|
So I like IGN. They are one of the best gameing sites on the planet. In addition to reviewing video games, they also cover comics, movies and tv. Today, IGN released a video and article reviewing the long awaited sequel to Brood War. Now I will mention that IGN has let me down a few times as well as giving me warm and fuzzy feeling on ocassions. One such time of the former was when they gave CoD: MW2 a 9.5 (out of 10) and needless to say, I was pretty pissed. It was just another generic FPS game and you'll find thousands of others. It didn't do anything ground-breaking. However, when they gave Super Mario Galaxy a perfect score, I was overjoyed. I wanted to personally go to every 360 and PS3 fanboys house and give'em the finger. Anyway, back to the story.
To say that Wings of Liberty is impressing some folks is saying that A Clockwork Orange wasn't a good move. The scores are very good. GameTrailers gave it a 9.5, GameSpot scored it a 9.6 and GamesRadar gave it a perfect score along with VideoGamer.com. Again, I was super-psyched about these numbers and then I read the review and score.
They gave it a 9.
After reading a review where they basically praised the game and watching a video where they didn't touch on any negatives whatsoever, they gave it a 9.
I am super pissed off while writing this and I'll site some examples first being the most obvious.
This game was scored lower than another generic and, quite honestly, shitty game in Modern Warfare 2. In MW2, you kill hundreds of people in an airport. In the written review AND video review they didn't mention it once.
Not one time. It has to be one of the worst levels in a video game and they didn't even touch on it on lousy time. Another part of the review that pissed me off was when they say some of the lines are cheesy. Who cares? I've always said that if you are being told a story, and if it is engaging and if it capture you're attention and IF you are enjoying it, dialouge shouldn't matter. It's presentation shouldn't matter, what's being said is a factor but shouldn't hinder the plot and lines shouldn't matter.
Really, there is no reason this game shouldn't be a perfect 10 out of 10. The campaign, from what I've heard because I don't have enough damn money to actually buy the game, is awesome. The multiplayer has bugs but its what makes StarCraft, StarCraft and the visuals are stunning if you don't have a low graphics card. You see what I did? I just wrote a better review then IGN did in about 3 sentences. This game deserves a better rating then some others right now (including Joe Danger whatever the hell it is) and it's another prime example of why IGN has let me down.
And finally, yes I know I sited Call of Duty and Mario on a StarCraft site so let me say this to you the reader. One, if you don't like it, don't read and defenitely don't comment on it. Two, I don't care what anybody says in the comment section, CALL OF DUTY AND ALL FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS besides Halo S-U-C-K! There's nothing revolutionary in the games. Three, stop hating on Nintendo because if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have the PS3 or 360 and by extension the awesome games that we have today on console. Finally, StarCraft is the best, the greatest, the be-all-end-all, video game franchise. There is no debate about it. It blows everything out of the water.
I'm done. Maybe this picture will cheer me up.
![[image loading]](http://www.walrusbucketsaga.com/images/01-i-has-a-bucket.jpg)
Ha ha. Classic.
 
|
I liked what you said until you said "CALL OF DUTY AND ALL FPS BESIDES HALO SUCKS"
Call of Duty 1 was far better than any of the shit spewed games theyve produced today and marketed as "FPS" games
SC2 should still have gotten a 10 though i dont disagree
|
oh no a video game publication gave my favourite game one point lower than i think it deserved
who fucking cares
ok i actually read your whole post
its like every generic internet opinion in one goddamn
|
There are several reasons it shouldn't be a 10, not the least of which are the lack of multiplayer features (which will undoubtedly be argued here in great length). There's also the issue of their archaic ranking system and placement system, the underdeveloped map-developer section, and the region-locking.
|
OH NO A FUCKING 9/10 THATS SO TERRIBLE NO ONE WILL EVER BUY SC2 AGAIN BECAUSE IT ONLY SCORED A 9 WTF.
User was warned for this post
|
i think starcraft 2 deserved a 10 too
hi5
|
SC2 is definitely not a 10/10. They released the game before it was even fucking complete.
There's so many things missing from b.net 2.0 it's embarrassing.
