NSFCD

Generally Speaking => Power On => Topic started by: Nayrman on November 11, 2008, 04:51:43 PM

Title: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 11, 2008, 04:51:43 PM
Okay, reading the reviews for Mirror's Edge on gamespot (cuz IGN *sometimes equally as bad* hasn't updated yet), and one of the flaws they said of the game that brought it down a point or two was that "combat and gunplay was weak". Um...are they thick or something? At what point did they think this was a combat/gunshooting type of game? If that's what they thought then they missed the point of the game altogether. X_X;; Not to mention they said the controls were wierd... (they are, but this is the same site that praises the overcompletated-ness of FPS's and RPG's all the time).
This is why I hate all review sites...
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Tupin on November 11, 2008, 06:40:14 PM
The only problem I can find with the game is that you use a shoulder button to jump.

This wouldn't be a problem, but it's mapped to the left shoulder button, directly above the left stick for movement. If it was the right shoulder button or I could map my own controls, it would be perfect.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 11, 2008, 07:19:23 PM
Quote from: Tuppyluver1 on November 11, 2008, 06:40:14 PM
The only problem I can find with the game is that you use a shoulder button to jump.

This wouldn't be a problem, but it's mapped to the left shoulder button, directly above the left stick for movement. If it was the right shoulder button or I could map my own controls, it would be perfect.
even then you get used to it after a while. It certainly doesn't help but it doesn't kill the game. Just takes a bit of a learning curve.
Update: IGN says the exact same crap as Gamespot does. "ZOMG I can't shoot ppl WAAAAA!". Seriously, did they miss the point of the game entirely? You're not supposed to fight if you don't have to, and you're playing a skinny asian chick...of course it'd be hard to take out those guys. *sigh* Well, this is why I don't listen to review sites. After all, you can't spell ignorance without IGN XD
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Tupin on November 11, 2008, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 11, 2008, 07:19:23 PM
Quote from: Tuppyluver1 on November 11, 2008, 06:40:14 PM
The only problem I can find with the game is that you use a shoulder button to jump.

This wouldn't be a problem, but it's mapped to the left shoulder button, directly above the left stick for movement. If it was the right shoulder button or I could map my own controls, it would be perfect.
even then you get used to it after a while. It certainly doesn't help but it doesn't kill the game. Just takes a bit of a learning curve.
Update: IGN says the exact same crap as Gamespot does. "ZOMG I can't shoot ppl WAAAAA!". Seriously, did they miss the point of the game entirely? You're not supposed to fight if you don't have to, and you're playing a skinny asian chick...of course it'd be hard to take out those guys. *sigh* Well, this is why I don't listen to review sites. After all, you can't spell ignorance without IGN XD
It's not an FPS, you should be able to tell by how agile Faith is that you probably aren't supposed to be spending your time shooting things.

Also, can't wait for the comic.

They gave it a 7.3/7.4, yet it's on every aspect of their site? They gave World at War at 9.2 and they barely mention it.

The British site gave it an 8.3, so that's slightly better.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Super on November 11, 2008, 08:47:47 PM
Gamespot does fail.


They rated that game too high.



Bastards.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Indigo on November 11, 2008, 11:48:02 PM
People are so often left behind of what true amazement's they so oftenly neglect in a sad attempt to sometimes show what they can not admit, and are not pleased with simple pleasures through games.

Translation: People do not appreciate revolutionary concepts; nor do many feel happy it got what it got.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Mutilator7 on November 15, 2008, 08:53:31 AM
Maybe the person who submitted the review never played the game
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Triforceman22 on November 15, 2008, 09:03:01 AM
I thought you said you go by reviews to buy the game Nayr.....  D=

anyways, that's way too low for Mirror's Edge....

Gamespot Sucks.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 09:14:52 AM
Quote from: Triforceman22 on November 15, 2008, 09:03:01 AM
I thought you said you go by reviews to buy the game Nayr.....  D=

anyways, that's way too low for Mirror's Edge....

Gamespot Sucks.
I've said only if it's a consensus among a fairly large group. If every place says it's a terrible game, then it probably is. *looking at you Sonic 06, despite GameInformer giving it a freaking six when it's a four at best*
Although missing the point of the game in it's entirety is no excuse for something like this. X_X;;
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: L10 on November 15, 2008, 09:35:58 AM
Those sites are paid to give good reviews. Games are always being over rated.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Lichig0 on November 15, 2008, 09:35:58 AM
Those sites are paid to give good reviews. Games are always being over rated.
Gamespot actuall tried to fire a guy for giving a game a bad review when the company had sponsored them...
Which is why they're my least trustworthy, with GameInformer coming in a VERY close second (they're nothing but graphics whores)
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: L10 on November 15, 2008, 09:42:50 AM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Lichig0 on November 15, 2008, 09:35:58 AM
Those sites are paid to give good reviews. Games are always being over rated.
Gamespot actuall tried to fire a guy for giving a game a bad review when the company had sponsored them...
Which is why they're my least trustworthy, with GameInformer coming in a VERY close second (they're nothing but graphics whores)
My point. The only way you can tell is from other people that have played it, or reputation from the company's games.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Tupin on November 15, 2008, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Lichig0 on November 15, 2008, 09:35:58 AM
Those sites are paid to give good reviews. Games are always being over rated.
Gamespot actuall tried to fire a guy for giving a game a bad review when the company had sponsored them...
Which is why they're my least trustworthy, with GameInformer coming in a VERY close second (they're nothing but graphics whores)
GameInformer IS owned by Gamestop...

