Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
Critique the Critics: which reviews on the site do you disagree with?
The difference is that critique isn’t used in a negative way. It doesn’t imply a negative judgement of a person or thing the way criticise does.
Read the thread title again. Clearly in this case it’s meant to imply exactly that.
I’m well aware of how both words are commonly used, but that doesn’t limit them to only one narrow meaning.
And while we’re at it, “constructive criticism” doesn’t mean “non-negative”. It’s simply criticism stated in such a way as to turn a negative into something positive if heeded.
In any case, that’s just irrelevant semantic quibbling. As I said, the real difference is between criticism and disagreement, which are two inherently different things.
Slightly away from the thread but pertinent I feel.
In looking back at old reviews it is being done with time and experience - perhaps you’ve played the game several times and see/feel new and different things. Also, you’ve matured (hopefully!) and experienced new and different things thus giving a new take on something you thought in the past.
The reviewer, on the other hand, is in the “here and now” and reviews accordingly. I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if reviewers look back at reviews done 1, 2 or more years previously and think about some “hmm. Perhaps not. I now think xxxxxxxx”
Personally I read the reviews and ignore any score. If I can’t get a feel for any game from said review then the reviewer shouldn’t be doing the job. So far I’ve never had that problem here. It doesn’t matter if I think the reviewer has gotten the wrong end of the stick about the game (as far as I’m concerned of course) - what matters to me is that I have an understanding of the game and can make up my own mind whether to go for it or not.
Life is what it is.
If the thread title was to end after “Critique the Critics”, then it would also mean we can mention reviews we agree with, or reviews that we find are quite objective and fair.
That said, I’d like to expand the thread by mentioning some of those:
- The Book of Unwritten Tales - the review makes a great job of underlying the term epic in connection to the game. Sure, perhaps someone would give it less than 4½ stars, but sometimes, there are things that needs to be appreciated and that are not your-typical game elements, like graphics, puzzles, music… and the reviewer clearly wants to reward the authors for their intention to make a lengthy game with plenty of attention to details.
- The Journeyman Project 3 - if someone was to ask me how to start with The Journeyman Project games, I’d tell him to play 2nd or 3rd game first - just like one of the points of this review. I can’t remember now (it’s probably true) if Legacy of Time is the easiest in the series, but it’s definitely the most “accessible”, if only for the bigger gameworld “screen”.
- To the Moon - I’ve played the game after reading the review and didn’t regret it. Everything said in the review, along with the balanced score of 4 stars is justified. I myself have repeated several times that I’m NOT sure how would more interactive gameplay influence the game and, especially its emotional weight, but in the meantime we should “punish” the game for its redundant gameplay, and one star shy of a perfect score seems quite right.
- Ankh - Witty and objective review, and I don’t really see Ankh getting less than 3½ unless you really can’t stand the old-school fun, OR if you’re so picky that you’re looking for an “extremely funny” and in every sense perfect comic adventure.
Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale
I think the AG reviews do a solid job of evaluating “The Good” and “The Bad”. Reviews will always have a small degree of subjectivity because experiencing a game is a personal, unique experience. But by identifying what worked for the reviewer, what didn’t, etc. they can allow the reader to see how his/her tastes and preferences align with those of the reviewer. (This probably doesn’t add anything to the discussion and can be ignored.)
I never really take too much notice of a review score & only really read reviews when I’m teetering on whether to buy a game or not but will then read several reviews from different sites! More often than not, for me, comments on forums are usually the deciding factor!
I have enjoyed playing games with lots of faults which will always obviously be reflected in a review score which I can’t disagree with! The main thing for me is not the score but having a good description & all the pros & cons of a game. A low score won’t put me off as long as the review gives enough info & constructive criticism!
If the thread title was to end after “Critique the Critics”, then it would also mean we can mention reviews we agree with, or reviews that we find are quite objective and fair.
I spent a while hovering over the title thinking about that but ended up with the one I did. If someone asked me to write about the reviews I agreed with there would be HUNDREDS of reviews.
And also, there’s not much you can write. “I agree”. Not very interesting!
And while we’re at it, “constructive criticism” doesn’t mean “non-negative”. It’s simply criticism stated in such a way as to turn a negative into something positive if heeded.
Exactly. The phrase wouldn’t exist if criticism didn’t already imply something negative.
In any case I can agree with you on this:
In any case, that’s just irrelevant semantic quibbling. As I said, the real difference is between criticism and disagreement, which are two inherently different things.
I always mention the Runaway review (4.5 stars and dubbed an “instant classic” 
), so I’ll leave that one alone this time.
I don’t agree with the 5 stars awarded to L.A. Noire, though I admit I haven’t read the review in a good few months. On a gameplay level, the action sequences range from mediocre (shooting, driving) to terrible (stealth, fist fights). The mission structure is extremely repetitive. By far the biggest letdown, though, is the interrogation sequences, which are fundamentally broken as far as I’m concerned. At the very least they’re poorly explained, poorly implemented and you never feel like a top detective while fumbling through them.
On a story level, it felt like a police procedural—Law & Order in the 50s. The fact that it’s a video game didn’t make things any more exciting for me. They attempted to make things more interesting by keeping some important information from the player about the protagonist, but it just felt like a cheap plot device.