The game itself is okay though.
|
a 9 is ok.. no need to rage..
|
No game should ever score a 10/10, but SC2 did not deserve a 9.
|
9 seems about right to me, don't see why you care so much.
|
On August 04 2010 09:57 prototype. wrote:
SC2 is definitely not a 10/10. They released the game before it was even fucking complete.
There's so many things missing from b.net 2.0 it's embarrassing.
The game itself is okay though.
This. SC2 is not a 10/10 game. 9/10 seems appropriate considering bnet2.0's short comings. Hopefully Blizzard brings it up to 10/10 by the time the second expansion is released.
|
9 is great.
MW doesn't deserve a 8. But Activison bought the grade to boost sales, why not?
|
|
|
On August 04 2010 09:46 supernova wrote:
Really, there is no reason this game shouldn't be a perfect 10 out of 10. The campaign, from what I've heard because I don't have enough damn money to actually buy the game, is awesome.
umm...
Seriously though, I stopped caring about online game ratings since MGS4 and GTA4 on the PS3 both got perfect scores. Sure both games were good but I have played better games in my life. Does that mean those games deserve a rating above perfect?
The only use for online reviews are to help you decide what game you would like to spend your hard earned money on. Almost any decent to good game with awesome graphics now can manage to get an 8.5 and up. It's just the other details that satisfy different people's needs. No single website can create a rating that satisfies the entire gaming population.
|
United States47024 Posts
I think an 8.5 or 9 is appropriate for SC2, given the B.net 2.0 issues, but I also think MW2 deserves way worse than a 9.5.
|
On August 04 2010 09:52 arb wrote:
I liked what you said until you said "CALL OF DUTY AND ALL FPS BESIDES HALO SUCKS"
Call of Duty 1 was far better than any of the shit spewed games theyve produced today and marketed as "FPS" games
SC2 should still have gotten a 10 though i dont disagree
Definitely agree, CoD1 and expansion still the best FPSes I've played
|
I just can´t help but laugh my ass off when they talk about the Characters beeing cheesy or twodimensional in a fucking RTS?!?!
I mean come on there are many RPGs out there wich are much more liveless than the characters in sc2.
|
What is wrong with you. I think it is disgusting that Starcraft 2 has no negative reviews. Games never get negative reviews. They just get a 75% or some shit. Game reviewers need to stop being pussies and instead of doing half objective bullshit in their reviews just say what they think about the game. There should be plenty of negative reviews for Starcraft 2. When I look at a great movie like Inception there are plenty of negative reviews. Real critics actually give their opinion. Game critics are a complete joke.
|
On August 04 2010 10:08 Clamev wrote:
I just can´t help but laugh my ass off when they talk about the Characters beeing cheesy or twodimensional in a fucking RTS?!?!
I mean come on there are many RPGs out there wich are much more liveless than the characters in sc2.
What is wrong with you? Some one enjoys different aspects of games than you so even though in the end they give the game a massively positive review (when it probably shouldn't if they have a problem like that with it) you still get all butthurt. Sad.
|
On August 04 2010 10:04 Jyvblamo wrote:![[image loading]](http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/312144020_oNG2h-L-2.jpg)
Thank you for that.
|
Er am I the only one who thought this game should have scored waaay lower? I honestly thought the single player was less than stellar and the voice acting/dialogue was just incredibly awkward. The multiplayer is obviously fun but it's missing so many basic features that it's hard to believe this game is averaging like a 9.5 all across the boards.
|
On August 04 2010 10:23 djcube wrote:
Er am I the only one who thought this game should have scored waaay lower? I honestly thought the single player was less than stellar and the voice acting/dialogue was just incredibly awkward. The multiplayer is obviously fun but it's missing so many basic features that it's hard to believe this game is averaging like a 9.5 all across the boards.
So true... if you look at the game realistically, there's nothing like AMAZING about anything.
|
I found the single player extremely engaging and fun. There really wasn't a single mission I did not enjoy, though Supernova pushed it a bit close T_T
|
So the reviewer of CoD:MW2 probably liked FPS games more than the reviewer of SC2 liked RTS games.
