Maybe it's because I used to freelance for a few sites like 1Up a while back, but I really dislike when people hate on a reviewer because they disagree with the score. What I
am okay with is people calling out a reviewer for a review that is genuinely shitty and that demonstrates no legitimate attempt to understand the game in question.
Like this:
Developer Cave is top gun of the genre, having delivered classics like Donpachi, Deathsmiles, and Espgaluda over the past two decades. We expect greatness from these guys, which is why their latest effort, Akai Katana, disappoints despite being enjoyable. Nearly 20 years after Donpachi, Akai Katana doesn't give us much new to do or admire.
Alright, it's clear here that the guy knew absolutely nothing about Cave games, so he ventured over to Wikipedia, saw Donpachi was their first game, and said "oh, this'll make it sound like I know what I'm talking about." Except, it doesn't. Nobody cites Donpachi as being important (though it's a solid game), and trying to use Donpachi to demonstrate just how little Cave's games have changed is absurd. It's like saying Halo didn't really do much new that wasn't already in Marathon.
Think Gradius or R-type but with a lot more stuff on your screen, and you've got the basic idea of what Akai Katana is.
No, I don't. If I don't know jack-shit about Cave's games or the bullet-hell genre (which I still wouldn't after that waste of an introduction), why would I understand what "Gradius with a lot more stuff on your screen" even means? At best, one would deduce that it means more bullets. But is that even enough to have a basic understanding of the game? No.
I've played a bunch of Akai Katana, and I enjoy it, but I'm still not exactly sure how it all works.
Okay, I get what he's trying to say - the game's mechanics are kind of confusing and aren't especially well-explained. That's fine. But reviewing a game that you admit you don't even understand? Ya can't spell "ignorance" without...
There's no reason a game has to out-gimmick Treasure's shmups, unless the developers are trying to appease a reviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Sine Mora is more beautiful.
Why, that
is a good reason why Sine Mora is a better game!
The chunky vehicles remind me of Donpachi
"See guys? I'm up on those shoot-them-ups all the kids are playing!"
Sine Mora is the better, more exciting, more interesting shooter in every way, and it's a $15 Xbox Live Arcade game.
I'm sorry, are we reviewing Sine Mora here? Maybe we should review why, exactly, you're getting paid to write this dreck.
... right now Akai Katana costs the same as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.
What could have been an inexpensive downloadable game is a $40 retail product. Still, it's an enjoyable effort, if not an amazing one.
So... the current low price for a completely unrelated game in a completely unrelated genre is a reason not to buy Akai Katana? What happens if Akai Katana plummets to $10 next week? Is the game an 8.5 then? And why, exactly is an "amazing" effort (your words, not mine) not worth $40, simply because it
could have been a downloadable instead?
Isn't a review supposed to be about the game's
quality and not about your disappointment that the couponing here is not extreme? I get that price is a relevant concern, but seriously -- keep it to one line instead of making it your damn thesis. If someone reads this review a few years down the road, trying to decide if they should pick the game up, it's even more irrelevant than it is right now.
Graphics: Recent 2D shooter Sine Mora blows Akai Katana away.
Well, if we're talking about graphics, it's 3D, kid.
The point is, this is a horrible review that provides the reader with no real understanding of what the game does well, that makes irrelevant comparisons throughout the entire piece, and that is overly fixated on the frankly not-all-that-important price tag. This is
precisely the reason why people criticize games journalism, and they would be entirely justified in this instance.
I should go on these rants more often... it's kinda fun.
