Support NeoGAF

[theRizzle]

I see a 6.8 in there. That is an unacceptable!

Pre-order cancelled.

According to them, Supreme Commander 2 is .6 better than Alan Wake, and Samurai Showdown Sen is very nearly as good as Alan Wake.

:lol

 

[betweenthewheels]

I have the standard edition pre-ordered but I am having a tough time deciding whether to upgrade to the Collectors Edition.

Only thing I want from the CE is commentary, but is it worth the extra $20?

 

[derFeef]

I have the standard edition pre-ordered but I am having a tough time deciding whether to upgrade to the Collectors Edition.

Only thing I want from the CE is commentary, but is it worth the extra $20?

Woah 20$ extra? Find some other shop, fast. I am just 5€ more for the collectors edition here.

 

[eznark]

According to them, Supreme Commander 2 is .6 better than Alan Wake, and Samurai Showdown Sen is very nearly as good as Alan Wake.

:lol

Your contention is that it's impossible for someone to find SupCom 2 better than Alan Wake? Out of curiosity, about how far are you in each game?

 

[RedRedSuit]

I think this is just the nature of our times and again, one of the reasons why I don't put much stock into reviews anymore. The metacritic on this game looks like to be leveling out around the low 80s, and that is a disappointment? Seems like the bar has risen so high for AAA games that it needs to be a 95+ score on metacritic or its a failure.

You're overstating it. Yes, a low 80-s game is a disappointment, given the talent and past results of this team plus how long we've waited. No, it didn't need a 95+. But really, expecting something above 85 (ideally 90+) is not unreasonable for something of the magnitude of Alan Wake.

If Just Cause 2 averages an 82, that's not disappointing, because it's Just Cause 2. If FF XIII or Alan Wake gets an 82, that IS disappointing.

Of course, all of that is entirely superseded by the player's individual opinion upon actually playing the game. Until then, reviews are the best source of information on how good the game is. And low 80s would be a disappointment.

 

[Zinthar]

I see a 6.8 in there. That is an unacceptable!

Pre-order cancelled.

So people pre-ordered the game with almost zero information, and then are dropping it because suddenly we have a TON of information from the 30+ reviews out from people who have actually finished the game, and you find that odd?

Your logic is curious. Essentially your reasoning comes down to blind faith > reviews.

Considering that the game will be in the $20-30 range by Black Friday, it's unsurprising that some of us would choose to forego throwing $60 down on a game that's getting a middling reception from the media.

 

[Dries]

For the new page: http://forum.alanwake.com/showthread.php?t=3552

Still can't understand why people are complaining about these scores. I guess there's always something to pick on.

You're overstating it. Yes, a low 80-s game is a disappointment, given the talent and past results of this team plus how long we've waited. No, it didn't need a 95+. But really, expecting something above 85 (ideally 90+) is not unreasonable for something of the magnitude of Alan Wake.
.

But look at all the other reviews! A zillion of them are over the 90!

 

[SlasherJPC]

Considering that the game will be in the $20-30 range by Black Friday, it's unsurprising that some of us would choose to forego throwing $60 down on a game that's getting a middling reception from the media.

How the hell is the game getting middling reception? Wow.

 

[JdFoX187]

You're overstating it. Yes, a low 80-s game is a disappointment, given the talent and past results of this team plus how long we've waited. No, it didn't need a 95+. But really, expecting something above 85 (ideally 90+) is not unreasonable for something of the magnitude of Alan Wake.

If Just Cause 2 averages an 82, that's not disappointing, because it's Just Cause 2. If FF XIII or Alan Wake gets an 82, that IS disappointing.

Of course, all of that is entirely superseded by the player's individual opinion upon actually playing the game. Until then, reviews are the best source of information on how good the game is. And low 80s would be a disappointment.

Hence the problem with Metacritic in general. Too many people let obscure numbers justify their purchases. ZOMG, it gots low 80s! Title am fail!

Could it be that this is a polarizing game that some may like, and others may not? Nah...it has to be at X number or it's a failure. Christ, I miss the days when people bought games based on trailers and gameplay impressions from friends -- not from some obscure number posted at the end of a review that no one reads.

 

[RedRedSuit]

Still can't understand why people are complaining about these scores. I guess there's always something to pick on.

They're complaining because they're lower than expected.

But look at all the other reviews! A zillion of them are over the 90!

