Kingdom Come (User)

  • Contributor
  • 5 bubbles
  • 9 in CRank
  • Score: 69860
"The Gears Still Turn"

An Inexcusably Terrible Review...

Kingdom Come | 859d ago
User blog

This is a short Blog Post constructed for the purpose of setting intending purchasers of "Resident Evil: Raccoon City"'s minds straight, and reduce their concerns for the titles quality following this weeks Games TM Magazine Review.

It was reported that Games TM Magazine had awarded "Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City" with an undoubtedly lackluster 3/10. After purchasing the latest issue, in which the review is featured within, I discovered just how inexcusably terrible the review itself was.

The review has one incredible flaw, 2/3's of the game are neglected, how so? Because the reviewer states that he HASN'T EVEN PLAYED THE CO-OP or VERSUS MULTIPLAYER COMPONENTS, both of which are the highlights of the title, with one of the games differentiating aspects compared to other Resident Evil instalments being it's tactical 4-player co-op and 10-player versus multiplayer modes. He even states that he thinks the multiplayer and Co-Op aspects of the game look much better than that of which he has played...

Whilst he briefly discusses poor teammate AI and a few glitches, he refers to the title as being a generic third-person shooter, stating, "those who have played any third-person shooter at any point in the past will know exactly what to expect here", by doing so, he is essentially referring to the game as being average, in it's own raising it's score to a 5, and, well, that's about it. He hardly discusses the game's mechanics any further, neglecting to discuss in-depth it's class system, weapon upgrade and purchasing, diverse enemy types and more, instead opting to ramble on aimlessly about the games, "utterly pointless idea" and concept, in which whilst doing so shamelessly portraying himself to be a fanboy, restraining his favoured franchise from any potential change.

Should a review's publication be acceptable with 2/3's of the game having not been played and being entirely based upon "four hours" of single-player gameplay? I personally would not say so...

RIPSKATEDESTROY  +   859d ago
i can see how a review can be done without finishing a game since some games demand too many hours to do so but you are correct. If the reviewer doesnt have time to try out every aspect of the game it shouldnt be a review but more a preview. And yes when a reviewer dismisses a highlight of a certain game it should not be considered a review
grifter024  +   857d ago
You can actually agree that being able to review a game without finishing is ok?

That is like a building a house for someone and decides to say the house is finished because it took to long to build and not even putting on the roof because it demanded too many hours to do so correctly.

If you are going to review a game and actually have the ability to sway consumers money to different games I EXPECT no DEMAND that you play the entire dang game...not this "Oh I played it for an hour I can post a score already." Garbage.
RIPSKATEDESTROY  +   857d ago
there is always one...
no thats not what im saying, im not talking about reviewing a game based on a few hours of gameplay at all. when i say finish a game im talking everything, every achievement, every hidden gems, EVERYTHING! if you think that as a reviewer you get one game, and you can play around with that game for as long as you like before you return your review to the publisher who sent you the game, you are wrong. When you sometimes get packages with multiple titles you have to go through you CANT finish games. You put as many hours as you can and try out every aspect of the game you can until you have enough to base your opinion on it. Alot of reviewers have deadlines, they have families or in some cases other jobs besides reviewing games.

And you are not supposed to sway consumers, what do you think a reviewer gets paid because his or her review made you buy a certain game? no. and its funny you say score which basically means a review to you is a score.

And please dont compare reviewing games to building houses.
xPhearR3dx  +   857d ago
@RIPSKATEDESTROY

Well, in this case, things are a little different. The game is only 4 hours long. You have more than enough time to complete it, and play some MP matches to get a feel of what the intentions are. I work a full time job, and have many household things I must take care of, but I also review games. The deadlines are true, but this isn't a game like Skyrim where you need hundreds of hours to complete the game. Even if you can't complete it to meet your deadline, you should at least experience each portion of the game before submitting a review.

Plus this game holds the Resident Evil title, except it's main focus is MP which the reviewer didn't play. Imagine if every reviewer reviewed COD without playing the MP, or even Battlefield 3. Gamers would be pissed.
suicidalblues  +   859d ago
Well done, KC, well done.
Roscoe3zz  +   858d ago
3/10 is harsh.. 5/10 is more appropriate.

Face it, the game sucks.
xPhearR3dx  +   858d ago
I've been playing it all day yesterday and today. The game doesn't suck. It's not amazing, but it doesn't suck. All around it's a pretty solid title.
Kingdom Come  +   858d ago
That's great to hear, it comes out next Friday over here in the UK. Roscoe is obviously incapable of reading, the score was unfair as the reviewer hadn't played two thirds of the game (arguably the most important components of the game). Also, he had the nerve to score the game so shamefully low and then state that he thinks the multiplayer (both Versus and Co-Op) looks good...
#3.1.1 (Edited 858d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
TacoTaru  +   858d ago
If they wanted to focus of co-op and multi-player they should have called it something other than Resident Evil. Since it was a RE game I think that reviewing (and grading ) based on single player story was appropriate.
Kingdom Come  +   858d ago
Perhaps I'm incorrect but I'd consider the purpose of a spin-off to be to provide a differentiated vision of a familiar universe. Placing the gamer back within the streets of Raccoon City, but whilst offering a different experience provided in the main installments of the franchise.

Also, if you think it is fair to review a game based upon four hours of single-player gameplay without so much as touching the cooperative and versus components of the game, then you aren't a true gamer. Also, as I stated, the review states little regarding the gameplay, instead opting to drone on about the games concept.
#4.1 (Edited 858d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Baka-akaB  +   857d ago
it still had the option to ignore the sp all together and "hide behind" the spin off excuse .

Instead it did a sp and sucked very much at it , on top of a mediocre mp .

I dont agree with the way the review is done and its content , since it's only sheer guess and luck the assessment is true then , but it is still kinda true .
#4.1.1 (Edited 857d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
jeeves86  +   855d ago
It's not just one outlet that's giving this game a shitty score. It seems like almost everywhere I look, it's the same thing, for the same reasons.

I also think it's acceptable to review a game having not completed it. If you get a good feel for the game, know where the plot is going and all of the game play mechanics that the game has to offer then by all means a review before the game is finished should be fine for a single-player experience. However if the majority of the game revolves around multiplayer and the reviewer didn't play MP - they're missing out on a good chunk of the game and doing an extreme disservice to their readers.

I'm disappointed, I had high hopes for this game.
Langloisj   846d ago | Spam

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember