My name is Alan Wake. I'm a writer. |OT|
- Thread starter BruceLeeRoy
- Start date
metareferential
Member
Truant said:
This.
It was a poorly written article in a linguistic sense.
There are some serious problems with its coherence.
Even if she was writing about some fancy new recipes it would have been a bad article (yeah sexist joke, I'm so evil xD).
Between Two Nerds: Alan Wake Dissected
Product placement? No enemy variety? 10 hours long? We waited five years for this!?!
by IGN
edit: alright, that is garbage.
Product placement? No enemy variety? 10 hours long? We waited five years for this!?!
by IGN
edit: alright, that is garbage.
Windom Earle
Member
mescalineeyes said:
Agreed dude. Personally ridiculing her (hotness, etc.) because you don't like her review scores? Wow, pathetic.
bj00rn_ said:
High five!
And my tech predictions were unfortunately spot on. It seems to be even worse actually.
plagiarize
Banned
okay... i'm so keeping my pre-order on the collectors. that looks beautiful.
and lay off Ellie. she's a decent reviewer.
i don't think reviews of a game should just be done by fans of the genre. Alan Wake is a big exclusive. lots of people are going to be wondering if it's for them.
i've always said that reviews are only really useful when you know a bit about the reviewers taste in games.
and yes, Remedy can have worked hard to make a game with impressive visuals and have not quite managed to pull it off. one can be taken as their intent, and the other can be taken as the final product.
if a game doesn't have wide appeal, i have no problem with the reviews showing that, so long as there are plenty of places i can go to to see if the game appeals to its target audience and people like me.
and lay off Ellie. she's a decent reviewer.
i don't think reviews of a game should just be done by fans of the genre. Alan Wake is a big exclusive. lots of people are going to be wondering if it's for them.
i've always said that reviews are only really useful when you know a bit about the reviewers taste in games.
and yes, Remedy can have worked hard to make a game with impressive visuals and have not quite managed to pull it off. one can be taken as their intent, and the other can be taken as the final product.
if a game doesn't have wide appeal, i have no problem with the reviews showing that, so long as there are plenty of places i can go to to see if the game appeals to its target audience and people like me.
TheVampire
Banned
So I played the first 10 minutes.
Pretty good, just oozing atmosphere.
However I did notice tearing when spinning the camera around which seems to have quite high sensitiviity by default.
Pretty good, just oozing atmosphere.
However I did notice tearing when spinning the camera around which seems to have quite high sensitiviity by default.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUFFYF6OJU0&feature=player_embedded
Looks like MS might have prevented the physical stores from selling (for now, I'm sure later today they'll sell it again) it but it's too late for shipped items :lol Hopefully I can get it today
Looks like MS might have prevented the physical stores from selling (for now, I'm sure later today they'll sell it again) it but it's too late for shipped items :lol Hopefully I can get it today
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
I thought he was going to snap the soundtrack CD in two at the end. :lolPeff said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUFFYF6OJU0&feature=player_embedded
Looks like MS might have prevented the physical stores from selling (for now, I'm sure later today they'll sell it again) it but it's too late for shipped items :lol Hopefully I can get it today
Domcorleone
Member
its a good game so far, but whether or not Ellie is qualified to review AW based on her preferences, she is right about some things in the review, im on chapter 3 and i see some of the things she is saying already. Mind you I played it BEFORE reading any reviews
mescalineeyes
Banned
eznark said:
how is this not true for, say, Modern Warfare 2, or Uncharted 2? (campaigns, of course)
BattleMonkey
Member
mescalineeyes said:
And Tom Chick complained about those types of games too.
mescalineeyes
Banned
well, I know Tom Chick complains about everything and trolls PS3 exclusives, but if I am having fun doing something, I might still be having fun doing the same thing in 12 hours.
I think one of the major problems is that these guys barely had the game for, what, a week, and had to make major headway to get reviews out and ended up playing long stretches of the game within a very short amount of time, making them feel the tedium more than if you say, play one episode a day.
That being said, I rarely ever agree with Tom Chick so whatever.
I think one of the major problems is that these guys barely had the game for, what, a week, and had to make major headway to get reviews out and ended up playing long stretches of the game within a very short amount of time, making them feel the tedium more than if you say, play one episode a day.
That being said, I rarely ever agree with Tom Chick so whatever.
BattleMonkey
Member
Lunchbox said:
So they should have gotten a dude bro who likes repetitve shooting of things? Because that is not what Chick is. He is probably the best person to review the game and is not really pointin out anything different than has been brought up already several times in other reviews.
mescalineeyes said:
Thats Irresponsible reviewing. If im a gamer that loves Gears, Resident Evil etc i'd assume reviews are written by those that like the same, i wonder how she would have scored SF4 and VF games given that she DOESNT CARE FOR FIGHTERS!
