Super Mario Bros.  So it's very hard for me to imagine the mentality that says they aren't fun or worse, worth $5.  I payed a huge amount for both of them on the NES and didn't regret it even though a stage was missing from Donkey Kong, but then again, I was coming at it from the position of a fan who already loved those games in the arcade and wanted a GOOD home version.  So I guess what I am saying is I have to respect that this mentality exists, even though I don't really identify with it.

Eh, I never played any of the old DK games until 2000 or, and I still liked them. Why? Because they are, gasp, [B]fun games[/B]. And that's the only thing that should matter when it comes to the medium.

[QUOTE=Adamant]Eh, I never played any of the old DK games until 2000 or, and I still liked them. Why? Because they are, gasp, [B]fun games[/B]. And that's the only thing that should matter when it comes to the medium.[/QUOTE]

You're one of the few I've heard say that who only recently played them.  Practically all the youngins on Gamespot I've talked to say otherwise.

Of course, I have no idea how much of that is group-think.

My point is that there are plenty of kids who don't know what the gaming world was like before 1996.  Some of them don't have a clue what it was like before the year 2000.  They have no idea what the gaming world was like 25 years ago, and they have standards in their head based on that limited knowledge.

[QUOTE=m0zart]  They have no idea what the gaming world was like 25 years ago, and they have standards in their head based on that limited knowledge.
[/QUOTE]

Here's a defense for these ratings that I see a lot (and I'm not saying you were defending the ratings yourself).  My problem is I often see this being used to say standards have changed so that unless you remember the "bad" standards we had, then those games pale too much based on the "good and sensible" standards of today.

Anyone who says that is wrong (and I'm sure you weren't saying that M0zart, I'm just making the point).  The standards are different, but not better. 

Let's say I want a game that's really easy to learn and totally impossible to master, that I can play a full game of in 5-20 minutes, that never, ever, ever has a camera angle problem, and that gives me a really robust scoring system.  Now, how would God of War, Halo, or Metroid Prime measure up there?  Meanwhile, if I want a deep story, expansive 3d worlds, and varied environments, weapons, and objectives, how well does Galaga measure up?  They're different sets of standards, but neither is better. 

The thing is, kids today who never played old arcade games aren't aware of how to play that way.  They don't understand scores in games that aren't puzzle games and think that boards cleared and levels passed is the only thing you could ever want to aim for.  The problem certainly isn't that the arcade games standards are retarded, but that the kids today basically are.   

Dang, this kinda makes me feel thankful I was an impressionable little twerp playing NES when everyone else had aging SNES's and Genesises (Geneses? Geni? whatever...), and later a wide eyed eight year old playing Sega Genesis when everyone else already had Nintendo 64's and Playstations.

I read this thing on Wikipedia once that suggested that retrogamers claiming 8-bit and 16-bit games to be the golden age of gaming was due to wanton "romanticism." I find that interesting... if that were the case, any alleged fun of old games must be due to predisposed bias or nostalgia. Take it from someone who had warm fuzzies about Awesome Possum from having played it at the age of seven. Then again, I think there's something wrong with this theory. I am reminded of a year or two ago, when I acquired Atari Anniversary Edition for the Playstation. This had games like Centipede, Tempest, and Asteroids on it. I had remotely heard of these games before, but never actually played them. Never. As in never ever. Therefore I must not have the necessary nostalgia to make me appreciate these outdated and obsolete relics! Or not! Because Asteroids ROCKS, Centipede is maddeningly addictive, and Battlezone is awesome. By virtue of the fact that someone who wasn't even alive in the 80's can say this, then it stands to reason that there are games whose play transcends their soon to be outdated graphics, their limited technology, and their shallow exterior, and then there are players who are themselves to shallow to realize it.