And almost none are above. Hence the current Metacritic average.

 

[betweenthewheels]

Woah 20$ extra? Find some other shop, fast. I am just 5€ more for the collectors edition here.

Yea, the CE is $89.99 compared to $69.99 here in Canada. I normally wouldn't bite, but i'm a big fan of commentary in games/movies

 

[SlasherJPC]

Hence the problem with Metacritic in general. Too many people let obscure numbers justify their purchases. ZOMG, it gots low 80s! Title am fail!

Could it be that this is a polarizing game that some may like, and others may not? Nah...it has to be at X number or it's a failure. Christ, I miss the days when people bought games based on trailers and gameplay impressions from friends -- not from some obscure number posted at the end of a review that no one reads.

I rate your post 8. So therefor no one will take it into consideration. :lol But yeah I agree exactly with your statement.

 

[Zinthar]

You're overstating it. Yes, a low 80-s game is a disappointment, given the talent and past results of this team plus how long we've waited. No, it didn't need a 95+. But really, expecting something above 85 (ideally 90+) is not unreasonable for something of the magnitude of Alan Wake.

If Just Cause 2 averages an 82, that's not disappointing, because it's Just Cause 2. If FF XIII or Alan Wake gets an 82, that IS disappointing.

Of course, all of that is entirely superseded by the player's individual opinion upon actually playing the game. Until then, reviews are the best source of information on how good the game is. And low 80s would be a disappointment.

I agree. With the time spent in development plus the pedigree of Remedy (Max Payne 2 still stands as an incredible action game 7 years later), we rightly expected more. Some of us really did expect that it wasn't going to be purely linear (since Remedy touted the open-world nature of it years ago).

Somewhere down the line, the game design was changed dramatically. Obviously, many of us will suspect that this was Microsoft Game Studios once again tightening the noose and suffocating the creative spirit of yet another developer. $50 says Remedy's next game has a different publisher.

 

[RedRedSuit]

Hence the problem with Metacritic in general. Too many people let obscure numbers justify their purchases. ZOMG, it gots low 80s! Title am fail!

Not FAIL. Disappointing does not mean FAIL.

The numbers are an expression of the content of the reviews. The reviews themselves have words. The words in many of these reviews appear to express the opinion that the game is somewhere between good and great. This is a disappointment to those of us who expected it to be great.

Trying to dismiss the impression by saying "OMG YOUER JSUT LOOKING AT SCROE!!!!" is not fair.

Could it be that this is a polarizing game that some may like, and others may not?

Yes.

That's why there are multiple reviews, not just one.

Christ, I miss the days when people bought games based on trailers

That is a terrible idea. Trailers are, 99% of the time, fake footage that has little if anything to do with what the game is actually like. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

and gameplay impressions from friends

Any smart gamer gets as much information as possible when deciding to buy a game. Reviews are one source. Friends' impressions are another source.

not from some obscure number posted at the end of a review that no one reads.

That's an assumption.

 

[black_vegeta]

This thread has turned into stank ass.

 

[Y2Kev]

This thread has turned into stank ass.

this made me laugh, I don't know why :lol

 

[derFeef]

I agree. With the time spent in development plus the pedigree of Remedy (Max Payne 2 still stands as an incredible action game 7 years later), we rightly expected more. Some of us really did expect that it wasn't going to be purely linear (since Remedy touted the open-world nature of it years ago).

Somewhere down the line, the game design was changed dramatically. Obviously, many of us will suspect that this was Microsoft Game Studios once again tightening the noose and suffocating the creative spirit of yet another developer. $50 says Remedy's next game has a different publisher.

You can not be more wrong on everything there. Max Payne 2 has only be greatly accepted by the fans, not the journalists. Just look at the scores it gained back then. And I hate the myth that Microsoft caused the termination of the open world segments. It is remedys game and remedy decided that they are going the more linear route some time ago. The game would be the exact same if it would come out for the PC too.

yes! It must be the evil microsoft that caused some of the issues people have with the game (voice acting/dialog, story design).

jesus some people are daft.

indeed.

 

[Zinthar]

How the hell is the game getting middling reception? Wow.

Middling as in no chance of a GOTY nomination and much less than we expected out of the developer of Max Payne 2.

Obviously I don't mean middling as in only better than 50% of all games released this year, but somewhere in the range of only the 50th percentile of games that were on my radar for purchasing. Some of us don't buy games that are shit -- if you own all platforms you're spoiled for choice right now.

