-
-
Shocked at a 3, i love this game online, but agree theres luck involved, but 3 seems very harsh -
I didn't score this one!
Comment
-
?
another ridiculous score from the ntsc review team.....
brilliant game - fast, exciting, looks great and highly playable
been through it twice already, cant wait for a sequelLast edited by dvdx2; 27-07-2010, 08:10.Comment
-
It's not a ridiculous score - there are players that hated this game for the exact reasons the review describes.
If I hated a game and regretted buying it, a 3/10 would seem generous. I know the game has its fans, but it's fine to have a review written from the point of the haters too.Comment
-
I have to disagree with the review stating that progress and victory during a race is largely down to luck. Being out in first place and weaving around the CPU-activated power plays leads to some exhilarating moments.
The TV show previews really aren't that offensive either. They're only a few seconds long.Comment
-
3/10 is like saying it has almost no redeeming features. It handles pretty well and looks nice and offers bouts of excitement. I think it is pretty average myself but not that bad.Comment
-
Jesus H Corbett, what version of the game did you play? It's a great fun racer, mad as a box of frogs, and completely over the top.
I think the point has been missed entirely here. Or maybe I've just got no taste.
*denial*
Comment
-
its a stupid score to give a game that has faults but in no way is at that level.
I don't know if the intention is to occasionally post silly reviews to get some reaction but this is so clearly out of tune with how this game in general was received as to make the review irrelevent.
The game had a metacritic average of 80+% with a lowest score of 6/10, in any statisitcal analysis you would discard the NTSC opinion (in this case) as an irrelevent freak outlyer now worthy of attention.Comment
-
A 3/10 says to me (and most I'd guess) that it's a truly horrendous pile of **** with glaring errors all over it...and I doubt that to be true.
I'm with merf! If I didn't know better I'd suspect there were an attempt at attention seeking going on...but I'm sure that's not the case and the reviewer genuinely hated it, but even then, they might not like the game but good lord, that score isn't seen often nowadays, even with really bad games.
I noted the usage of the terminology "broken" a few times, and I've not seen or heard anyone else say that about this game.
I will say though, seeing some of the other reviews by the same chap, we don't agree on quite a few games, so horses for course and all that!
Last edited by Jebus; 27-07-2010, 10:58.Comment
-
from the review
"some explosions are simply impossible to dodge, no matter how good a driver you are. For example when a power plant?s huge cooling tower blows up, should you find yourself underneath it, there is no way to avoid being wrecked"
lol
i'd like to think so, cant really imagine anything being able to with-stand thousands of tons of rubble..Comment
-
yeah - it is a ridiculous score; the review has a little more credibility without a score - with it, its daftOriginally posted by Brats View PostComment
-
Not quite, re-read the First Play thread, this was not a game universally praised by the forum readership.Originally posted by merf View Post
Different sites score games in different ways. I would say a 6/10 from Gamesmaster magazine for example would relate roughly to a 3/10 from Ntsc-Uk. Metacritic is absolutely useless for comparing between reviews of the same title. It's only statistical worth is comparing averages between titles, based on the assumption of course that they have been reviewed by the same set of review sources.Originally posted by merf View PostComment
-
Whether it's realistic or not isn't the point though. It's whether the reviwer found it fun or not.Originally posted by dvdx2 View Post
The text is pretty damning, so the score seems fair enough to me.yeah - it is a ridiculous score; the review has a little more credibility without a score - with it, its daft
But reviews aren't statistics to be viewed in this way as many sites have different review criteria (which is why Metacritic is fundamentally flawed). I think it's fair to say that this is a game that makes a very good first impression, and games that do that often score very well from reviewers that don't bother playing very much before posting their scores.The game had a metacritic average of 80+% with a lowest score of 6/10, in any statisitcal analysis you would discard the NTSC opinion (in this case) as an irrelevent freak outlyer now worthy of attention.
No it isn't.I don't know if the intention is to occasionally post silly reviews to get some reaction but this is so clearly out of tune with how this game in general was received as to make the review irrelevent.
I can't understand the issue with this score. The review is in line with quite a few people's impressions that I've read. Our own First Play thread has some really negative comments from some posters who found the game wholly unsatisfactory, such as 'overall its a game that would rather kick you in the teeth than let you have fun ' and 'Got a refund for it today. Got up the 9th Episode, just not enjoying it'. It was really loathed in a few places I frequent, and this review is representative of those impressions.
If this review was for a game such as SMG2 which at worst some people find a bit boring, I could understand the comments. But this is a review of a game that some people really disliked.
For what it's worth, i thought the game was pretty good. I'd be interested to read the thoughts of the review from those that really disliked it.Comment
-
3 seems a bit harsh but i did also think it was a pretty crap game.
Once you realise that the mechanics are slightly broken and the A.I. just plain cheats its certainly no longer a fun game.
Ive seen more controversial scores on here latley.Comment
Comment