...then branched out with The Walking Dead into almost unethical emotional manipulation.
Never heard so much nonsense in my life.
I never get upset at a reviewer not giving my favorite games a good score. I just chalk it up to their idea of a good game being different from mine. Consequently, I’d have to research to find which ones differed a lot from the review I’d have given it. Quite a few of them have gotten short shrift on other sites, so maybe I’m just less critical in general than a reviewer would be. EDIT: I just checked ten of my favorites here and surprisingly all had either not been reviewed or had gotten four or more stars.
As far as the Toonstruck rating goes, sorry to say I agree with it. Toonstruck’s sidekick drove me up the wall and the unfunny conversations were endless. I only played an hour or so until I couldn’t stand it anymore and took it back for a much better game.
I may have been a little older than the target demographic at the time, so I can see how kids would have liked it, although that cow was a bit much and led me to believe it was for an older audience.
Too bad too, because Christopher Lloyd was one of my favorite comic actors.
Seems a lot of people simply have issues with the ratings rather than with the actual reviews.
Seems a lot of people simply have issues with the ratings rather than with the actual reviews.
Which is exactly why the reviews themselves are FAR more important than the rating…
It says a lot about the quality of the reviews, too.
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
Seems a lot of people simply have issues with the ratings rather than with the actual reviews.
Which is exactly why the reviews themselves are FAR more important than the rating…
It says a lot about the quality of the reviews, too.
True, and it also says a lot about our laziness. It’s a lot easier to see a score and say “5 stars? pfffft…” than read the review and compare the reasoning with your own point of view.
Seems a lot of people simply have issues with the ratings rather than with the actual reviews.
Which is exactly why the reviews themselves are FAR more important than the rating…
It says a lot about the quality of the reviews, too.True, and it also says a lot about our laziness. It’s a lot easier to see a score and say “5 stars? pfffft…” than read the review and compare the reasoning with your own point of view.
It’s partly that, but I’d also say that the star-rating is the one that is attached to the game in the database, so it’s more of a long-term thing. I disagree with plenty of reviews but they’re supposed to be subjective; I’d say the stars should be more of an objective decision of quality in this case rather than just a summation of the reviews.
I’d probably give a game like ‘Rhem’ 0.5 stars if I was rating it based on pure enjoyment but it wouldn’t be very illustrative of the game’s quality.
I’ve complained about this before, numerous times, but giving Broken Sword 2 measly two stars is insane - especially when the third game gets 4 stars and the fourth (and incredibly horrible!) game gets 3½ stars. There’s different opinions on whether the first or the second game in the series is the best (personally I love the second just a tiny bit more) but in general I feel they’re both very well received and are perceived as classics.
I guess the major difference between the first and second game is the humor in the second being a bit more lewd and wacky than in the first, but I don’t think it’s so different that if you liked the humor in the first you’ll hate the second (like the reviewer does). The humor is generally very much alike, I find. I also don’t agree with puzzle difficulty being lower in the second game - both games are pretty easy, if you’re a seasoned adventurer. The only major hurdle in any of the two games are the infamous goat puzzle in the first game.
Agreed. I favor the second slightly more than the first aswell, and I don’t really understand how it’s possible to like the one, but not the other.
Nor do I understand why some people claim that the first BS is so much more challenging than the second. They’re both easy! You don’t need to be a seasoned adventurer to get through the first one without much problems: To my surprise, when visiting my parents last week, I found my younger sister playing the Director’s Cut of Shadow of the Templars on her iPad. She has NEVER played an adventure game before, in fact, she’s just about never played any computer games at all. She had come close to the end of the game, and I asked her if she had gotten that far on her own or if she’d been using a walkthrough (I just assumed that someone with no experience with AG’s or gaming in general would have a hard time figuring out what to do), to which she replied: “what’s a walkthrough?”. She had only used the in-game hint system once on one of the word puzzles that’s exclusive to the Director’s Cut. When I told her I was impressed, her response was: “But, it’s really easy!” Granted, she’s more intelligent than the average teenager, but I was still quite impressed.
Kinda funny that I never thought of recommending adventure games to her, I just assumed it wouldn’t be anything she’d be interested in (afterall, she belongs to the “angry birds generation”), but she was instantly hooked on Broken Sword and has allready bought the second game in the series along with Beneath a Steel Sky 
Duckman: Can you believe it? Five hundred bucks for a parking ticket?
Cornfed Pig: You parked in a handicapped zone.
Duckman: Who cares? Nobody parks there anyway, except for the people who are supposed to park there and, hell, I can outrun them anytime.
It’s partly that, but I’d also say that the star-rating is the one that is attached to the game in the database, so it’s more of a long-term thing. I disagree with plenty of reviews but they’re supposed to be subjective; I’d say the stars should be more of an objective decision of quality in this case rather than just a summation of the reviews.
I’d probably give a game like ‘Rhem’ 0.5 stars if I was rating it based on pure enjoyment but it wouldn’t be very illustrative of the game’s quality.
Apparently the reviewers see the rating as the most subjective part, and not as an objective decision of quality.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