 

[pr0cs]

Somewhere down the line, the game design was changed dramatically. Obviously, many of us will suspect that this was Microsoft Game Studios once again tightening the noose and suffocating the creative spirit of yet another developer. $50 says Remedy's next game has a different publisher.

yes! It must be the evil microsoft that caused some of the issues people have with the game (voice acting/dialog, story design).

jesus some people are daft.

 

[Omotesando]

Hence the problem with Metacritic in general. Too many people let obscure numbers justify their purchases. ZOMG, it gots low 80s! Title am fail!

Could it be that this is a polarizing game that some may like, and others may not? Nah...it has to be at X number or it's a failure. Christ, I miss the days when people bought games based on trailers and gameplay impressions from friends -- not from some obscure number posted at the end of a review that no one reads.

You miss those days? We live in en era where information has never been so easily obtained.

Judging from trailers, impressions (factual aspects of the game like the linearity for example) and gameplay videos is exactly why some people might not want Alan Wake...not some average score on a Metacritic site. Games can dissapoint guys, and some people can tell without Metacritic.

 

[JdFoX187]

Not FAIL. Disappointing does not mean FAIL.

The numbers are an expression of the content of the reviews. The reviews themselves have words. The words in many of these reviews appear to express the opinion that the game is somewhere between good and great. This is a disappointment to those of us who expected it to be great.

Trying to dismiss the impression by saying "OMG YOUER JSUT LOOKING AT SCROE!!!!" is not fair.



Yes.

That's why there are multiple reviews, not just one.



That is a terrible idea. Trailers are, 99% of the time, fake footage that has little if anything to do with what the game is actually like.



Any smart gamer gets as much information as possible when deciding to buy a game. Reviews are one source. Friends' impressions are another source.



That's an assumption.

I have seen glowing reviews that have lower numbers, and people bitch. The Gametrailers review is a perfect example. Obviously, the reviewer enjoyed the game, but it's score isn't as high as some people expect, therefore game is disappointing. When you specifically use the Metacritic average to say the game is disappointing, you are basing it entirely on review scores. Metacritic is a failure anyway. A 4/5 equals 80 percent on Metacritic, when it could be a solid 9.0 review or higher. A 3/4 is 75 percent on Metacritic, and so on. You cannot simply add a bunch of different review scores together and say the game is disappointing based on that review aggregate.

Most people here aren't reading the reviews, they're going by the updated Metacritic/Gamerankings score and that's it. From all of the hands-on impressions I've read from people that have the game, and reviewers, I find the game to be a very solid piece of work with some intense atmosphere and many "oh shit" moments all wrapped up in a Twin Peaks vibe that gives me chills. That's not disappointing, and I imagine anyone following the game would agree. But instead, it doesn't get a 9.0, therefore it's disappointing.

You miss those days? We live in en era where information has never been so easily obtained.

Judging from trailers, impressions (factual aspects of the game like the linearity for example) and gameplay videos is exactly why some people might not want Alan Wake...not some average score on a Metacritic site. Games can dissapoint guys, and some people can tell without Metacritic.

I miss those days because people weren't sheep that bought whatever game got the best reviews in the magazine at the time. Hell, I was too pour to get magazine subscriptions. I saw a game's trailer that was really awesome, or heard a friend at school talk about the cool new game he got, and I bought it, and was rarely disappointed.

I look at my collection right nwo and some of my most enjoyable games have lower Metacritic scores. I enjoyed Conan more than God of War III, and it got trashed in reviews. That's why the scores mean nothing to me.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Middling as in no chance of a GOTY nomination and much less than we expected out of the developer of Max Payne 2.

Obviously I don't mean middling as in only better than 50% of all games released this year, but somewhere in the range of only the 50th percentile of games that were on my radar for purchasing. Some of us don't buy games that are shit -- if you own all platforms you're spoiled for choice right now.

Well I do own PS3 and 360. I agree, most people don't buy shit games, but I'd hardly classify Alan Wake anywhere near that with the reviews its gotten. Also do people only purchase GOTY worthy games? It also vastly apparent to some of these reviewers that it does match the expectations of the dev of Max Payne 2.

 

[Saty]

and it's not like people are only pointing out at the scores. The reviews describe some substantial issues with the game that seem to be hard to ignore, even reading the more positive thoughts.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

You're overstating it. Yes, a low 80-s game is a disappointment, given the talent and past results of this team plus how long we've waited. No, it didn't need a 95+. But really, expecting something above 85 (ideally 90+) is not unreasonable for something of the magnitude of Alan Wake.

It probably is in the high 80s, however, when you take into account all reviews listed in that thread on the official forum. I presume it will be the same on Metacritic when their review count grows past the fifties. But I don't know why someone would pay that much attention to average scores as they actually mean jack shit, especially Metacritic's metascore.

I agree. With the time spent in development plus the pedigree of Remedy (Max Payne 2 still stands as an incredible action game 7 years later), we rightly expected more. Some of us really did expect that it wasn't going to be purely linear (since Remedy touted the open-world nature of it years ago).

What are you talking about? Max Payne 2 has a Metacritic average of 86, therefore it can not be an incredible game.

 

[RedRedSuit]

I have seen glowing reviews that have lower numbers, and people bitch. The Gametrailers review is a perfect example. Obviously, the reviewer enjoyed the game, but it's score isn't as high as some people expect, therefore game is disappointing.

I've seen more bitching about GT docking it for not having multiplayer. GT are a piece of shit site anyway.

When you specifically use the Metacritic average to say the game is disappointing, you are basing it entirely on review scores.

Review scores don't exist in a vacuum. Generally -- on average -- review scores are an expression of the words within the reviews. Reading these reviews, that is clearly the case with Alan Wake. Therefore, using the score as a summary of the words within the reviews is not outlandish and is perfectly justified. No one's claiming it is scientific, but it gives a decent idea of the game's reception. It's just common sense.

Metacritic is a failure anyway. A 4/5 equals 80 percent on Metacritic, when it could be a solid 9.0 review or higher. A 3/4 is 75 percent on Metacritic, and so on.

I don't understand what you're talking about. 4/5 = 80. 4.5/5 = 90. Anything else would be asinine.

Most people here aren't reading the reviews, they're going by the updated Metacritic/Gamerankings score and that's it.

Prove it.

But instead, it doesn't get a 9.0, therefore it's disappointing.

If it doesn't get a 9.0, then clearly the reviewer found that it doesn't deserve 9.0. If the expectation was that like-minded reviewers would find the game an A- or better game, and then they didn't, then that's disappointed.

Like I said before, that does NOT in any way mean people disagreeing with the reviewer (upon playing the game, obviously) are incorrect. What matters in the end is what YOU think. However, reviews are a valuable source of information before you decide to buy the game. And when those reviews don't measure up to the expectations, that is disappointing. It's just common sense.

 

[Zinthar]

You can not be more wrong on everything there. Max Payne 2 has only be greatly accepted by the fans, not the journalists. Just look at the scores it gained back then. And I hate the myth that Microsoft caused the termination of the open world segments. It is remedys game and remedy decided that they are going the more linear route some time ago. The game would be the exact same if it would come out for the PC too.

Max Payne 2 managed to get a 9.0 out of Greg Kasavin @ Gamespot -- incredibly rare at that time.

 

[derFeef]

Max Payne 2 managed to get a 9.0 out of Greg Kasavin @ Gamespot -- incredibly rare at that time.

And AW gained a 9/10 from eurogamer.de - also rare - Whats your point.

 

[RedRedSuit]

I enjoyed Conan more than God of War III, and it got trashed in reviews. That's why the scores mean nothing to me.

Well, that explains a lot.

If your views typically are the exact polar opposite of what most other people think, then of course any kind of measure of critical or popular reception will have zero use to you. :lol

 

[Dries]

Jeez.. Alan Wake and GAF are not a good combo. First the whole resolution debacle and now this...

 

[Punchy4486]

You're overstating it. Yes, a low 80-s game is a disappointment, given the talent and past results of this team plus how long we've waited. No, it didn't need a 95+. But really, expecting something above 85 (ideally 90+) is not unreasonable for something of the magnitude of Alan Wake.

The first two Max Payne games got reviews in the same ballpark as Alan Wake is getting now. I think those reviews were fair. Guess what? I loved Max Payne, and so do many of the people that rated it such. It recognizes flaws with the game, but says that's it's ultimately an enjoyable experience. You people are ridiculous and short-sighted.

 

[Majmun]

Hell, I love Nier. So low review scores won't hurt my anticipation for this game.

