While an 8.2 isn't really a bad score, looking at their negative points of the game is reminiscent of the Pokemon ORAS review, where they cited the game as having "too much water". Now in AA, they put auto-save only and unforgiving manpower system. These things seem to be a trend of knocking good games for troll-like unrealistic exceptions, which amazingly was not a problem previously and isn't really a problem at all. If you look at the COH2 review, they put "evil flamethrowers" and "few new ideas". I guess even then those are pretty stupid too, but I feel like it's getting worse now.
This is important because IGN receives a lot of views, which can impact the flow of new players to the game, which in turn affects how much coh content gets approved for development.
AA Review
COH 2 Review
Pokemon ORAS review
AA the latest victim of IGN
22 Nov 2014, 23:57 PM
#1
Posts: 1158
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
23 Nov 2014, 00:13 AM
#2
Posts: 135
Its Ign its that not respected to begin with
23 Nov 2014, 00:38 AM
#3
Posts: 1384
Their negatives are what make it actually interesting.
23 Nov 2014, 01:11 AM
#4
Posts: 1158
Its Ign its that not respected to begin with
This is so true and it bothers me because they used to have really reliable reviews. If they rated something low, I could usually agree with the low score when I played it.
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
23 Nov 2014, 01:26 AM
#5
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
It has too much water RNG!!
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
23 Nov 2014, 01:27 AM
#6
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
IGN hasn't written an article worth reading in its history, this really shouldn't be surprising. "Should I buy this game?" reviews have always been garbage in general, regardless of who writes them.
23 Nov 2014, 01:33 AM
#7
Posts: 1158
That's a little extreme, Inverse. I guess your experience has been vastly different from mine. I'm curious about your opinion specifically though, regarding ANY review site that is has been helpful at all? I think there has been some games that I decided to play based on reviews, that I would not have played otherwise, and it turned out to be a great decision. IGN's early video Review of Company Heroes is what brought me here in the first place.
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
23 Nov 2014, 01:44 AM
#8
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
Nah, it's not just IGN, 95% of "games journalism" is god-awful. Gamasutra writes some great stuff, and I've read some really good articles on Polygon as well. Tom Chick of Quarter to Three and Jeremy Parish (think he's at Polygon?) do quality work, and I enjoy reading their stuff. I really only followed the games media closely back in the CGW/GFW days when Jeff Green and Shawn Elliott were still writing and hadn't moved over into development yet.
IGN is like Gamespot, their reviews are all about "Should I buy this game?" I hate that shit, it's so pointless. Imagine reading a book review that went over pros and cons, broke things down into paper quality and appearance and pacing and plot all while claiming to be "objective".
If I want to know if a game is worth buying, I'll talk to friends and people I trust who I know share my tastes. If I'm going to read an article on a website, I want it to have some interesting and substantial content. That's why CGW/GFW was so great. Writing like that is pretty rare in gaming these days unfortunately.
EDIT: Some interesting reading on the subject from a lot of big names in games journalism...
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.ca/2008/12/symposium-part-one-review-scores.html
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.ca/2009/02/symposium-part-two-review-policy.html
And an example of a well-written review that is both informative, thought-provoking, and enjoyable to read. This is Shawn Elliott's Review of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071219135933/http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3158131
IGN is like Gamespot, their reviews are all about "Should I buy this game?" I hate that shit, it's so pointless. Imagine reading a book review that went over pros and cons, broke things down into paper quality and appearance and pacing and plot all while claiming to be "objective".
If I want to know if a game is worth buying, I'll talk to friends and people I trust who I know share my tastes. If I'm going to read an article on a website, I want it to have some interesting and substantial content. That's why CGW/GFW was so great. Writing like that is pretty rare in gaming these days unfortunately.
EDIT: Some interesting reading on the subject from a lot of big names in games journalism...
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.ca/2008/12/symposium-part-one-review-scores.html
http://shawnelliott.blogspot.ca/2009/02/symposium-part-two-review-policy.html
And an example of a well-written review that is both informative, thought-provoking, and enjoyable to read. This is Shawn Elliott's Review of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071219135933/http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3158131
23 Nov 2014, 02:09 AM
#9
15 
Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2
I don't think it's a terrible review but I think Relic could do a better job building awareness about their product within their target audience.
Anecdotal point coming up but the following thread is from a general gaming forum, note the lack of information most of the posters have about the current state of the game
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=934396
no
Anecdotal point coming up but the following thread is from a general gaming forum, note the lack of information most of the posters have about the current state of the game
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=934396
Jeremy Parish (think he's at Polygon?)
no
23 Nov 2014, 02:21 AM
#10
Posts: 431
Once again, IGN demonstrates a lack of credibility!
23 Nov 2014, 02:24 AM
#11
Posts: 1158
interesting read. It has certainly left a bad taste when reviewers put their own subjective views into a review. That's something I expect when I ask a friend or someone not getting paid.
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
23 Nov 2014, 02:32 AM
#12
15 Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2
interesting read. It has certainly left a bad taste when reviewers put their own subjective views into a review. That's something I expect when I ask a friend or someone not getting paid.
Reviews are inherently subjective since it's someone's opinion, ultimately did they enjoy playing the game game or not.
There's nothing objective about what an individual finds fun or graphically impressive or how good the sound track is.
23 Nov 2014, 02:38 AM
#13
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
But that's just the thing. It's literally impossible to write an objective review of a piece of entertainment. Anything you can possibly say about a video game that a person would care to read is going to be opinion, and opinion is subjective.
That's why the straight-up consumer report "Should I buy this game?" reviews are so useless. I don't know if they still do now, but I know back 7 or 8 years ago that Gamespot legitimately believed their reviews were objective, and it didn't make any sense at all. I have friends I can ask that question to. When I read a review, I want to read an interesting piece on the game in question by a person who has clearly put a lot of time into writing something stimulating.
The review I linked is a perfect example of this approach. It takes the game and looks at it in a way that you might not have considered yourself and it uses other forms of media and other, similar, games as a springboard for discussing the game and its place in its genre in a new and interesting way. It's exactly what I want in a review: a different and compelling outlook on a game that I'm already interested in. Not a bullet-pointed list of pros and cons constructed in the hopes that I might find it useful when making a buying decision.
That's why the straight-up consumer report "Should I buy this game?" reviews are so useless. I don't know if they still do now, but I know back 7 or 8 years ago that Gamespot legitimately believed their reviews were objective, and it didn't make any sense at all. I have friends I can ask that question to. When I read a review, I want to read an interesting piece on the game in question by a person who has clearly put a lot of time into writing something stimulating.
The review I linked is a perfect example of this approach. It takes the game and looks at it in a way that you might not have considered yourself and it uses other forms of media and other, similar, games as a springboard for discussing the game and its place in its genre in a new and interesting way. It's exactly what I want in a review: a different and compelling outlook on a game that I'm already interested in. Not a bullet-pointed list of pros and cons constructed in the hopes that I might find it useful when making a buying decision.
23 Nov 2014, 05:37 AM
#14
Posts: 395
So Relic releases a mediocre expansion, overcharges for it, and people are pissed that it gets an 8.2?
I bought vCoH on January 3rd, 2007.
Still missing the days of vCoH 1.71. It had it's issues, like paks sniping 57s, and the strafe didn't work, but overall, it was probably the most balanced time in CoH history.
OF ruined that. CoH 2 is....balanced in a nasty way. Everyone has an equal stockpile of gamebreaking bullshit. USA is full of early game BS while the OKW doesn't get its BS until late game. It's just a question of how badly you exploit the faction's shit and how quickly, after a patch, you discover the gaping holes of bullshit Relic leaves. But either way, it's all BS. The only "BS" in vCoH that was gamechanging was the fast m8 vs a bunker.
Still missing the days of vCoH 1.71. It had it's issues, like paks sniping 57s, and the strafe didn't work, but overall, it was probably the most balanced time in CoH history.
OF ruined that. CoH 2 is....balanced in a nasty way. Everyone has an equal stockpile of gamebreaking bullshit. USA is full of early game BS while the OKW doesn't get its BS until late game. It's just a question of how badly you exploit the faction's shit and how quickly, after a patch, you discover the gaping holes of bullshit Relic leaves. But either way, it's all BS. The only "BS" in vCoH that was gamechanging was the fast m8 vs a bunker.
23 Nov 2014, 06:00 AM
#15
4 Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
So Relic releases a mediocre expansion, overcharges for it, and people are pissed that it gets an 8.2?
your opinion
imo, the expansion is great and playing as different companies is really fun. and point system at the end encourages you to play again and beat yourself or others (i think they should add leaderboard. and the rewards you get at the end is a nice touch. really like it. not excellent though. too easy too many times, no tac map? why? etc etc.
 | Playercard of Bo-Bobby Lion | |||||||||||||||
|
23 Nov 2014, 06:25 AM
#16
Posts: 135
that moment when the skins are worth more than the expansion
23 Nov 2014, 07:25 AM
#17
17 Posts: 2838 | Subs: 3
"Victim of IGN"? 
23 Nov 2014, 08:38 AM
#18
Posts: 186
But that's just the thing. It's literally impossible to write an objective review of a piece of entertainment. Anything you can possibly say about a video game that a person would care to read is going to be opinion, and opinion is subjective.
That's why the straight-up consumer report "Should I buy this game?" reviews are so useless. I don't know if they still do now, but I know back 7 or 8 years ago that Gamespot legitimately believed their reviews were objective, and it didn't make any sense at all. I have friends I can ask that question to. When I read a review, I want to read an interesting piece on the game in question by a person who has clearly put a lot of time into writing something stimulating.
The review I linked is a perfect example of this approach. It takes the game and looks at it in a way that you might not have considered yourself and it uses other forms of media and other, similar, games as a springboard for discussing the game and its place in its genre in a new and interesting way. It's exactly what I want in a review: a different and compelling outlook on a game that I'm already interested in. Not a bullet-pointed list of pros and cons constructed in the hopes that I might find it useful when making a buying decision.
Not trying to derail the post but...
Thank you for your insight! Your links were quite interesting read!
I was done with gaming journalism for similar reasons years ago but again thank you for enlightening me.
23 Nov 2014, 10:50 AM
#19
Posts: 656
Their negatives are what make it actually interesting.
I think this really cuts to the core of it. When designing AA relic had very specific goals in mind and didn't compromise on the delivery to make the game more user friendly. They wanted every decision and engagement to matter and the brutal manpower system and auto save only features accomplish this quite well. Playing on hard for the first time and not knowing what was going to happen in each mission coupled with the knowledge that a few bad engagements could deplete my entire company was probably my favorite part of the campaign and made beating it with all my companies intact feel like a real achievement. Those mechanics aren't for everyone however and I can see how it could drive some players away.
I would actually be interested in seeing relic take those mechanics even further next time to create a fully realized rogue-like RTS campaign. If not in CoH2 then maybe in DoW3...
As far as game reviews go I would suggest checking out Rock Paper Shotgun as well.
23 Nov 2014, 16:07 PM
#20
Posts: 1158
That's what easy difficulties are for
29 Jul 2014, 12:16 PM by siuking666:
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
45 | ||
 |
|
|
31 | ||
 |
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
54 | ||
|
|
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
21 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.624225.735+2
- 5.920405.694+4
- 6.276108.719+27
- 7.306114.729+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
597 users are online:
597 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49152
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM