Gamekult writes : "For designers, it is a goldmine."
Hmmm... Gameklut is always strict, so I guess this isn't a bad score :) "Its depth can be terribly intimidating" - LOL!
True, they always come down hard on everyone, whether it's a exclusive on the PS3 (LBP2) or Xbox360 (Halo Reach). Their opinion so I can respect that.
More likely GameSluts, now sht d hll up, this game is a solid 9...you read...?
jesus christ i hate this site weren't they black listed ?
Wow, terribly intimidating, how on earth did those millions of levels get created. Oh yeah, patience and lets face it, not everyone's got COD mentality when it comes to gaming.
WAH ! I'm scared of LBP. "For designers, it is a goldmine." I'm not about to click on their crappy site but I can see where they're going already. For the record, I havent created a single thing yet or played any user created level. Even with the levels out of the box, this game is a blast and show genius.
You saying that Gameklut is strict, to me is an excuss for them. Its ok to have standards but I hear this site give awesome games low scores. This site NEEDS to show what they consider a rated 10 game so when I look at this site I can see where they are coming from with scores. They gave Halo Reach a 6? WHAT?.....are u serious? I might not be a Halo fan but that game does not deserve a 6. Its sites like this who mess it up for people. Why? Some people buy games based on reviews and giving low scores because you want to give the perception they have standards, will deter some people from buying that game. Yes I know it their opinion but when you call it a review it needs to be credible.
They gave Reach a 7 with no zine selection. (Yes there's a redactor special award accorded to special games.) They said about Reach that the technology of the game looked outdated when they compared it to standards like Uncharted, God of war and the game in intself was nothing phenomenal on this console generation. In fact they gave a 6 to ODST, they said the game was supposed to raise the graphics of halo 3 but in fact it was nothing great about it. Their rating : 9 = excellent game allmost perfect 8 = Very good 7 = good 6 = honest game They never gave a 10, as far as i know the webzine, but maybe i'm wrong. And for the fanboys who will say that they are anti xbox webzine they also gave a 7 (with no selection) to GT5. And the 3/4 of the redactors are playing on 360.
And 7 at Black Ops... this isnt surprising... well Black Ops deserved a 5 but Reach 7 is low... 9 at least just like this one...
lol Reach deserves a 7.5 at best. Same old Halo, with a very boring campaign.
Reach? 9?, no. Every Halo title is over marked because of the sentimentality value, most reviewers want it to be good so are generous even when it's average, "cough, Halo3"
first bad score I've seen.
I remember a time when a 7 was good. Those were the days.
@BigMassacre: you remember those days too? I thought I was the only one...
problem with that is though that there is more tripple A games, so why spend $60 on a 7 or 8 out of 10 game when u can spend it on a 9 or 10 game? not everybody has money to buy games willy nilly. the games these days NEED to get a 9 or a 10. yeah 7/8 is a good score, but it just does not cut it with todays competition.
Enjoyment and value are subjective, though. A reviewer can never speak for an entire gaming population, so that number score he/she slaps at the end of his review is worthless to anyone but that reviewer. For example, one of my favorite games of last generation is a Free Radical game called Second Sight. I LOVE that game. It scored in the 7's, mostly because Psi-Ops, in all it's generic glory, had more visceral gun play, but severely lacked in story and acting. I own both Psi-Ops and Second Sight. Even though Psi-Ops was the critic darling, Second Sight was the better game for ME. I couldn't care less if a site like IGN, or Gamespot, or 1up gave my anticipated games 9/10 or 10/10 scores. All that matters to me, as the end user, is that I enjoy the games I buy. I don't need a review to decide how to spend my money. Yes, $60 is a LOT of money to spend on a game, but I'm very careful in that I only purchase games I have an interest in. Not games that the gaming media thinks I should buy. If I did that, I'd own the Call of Duty franchise and GTAIV, since, according to the critics, those are 9/10, 10/10 games. My point is simply that value is subjective, and a review score doesn't speak for any of us as unique individuals with very different tastes in games.
I wonder what games they think are worthy of 8's 9's and dare I say 10's?
Uncharted 2 got 9,GTA4 got a 9,StarCraft2 a 9.. No 10s i checked for a while
They never accorded a 10. 9 = God of war 3, Uncharted 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Bioshock... 8 = Gears of War 2, Killzone 2, Demon's Soul, Xenoblade
This is typical though; don't smaller review sites tend to give popular games lower scores after the big ones do their reviews. I guess it's a way of getting hits for having "this big controversy" and such.
Yeah pretty strict site on scoring games on any platform...
Mass Effect 2 on 360 recieved a 7 and no selection...
. It's a 7 / 10, if I'm not mistaken... Amazing it has similarity with Jim Sterling's score too.
As long as they are consistent.
wow i am surprised
Whatever makes them stand out from all the +9 reviews..
When i saw the 7 i was like No way !! but then i saw that they actually are strict with all the games.So that 7 is not as bad as the 7.5 from dtoid.
Fair enough, they got incredibly high standards on games and I've never seen a 10 from them.
Well that depends, no game can be perfect but it would seem to me that if a good game scores a 7 then they are already looking for the faults before they play the game. This means they are missing the point of video games. We play them for enjoyment and producing highly strict reviews is pointless as it does not give the right impression. I mean to give Mass Effect 2 (360) is just retarded and they must have really looked for the faults which unfortunately for them surely means they can't enjoy the experience.
Gamekult just want some attention
I don't mind a strict review policy, but the fact that they gave it the same score as COD tells me something is a bit off. I've played through about half of the game so far and how anyone could give it less than an 8.5 for the single player alone is kind of befuddling.
You speak the truth. The single-player alone is freaking great. LBP2 seriously deserves a higher score. Yes, 7 isn't bad, but it does deserve a higher score.
"The publisher intimidating or discouraging, The gameplay still floating platformer" Any site whick lists either of these as faults can instantly be written of as ignorant cynics. They feel as if they have to knock it for something so they pick the most random bullshit to complain about. It's a game, games have different control schemes, QUIT BITCHING!
MM do something unique by allowing the community to produce levels and endless replay value yet someone can still see this as a fault. We ask developers to do something new, when they do someone has to complain.
so basically, a 7 is a good score to these guys. seems fair enough i suppose. the criteria seems really skewed looking at games they've scored 8/10 and 9/10, but 7/10 is still in the "very good" scale range of scoring. then again, i think scoring games is a pointless practice, and i find the text of reviews way more insightful and informative than a supposed "definitive" number at the end of the review. i don't bother with scores on my reviews, because i just can't objectively quantify the quality of a game with a number score. i don't really see how that's valuable to a gamer with very different tastes/preferences as myself. instead, i try to cover basic game design tenets that most quality games have in common: controls, visual presentation (suitable to the genre/style of game the developer is making), level/game design (how intuitive and interesting the game is), and story (if applicable). as far as i can see, most of the most praised and adored games of all time have at least high marks in all 4 of those categories. Uncharted 2 is a great example of a game that has superb controls, visual presentation, game design, and story. on the flip side, Legendary: The Box, fails at controls, visual presentation, game design, and story, therefore it is a rather crap game. HAZE actually succeeded at controls and visual presentation, but fell short at game design and story. it was an average game (not shit by any stretch, just average). i apply that thinking to all games i review, taking into account genre standards (puzzle games have very different expectations than action games, for example), and evaluate the game accordingly. i think it's served me well thus far.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.