It's not a big deal.
I would give FF VII, one of the most beloved and highly rated games, a very poor score because I don't really like the turn based RPG genre.
|
I stopped reading when you said IGN is one of the best gaming sites.
|
On August 04 2010 10:41 dcberkeley wrote:
I stopped reading when you said IGN is one of the best gaming sites.
I stopped reading when I saw "I stopped reading" at the start of your post, one of the surest-fire signs that a post will contribute nothing.
I tend to like IGN's PC game reviews. They aren't great, but there is no such thing. Every gaming website reviews PC games by n00bs who don't notice basic frigging things like weird mouse acceleration or lack of anti-aliasing.
|
I stopped reading.
+ Show Spoiler +Don't forget that broodwar has been patched continuously over the years. No game is perfect out the running gate, and no critic is worth a damn. + Show Spoiler +
|
10 is reserved for Broodwar
|
On August 04 2010 11:00 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
10 is reserved for Broodwar
If I could I would post an extra large trollface here.
|
U havn't even bought the game, there's no way u can rate it. And who cares if it only got a 9. Big deal. And again, u havn't even bought the game or heard the lines, so u have really no say in this
|
On August 04 2010 10:53 Ndugu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2010 10:41 dcberkeley wrote:
I stopped reading when you said IGN is one of the best gaming sites. I stopped reading when I saw "I stopped reading" at the start of your post, one of the surest-fire signs that a post will contribute nothing. I tend to like IGN's PC game reviews. They aren't great, but there is no such thing. Every gaming website reviews PC games by n00bs who don't notice basic frigging things like weird mouse acceleration or lack of anti-aliasing.
There aren't such things as great game reviews? I think if they took the time to actually play the games then maybe they could write good reviews.
And I think every "major" site does these kinds of reviews. If you don't know of any websites that critique games properly, then you haven't been to enough.
|
I don't know. I'd say 9/10 is generous. I'd give SC2 an 8 so far.
But then, I don't go around giving out random 9.5s to every other title either.
|
I dont take "Out of 10" ratings seriously so I'm not going to nitpick if it should be 9 or 9.5 or 10. I am liking SC2 a lot, personally. However I can see your objection if you felt relative to CoD the review/score was unfair.
Buuut..
Really, there is no reason this game shouldn't be a perfect 10 out of 10. The campaign, from what I've heard because I don't have enough damn money to actually buy the game, is awesome.
|
On August 04 2010 11:17 Musoeun wrote:
I don't know. I'd say 9/10 is generous. I'd give SC2 an 8 so far.
But then, I don't go around giving out random 9.5s to every other title either.
I agree with that. It's an 8 for me.
But no post-n64 console fps would get a score that high from me. :/
|
Would you care if your friend gave sc2 a 9? or 8? Dunno why it makes a difference when the guy gets to write in a magazine :/
|
SC2 campaign does suck a bit imo... I think 9 is a pretty good rating too.
|
SC2 deserves a 10 compared to other games IGN voted a 10...GTA IV? lmao....anyway objectively the game is not perfect if only for bnet 2.0. But taking reviews seriously for multiplayer focused games is stupid because they are always evolving. I only pay attention to reviews for single player only games. If you're buying a game for multiplayer (pretty much every blizz game) then the only time to take a review seriously is if its getting all 5's or something
|
When I heard about the airport level in MW2, I was like, cool this must be a really emotional and intense level. Then I played it. It was so stupid, it felt like they put it in to superficially add drama and emotion to the campaign, but it just made it a cheap way to try to stick that in. It was completely forced in there, and had little relevance/necessity. Come on, there are a bunch of other reasons they could have gotten the Russians to start a war with the U.S. other than an airport massacre.
|
I don't know if SC2 deserved a 10....as I agree that the story was a bit bland, predictable, and eventually uninteresting for someone who's pretty diehard for a good storyline.
