Don Barefoot wrote:So which review am I to believe. On the other part of your magazine reviews they gave the game a 7.5. http://www.oxmonline.com/dead-island-riptide-review So which is it guys
Grummy wrote:Having read the review and seen the score, I can see this actually being a solid 7 and 4 seems brutally unjust. I mean really, a score that bad I can't honestly believe this is an impartial review.
You criticize the game for being slightly better than the original and being more of the same and punish massively. HELLO some people enjoyed the original and are happy for more. Also, worth mentioning games that get a lot praise like Halo and Gears of War, they've been the same all the way through with small incremental changes and aren't penalized for it. Double standards ahoy. This publication scored the original a 7, a very fair score, and this game is better than that? Logically it should get a better score, but I can understand it not, if you're judging it by how much it didn't fix rather than how much it did, I could even understand you dropping a point if you were unhappy that the improvements were small and felt they should have done more, but a 4??!!!
It would be one thing if the game was noticeably worse, or just outright crap, but if its an improvement over an already decent, entertaining game then I have to question the logic and the impartiality.
And yes, scores don't generally mean anything, it's the bulk of the review that matters, but when the review quality is poor and the score doesn't match up with the review, questions have to be asked.
This is just about the worst review I have read in a long long time and is not at all worthy of being on this site or part of this publication.
AllusiveTurtle wrote:Let’s be blunt, there is little difference between the original Halo and Halo 4, little has changed between Gears and Gears 3, and don’t get me started on the Call of Duty games for churning out exactly the same game every 12 months.
Bezza89 wrote:AllusiveTurtle wrote:Let’s be blunt, there is little difference between the original Halo and Halo 4, little has changed between Gears and Gears 3, and don’t get me started on the Call of Duty games for churning out exactly the same game every 12 months.
I think the difference is you're making great games similar to previous great games, whereas this is making an average and buggy game... again. This reviewer may have scored the first game a four too, so comparing previous scores doesn't work (I wondered why trials evo got less than the first) the bottom line is it's not a good game in this reviewers opinion. Instead of a four they should have just put 'Shit'. Or, quite shit.
Users browsing this forum: Sean Albrecht and 6 guests