 

[Metalic Sand]

Score talk is always funny. 80-85 being middle. SMH :lol

I think the $20 extra is worth it for the commentary personally. Its really all i care about from the CE.

Spoiler

And that im only paying $60 for it

 

[RedRedSuit]

The first two Max Payne games got reviews in the same ballpark as Alan Wake is getting now. I think those reviews were fair. Guess what? I loved Max Payne, and so do many of the people that rated it such. It recognizes flaws with the game, but says that's it's ultimately an enjoyable experience. You people are ridiculous and short-sighted.

Max Payne averaged 89 on MC (PC version -- the only that counts). That is already quite a bit higher than AW.

Max Payne 2 averaged 86 on MC, and it took them 2 years to make. AW took 6 years to make. Coming out with a game that's a bit worse than their uber-short Max Payne sequel is not encouraging.

Moreover, metascores nearly always go down by a good 3-4 points in the weeks after a game's release. AW started at 84; therefore it'll probably end up at like 81 or 82. That is quite a bit worse than either of the Max Paynes (on PC, the lead platform).

Ridiculous and short-sighted? I don't think so.

Hell, I love Nier. So low review scores won't hurt my anticipation for this game.

No one is saying they should.

 

[Mr. Miyato]

I don't understand what you're talking about. 4/5 = 80. 4.5/5 = 90. Anything else would be asinine.

On a 5 point scale 4/5 could be anything between 70-89/100. You really have to read each review to get a feel for the pros and cons of the game.

edit: Personally, I go by Gametrailers video reviews and if I still feel insecure I read a review from one of the major sites. My opinion usually fits with Gametrailers though.

 

[JdFoX187]

I've seen more bitching about GT docking it for not having multiplayer. GT are a piece of shit site anyway.



Review scores don't exist in a vacuum. Generally -- on average -- review scores are an expression of the words within the reviews. Reading these reviews, that is clearly the case with Alan Wake. Therefore, using the score as a summary of the words within the reviews is not outlandish and is perfectly justified. No one's claiming it is scientific, but it gives a decent idea of the game's reception. It's just common sense.



I don't understand what you're talking about. 4/5 = 80. 4.5/5 = 90. Anything else would be asinine.



Prove it.



If it doesn't get a 9.0, then clearly the reviewer found that it doesn't deserve 9.0. If the expectation was that like-minded reviewers would find the game an A- or better game, and then they didn't, then that's disappointed.

Like I said before, that does NOT in any way mean people disagreeing with the reviewer (upon playing the game, obviously) are incorrect. What matters in the end is what YOU think. However, reviews are a valuable source of information before you decide to buy the game. And when those reviews don't measure up to the expectations, that is disappointing. It's just common sense.

Review scores are just that -- a score. Give me a review like Joystiq where they talk about the game and force you to read the review if you want to know the quality of it. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have review scores, we would just have reviews. That's why I get pissed off when I review a game and my editor forces me to stick a random "...out of four stars" on the end of it.

If you want proof most people aren't reading reviews, just look at this thread. "82 on Metacritic, this game is disappointing." Doesn't matter the game might be extremely well-made. It doesn't have a high enough Metacritic, therefore it's disappointing.

Well, that explains a lot.

If your views typically are the exact polar opposite of what most other people think, then of course any kind of measure of critical or popular reception will have zero use to you. :lol

Yeah, other critical opinion doesn't bother me that much because I see a game that looks interesting and I either rent it, or buy it, depending on what friends/GAF say. Deadly Premonition seems to be one of the most well-received horror games here, and it got hammered by review scores. Final Fantasy XIII is doing well on the Metacritic, and people hate it. Grand Theft Auto IV has one of the highest Metacritic scores of all time and people hate it. Scores usually don't mean shit. Granted, if a game gets trashed across the board, it's probably going to suck. But once you get passed the 70s on Metacritic, it doesn't mean a damn thing. Shadowrun got trashed with review scores, but with most reviews saying the gameplay was tight, it was fun and addicting. Guess what -- my favorite shooter this generation. All I'm saying is don't let a review score dictate the purchase of a game because it's three or four points below what you think it should have been.

 

[RedRedSuit]

On a 5 point scale 4/5 could be anything between 70-89/100.

4/5 is approximately 80%; which is approximately a B grade. There's no need to complicate it beyond that.

