Comments on: Is Below An “8″ Really That Bad?

By: Anonononon

Anonononon — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:05:39 +0000

I like how in a blog describing silly fanboyism and overreaction to ratings it took less then 8 posts for the Sony Defense Force to chime in and leave their piss stains (looking at you, “Nameless”).

Two of my cousins (13 and 16 respectively) own PS3s, while I myself (25) own an XBox, I guess with your retarded logic that means PS3 owners are children and Xbox owners are mature gamers such as myself, right?

Here’s a clue: Real gamers don’t give a shit about “1080p” (especially when most games don’t even fully support it) or “7.1 surround sound”.

On topic: 7.5 is a decent score, this is by no means a bad game at all, although I question the reasoning behind some of the review. More specifically, the part where he says there’s nothing redeeming about the graphics. Granted, it’s difficult to make a beautiful sandbox game run smoothly, however if they upped the graphics the same people would then turn around and bash the game because of it’s poor framerate or slowdown. In the end the graphics do the game justice in providing a visual feast for the eyes without compromising gameplay, and that’s really all that should matter.

By: de BLOO

de BLOO — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:06:13 +0000

Nice write up dood. I’ve bought games for full price rated 6 just becuase it interests me, its sad to see so many people deny themselves a games they might enjoy becuase of a warpped scale in their minds.

@God

Talk about over compensating…

@ Name (Required)
I don’t give a SHIT about reviews scores
June 14th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Who the fuck was asking you?

By: Zealous Kringle

Zealous Kringle — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:44:22 +0000

“You can’t do something as simple as run through the city while leaping off of buildings without alerting the Strike Teams,”

Funny, really, I never encountered that at all. Running through town with the claws out and bits of civvy dribbling down your chin seemed to get their attention, but then that’s just sense…

By: Christopher Matulich

Christopher Matulich — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:21:45 +0000

I know where scores are important. Not everyone can be money-bags. So, you must buy your games according to your budget, and you don’t want to waste the money on a shitty game. But there also comes a point where you should be interested in a game to buy one, not because the hype-train has been chugging along and telling you this game is going to be good. Take a game like Shadow Hearts for instance. The reviews were all over the map when the game first was released back in 2001, people were throwing 5’s and 6’s at it. But taking the risk based on the intriguing story and the fact that my character can turn into demons and tear some shit apart, I bought the game and was thoroughly pleased with my experience.

I guess what I’m trying to say is yes, scores play a roll, but they shouldn’t be your guiding force behind buying a game. You make that decision for yourself, and I bet more often than not you’ll be more satisfied with your own choice.

By: name

name — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:37:02 +0000

i say a 7.5 is being generous.
im playing the 2nd last lvl and its realy driving me nuts.
you have to stay down the bottomb to destroy the big ugly beast if you go up the top to regenerate your health she also regenerates health.
but than you cant stay down the bottomb because theres 1 million of those big mutants ripping your head off.
prototype is far to hectic fast paced like you get hit down you get up and the seccond you get up you get hit down again.
you dont get a chance to move out of the way.
the lvls are EXACTLY the same how many missions are there where you have to protect a military vheicle from those mutants?
thats basicly half the bloody game.
how anyone can give that over a 7 is beyond me.
and how games radar can give it a 9 well ill never understand

By: Alberto

Alberto — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:33:37 +0000

i agree with everything you are saying but i truly dont beleive this game should have gotten a score of 7.5, ign simply hated the game because it didnt have amazing graphics and it was a bit unpolished, to me its greatness lies in the gameplay, which they seemed to care very little about

i have played games that have gotten 9+ scores and they are not as good and fun as this one (i spent more than half an hour at the beggining of the game just jumping around the city amazed at how “badass” the character looked^^)

i understand why some people would get mad for a 7.5, but not enough to go bashing IGN for it

a score of 8.4 is fair, not a 7.5

By: Delorian Tokes

Delorian Tokes — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:02:27 +0000

Ratings and reviews are important. They are a temperature of the industry and gamers in general. Most scores, for most games, are not far from eachother per site. If they are the aggregates are usually middle-of-the road. Therefore, the score is more abitrary and its helpful to actually READ what the reviewer wrote. This is the gold in the dirt…meaning, their text and thoughts are a great way to learn more about gameplay and general concerns you have with a new game. If we think less about a number and actually read the review, we often find we agree with even something that is rated much lower than what we would rate it.

By: Yotsuba

Yotsuba — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:39:05 +0000

I think inFAMOUS is a pretty cool guy, he shoots electricity and doesn’t afraid of anything.

By: Terrorista

Terrorista — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:36:43 +0000

Prototype doesn’t even deserve a 7.5 score. That game sucks…repetitive gameplay, graphics suck, mediocre storyline, no replay value.I can go on and on.

By: Combat Wombat

Combat Wombat — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:28:35 +0000

Okay, before we go further: Guys, it’s a fruitless effort to compare reviews done by IGN (i.e “x game got y score, but b game only got a c! b game was so much better!”)
IGN is not one single consciousness. They are not a hivemind.
IGN has teams of reviewers. Notice the pluralization of reviewerS. Complaining about one score versus another on the site is pointless, since you’re very likely complaining about the opinions of two different people.
It would be all well and good for review scores for games to kind of “match up” and all make sense, but then the reviews of the entire IGN review team would have to be based upon not only the reviewer, but the entirety of IGN’s reviewing staff. And hell, while we’re at it, why don’t we just get all reviews from *any source whatsoever* to all collaborate so they all make sense, right?
That’s not journalism; that’s Communism.

By: Victor

Victor — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:50:33 +0000

I just wanted to say, that I read IGN’s review before I purchased the game. Score aside, it sounded like my kind of game. So I bought it, and definately don’t regret it.

But, I have to say, I don’t agree with you entirely. For one major reason. If we, the readers, are to take these scoring scales seriously at all (which, I personally, stopped doing long ago.) than there has to be some kind of consistancy to the way they review games, and the criteria has to apply equally.
Case in point: Bionic Commando received an 8.0 from IGN.
Now, Bionic Commando isn’t a bad game at all. In my mind these games are of equal quality, the open world gives you more to offer in prototype than the linear one of BC, but BC offers multiplayer. Storyline is a vessel for things to get blown up in both games. Graphically they’re next to equal. FPS never dips in either/ the animaions are smooth.
Now, I know this is all in my opinion and the reviewers were probably different for the two reviews, but I guess it just feels like Im watching a high dive meet, two competitiors perform very similar dives, and one scores lower than the other for reasons unknown.

I’ve been saying for years now, that IGN should really look into revamping their scoring system to prevent confusion. But, like myself, I just don’t feel the reviewers put too much weight on the number, they ultimately want people to read their reviews.

By: name

name — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:36:10 +0000

every point ign said in there review is spot on.
thats the problem with prototype they clearly bit off more than they could chew hence the extremly long development times and frame rate issues plus MASSIVE pop in whole buildings pop in not just details.
and cars driving through bridges can some one explain that to me?
prototype clearly needs some more work the developers tried to make a massive game and kudos to them but they dident quite pull it off.
the difference between prototype and infamous is.
infamous is restrictive BUT polished it does 100 things and does them well.
but prototype does 1000000 things and does none of them well.
which one is better?
its realy up to personal prefrence if you like ripping the *** out of people than prototype is your game.
if you like a more refined polished game than infamous is the go,
and funny enough thats what every article ive read compareing the games said.
at the end of it there both must haves for me and both need more polish if sucker punch could do what they did in 2 years imagine what they could do in 3 or 4.
take prototype and give it to a realy talanted group of devs like naughty dog or ubisoft they would deliver everything prototype does but polished 100% how prototype should of been.
and seriously is there 1 person here that can remember 10 of the combos in prototype?
thats my main gripe with it every 5 minutes you have to pause the game to check the moves menu like its a bloody mortal kombat game.