What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
Treguard
Posts: 2392
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:13 am

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by Treguard » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:10 am

LAIS wrote:Wolfenstein The New Order - Got mostly middling reviews from the gaming press, but for me it was one of the best games of 2014. It created a world rich with story and intrigue, and the mechanics were excellent too. Hoping we'll see a sequel.

WWE Crush Hour - Was absolutely mauled by magazines at the time, but it was perfectly playable. I'm not saying it was gaming perfection, but it was fun enough.

Casper (PS1) - there aren't enough games about where you play a ghost. Lots of fun possibilities, and a lot of them were explored here. A very underrated title for me.

Crash Bandicoot The Wrath of Cortex - The loading times were ridiculous, but this was a solid game. The last good Crash Bandicoot game for me.
I once did a review of WWE Crush Hour which ended with me setting it on fire and running it over. It is that bad.

Amiga Format gave Championship Manager 44%, in the same issue they gave Graham Taylors Soccer Challenge 83%. That's just wrong.

User avatar
ArchaicKoala
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:52 am

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by ArchaicKoala » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:29 am

Duke Nukem Forever - What did people really expect? As far as a modern take on Duke 3D goes it completely nailed it. It always seemed to me that reviewers expected it to be the second coming as far as FPS games go and push the genre to a new level. It was a fun game, nothing special but it definitely didn't deserve the negativity it received.

I will admit that even on a top spec PC with a SSD the load times were atrocious and the restriction to only carry 2 guns at a time was silly, this was addressed with a patch very early on though

User avatar
Flint
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:18 am

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by Flint » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:02 pm

IGN's infamous Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 review:
Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 Review
This game gets a red card, and possibly a lifetime ban.
by Avi Burk

December 5, 2008 - What sports fan doesn't want to take control of his favorite team and guide it to a championship, or, better yet, a long string of championships? Well, if it means playing Worldwide Soccer Manager, you can count me in that number.

Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 gives gamers the chance to manage and coach 5,000 soccer teams from 50 countries around the globe, giving them the chance to manage every aspect of their team's roster, field questions from reporters at their team's press conferences, and coach their teams in real time as each simulated game unfolds. What it doesn't do, more importantly, is provide any compelling reason to keep "playing."

Although the game's database of more than 350,000 real-life soccer players is certainly impressive, only the most diehard fans of the sport would be able to appreciate having such a massive pool of talent to sift through, and the casual fan would almost certainly find the task overwhelming – I did.
This is a game solely intended for hardcore soccer fans.

The game's incredibly complex menu system is very difficult to navigate, even with the on-screen help box directing you through the process. In short, this game is extremely difficult to simply pick up and play. If you're unfamiliar with the franchise expect to spend a significant amount of time simply trying to figure out how to navigate the menus.

Worldwide Soccer Manager's presentation problems don't end there though, once you finally make it to your team's first game you'll find that the player renderings and animations are awful, and the stadiums you play in lack any kind of personality or detail. Each field is bordered by fences and what appear to be unfinished stands, which don't have any fans in them. And, when the ball is kicked off of the pitch, it passes smoothly through the surrounding fences, right through the stands, and disappears from view only to return to the field in the same fashion, appearing magically from the stands and passing through the fences (and goals) on its way back into play.

Then there's the sound, or lack thereof. There is no soundtrack that plays while you work in the game's menus, which you'll spend the vast majority of your time in this game doing. There is no audio narration to accompany your participation in press conferences, even though your options for how to respond to each question is incredibly limited. There is no audio commentary to accompany the action in the simulated game's you watch/coach. In fact, the only sound we found in the entire game was the tones of fans cheering as each simulated game played out – which only detracts from the game's feel of authenticity seeing as there are no fans rendered in the stands.
Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 deserves a bicycle kick into the circular file.

As far as traditional gameplay goes, there really isn't any in Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009. Apart from managing your roster and coaching your team, there really isn't anything to do at all. So, unless you really enjoy clicking on menu buttons, you'll find your interaction with this game extremely disappointing.

However, if you're a big footie fan and big fan of sports simulation, you'll be extremely impressed with the depth of Worldwide Soccer Manager, which allows you to control just about every facet of your team and draw from a player pool that is simply mindboggling.

Closing Comments

This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast. The menus are complex and difficult to navigate, graphics are terrible, the sound is non-existent and there is no traditional gameplay to speak of. I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.


Ratings
4.0 Presentation

Although the menus are extremely involved and tough for beginners to navigate, the game’s depth is amazing.
2.0 Graphics

While I appreciate that the introduction of 3D in-game graphics is a step forward for the franchise, those graphics are simply terrible.
0.5 Sound

The only sound you’ll find in this game is the roar of the non-existent crowd… Absolutely worthless.
4.0 Gameplay

Yes, the depth of management in this game is impressive. But, it’s not impressive enough to make up for the fact that you aren’t actually playing soccer.
2.0 Lasting Appeal

This game is aimed at a very specific audience, and it’s inconceivable to me that anybody outside of that audience could play even an hour of this game before turning it off for good.
2.0 (out of 10 / not an average) Terrible OVERALL
Last edited by Flint on Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flint
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:18 am

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by Flint » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:08 pm

Away from that review there was a recent trend for games to seemingly be marked down for failing to be enough to single-handedly turn around a struggling consoles fortunes.