Anyway, im going to be playing it soon. So we shall see.
mescalineeyes
Banned
Prine said:
I honestly believe that you can not compare fighters with a "regular" 3rd person shooter. I think, to some extent, everyone can get enjoyment out of a game like Alan Wake, as long as they like the setting. (Whereas a fighter demands you to get to know it's system etc.etc.)
So maybe she's not in love with the genre, big whoop, if she could derive 7/10 enjoyment out of Alan Wake then maybe that is a good thing.
JimboJones
Member
derFeef said:
I don't really get the complaint about product placement, I actually think sometimes it's sillier when they make up there own brand like COOL COLA! or something.
plagiarize
Banned
some games have widespread appeal outside of their genre. some don't. if we don't let people that don't normally play those games try the latest game in the genre how do you find out about the ones with cross over appeal?Prine said:
some fighters are only for the hardcore. some appeal well beyond the hard core. same with games in any genre.
All things said and done, I still would like to play this game. Im in the fingers crossed for the PC camp at the moment though as my only option. This is unless MS announce a (cheap) slim and quiet 360 at E3 so I can use it as a bedroom media box and occasional gaming machine!
grindamasta said:Another pic, with flashlights :lol
http://gen16.com/archives/2229/la-edicion-coleccionista-de-alan-wake
Better be getting me some flashlights yo.
metareferential
Member
Yoboman said:
I guess they were just joking. How could one really be offended by that?
Moreover, we were showing some incoherences in the review itself, regardless of the writer's sex.
I don't know why, but I keep coming back to this thread every now and again, and it keeps giving me a headache and reminding me why I hate the current state of "hardcore" gaming and "hardcore" gamers. This is one of the worst GAF threads I've seen in ages.
I really wish the thread had been called something like "Stop bitching and enjoy the game" as someone mentioned in the last thread. It probably wouldn't have stopped this happening, but still.
Looking forward to playing the game.
I really wish the thread had been called something like "Stop bitching and enjoy the game" as someone mentioned in the last thread. It probably wouldn't have stopped this happening, but still.
Looking forward to playing the game.
uncledonnie
Banned
I don't understand all the complaining about the reviews. It's sitting at 84 on metacritic -- that's pretty damn good. By now everyone should have good idea of what the issues are, both from a technical and gameplay standpoint, to make a decision for themselves.
I've seen enough -- I can't wait to play the game. I don't really care what reviewers say at this point, positive or negative.
I've seen enough -- I can't wait to play the game. I don't really care what reviewers say at this point, positive or negative.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
metareferential said:
Are you kidding? This thread turned into pages of Google Stalking. There's no joke there.
plagiarize
Banned
I'm not sure if it's sexism... more like GAF attacking a reviewer's looks based on their opinions. i'm pretty sure some male reviewers have suffered the same exact treatment.Yoboman said:
itsnervedamage
Member
Widge said:
I'm in the same spot you are. Was really looking forward to seeing what these guys were up to when this was still good for PC. It looks like they managed to create some spectacular atmosphere.
Things were easier when Xbox exclusives all landed on PC
...too bad I might have to make more room in front of my TV soon.Mr. B Natural
Member
My problems with this game (and why I'm not getting it) is that in my mind I thought this game wasn't going to be a an stupid action zombie shooter with horror tones. The trailers 2 or 3 years ago made it seem like a psychological thriller/drama. A game where you put the gun aside for 90% of it or more. A game where you are never killing something without knowing its name.
Ah well, not sure why I expected something interesting out of a "AAA" developer this day and age.
Ah well, not sure why I expected something interesting out of a "AAA" developer this day and age.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The complaining about her review is stupid.
- Does the score fit the tone? A quick read of the review suggests these are her main points: She says the combat is good, the self-referential third wall stuff is stupid, the scenario is twin peaks, moving is clunky, the voiceover is annoying, environments are spooky, the game is repetitive with few puzzles, it's polished and good looking, the story isn't as well told as some other in the genre. This suggests a good but not great score, which is what she gave it.
- Does the conclusion fit the rest of the article? "All the same, there's a weekend's worth of fun here for action-adventure fans who aren't too bothered about innovative concepts and varied gameplay, and don't mind a lot of repetition. Alan Wake is an accessible, undemanding game with a neat combat mechanic and decent visuals. It's just not a very original game, it's certainly not an exceptional one, and it's a shame it wasn't ready a few years ago." It seems like it fits my paraphrasing above.
- Do her points make sense in reference to other reviews? Well, seems like it. I think the collectibles thing is the only thing she mentions that isn't echoed in other reviews and the manuscript premonition stuff is mentioned by some reviews positively and some negatively.
- Is her score without a reasonable range of other reviews? Yes. It's not a 5. It's not a 4. It's not a 3. It's a 7.
Okay, so, to me her review seems pretty reasonable.
Then the next issue is whether a "casual" gamer should be reviewing a non-casual game. Frankly, I don't care. There's nothing wrong with a shooter fan reviewing a hockey game or an RPG guy reviewing a shooter. What's important is that they seem to understand the appeal of the genre and are able to compare it when necessary to other appropriate games.