Oh, and they DID fire him. They almost got sued, but they have lots of lawyers.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Java on November 15, 2008, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: Tuppyluver1 on November 15, 2008, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Lichig0 on November 15, 2008, 09:35:58 AM
Those sites are paid to give good reviews. Games are always being over rated.
Gamespot actuall tried to fire a guy for giving a game a bad review when the company had sponsored them...
Which is why they're my least trustworthy, with GameInformer coming in a VERY close second (they're nothing but graphics whores)
GameInformer IS owned by Gamestop...

Oh, and they DID fire him. They almost got sued, but they have lots of lawyers.
GameStop or GameSpot?
I'm so confused...  D=
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 01:44:12 PM
Quote from: Java_Java on November 15, 2008, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: Tuppyluver1 on November 15, 2008, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Lichig0 on November 15, 2008, 09:35:58 AM
Those sites are paid to give good reviews. Games are always being over rated.
Gamespot actuall tried to fire a guy for giving a game a bad review when the company had sponsored them...
Which is why they're my least trustworthy, with GameInformer coming in a VERY close second (they're nothing but graphics whores)
GameInformer IS owned by Gamestop...

Oh, and they DID fire him. They almost got sued, but they have lots of lawyers.
GameStop or GameSpot?
I'm so confused...  D=
GameSPOT is it's own website,
GameSTOP (the store) owns GameInformer (and trust me GameInformer SUCKS. Nothing but graphics whores who bow down to everything on the Xbox. ZOMG HALO 3 TEH GRATEST GAME EVRRRRR! *despite Gears of War, CoD4, and Resistance are all better FPS's*)
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Tupin on November 15, 2008, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 01:44:12 PM
Quote from: Java_Java on November 15, 2008, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: Tuppyluver1 on November 15, 2008, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 15, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Lichig0 on November 15, 2008, 09:35:58 AM
Those sites are paid to give good reviews. Games are always being over rated.
Gamespot actuall tried to fire a guy for giving a game a bad review when the company had sponsored them...
Which is why they're my least trustworthy, with GameInformer coming in a VERY close second (they're nothing but graphics whores)
GameInformer IS owned by Gamestop...

Oh, and they DID fire him. They almost got sued, but they have lots of lawyers.
GameStop or GameSpot?
I'm so confused...  D=
GameSPOT is it's own website,
GameSTOP (the store) owns GameInformer (and trust me GameInformer SUCKS. Nothing but graphics whores who bow down to everything on the Xbox. ZOMG HALO 3 TEH GRATEST GAME EVRRRRR! *despite Gears of War, CoD4, and Resistance are all better FPS's*)
They have only had like one or two Nintendo games on their covers in their history.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Friendly Hostile on November 15, 2008, 10:30:39 PM
Hey guys, I have a great idea:

Instead of relying on some reviewer to tell you how good a game is by assigning it a number on an arbitrary scale, perhaps you could go out and rent it and try it yourself, and form an opinion on your own.  But hwy would you ever want to do that?
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Java on November 16, 2008, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on November 15, 2008, 10:30:39 PM
Hey guys, I have a great idea:

Instead of relying on some reviewer to tell you how good a game is by assigning it a number on an arbitrary scale, perhaps you could go out and rent it and try it yourself, and form an opinion on your own.  But hwy would you ever want to do that?
Because it costs money.  :-X

Either way, doesn't really matter to me.
I usually just buy the games I know I'm gonna want.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 16, 2008, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on November 15, 2008, 10:30:39 PM
Hey guys, I have a great idea:

Instead of relying on some reviewer to tell you how good a game is by assigning it a number on an arbitrary scale, perhaps you could go out and rent it and try it yourself, and form an opinion on your own.  But hwy would you ever want to do that?
No rental stores and places like Gametap don't deliver to college dorms since we don't have individual mailboxes.
I usually download free demo's of the PSN, but the Wii (of course) has no such service
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Friendly Hostile on November 16, 2008, 10:51:29 PM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 16, 2008, 10:10:22 AM
No rental stores and places like Gametap don't deliver to college dorms since we don't have individual mailboxes.
I usually download free demo's of the PSN, but the Wii (of course) has no such service
You can't get off your ass and go to a video rental store?
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Tupin on November 17, 2008, 05:27:04 AM
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on November 16, 2008, 10:51:29 PM
Quote from: Nayrman on November 16, 2008, 10:10:22 AM
No rental stores and places like Gametap don't deliver to college dorms since we don't have individual mailboxes.
I usually download free demo's of the PSN, but the Wii (of course) has no such service
You can't get off your ass and go to a video rental store?
I find it hard to believe there is a single town that has a college in America that doesn't have a video rental store.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 17, 2008, 07:12:36 AM
There aren't any near me I just said jeez.
And NO THERE AREN"T I"VE LOOKED. The closest is near perimiter mall which is about 15-20 minutes away and like hell I'm going all the way out there just to rent something...
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Friendly Hostile on November 17, 2008, 12:23:03 PM
Jesus Christ you're lazy.  15-20 minutes is not that long or far away.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: L10 on November 17, 2008, 01:16:28 PM
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on November 17, 2008, 12:23:03 PM
Jesus Christ you're lazy.  15-20 minutes is not that long or far away.
15-20 minutes is close where I live.
Title: Re: Further proof gamespot fails...
Post by: Nayrman on November 17, 2008, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on November 17, 2008, 12:23:03 PM
Jesus Christ you're lazy.  15-20 minutes is not that long or far away.
Not in mid-town Atlanta traffic X_X;;