You really have to read each review to get a feel for the pros and cons of the game.

Obviously. The reviews for this game so far do not indicate anything particularly different from the impression that the MC score gives.

 

[RedRedSuit]

But once you get passed the 70s on Metacritic, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Maybe to you. I find this to be a totally unreasonable statement.

To the majority of people, I can almost damn well guarantee you that a double-blinds study would show that a 95/100 game is enjoyed significantly more than a 70/100 game (without knowledge of the review scores).

It's not an exact science, of course. But to say that any scores above 70 are unrelated to how good the games are is too much.

Shadowrun got trashed with review scores, but with most reviews saying the gameplay was tight, it was fun and addicting. Guess what -- my favorite shooter this generation.

Like I said... if you pretty much like things other people dislike, then reviews are worthless to you by definition.

As far as I'm concerned, Shadowrun was mediocre and was rated as such.

 

[Yoritomo]

My favorite 360 games so far are both mid to low 80s games on metacritic.

Crackdown and Dead Rising.

 

[Mr. Miyato]

4/5 is approximately 80%; which is approximately a B grade. There's no need to complicate it beyond that.

Though if a game is between 80-90 in reviews, there is a bigger chance that the game would be graded higher if the reviewer used the same scale as everyone else. So an 85 game would be an approximate 85 from every 4/5 site, and a 75 game would be an approximate 75 from every 4/5 site. Which indeed would be too complex to keep track of. Which is why I go to a few sites that fit my taste

 

[op_ivy]

good i hate discussions about game reviews... we've seen a shit ton of gameplay footage by now, if you cant make up your own mind if its worth owning, rent first and shut up about "low 80's review scores".

 

[ShogunX]

Whoah what the hell happened in here? Seriously now its pretty obvious that Alan Wake isn't going to be a game that hits home for everybody as seen in the reviews. Some people let certain details in games bog them down too much and feel like they have to point these things out in reviews.

Look at the contrast in opinions between the Eurogamer review handled by somebody who constantly compares Alan Wake to games that share almost nothing in common with it and the GamingTrend review. The guy (and his wife) obviously got absorbed in the amazing atmosphere and setting offered up by the game. My point being people look for different things from their games and honestly if your one who enjoys a bit of thought behind your games and you appreciate what Alan Wake is aiming for then why get hung up on the opinions of people who don't enjoy the genre?

It seems like the Eurogamer review pops up quite often but again I have to question a review that gets major plots of the story wrong a few paragraphs in.

 

[elrechazado]

Maybe to you. I find this to be a totally unreasonable statement.

To the majority of people, I can almost damn well guarantee you that a double-blinds study would show that a 95/100 game is enjoyed significantly more than a 70/100 game (without knowledge of the review scores).

It's not an exact science, of course. But to say that any scores above 70 are unrelated to how good the games are is too much.



Like I said... if you pretty much like things other people dislike, then reviews are worthless to you by definition.

As far as I'm concerned, Shadowrun was mediocre and was rated as such.

Do you only listen to nsync and top 40 hits?

 

[Pistolero]

Me being a total fan of horror movies/novels/games, I'm expecting AW not only to be part of my 2010 elite experiences, but also to end up being one of my favorite games of the gen. However, I can't but feel a little bit disappointed about of the game's graphics and animations...Very good overall, but quite incoherent (And I've seen the game first hand yesterday).

The reviews were poised to diverge. Alan Wake is all about the story and atmosphere, so it's a more risky venture than, let's say, your average action-game. If you are insensitive to the background, the gameplay mechanics, fairly traditional, won't help you appreciate it more. If you are suck into it howver, you will get so abosrbed that you will indulge some of its shortcomings...

 

[JdFoX187]

Maybe to you. I find this to be a totally unreasonable statement.

To the majority of people, I can almost damn well guarantee you that a double-blinds study would show that a 95/100 game is enjoyed significantly more than a 70/100 game (without knowledge of the review scores).

It's not an exact science, of course. But to say that any scores above 70 are unrelated to how good the games are is too much.

Like I said... if you pretty much like things other people dislike, then reviews are worthless to you by definition.

As far as I'm concerned, Shadowrun was mediocre and was rated as such.

We're not talking about the difference between a 90/100 rated game and a 70/100 game. As I said, generally, a game with lower scores will generally be not as enjoyable as another one of better average review scores. But it doesn't mean that lower-rated game is garbage. Lesser production values, not as exposed franchise or studio can add to those things.

