Polarized reviews

[Oblarg]

Just was wondering what people think is the reason for the polarization of the reviews. From what we've seen, the European reviews are all fairly positive, and the American reviews are all pretty critical.

 

I really have no clue why there's such a big gap. It's as if the reviewers aren't playing the same game.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Well, I can't comment on Euro vs. American because I don't think the current evidence supports that distinction in review scores.

 

My running theory is as follows:

Reviewers who consider the choices and customization to be the 'substance' of the game like it.

 

Reviewers who consider the TPS experience to be the 'substance' of the game dislike it.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Three games that I can think of at the moment that were bashed universally that I really liked were Too Human, Shellshock 2: Blood Trails and Deadly Premonition.

 

All three games were flawed, yet I was able to see past those flaws and enjoy the games for what they were.

 

Some of my favorite games of all time have been given less than stellar review scores, therefore I don't trust the "professional", corporate reviews, or even a majority of user reviews for that matter.

 

I haven't played AP yet, and I won't until Tuesday, June 1, so I can't say with any certainty that I will like or dislike the game. However, since there is a chance that I will like AP, I'm going to pick it up and give it a shot.

[Niten_Ryu]

Just was wondering what people think is the reason for the polarization of the reviews. From what we've seen, the European reviews are all fairly positive, and the American reviews are all pretty critical.

 

I really have no clue why there's such a big gap. It's as if the reviewers aren't playing the same game.

 

Many of the EU game reviewers are old PC gamers from the era when you had to manually edit config.sys and autoexec.bat just to play the games. So they do have high tolerance for the design issues, as well as bugs. They do notice 'em, but don't drop score as much as in the new country.

[Libertarian]

Three games that I can think of at the moment that were bashed universally that I really liked were Too Human, Shellshock 2: Blood Trails and Deadly Premonition.

 

All three games were flawed, yet I was able to see past those flaws and enjoy the games for what they were.

 

Some of my favorite games of all time have been given less than stellar review scores, therefore I don't trust the "professional", corporate reviews, or even a majority of user reviews for that matter.

 

I haven't played AP yet, and I won't until Tuesday, June 1, so I can't say with any certainty that I will like or dislike the game. However, since there is a chance that I will like AP, I'm going to pick it up and give it a shot.

 

I remember you from the Xbox.com forums. Didn't you have a Condemned avatar?

 

Anyways, Too Human was very solid and I really enjoyed it. The difficulty spikes were pretty insane, though.

 

And I love Deadly Premonition! Weirdest and most awesome game in a while, I say.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Three games that I can think of at the moment that were bashed universally that I really liked were Too Human, Shellshock 2: Blood Trails and Deadly Premonition.

 

All three games were flawed, yet I was able to see past those flaws and enjoy the games for what they were.

 

Some of my favorite games of all time have been given less than stellar review scores, therefore I don't trust the "professional", corporate reviews, or even a majority of user reviews for that matter.

 

I haven't played AP yet, and I won't until Tuesday, June 1, so I can't say with any certainty that I will like or dislike the game. However, since there is a chance that I will like AP, I'm going to pick it up and give it a shot.

 

I remember you from the Xbox.com forums. Didn't you have a Condemned avatar?

 

Anyways, Too Human was very solid and I really enjoyed it. The difficulty spikes were pretty insane, though.

 

And I love Deadly Premonition! Weirdest and most awesome game in a while, I say.

 

For a very long time, yes, I did have a Condemned gamerpic.

[Shinaju]

Reviews are all very subjective, or sometimes they give good reviews base on hype and the developers or publishers. Normally I just look at the flaw of the game, if I don't mind it, I won't mind giving it a try, even if it scores 5/10. One example is The Last Remnant, its a JRPG, and some if not most people in the west hate JRPGs with a passion. So they give low score. Although I agree the game was flawed, but also because of that flaw, the game score even lower than average flawed games. The PC version fixed almost all problems, and includes lots of improvements and addition for the game, yet they don't even care about the effort and depth they put into the game to improve it, and just find another flaw and call that game breaking.

 

Culture affect the way people see a game. I don't know much about how European like their game, I do think that Americans like their game with great graphics and production value over gameplay or depth. And AP is defin lacking in graphics and production values.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Shinaju

[zkylon]

I think it's not just a big deal of how much harsh treatement AP got, but how brand name games get away with murder.

[edgarcuk]

Just was wondering what people think is the reason for the polarization of the reviews. From what we've seen, the European reviews are all fairly positive, and the American reviews are all pretty critical.

 

I really have no clue why there's such a big gap. It's as if the reviewers aren't playing the same game.

 

Many of the EU game reviewers are old PC gamers from the era when you had to manually edit config.sys and autoexec.bat just to play the games. So they do have high tolerance for the design issues, as well as bugs. They do notice 'em, but don't drop score as much as in the new country.

 

Not quite right, if you read the european reviews, they praise the RPG elements, not the graphics. In fact, the graphics are not that bad and it's not even old PC's, the european gamers value the game's "essence", not the presentation, of course the graphics matters but that doesn't automatically make a game good or bad, once you play the game and feel that "essence" you decide if it good or bad

 

Here, 3D television is ready for the worldcup and there are football matches already broadcasted in 3D.(as a technological reference)

Edited May 30, 2010 by edgarcuk

[edgarcuk]

Just was wondering what people think is the reason for the polarization of the reviews. From what we've seen, the European reviews are all fairly positive, and the American reviews are all pretty critical.

 

I really have no clue why there's such a big gap. It's as if the reviewers aren't playing the same game.

 

Many of the EU game reviewers are old PC gamers from the era when you had to manually edit config.sys and autoexec.bat just to play the games. So they do have high tolerance for the design issues, as well as bugs. They do notice 'em, but don't drop score as much as in the new country.

 

Not quite right, if you read the european reviews, they praise the RPG elements, not the graphics. In fact, the graphics are not that bad and it's not even old PC's, the european gamers value the game's "essence", not the presentation, of course the graphics matters but that doesn't automatically make a game good or bad, once you play the game and feel that "essence" you decide if it good or bad

 

Here, 3D television is ready for the worldcup and there are football matches already broadcasted in 3D.(as a technological reference)

 

 

 

In Xbox, the game is playable with no major issues. From the American reviews, they give too much credit to the looks first, then the game itself. But as one OP mentioned, they back up more titles with a big marketing campaign and even if they note bugs and glitches, they usually minimise them...