I'm not going to sit here and say "that review is bullshit! he clearly liked the game! what the fuck does he know about his own opinion?!". He didn't like it, that's fine. He made what seem like some very valid points and there's no reason to attack him for them when none of us have played the game.
I have to say that I'm in the camp that believes that being able to block an alien as a marine is a bit silly.
Tube on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
I have played the avp demo more than the total time I played mw2. I have not had this much fun with a shooter in years. The controllers are awesome and the rock/paper/scissors combat is awesome.
Ashdrake on
I hunt monsters because I need weapons. I need weapons because I hunt monsters.
I'm getting it on 360, but still, I found the demo very fun and some of the points he's making are directly contradictory to my own experience.
Don't get me wrong, he's a professional reviewer, and I'm not bashing the guy directly. I just happen to disagree with some of his statements. Bottom line, I had a great time with the demo, I can appreciate the design decisions they made in this game, and I'm still gonna buy it this week.
I'll be playing multiplayer most of the time anyway. I'll go through the campaigns once to unlock some skins, and promptly never touch it again because I'll be busy gutting fools on xbl.
Hiryu02 on
Sev: Your gameplay is the most heavily yomi based around. Usually you look for characters that allow you to force guessing situations for big dmg. Even if the guess is mathematically nowhere near in your favor lol. You're happiest when you have either a 50/50, 33/33/33 or even a 75/25 situation to go crazy with. And you will take big risks to force those situations to come up.
I have played the avp demo more than the total time I played mw2. I have not had this much fun with a shooter in years. The controllers are awesome and the rock/paper/scissors combat is awesome.
I'm pretty much in the same boat.
It starting to sound like AvP might be a love it or hate it game.
Once I turned off Vsync, I thought the game performed fine. The only thing that was bad about it was the full on retarded decision to display FFA deathmatch instead of species deathmatch for the demo's game mode. Also, the marine being able to melee Alien's thing as well. Whacking an alien with your gun should result in the Alien patting you condescendingly on the head before putting his tail through your chest.
I have played the avp demo more than the total time I played mw2. I have not had this much fun with a shooter in years. The controllers are awesome and the rock/paper/scissors combat is awesome.
I'm pretty much in the same boat.
It starting to sound like AvP might be a love it or hate it game.
Also, the line about the incessant beeping of the motion tracker is goddamn stupid. It's not very loud or shrill, just a sort of dull blip sound when nothing's around. And it's amazingly atmospheric. Walking slowly along, then hearing the tell tale sound of movement on your tracker and trying to spin around and see where it's coming from. A complaint like that tells me that a lot of the bad score derives from the guys personal bias.
I played the full version on the weekend (go go early releases) and it is no where near a 5.5 game. Not perfect marks, but easily a high 8 range, maybe mid 7 if you didnt like it. There are no glaring flaws, it's pretty enough, captures a lot of the feel of the franchise and fucking Survivor mode (human vs alien waves) is almost worth buying the thing for alone. Cant comment on multi since I only played demo of it (no servers for full version up yet), but Id still buy it based on the single player options alone and can say taht a 5.5 review is complete bullshit. Probably upset they didnt give hima free collectors edition or some shit.
I have played the avp demo more than the total time I played mw2. I have not had this much fun with a shooter in years. The controllers are awesome and the rock/paper/scissors combat is awesome.
I'm pretty much in the same boat.
It starting to sound like AvP might be a love it or hate it game.
I think the original was pretty widely respected. Opinion on the second game was split into two groups; people who thought it was terrible and people who were wrong.
Tomorrow morning I begin downloading it on steam, and shortly after we shall see. But I thoroughly enjoyed the demo and like someone else said, I've played it as much as MW2 if not more, and DM is the worst game mode in AVP, so that says a lot. Perhaps it will be love it or hate it, seems that way right now.
Yeah, to be fair I never play multiplayer anything. Any time I say that I didn't like a game go ahead and assume that the multiplayer is excused. I don't even play Left 4 Dead multiplayer. I played Team Fortress 2 single player. For those who haven't played it, that means I played the tutorial.