I also think handheld games are often judged by what they're not rather than what they are, it often seemed like there was a cap on the scores.

Finally wrestling games reviews were often made up of jokes and told you nothing about the actual game, although to be fair they were often awful and the better ones got some more respect.

User avatar
Megamixer
Posts: 14968
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:18 am
Location: Staffs, UK

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by Megamixer » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:13 pm

ArchaicKoala wrote:Duke Nukem Forever - What did people really expect? As far as a modern take on Duke 3D goes it completely nailed it. It always seemed to me that reviewers expected it to be the second coming as far as FPS games go and push the genre to a new level. It was a fun game, nothing special but it definitely didn't deserve the negativity it received.
Yeah the loading times were sh*** and there was nothing new but I loved the completely un-PC attitude of Duke and the game in general. There were some creative levels here and there too such as when you're shrunk right down. Considering the insanely messed-up development process across an embarassing number of years, it's a miracle that we got anything at all. The fact that it was quite playable and amusing was a nice bonus.
Retro is a state of mind, and cares not for your puny concepts like dates and calendars.

User avatar
Darran@Retro Gamer
Posts: 6759
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:34 am
Location: Bournemouth
Contact:

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by Darran@Retro Gamer » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:14 pm

gman72 wrote:Devil's Third on the WiiU - excellent game, utterly panned in reviews - many of which told out right untruths about it.
What were the lies. I'm genuinely interested in this but heard a lot of rubbish about it too.
Image

User avatar
davyK
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:13 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by davyK » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:55 pm

There's unfair reviews then there are laughable poorly researched efforts based on 20mins of gameplay of a game in a genre the author knows nothing about.

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/gigawin ... 0-2540311/

User avatar
Negative Creep
Posts: 3842
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Rochester, Kent

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by Negative Creep » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:53 pm

Megamixer wrote:
ArchaicKoala wrote:Duke Nukem Forever - What did people really expect? As far as a modern take on Duke 3D goes it completely nailed it. It always seemed to me that reviewers expected it to be the second coming as far as FPS games go and push the genre to a new level. It was a fun game, nothing special but it definitely didn't deserve the negativity it received.
Yeah the loading times were sh*** and there was nothing new but I loved the completely un-PC attitude of Duke and the game in general. There were some creative levels here and there too such as when you're shrunk right down. Considering the insanely messed-up development process across an embarassing number of years, it's a miracle that we got anything at all. The fact that it was quite playable and amusing was a nice bonus.

Aside from the two weapon limit adding regenerating health was a stupid move. You're supposed to be running round kicking ass and taking names, but instead you spend half the time cowering behind a wall waiting for it to recharge. And at one point he takes a dig at Halo's power armour, even though his ego meter worked in the exact same way. Whilst I appreciate it's subjective, for me that Hive was a step too far. Quipping "you're f*cked" at 2 girls being tentacle raped? Not funny
Image

User avatar
outdated_gamer
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:14 pm

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by outdated_gamer » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:15 pm

ArchaicKoala wrote:Duke Nukem Forever - What did people really expect? As far as a modern take on Duke 3D goes it completely nailed it. It always seemed to me that reviewers expected it to be the second coming as far as FPS games go and push the genre to a new level. It was a fun game, nothing special but it definitely didn't deserve the negativity it received.

I will admit that even on a top spec PC with a SSD the load times were atrocious and the restriction to only carry 2 guns at a time was silly, this was addressed with a patch very early on though
It was overhyped, in dev hell and was aimed at the Halo console players when it finally hit the stores. It's unfortunate that history seems to be repeating itself with the new Doom.

User avatar
joefish
Posts: 3070
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by joefish » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:48 am

Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath got some dull reviews that gave the impression the reviewer hadn't played it up to anywhere near the half-way mark. To be fair, it doesn't do itself any favours by coming across as a run-of-the-mill bounty hunting game - albeit with a clever weapon system - for quite a long time. But the mid-game twist genuinely turns the story and the gameplay around into something much bigger, progressive, and inspiring. Instead it was a game that was largely overlooked as nothing special.

The Retro Gamer review of the HD remake was the same, on the basis (I gather) that it wasn't going to offer any spoilers. But even so, I don't think it does any harm to let on that a game has more to it than it lets on in the beginning, and you can do so without giving away the plot. Otherwise the description of it just doesn't do it justice.

User avatar
ncf1
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:04 am
Location: Australia

Re: What game/s do you think got unfairly reviewed?

Post by ncf1 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:31 am

I thought "Broken Age" was terribly overrated by the game-reviewing media. I think it was just simply a game people *wanted* to review highly simply because of the hoopla surrounding it, but I thought the game itself was tedious, and incredibly bland and with not a shred of the classic humour virtually guaranteed. I would have given it a 4 or 5 at best, yet it received 8's and 9's, just ridiculous.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests