any reviews of games that you have strongly disagreed with?

[Balou]

I think Tokyo Xtreme Racer 3 is much better than most reviews on the internet state. It is definitely better than the sum of its individual parts and has a certain feel to it that I like very much, although I think it should have been a bit brighter in colors, like Kaido Battle 2.
I would love to see a combination of both games, with bright colors and green environments, but the battles still taking place on Japanese highways.
It is also a racing game where you don?t need to slow down a lot and it always keeps on moving.
Unfortunately my used copy from ebgames.com was damaged right from the beginning, so I was never able to advance much into the game.
I?m still looking to get it cheap somewhere to play it to the end.

[Stuart Smith]

It's not stricly a console game (they ported it, randomly, to the N64 and I can't comment on the quality) but StarCraft is probably the most underrated game I've ever played. It's not that the reviews dismissed it out of hand, most simply said it was a disappointment and not as good as C&C, Warcraft and Total Annihilation (now there's a candidate for most overrated game ever. TA was rubbish). Far from it. In my humble opinion, years down the line StarCraft has yet to be bettered in the RTS stakes, and if Blizzard don't do a full sequel soon, then they're clearly insane. However SC: Ghost performs, a full RTS sequel is simply a must!

[gizmo1990]

It's not stricly a console game (they ported it, randomly, to the N64 and I can't comment on the quality) but StarCraft is probably the most underrated game I've ever played. It's not that the reviews dismissed it out of hand, most simply said it was a disappointment and not as good as C&C, Warcraft and Total Annihilation (now there's a candidate for most overrated game ever. TA was rubbish). Far from it. In my humble opinion, years down the line StarCraft has yet to be bettered in the RTS stakes, and if Blizzard don't do a full sequel soon, then they're clearly insane. However SC: Ghost performs, a full RTS sequel is simply a must!

Hmm I don't quite see how you've formed your opinion of Starcrafts reputation?

As far as I can remember it got great marks in all the major pc press of the day? And is still very highly regarded in the rts community.

Don't get me wrong I feel to some extent that it is the last 'great' rts but I'm pretty sure it got its rewards at the time?

[Ady]

Most PN03 reviews.

That and Edge's FF8 review from way back when. The review gushed solely about its graphics and then slapped an ill-deserved 9/10 score at the end.

[Kongster]

Edge's review of Virtua Fighter 4 was so ill informed, it was a bloody joke. And come to think of it, you can tell just how much they played the game (not very much!!) just by looking at their screenshots.

[Ouenben]

Kirby's Air ride, dunno why it got low scores (NOM didn't like it) I love it and it's very fun multiplayer

[Concept]

Edge's review of Virtua Fighter 4 was so ill informed, it was a bloody joke. And come to think of it, you can tell just how much they played the game (not very much!!) just by looking at their screenshots.

Needless to say, an opinion is only opinion so people will never agree on reviews, but I do feel EDGE have underestimated a number of games that have otherwise since become firmly rooted classics.

ICO, Grand Theft Auto III, Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution (probably the laziest review in the magazine's history for one of the most important beat'em'ups since Soul Calibur) and Panzer Dragoon Orta were all glossed over as to the extent of their worth. It's impossible to see into the future of course, but you would have hoped for some foresight based on previous mistakes (Gunstar Heroes, Radiant Silvergun, Turok 2).

In particular, I feel at the time of release, ICO and Grand Theft Auto III were underestimated as to the true lasting impression they had the chance to leave.

[SummAh]

Ditto to Kirby's Air ride....I found it an excellent multi player game...not too shabby 1p mode as well...to each its own i guess...

[eastyy]

while i agree people have there own opinions years ago before i had internet access there opinions on games influenced what i bought even now with internet access opinions vary wildly pn03 i probably would never have bought if i only had based my buying from most of the big review sites like ign.com jade empire on ign got 9.9 out of 10 which implys its nearly perfect having played through the game i can safely say while it is good to say its near perfect is a lie.
Even now peoples opinions are important to me i would take on board a variety of opinions on games perhaps download some footage and decide if its my type of game.Ok there are some genres i prefer more than others i dont really play any sports games so really i cannot give a opinion on those type of games because i just dont like them its like one review i saw years ago i think it was for fifa 96 for one line in the review i saw was "i dont really like football games" i just felt like writing why the hell dont they get someone to review it who does like football games if people do not like a certain genre there is not much chance of a game coming that will change there mind

[Concept]

Never trust one source. I always use a mixture of reviews and public opinion (such as here/Rllmuk/Gamecritics etc.), and my own personal feelings on a title before I buy anything.

The reason I disagree with some reviews is because I feel sometimes there's inconsistencies that happen. It occurs at NTSC-uk too just as everywhere else.

In particular, there were heated discussions and problems when I reviewed Resident Evil 4.

[eastyy]

i think ages ago there was a game on gamefaqs.com cannot remember which and it must have had 20+ reviews giving the game great marks 8/10 + but there was one review that only gave the game 3 or 4/10 everyone else thinks the game is great while this one person does not it just felt like to me this one person purely wanted to give the game a bad review not because the game was terrible but because everyone else said it was great.Perhaps he genuinely though the game was rubbish but i just cannot see how if he was not a fan of the genre why did he buy it?(hmm must find what game it was)

[Madbury]

Burnout3 is the one that constantly amazes me. I find it more shocking because there really isn't anything to 'get' in that game. I can understand how a reviewer can miss the nuances of a title like VF4 Evo, but Burnout3 has no hidden qualities.

I achieved gold on about 90% of the game, but at no time did I feel like I was enjoying myself. The game has difficulty spikes all over the shop and the racing is laughably weak. Perhaps the biggest disappointment was the crash junctions. What could have been a great addition was reduced to ?aim your car for the 4x multiplier?. The majority of the junctions can be completed with gold on your first run.

Hyperbole were thrown around with gay abandon in almost every review of this game, proclaiming it to redefine the arcade racing genre. Utter piffle.

[Concept]

That happens a lot with the fanboy's there, and one of my guilty pleasures is to read reviews that are so blantantly there to ride against popular opinion. Panzer Dragoon Saga for example had a review marking it 3/10, and no more good than being used for a coaster.

[Concept]

Looks like one to miss then. I loved the original Burnout, and bought 3 based on the hype, but I could only play it for an hour before turning it off. The EA-ness of it did my nut in... with a tutorial interrupting (read: patronising) me every five minutes.

[eastyy]

i agree with burnout 3 as soon as ea were involved the whole thing changed annoying dj /real tunes over the top presentation when i mean over the top it just seems to take so long before you can start the next event.Of course its still a good game but i would have prefered if EA'S influence was not so obvious