You're in here saying Alan Wake is disappointing -- without having played it -- simply because it's sitting at an 82 review score when you think it should be 87 or 88. Honestly, are those six points really going to make that big of a difference? That's like debating whether Half-Life 2 is better than Half-Life based off their scores. There's maybe a point or two difference there. Does that mean Half-Life is disappointing in regards to its sequel? No.

Scores aren't the end-all-be-all of the industry. Shadowrun was a very well-made game, but was light on content, and got docked for being multiplayer-only. You admitted Alan Wake got docked for being singleplayer-only. Where's the difference?

 

[DeadGzuz]

Still can't understand why people are complaining about these scores. I guess there's always something to pick on.

I think it is about context. To some they were expecting a AAA game by a experienced dev who has been working on it for five years. To others they were reading in the other thread about "GOTY" and "top five graphics this gen", so expectation were being ramped up by plenty of folks in this thread.

 

[Dries]

Whoah what the hell happened in here? Seriously now its pretty obvious that Alan Wake isn't going to be a game that hits home for everybody as seen in the reviews. Some people let certain details in games bog them down too much and feel like they have to point these things out in reviews.

Look at the contrast in opinions between the Eurogamer review handled by somebody who constantly compares Alan Wake to games that share almost nothing in common with it and the GamingTrend review. The guy (and his wife) obviously got absorbed in the amazing atmosphere and setting offered up by the game. My point being people look for different things from their games and honestly if your one who enjoys a bit of thought behind your games and you appreciate what Alan Wake is aiming for then why get hung up on the opinions of people who don't enjoy the genre?

It seems like the Eurogamer review pops up quite often but again I have to question a review that gets major plots of the story wrong a few paragraphs in.

Your're good.

The most important thing for me in videogames is the atmosphere and the ''feeling'' of the game. That's what I look for in games, so for me Alan Wake is all covered in win.

 

[dofry]

I enjoyed Conan more than God of War III, and it got trashed in reviews. That's why the scores mean nothing to me.

You sir have nice taste in fun games. Conan was excellent, and so was Wolverine I might add. Because not all sites have equal credibility I recommend you learn finnish and start reading, because I have a magazine for you. Pelit gave Conan 85, Wolverine 87 and for Alan Wake 87/88. They sure know good games.

 

[Pistolero]

The most important thing for me in videogames is the atmosphere and the ''feeling'' of the game. That's what I look for in games, so for me Alan Wake is all covered in win.

For games built around atmosphere, that's inherently true! I think that AW should be celebrated, because the horror genre in videogames is anything but crowded...

 

[RedRedSuit]

We're not talking about the difference between a 90/100 rated game and a 70/100 game.

YOU said that any scores above 70 don't mean a damn thing other than "this game doesn't blow." I was going off what you said. EDIT: It appears you actually said "past the 70s," so I misread what you wrote. My bad. My point still stands, however. An 80/100 game is likely to be liked less than a 95/100 game.

You're in here saying Alan Wake is disappointing -- without having played it -- simply because it's sitting at an 82 review score when you think it should be 87 or 88.

No. I said the REVIEWS are disappointing -- and they are. That was a reasonable thing to say.

I also said, at the very beginning of this discussion, that personal opinion totally supersedes any reviews or scores. That was also a reasonable thing to say and entirely preempts the whole "disappointing -- without having played it" angle.

Honestly, are those six points really going to make that big of a difference?

I'd say 4-5 points is where one can reasonably consider two MC scores to actually be different.

Scores aren't the end-all-be-all of the industry.

That's a highly random comment, given that I never claimed anything of the sort.

Shadowrun was a very well-made game

Shadowrun was mediocre.

You admitted Alan Wake got docked for being singleplayer-only. Where's the difference?

I already said GT is a POS site.

Do you only listen to nsync and top 40 hits?

You're confusing popularity with critical opinion.

I listen to music that I can either (a) sample before buying, or (b) if it gets a good reception from people or publications that I trust, or (c) both. That is no different from how I choose which games to buy. As I said a few posts above, a smart gamer uses various sources of information to make buying decisions. Reviews are one of those sources, though by no means the only one or the most important one.

 

[WickedLaharl]

are there people that honestly believe the open world aspect of AW was changed because of m$ft? :lol