Tube on
0
Options
ZephosClimbin in yo ski lifts, snatchin your people up.MichiganRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
Meh, no matter the reviews i'm still going to be going at midnight to the walmarts to see if i can pick it up.
Reviewers are a joke these days. They all spout the same formulaic shit using long syllabic words that aren't nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I know everything I need to know from the demo and the multiplayer alone is enough to make me buy the game.
These days with the wealth of streaming video around if you don't know what a game is going to play like from a gameplay video then maybe you're the type of person who needs a review.
I have no problem with reviews. I understand they are largely subjective but they often enough get at real issues with games. Saying reviewing games is pointless is the same as saying reviewing anything is pointless. Sometimes a lot of people don't like games that you do like, it happens.
Reviewers are a joke these days. They are spout the same formulaic shit using long syllabic words that aren't nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I know everything I need to know from the demo and the multiplayer alone is enough to make me buy the game.
These days with the wealth of streaming video around if you don't know what a game is going to play like from a gameplay video then maybe you're the type of person who needs a review.
Reviews are not a joke. I like a healthy community for the game to thrive in. 5.5 reviews mean less folks buying the game. I want lots of people to experaince my tail love.
Ashdrake on
I hunt monsters because I need weapons. I need weapons because I hunt monsters.
I don't read reviews so I wouldn't know. They're not a form of criticism that I find particularly useful, as I buy games based on whether they sound interesting to me. Sometimes that leads to duds, sometimes to diamonds. That doesn't make reviews "shitty", it makes them "not to my taste". I've never felt the need to get super duper angry at some guy for not liking the game I like. On the occasions that I do read reviews and get annoyed with them, it's less to do with the score and more (as with the game informer review) with how bafflingly badly written some of them are.
Reviewers are a joke these days. They all spout the same formulaic shit using long syllabic words that aren't nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I know everything I need to know from the demo and the multiplayer alone is enough to make me buy the game.
These days with the wealth of streaming video around if you don't know what a game is going to play like from a gameplay video then maybe you're the type of person who needs a review.
I'd say that making your choice only on trailers/videos is also foolish. The excitement provided by videos is largely dependent on the strength of the marketing team. Videos put out by the company won't show you bland repetitive level design, bad controls, gamebreaking bugs or general lack of polish.
Maybe you are a kind of a sheep if you base your purchase of a game solely on videos crafted by marketing people.
OHMYGODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD someone brought out the "s" word.
Anyway, Metacritic is taken far too seriously in the gaming world. Now publishers are starting to give bonuses to companies that make "good" games and how is that decided? Via Metacritic score. It's why G4 had Metacritic remove all of their rankings because they felt that their 2/5 is not equivalent to a 40, and that they were actually hurting game developers by giving their honest opinions.
So, having replayed the demo, I'm wary about the PC version again. If I buy it, and the only way for me to actually be able to play it is to turn off my soundcard in the BIOS, I will kill someone
I'd say that making your choice only on trailers/videos is also foolish. The excitement provided by videos is largely dependent on the strength of the marketing team. Videos put out by the company won't show you bland repetitive level design, bad controls, gamebreaking bugs or general lack of polish.
Maybe you are a kind of a sheep if you base your purchase of a game solely on videos crafted by marketing people.
Between Giantbomb and Gametrailers, there's plenty of non-marketing game footage for big games to show you what the gameplay is like. I do this too - reviews generally don't tell me anything helpful in deciding if I will like the game. Some of the games in my collection have been average or even bad going by even aggregate reviews. One of my favorite games this gen? HAWX. I had an absolute blast going through the campaign co-op. It's metacritic score is 73, or average.
I bought it because I played the demo and watched some gameplay footage, and liked what I saw.
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
1UP The online play -- particularly co-op -- gives HAWX significant replayability. Everything from the picture-perfect planes to the stunning real world environments looks great, even after multiple passes.