While the graphics was good...the customization of the campaign was good...and all the choices you're given was good...but the story itself didn't satisfy me.
|
On August 04 2010 09:46 supernova wrote:
So I like IGN. They are one of the best gameing sites on the planet. In addition to reviewing video games, they also cover comics, movies and tv. Today, IGN released a video and article reviewing the long awaited sequel to Brood War. Now I will mention that IGN has let me down a few times as well as giving me warm and fuzzy feeling on ocassions. One such time of the former was when they gave CoD: MW2 a 9.5 (out of 10) and needless to say, I was pretty pissed. It was just another generic FPS game and you'll find thousands of others. It didn't do anything ground-breaking. However, when they gave Super Mario Galaxy a perfect score, I was overjoyed. I wanted to personally go to every 360 and PS3 fanboys house and give'em the finger. Anyway, back to the story.
CoD: MW2 is a pretty damn entertaining game. A game doesn't have to be ground-breaking to be considered near perfect. It's a fun game to play and obviously a ton of people agree and play it.
On August 04 2010 09:46 supernova wrote:
To say that Wings of Liberty is impressing some folks is saying that A Clockwork Orange wasn't a good move. The scores are very good. GameTrailers gave it a 9.5, GameSpot scored it a 9.6 and GamesRadar gave it a perfect score along with VideoGamer.com. Again, I was super-psyched about these numbers and then I read the review and score.
They gave it a 9.
After reading a review where they basically praised the game and watching a video where they didn't touch on any negatives whatsoever, they gave it a 9.
I am super pissed off while writing this and I'll site some examples first being the most obvious.
This game was scored lower than another generic and, quite honestly, shitty game in Modern Warfare 2. In MW2, you kill hundreds of people in an airport. In the written review AND video review they didn't mention it once.
Not one time. It has to be one of the worst levels in a video game and they didn't even touch on it on lousy time. Another part of the review that pissed me off was when they say some of the lines are cheesy. Who cares? I've always said that if you are being told a story, and if it is engaging and if it capture you're attention and IF you are enjoying it, dialouge shouldn't matter. It's presentation shouldn't matter, what's being said is a factor but shouldn't hinder the plot and lines shouldn't matter.
You don't need to kill people in the airport. You still beat the mission, people shoot them anyways. Why? Because its a video game. They didn't mention it because it isn't an issue that is worth mentioning.
If you want a story to be engaging, you need good dialogue. Your point is pathetic. If all your dialogue is cheesy then people will find the campaign amusing and that's not the tone blizzard was trying to sustain duringthe campaign. I agree with IGN. It seems like Blizzard wanted all kinds of awesome one liners. It made some of the scenes laughable. It was still a great story though.
On August 04 2010 09:46 supernova wrote:
Really, there is no reason this game shouldn't be a perfect 10 out of 10. The campaign, from what I've heard because I don't have enough damn money to actually buy the game, is awesome. The multiplayer has bugs but its what makes StarCraft, StarCraft and the visuals are stunning if you don't have a low graphics card. You see what I did? I just wrote a better review then IGN did in about 3 sentences. This game deserves a better rating then some others right now (including Joe Danger whatever the hell it is) and it's another prime example of why IGN has let me down.
You haven't bought the game, yet your opinion is supposed to be more informed than IGN's? That's ridiculous. You admit the game has faults, but you still give it a perfect score?
I love SC2 and will continue to play it because it's great, but crying about a 9 when that is a perfectly reasonable score for the game is ridiculous. Your entire post is laughable.
|
Ka boom. 1/5. Oh nooooes it's a low score -_-
|
Ign hates starcraft. You can tell if you read the majority of their articles. Still it's interesting to see what they liked and disliked and compare it to TL threads.
|
The whole idea of rating a game numerically seems stupid to me anyway. The only thing dumber than that is actually caring what irrelevant overpaid game reviewers assign to games in the first place.
That's one of the reasons I like reviewers like Yahtzee although he's a bit too negative.
|
maybe they compared star2 to brood war
so they couldnt give it a 10/10
but hey friend
you cant spell IGNORANCE without spelling IGN
|
COD 1 was awesome, COD 2 was easier but still awesome and COD4 mw1 en 2 are just shit and too easy to play.