The IGN Football Manager review sucked because the guy didn't get it. Roguelike reviews that complain that you die too often don't get it. Arcade game reviews that complain that you can finish the game in 20 minutes don't get it. These are bad reviews.
Her review is positively on the combat and compares the scenario/story/development to BioShock and Heavy Rain which both seem like appropriate comparisons to me. When she mentions the collectible thing, she acknowledges that many games do this, and provides explanation for why she feels AW differs.
Where's the beef?
- Does the score fit the tone? A quick read of the review suggests these are her main points: She says the combat is good, the self-referential third wall stuff is stupid, the scenario is twin peaks, moving is clunky, the voiceover is annoying, environments are spooky, the game is repetitive with few puzzles, it's polished and good looking, the story isn't as well told as some other in the genre. This suggests a good but not great score, which is what she gave it.
- Does the conclusion fit the rest of the article? "All the same, there's a weekend's worth of fun here for action-adventure fans who aren't too bothered about innovative concepts and varied gameplay, and don't mind a lot of repetition. Alan Wake is an accessible, undemanding game with a neat combat mechanic and decent visuals. It's just not a very original game, it's certainly not an exceptional one, and it's a shame it wasn't ready a few years ago." It seems like it fits my paraphrasing above.
- Do her points make sense in reference to other reviews? Well, seems like it. I think the collectibles thing is the only thing she mentions that isn't echoed in other reviews and the manuscript premonition stuff is mentioned by some reviews positively and some negatively.
- Is her score without a reasonable range of other reviews? Yes. It's not a 5. It's not a 4. It's not a 3. It's a 7.
Okay, so, to me her review seems pretty reasonable.
Then the next issue is whether a "casual" gamer should be reviewing a non-casual game. Frankly, I don't care. There's nothing wrong with a shooter fan reviewing a hockey game or an RPG guy reviewing a shooter. What's important is that they seem to understand the appeal of the genre and are able to compare it when necessary to other appropriate games.
The IGN Football Manager review sucked because the guy didn't get it. Roguelike reviews that complain that you die too often don't get it. Arcade game reviews that complain that you can finish the game in 20 minutes don't get it. These are bad reviews.
Her review is positively on the combat and compares the scenario/story/development to BioShock and Heavy Rain which both seem like appropriate comparisons to me. When she mentions the collectible thing, she acknowledges that many games do this, and provides explanation for why she feels AW differs.
Where's the beef?
mescalineeyes said:
You listed yourself a tolerance for characteristics. If i dont like the setting (survivial horror in this case) or what AW is trying to achieve am i qualified to inform others about it? And im not getting into the messy idea of cross genre appeal, thats subjective. But the idea i can freely guide people based on my distaste for a specific type of gameplay comes off as inaccurate analysis.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Prine said:
Given that she compares the setting to Stephen King and Twin Peaks, she seems to understand the setting correctly, and given that she compares the plot development to BioShock and Heavy Rain, she seems to understand that element correctly, and given that she says the shooting / combat is fine and neat, she seems to like that well enough...
... so what area of the game does she have a distaste for and seem unqualified to review?
mescalineeyes
Banned
Stumpokapow said:
Every now and then, I dream about being as reasonable and eloquent as this poster.
Fantastic.
plagiarize
Banned
people that want to like the game, for any reason (genre fan, console fan) are always going to look to discredit a review.Stumpokapow said:
i have to admit i've done it myself in the past when Game Informer trashed AvP... but I admit that it's dumb. If the reviewer clearly has a different taste in games to you... then what's the problem? Just disregard it based on them having different tastes.
quality of games are subjective, just like films and music and whatever. every game has people that love it and hate it and everything in between. even the best game has someone that can't stand it, and even the worst game has someone defending it.
find the reviewers with similar opinions on other games to you, and read their reviews.
don't lose sleep over the meta critic score or game rankings score.
the AvP review that drew my ire was from someone that clearly didn't understand the characters. he had every right to his opinion. i should have just seen that his review didn't matter to me since he thought the motion tracker killed suspense, and since he complained about having to be stealthy when playing as a predator. he clearly didn't feel the same way about the source material as me, so his review wasn't relavent to me.
it was still relavent to everyone that just wanted to know if it was a good game, rather than people like me that wanted to know if it did the franchise justice.
plagiarize
Banned
all game reviews are subjective. if you like shooters say, and i know your opinion of other horror games, i can take your review text even if you don't like it, and draw things from it.Prine said:
if you say 'the shooting is awesome but unfortunately the horror crap gets in the way', then i can safely disregard what you say about the 'horror crap' and take away from it that the shooting is probably really good if a shooter fan complements it.
anyone is qualified to give their opinion of anything... so long as there is a name attached to the review and i can find out more about that person, i can often tell if i'll like a game irrespective of whether or not the review itself was positive or negative.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
plagiarize said:
Oh, I know that, I was just giving the complainers some intellectual credit and assuming they were basing their objections over something rational found in the content of the review