GameSpot
This arcade-style aerial-combat game has plenty to offer those flying solo, but it doesn't offer much in the way of competitive multiplayer content.
I'd say that making your choice only on trailers/videos is also foolish. The excitement provided by videos is largely dependent on the strength of the marketing team. Videos put out by the company won't show you bland repetitive level design, bad controls, gamebreaking bugs or general lack of polish.
Maybe you are a kind of a sheep if you base your purchase of a game solely on videos crafted by marketing people.
Between Giantbomb and Gametrailers, there's plenty of non-marketing game footage for big games to show you what the gameplay is like. I do this too - reviews generally don't tell me anything helpful in deciding if I will like the game. Some of the games in my collection have been average or even bad going by even aggregate reviews. One of my favorite games this gen? HAWX. I had an absolute blast going through the campaign co-op. It's metacritic score is 73, or average.
I bought it because I played the demo and watched some gameplay footage, and liked what I saw.
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
1UP The online play -- particularly co-op -- gives HAWX significant replayability. Everything from the picture-perfect planes to the stunning real world environments looks great, even after multiple passes.
GameSpot
This arcade-style aerial-combat game has plenty to offer those flying solo, but it doesn't offer much in the way of competitive multiplayer content.
It's called an opinion. Remember that all reviews boil down to one guy getting paid to say what he thinks about a game. Guy A likes the multiplayer, but Guy B may hate it
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
1UP The online play -- particularly co-op -- gives HAWX significant replayability. Everything from the picture-perfect planes to the stunning real world environments looks great, even after multiple passes.
GameSpot
This arcade-style aerial-combat game has plenty to offer those flying solo, but it doesn't offer much in the way of competitive multiplayer content.
I don't understand. What's wrong with that? The two reviewers had differing opinions on the re-playability of a game.
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
1UP The online play -- particularly co-op -- gives HAWX significant replayability. Everything from the picture-perfect planes to the stunning real world environments looks great, even after multiple passes.
GameSpot
This arcade-style aerial-combat game has plenty to offer those flying solo, but it doesn't offer much in the way of competitive multiplayer content.
I don't understand. What's wrong with that? The two reviewers had differing opinions on the re-playability of a game.
I think it does a good job of illustrating why basing your game-buying decision on a review is a bad idea.
Remington on
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
1UP The online play -- particularly co-op -- gives HAWX significant replayability. Everything from the picture-perfect planes to the stunning real world environments looks great, even after multiple passes.
GameSpot
This arcade-style aerial-combat game has plenty to offer those flying solo, but it doesn't offer much in the way of competitive multiplayer content.
I don't understand. What's wrong with that? The two reviewers had differing opinions on the re-playability of a game.
Well, they're giving conflicting opinions on the multiplayer, to the point that it sounds like they're reviewing different games. It's like 'there's lots of multiplayer content' and 'there's hardly any multiplayer content'. Which is it?
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
1UP The online play -- particularly co-op -- gives HAWX significant replayability. Everything from the picture-perfect planes to the stunning real world environments looks great, even after multiple passes.
GameSpot
This arcade-style aerial-combat game has plenty to offer those flying solo, but it doesn't offer much in the way of competitive multiplayer content.
I don't understand. What's wrong with that? The two reviewers had differing opinions on the re-playability of a game.
I think it does a good job of illustrating why basing your game-buying decision on a review is a bad idea.
Pretty much. There is a demo of AvP out and I suggest you play it. If you like it then you will like the final game since the demo is of an old build. If you didn't like the demo you wouldn't like the game.
I'm in the camp that will usually give reviewers enough credit to pick out duds. While I'm cynical enough to say they'll lick up anything with more than two A's attached to it, I'm not so cynical to expect them to enjoy the worst of the worst (if it isn't AAA). They warned me about TimeShift, but I did not listen. They warned me about BlackSite, and I paid no mind.
Now they warn me about AVP? Opinions be damned, I'll ignore them again!
Even though they were right about how the above mentioned games just sucked.
They only fault I've found with the multiplayer is that I can't play well. When folks complain about controls, I often find they just suck at it, much like myself. I've seen good enough players to recognize that if you get the controls working, you can do real cool things with the game.
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
1UP The online play -- particularly co-op -- gives HAWX significant replayability. Everything from the picture-perfect planes to the stunning real world environments looks great, even after multiple passes.
GameSpot
This arcade-style aerial-combat game has plenty to offer those flying solo, but it doesn't offer much in the way of competitive multiplayer content.
I don't understand. What's wrong with that? The two reviewers had differing opinions on the re-playability of a game.
I think it does a good job of illustrating why basing your game-buying decision on a review is a bad idea.
I can definitely agree with that. Unless you're in-tune with a particular reviewer's tastes, I wouldn't rely too much on another person's opinion about a game. A round of reviews, a demo or two, and streamed videos can offer an approximation of how well you might like a game, but nothing is as definitive as playing the game yourself.
Well, they're giving conflicting opinions on the multiplayer, to the point that it sounds like they're reviewing different games. It's like 'there's lots of multiplayer content' and 'there's hardly any multiplayer content'. Which is it?
Conflicting opinions are okay, though. These are subjective views, not facts, they're dealing in. "Which is it?" coincides with Remington's point about reviews, but it doesn't mean the reviews are inherently wrong or incorrect.
Reviewers are a joke these days. They all spout the same formulaic shit using long syllabic words that aren't nearly as intelligent as they think they are. I know everything I need to know from the demo and the multiplayer alone is enough to make me buy the game.
These days with the wealth of streaming video around if you don't know what a game is going to play like from a gameplay video then maybe you're the type of person who needs a review.
I'd say that making your choice only on trailers/videos is also foolish. The excitement provided by videos is largely dependent on the strength of the marketing team. Videos put out by the company won't show you bland repetitive level design, bad controls, gamebreaking bugs or general lack of polish.
Maybe you are a kind of a sheep if you base your purchase of a game solely on videos crafted by marketing people.
I didn't say trailers/videos. I said gameplay video. There is a specific difference between a video that's tweaked and edited to make the game look more enticing and actual footage of how the game plays.
But of course just video may not be enough, so there's screenshots, feature lists and demos. The review itself is rarely informative or helpful in coming up with your own opinion. All you get is how some random guy that OD's on video games every day and how he experienced the game.
I don't know, I've just never seen a review help me make up my mind on a video game. I'm sure many others have.
Pacifist on
XBL: Pacifist NJ
0
Options
ZephosClimbin in yo ski lifts, snatchin your people up.MichiganRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
I like checking out reviews, but I never solely base a purchase on them. I mean for the love of god, i enjoy hunting and fishing games and they never get a decent review anymore.
This game has always been a no brainer for me. Hence why I'll truck my ass off at midnight to see if I can get my grubby claws on a copy.
Posts
I have to say that I'm in the camp that believes that being able to block an alien as a marine is a bit silly.
BLAP BLAP BLAP BLAP
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1068446p1.html
I have played the avp demo more than the total time I played mw2. I have not had this much fun with a shooter in years. The controllers are awesome and the rock/paper/scissors combat is awesome.
Don't get me wrong, he's a professional reviewer, and I'm not bashing the guy directly. I just happen to disagree with some of his statements. Bottom line, I had a great time with the demo, I can appreciate the design decisions they made in this game, and I'm still gonna buy it this week.
I'll be playing multiplayer most of the time anyway. I'll go through the campaigns once to unlock some skins, and promptly never touch it again because I'll be busy gutting fools on xbl.
I'm pretty much in the same boat.
It starting to sound like AvP might be a love it or hate it game.
Called it.
Yeah I think the guy's probably pretty on target. In contrast to the GI review where the dude complained about the presence of the motion sensor.
I like the demo enough and found the PC version cheap enough that I think I'd be perfectly happy with it even if I never touched the single player.
Weren't the last two AvP games polarizing, too?
I think the original was pretty widely respected. Opinion on the second game was split into two groups; people who thought it was terrible and people who were wrong.
If this game gets close to emulating the awesome AvP2 multiplayer that I'm playing now, I'll have lots of fun
These days with the wealth of streaming video around if you don't know what a game is going to play like from a gameplay video then maybe you're the type of person who needs a review.
Reviews are not a joke. I like a healthy community for the game to thrive in. 5.5 reviews mean less folks buying the game. I want lots of people to experaince my tail love.
Game gets <7.0: "Game reviews are bullshit. Don't listen to them."
I'd say that making your choice only on trailers/videos is also foolish. The excitement provided by videos is largely dependent on the strength of the marketing team. Videos put out by the company won't show you bland repetitive level design, bad controls, gamebreaking bugs or general lack of polish.
Maybe you are a kind of a sheep if you base your purchase of a game solely on videos crafted by marketing people.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Anyway, Metacritic is taken far too seriously in the gaming world. Now publishers are starting to give bonuses to companies that make "good" games and how is that decided? Via Metacritic score. It's why G4 had Metacritic remove all of their rankings because they felt that their 2/5 is not equivalent to a 40, and that they were actually hurting game developers by giving their honest opinions.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Between Giantbomb and Gametrailers, there's plenty of non-marketing game footage for big games to show you what the gameplay is like. I do this too - reviews generally don't tell me anything helpful in deciding if I will like the game. Some of the games in my collection have been average or even bad going by even aggregate reviews. One of my favorite games this gen? HAWX. I had an absolute blast going through the campaign co-op. It's metacritic score is 73, or average.
I bought it because I played the demo and watched some gameplay footage, and liked what I saw.
edit - just looking at 2 reviews from big name review sites for HAWX on metacritic shows what's wrong with game reviews.
what is the "sexuality" that the rating says this game has? Do the marines somehow decide they have time to get naked?
*EDIT*
Suggestive Themes, my bad. Still.
Well, it could be the whole 'aliens are rape monsters' thing.
It's called an opinion. Remember that all reviews boil down to one guy getting paid to say what he thinks about a game. Guy A likes the multiplayer, but Guy B may hate it
I don't understand. What's wrong with that? The two reviewers had differing opinions on the re-playability of a game.
I think it does a good job of illustrating why basing your game-buying decision on a review is a bad idea.
Well, they're giving conflicting opinions on the multiplayer, to the point that it sounds like they're reviewing different games. It's like 'there's lots of multiplayer content' and 'there's hardly any multiplayer content'. Which is it?
Pretty much. There is a demo of AvP out and I suggest you play it. If you like it then you will like the final game since the demo is of an old build. If you didn't like the demo you wouldn't like the game.
I never asked for this!
Now they warn me about AVP? Opinions be damned, I'll ignore them again!
Even though they were right about how the above mentioned games just sucked.
They only fault I've found with the multiplayer is that I can't play well. When folks complain about controls, I often find they just suck at it, much like myself. I've seen good enough players to recognize that if you get the controls working, you can do real cool things with the game.
I can definitely agree with that. Unless you're in-tune with a particular reviewer's tastes, I wouldn't rely too much on another person's opinion about a game. A round of reviews, a demo or two, and streamed videos can offer an approximation of how well you might like a game, but nothing is as definitive as playing the game yourself.
Conflicting opinions are okay, though. These are subjective views, not facts, they're dealing in. "Which is it?" coincides with Remington's point about reviews, but it doesn't mean the reviews are inherently wrong or incorrect.
I didn't say trailers/videos. I said gameplay video. There is a specific difference between a video that's tweaked and edited to make the game look more enticing and actual footage of how the game plays.
But of course just video may not be enough, so there's screenshots, feature lists and demos. The review itself is rarely informative or helpful in coming up with your own opinion. All you get is how some random guy that OD's on video games every day and how he experienced the game.
I don't know, I've just never seen a review help me make up my mind on a video game. I'm sure many others have.
This game has always been a no brainer for me. Hence why I'll truck my ass off at midnight to see if I can get my grubby claws on a copy.