On www.xfire.com you can see that people still play more mw1 then mw2. You can even see that people play more sc2 then mw2 and on some days even more then mw1. I know, not everyone has xfire on when they play mw1 or 2, but you can say the same about sc2 players.
|
On August 04 2010 14:24 Alou wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2010 09:46 supernova wrote:
Really, there is no reason this game shouldn't be a perfect 10 out of 10. The campaign, from what I've heard because I don't have enough damn money to actually buy the game, is awesome. The multiplayer has bugs but its what makes StarCraft, StarCraft and the visuals are stunning if you don't have a low graphics card. You see what I did? I just wrote a better review then IGN did in about 3 sentences. This game deserves a better rating then some others right now (including Joe Danger whatever the hell it is) and it's another prime example of why IGN has let me down.
You haven't bought the game, yet your opinion is supposed to be more informed than IGN's? That's ridiculous. You admit the game has faults, but you still give it a perfect score? I love SC2 and will continue to play it because it's great, but crying about a 9 when that is a perfectly reasonable score for the game is ridiculous. Your entire post is laughable.
I was gonna point this out, but Alou did it for me.
On August 04 2010 19:15 Dente wrote:COD 1 was awesome, COD 2 was easier but still awesome and COD4 mw1 en 2 are just shit and too easy to play. On www.xfire.com you can see that people still play more mw1 then mw2. You can even see that people play more sc2 then mw2 and on some days even more then mw1. I know, not everyone has xfire on when they play mw1 or 2, but you can say the same about sc2 players.
Using Xfire to compare amount of players is horrible, not only does it not tell you how many people are playing the game it just tells you how much the people with Xfire play the game. Most people playing MW2 use Steam and probably don't bother with Xfire.
|
Okay, I don't understand people like you. You realize 10/10 means the game is near perfect right? It's so good that theres very few things you could even suggest to make it even better? (without revamping large aspects of the game of course).
I for one, feel cheated. They showed us all the cinematics in trailers / teasers already. The campaign missions while lots of fun, could have had more depth. I feel cheated that I played 95% of the missions as terran. So while all in all single player was fun, it really could have been better. Compare Warcraft 3's cinematics after each race's campaign and tell me which was more impressive. The script could have been better. In-game unit sounds could have been better. By saying the game is 10/10 you're saying that these aren't issues.
Honsetly Starcraft 2 is a great game, I would rate is high, an 8 or 9 maybe, but 10? It's not that close to being perfect I'm afraid.
|
starcraft multiplayer 10/10
starcraft campaign 6 or 7/10
IGN isn't TL, they have to take the whole thing into consideration. I'm surprised they rated it that high in the first place.
|
IGN is also the people that said that the Terran Thor is unstoppable and they did not see a reason for any Terran player to EVER build any unit besides it....
|
CALL OF DUTY AND ALL FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS besides Halo S-U-C-K
no. halo is worse
quake is what fps is about
|
On August 05 2010 00:27 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
IGN is also the people that said that the Terran Thor is unstoppable and they did not see a reason for any Terran player to EVER build any unit besides it....
LOL
yeah take gaming sites with a grain of salt. they don't know what they're talking about, they make up detailed and long replies about how the game has a great story which noone gives a shit about.
i remember gamespot fired a guy because he didn't like a game which was advertised on the site. really shows how low video game reviewers can go.
|
How could you have never played the retail and have an opinon like this
I don't get it.
also, this game isn't original or ground breaking. It's also bugged. Bugged implying that it is not perfect.
|
I think they gave it 9 which albeit isnt 10 is still a really good score because they mistakenly had a copy of sc bw, then ofcourse because its IGN and IGN dont have the capacity to fully understand SCBW they gave it 9 instead of a 10. If they really had their hands on sc2 they obiously would had given the game a rating of say 4-5.
|
First of all, you haven't played it yet. It's like going to imdb and giving Transformers Revenge of the Fallen a 10 just because you were a fan of the cartoons. Secondly, it's a trilogy. We're still in "The Fellowship of the Ring". Did it sweep the Oscars? No, it won 4. Guess how many the third one got. Third, it's a different genre of game from COD. RTS is not FPS. Toy Story 3 is not Inception. If you want to compare scores, see Broodwar vs Starcraft 2. Lastly, it's somebody else's opinion. Who cares? I liked The Mummy. It didn't beat The Phantom Menace, but I don't care.
|
IGN sucks anyway. "I don't really know how to play this game, but general opinion seems to say that it is good, who am I to disagree? 10/10"
Why would you read their opinion about games needing any nuance/complexity whatsoever? Look at anything that needs decent level of understanding like Mushihime-sama, Ikaruga, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Street Fighter 4, etc.
Aside from that, people care too much about near perfect. 9.8/10 Who cares, you aren't using a 100 point system to rate anything. Just say the game is fantastic (10/10, 5/5) but has a few hiccups, like any normal person would.
|
Do I hear some fanboyism spewing from this blog
We all have different tastes in games. In terms of multiplayer, MW2 excels at drawing in casual and moderate players, and everybody loves controversial storyline campaigns right (hurrr I'm gonna shoot all these civilians down in an airport) I'm only partially speaking from experience because I go play it every time people are over at my house (it's not my game)
I like Starcraft 2 a lot. But a 10/10 would be unwarranted... there's a good number of flaws I can point out (albeit minor) and the multiplayer could use a couple features (hello LAN and chat channels). I think a 9/10 is a highly respectable score and deserved for the game.
|
On August 05 2010 07:56 Wineandbread wrote:
Do I hear some fanboyism spewing from this blog
We all have different tastes in games. In terms of multiplayer, MW2 excels at drawing in casual and moderate players, and everybody loves controversial storyline campaigns right (hurrr I'm gonna shoot all these civilians down in an airport) I'm only partially speaking from experience because I go play it every time people are over at my house (it's not my game)
I like Starcraft 2 a lot. But a 10/10 would be unwarranted... there's a good number of flaws I can point out (albeit minor) and the multiplayer could use a couple features (hello LAN and chat channels). I think a 9/10 is a highly respectable score and deserved for the game.
Well you are on a Starcraft fan site, it would be expected that there would be a starcraft favoritism. Honestly, no game should be a 10/10. SC2 is the BEST RTS that has ever been released, at least in terms of the single player campaign. The only game that it even on the same level as it in the multi-player sector is the original Starcraft. For a game that is pretty much the best in its genre, a 9/10 is kinda bad.
|
Deserves a 9 out of 10 for it's lack of features that the original BW had. No chat channels, no cross realm play, no LAN; that's a problem for a lot of people.
|
LOL @ SC2 getting a lower score than the piece of trash that is MW2... It's really a shame. But what does IGN know, honestly.
|
On August 04 2010 09:53 Craton wrote:
There are several reasons it shouldn't be a 10, not the least of which are the lack of multiplayer features (which will undoubtedly be argued here in great length). There's also the issue of their archaic ranking system and placement system, the underdeveloped map-developer section, and the region-locking.
Thats less about the game and more about bnet2.0 though.
|
I think Starcraft 2 deserves a 7 or an 8. The campaign isn't all that fun and the fact that I couldn't play multiplayer or the campaign (couldn't load the online save files) today when bnet was down should slice 0.5 points off AT LEAST.
And they are failing pretty badly with multiplayer given the fact that they are trying harder than anyone has ever tried in the history of alpha and beta testing.
|
You got to admit, the campaign wasn't that original. There were plenty of cheezy lines used left and right.
Battlenet wise, no chat channels and also horrible UMS system. Starcraft 2 deserves a 7/10 just because of that
|
I think SC2 deserved an 8. That doesn't mean I wish it got an 8, because no other games get what I think SC2 deserves, and the usually the discrepancy is much bigger.
|
spoilers
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 05 2010 13:45 Elaeli wrote:
spoilers
you fucking piece of shit, read your first line and got spoiled
sincerely hope you get severely injured
|
I think those reviewers never really "get" Blizzard games. They try to judge them based on graphics, sound, and an initial impression. What they never get into is depth, gameplay, mechanics, balance, long-term fun, long-term rewards and things like that. All areas where Blizzard games are very strong, while most other games are absolutely not (they might impress, but almost never for long).
So, in the end, SC2 will have more buyers/players, and will still be played 5-10 years from now, while no one will care about MW2 anymore then.
|
Hahaha... Yep, Halo is the only good FPS ever made. You got it. Autoaim on Xbox=sick
|
On August 05 2010 10:38 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2010 09:53 Craton wrote:
There are several reasons it shouldn't be a 10, not the least of which are the lack of multiplayer features (which will undoubtedly be argued here in great length). There's also the issue of their archaic ranking system and placement system, the underdeveloped map-developer section, and the region-locking. Thats less about the game and more about bnet2.0 though.
is bnet2 part of what comes with the game that you purchase??
by that same token, reviewers should have overlooked the shit multiplayer of the last super smash brothers? multiplayer and the system it uses are very much a part of the total game package and the terrible offering in this game is just one of several reasons why it can't possibly be a 10.
|
I can't really think of any popular game that I'd personally give a 10. Call of Duty, Metal Gear Solid, God of War, whatever... I just don't really see it.
Honestly it feels like reviewers give reviews solely based on hype. MW2 had massive hype. SC2 also had massive hype, but also anti-hype from some sectors (lol). I'd like for 10/10 to actually mean perfect, and I can't think of a perfect game (BW wasn't).
|
lol OP if you are "seriously pissed off" because SC2 got a 9 on IGN then you need to realize that all review sites are bullshit anyway. Yes we know the game is better than MW2. And I find it hilarious that you declare the game should get a 10 when a) you don't even give reasons why and b) you haven't even played it. Grow up.
|
On August 05 2010 10:04 Morayfire73 wrote:
Well you are on a Starcraft fan site, it would be expected that there would be a starcraft favoritism. Honestly, no game should be a 10/10. SC2 is the BEST RTS that has ever been released, at least in terms of the single player campaign. The only game that it even on the same level as it in the multi-player sector is the original Starcraft. For a game that is pretty much the best in its genre, a 9/10 is kinda bad.
The only thing is SC2 wasn't just meant for the TL community, was it? I can expect favoritism here, true, but that doesn't mean he should be taking his anger out on IGN for a bad score. Plus, I think that these critics aren't reviewing in relative context of strategy games, but more so an absolute scale in context of all games.
Don't get me wrong: as a game, I think sc2 is excellent. I thought the single player and multiplayer are both fun. The ladder and achievements in the game motivate the player to play too. But it missed their mark on some features that some people might find key to a game. I've heard my friends complain so many god damn times about the lack of LAN, and confusion over the inability to chat on a channel. (I've already mentioned these) They tell me how "overpowered" they think some race abilities or units are (aka WARP IN OMGOMG THAT'S SO FUCKING OP). Not everyone plays Starcraft to learn build orders and get into it at a competitive level, just like there are casuals in just about every other game. (I will direct you to this: http://nerfnow.com/comic/285 ; the next two comics are also kinda applicable I guess) And these are the people who would try to identify faults at the most basic level, where it would not be a fault in higher levels of play.
It's hard to put a single number score on video games for this very reason, just like how I find it hard to put those similar scores on mostly anything. I don't let ratings get to my head so often: for example, I think SMG1 (can't speak for 2 yet) was overrated to a good degree. Plus, many of us disregard these ratings when it comes to memories/nostagia/recommendations (I don't care if it got a 46.5%, I'll fucking love Liberation Day till the end of time)
|
I think a few years ago some website (maybe IGN?) did a Top 100 games of all time list... StarCraft 1 was #7. I think OP would have started a similar thread in response to that... had he been a community member back then.
The point is, you can't convert everyone to share your beliefs. If that were possible... well you can imagine what that would entail
|
On August 06 2010 13:15 writer22816 wrote:
lol OP if you are "seriously pissed off" because SC2 got a 9 on IGN then you need to realize that all review sites are bullshit anyway. Yes we know the game is better than MW2. And I find it hilarious that you declare the game should get a 10 when a) you don't even give reasons why and b) you haven't even played it. Grow up.
How the weather up there on your high horse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
