Support NeoGAF

[JaseC]

Why would Bioshock a game from a lesser known studio than id, with a lot smaller marketing campaign get a superior ratings and more critical acclaim?

Because despite the rehashed gameplay, the artistic uniqueness and coherence of Rapture as well as a relatively cerebral narrative design that explored - and this is by no means an exhaustive list - various sociopolitical themes, the human condition and the destructive force of a parasitic ideology was an intellectually rewarding change of pace.

 

[plagiarize]

Then he's wrong, I saw that criticism a lot.

i think it's a moot point anyway. one game not getting the criticism it maybe deserved doesn't mean that another game also shouldn't get the criticism it deserves.

i think Rage is getting some criticism based on misplaced expectations, but that has nothing to do with Bioshock or Mass Effect, and the only reason FallOut 3 comes into play for me, is because it helped make 'mad max-esque post apocolyptic' become associated with FPS RPG hybrid.

I'm not sure how many hours I'm into the game, but I just finished Mutant Bash and I gotta say this is one awesome game, and probably the best FPS game I've played this generation, I can't think of any other I like better. And that's considering I'm playing a gimped version of the game with a crappy framerate thanks to borked AMD drivers. Driving feels really great(with a controller) and shooting is fantastic(with a mouse). PC version really has best of both worlds. Does the PS3 version support keyb/m by any chance?

that's really my take on it too. i don't think that gameplay always overcomes everything, but gameplay this good does.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

ya but the critisim went like this..."even tho the shooting leaves something to be desired this game is awesome 9.5/10"

not "omg this shooters rpg elements are so superficial!I should mention the shootings the best all year " I guess I'll be nice and give it a 7/10

Fallout 3 was reviewed despite its lackluster shooting, while Rage is reviewed regarding its lackluster "RPG mechanics," if you can even call them that in their intent.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Because of exactly what I said earlier - gameplay means less and less to reviewers nowadays. Narrative and graphics have taken over as the main considerations to a game's review success.

So you don't have a valid answer. And please if someone is sincere please intercede telling Wallach he hasn't given a good answer to my question. So this doesn't turn into a grasping for straws conversation like the RPG one just became.

Wallach, very interesting you commented on the graphics part since a huge emphasis has been made on that aspect of Rage.

 

[StuBurns]

i think it's a moot point anyway. one game not getting the criticism it maybe deserved doesn't mean that another game also shouldn't get the criticism it deserves.

i think Rage is getting some criticism based on misplaced expectations, but that has nothing to do with Bioshock or Mass Effect, and the only reason FallOut 3 comes into play for me, is because it helped make 'mad max-esque post apocolyptic' become associated with FPS RPG hybrid.

Well I do think id misrepresented the game for a long time, suggesting it was a lot more of an open experience than it actually is. I haven't read any reviews, but the scores seem fair to me, there's a range from very high to 'good' level. It's not like it's been getting trashed or something.

EDIT: It's metacritic is 84/81/79. Not terrible by any stretch.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

So you don't have a valid answer. And please if someone is sincere please intercede telling Wallach he hasn't given a good answer to my question. So this doesn't turn into a grasping for straws conversation like the RPG one just became.

Wallach, very interesting you commented on the graphics part since a huge emphasis has been made on that aspect of Rage.

His answers have been plenty reasoned and understandable. You are not the arbiter of this thread; there are many people speaking. Nobody is trying to convince you of anything.

Well I do think id misrepresented the game for a long time, suggesting it was a lot more of an open experience than it actually is. I haven't read any reviews, but the scores seem fair to me, there's a range from very high to 'good' level. It's not like it's been getting trashed or something.

EDIT: It's metacritic is 84/81/79. Not terrible by any stretch.

If it was something unexpected and that disappointed you, that's not entirely id's fault. The game came out exactly as I imagined it would. If I could, why couldn't you?

The game did review well, but the topic at hand is why there is such a massive rift between the multitudes of 8s, 9s, and 10s, and then the Ben Kucheras and Tom Chicks giving it essentially 0/10.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Because despite the rehashed gameplay, the artistic uniqueness and coherence of Rapture as well as a relatively cerebral narrative design that explored - and this is by no means an exhaustive list - various sociopolitical themes, the human condition and the destructive force of a parasitic ideology was an intellectually rewarding change of pace.

Excellent summary JaseC, and added to all that the gameplay in Bioshock was....? (please complete the phrase)

His answers have been plenty reasoned and understandable. You are not the arbiter of this thread; there are many people speaking. Nobody is trying to convince you of anything.

No, the RPG one was partial and what i said is reasonable, his using any excuse to mine the statement i make. Look at what Stuburn said about the RPG elements in Rage. But fine, moving over that.

The Bioshock one was a very weak counter argument. JaseC did came up with something reasonable.

If it was something unexpected and that disappointed you, that's not entirely id's fault. The game came out exactly as I imagined it would. If I could, why couldn't you?

And the game did come as i expected from an id game, a 7/8 game with solid shooting mechanics. But here we are saying the game is unappreciated master piece that cures cancer.

 

[plagiarize]

Well I do think id misrepresented the game for a long time, suggesting it was a lot more of an open experience than it actually is. I haven't read any reviews, but the scores seem fair to me, there's a range from very high to 'good' level. It's not like it's been getting trashed or something.

EDIT: It's metacritic is 84/81/79. Not terrible by any stretch.

oh, not terrible at all, and completely what i was predicting before picking it up. solid if not spectacular i was expecting... and i'm pretty sure i called those kind of review scores prior to release.

i'm not upset at the scores. it's no Alice situation where i couldn't get my head around the vast difference of opinion between reviewers and gamers, but i've read a lot of reviews where whatever the final score was, that a lot of the text was spent talking about how the game wasn't what they had imagined it would be, rather than talking about whether or not it was good or bad on its own merits.

enough people came in thinking that the game would be more open and RPGesque, so clearly ID and Bethesda dropped the ball in marketing and previews somewhere, but then again I really hadn't been closely following the game at all, and since day 1 I'd understood what kind of structure and overworld the game was going to have.

they communicated the type of game it was, and you can find numerous quotes from the last four or five years to that effect, but they obviously didn't do it loudly enough and it's coloured the reviews.

 

[Wallach]

So you don't have a valid answer. And please if someone is sincere please intercede telling Wallach he hasn't given a good answer to my question. So this doesn't turn into a grasping for straws conversation like the RPG one just became.

Wallach, very interesting you commented on the graphics part since a huge emphasis has been made on that aspect of Rage.

I get the feeling English isn't your first language, but I'm going to humor you anyway.

What I'm saying is that games like Bioshock get floated when it comes to reviews because of things that are not related to gameplay. It has a great narrative, and an interesting setting coupled with at the time I would say above-average graphics. The gameplay considerations were a distant third. Bioshock did not actually employ any unique gameplay elements, it had terrible enemy AI, various weapons that were either useless or not fun to use; these things barely made even the slightest dent in that game's average review score. They lifted tons of elements directly from System Shock 2, actually made them worse, and dropped them into this game and they were universally praised. The gameplay considerations were never at the front of their mind.

 

[StuBurns]

If it was something unexpected and that disappointed you, that's not entirely id's fault. The game came out exactly as I imagined it would. If I could, why couldn't you?

The game did review well, but the topic at hand is why there is such a massive rift between the multitudes of 8s, 9s, and 10s, and then the Ben Kucheras and Tom Chicks giving it essentially 0/10.

Your hyperbole is utterly meaningless.

And it is what I expected.

 

[bloodydrake]

but the topic at hand is why there is such a massive rift between the multitudes of 8s, 9s, and 10s, and then the Ben Kucheras and Tom Chicks giving it essentially 0/10.

Ya thats all i'm talking about really..
not whether someone things it was just a good game to them and only deserves a 7 cuz its strengths aren't their preferences..that's totally cool I get that..

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Your hyperbole is utterly meaningless.

Your snippy lack of descriptiveness and lack of quoted posts are even more meaningless. Care to explain?

 

[Mr_eX]

the first Dead Space didn't have the best controls or gameplay. it's one of my favourites, so i'm not bagging on it, but horror games traditionally get a bit of a pass for having janky gameplay IF they're scary since many of us that buy them don't buy them for fun minute to minute gameplay, but we buy them for the interactive frights.

still, Dead Space 2 controlled great and had much improved gameplay and it was a better game for it, but it's still a point of debate.

calling Rage's gameplay 'derivative' and 'unoriginal' isn't an untrue point. like every FPS its derivative of IDs work in the genre, and of Halo's influences. fortunately it ISN'T derivative of COD.

i just don't think derivative and unoriginaly are fair criticisms of an FPS that has better gun play than any other FPS i've played this gen.

originality should be praised, but unoriginality shouldn't be a critical point for any game that's really fun.

going back to Dead Space... is it completely derivative of Aliens and Resident Evil 4? sure is. doesn't stop it being a great game though does it?

What bothers me is that some critics will complain about some games being derivative and then turn around and praise other games for it. Darksiders got mostly positive reviews but they all complained about it being a Zelda clone, then there's Shadow Complex which received universal acclaim for being derivative of Metroid.

Rage might be derivative of old id games but the gameplay is so much fun who cares what other games are similar that came before? Not to mention Rage is an id game, so I guess they copied themselves.

 

[plagiarize]

I get the feeling English isn't your first language, but I'm going to humor you anyway.

What I'm saying is that games like Bioshock get floated when it comes to reviews because of things that are not related to gameplay. It has a great narrative, and an interesting setting coupled with at the time I would say above-average graphics. The gameplay considerations were a distant third. Bioshock did not actually employ any unique gameplay elements, it had terrible enemy AI, various weapons that were either useless or not fun to use; these things barely made even the slightest dent in that game's average review score. They lifted tons of elements directly from System Shock 2, actually made them worse, and dropped them into this game and they were universally praised. The gameplay considerations were never at the front of their mind.

here's the thing Wallach... while in terms of the Rage reviews i sort of want to agree with you, because i do think the gameplay in Rage is good enough that it makes the faults seem irrelevant... if you asked whether Bioshock 2 had better gameplay than Bioshock 1 i'd absolutely say that yes it did.

but then if you asked me which was the better game, i'd not hesitate to say Bioshock 1. undue attention may be being paid to some things over gameplay, but countrary to what many have said in the past, i don't think you can say 'gameplay is everything'. i think horror games completely disprove that. i think adventure games completely disprove that.

it's really a case by case situation. a game can have bad gameplay and still be good. a game can have good gameplay and still be bad. story really can elevate a game. atmosphere really can elevate a game. humour really can elevate a game.

it's more the notion of assigning a numerical score out of 100 to something as complex and wide range as 'gaming' that leads to the upset. how you or i or anyone else weights the different elements of game design is going to vary person to person and game by game.

arguing that one reviewer takes off too much for flaw A and not enough for flaw B... i don't think it's going to get you anywhere.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Then he's wrong, I saw that criticism a lot.

Which was not reflected in the review scores at all.
A FPS shooter, where the shooting mechanics were terrible & outdated. GOTY.

 

[Wallach]

here's the thing Wallach... while in terms of the Rage reviews i sort of want to agree with you, because i do think the gameplay in Rage is good enough that it makes the faults seem irrelevant... if you asked whether Bioshock 2 had better gameplay than Bioshock 1 i'd absolutely say that yes it did.

but then if you asked me which was the better game, i'd not hesitate to say Bioshock 1. undue attention may be being paid to some things over gameplay, but countrary to what many have said in the past, i don't think you can say 'gameplay is everything'. i think horror games completely disprove that. i think adventure games completely disprove that.

it's really a case by case situation. a game can have bad gameplay and still be good. a game can have good gameplay and still be bad. story really can elevate a game. atmosphere really can elevate a game. humour really can elevate a game.

it's more the notion of assigning a numerical score out of 100 to something as complex and wide range as 'gaming' that leads to the upset. how you or i or anyone else weights the different elements of game design is going to vary person to person and game by game.

arguing that one reviewer takes off too much for flaw A and not enough for flaw B... i don't think it's going to get you anywhere.

I'm not upset by the review scores at all; I stopped considering reviews as a reliable source of information about a game's quality for me some time ago.

This conversation started when Gravijah openly wondered why this game did not review well, and my answer is really just a reflection of how games get reviewed today. Gameplay is not the foundation of a game's critical success anymore. That's how I feel about it.

 

[JaseC]

Excellent summary JaseC, and added to all that the gameplay in Bioshock was....? (please complete the phrase)

Adequate yet a secondary component to the overall experience. The desire to play through BioShock comes not from wanting to blast a Big Daddy in the face with a shotgun or zap a distracted Splicer sitting in water, but rather to experience the visual and narrative journey of Andrew Ryan's Rapture for oneself.

 

[StuBurns]

Which was not reflected in the review scores at all.
A FPS shooter, where the shooting mechanics were terrible & outdated. GOTY.

Or they were reflected, and the game was so good it was still GotY. The 'bad' shooting is basically optional. The bad RPG of Rage is not.

 

[plagiarize]

Which was not reflected in the review scores at all.
A FPS shooter, where the shooting mechanics were terrible & outdated. GOTY.

calling Fallout 3 an FPS is stupid for lots and lots of reasons.

 

[Refreshment.01]

I get the feeling English isn't your first language, but I'm going to humor you anyway.

What I'm saying is that games like Bioshock get floated when it comes to reviews because of things that are not related to gameplay. It has a great narrative, and an interesting setting coupled with at the time I would say above-average graphics. The gameplay considerations were a distant third. Bioshock did not actually employ any unique gameplay elements, it had terrible enemy AI, various weapons that were either useless or not fun to use; these things barely made even the slightest dent in that game's average review score. They lifted tons of elements directly from System Shock 2, actually made them worse, and dropped them into this game and they were universally praised. The gameplay considerations were never at the front of their mind.

Lovely jab at my language problems, gets your point across. The fact that you came up with that post goes to show that i was right claiming the first answer was a weak one. Taking pot shots at Bioshock doesn't bother me in the slightest because i had called to the game at System Shock Lite.

Moving on, just like Rage lifted tons of elements from other games but executed them worse? Gameplay is very well done in Bioshock despite your opinion and it strays away from the standard shooter, it wasn't the innovator but not the typical FPS also.

Rage has over Bioshock the actual gunplay, but it doesn't mean Bioshock one sucks. I don't have any problems admitting the good qualities of any game leaving aside my own preferences or bias.

Adequate yet a secondary component to the overall experience. The desire to play through BioShock comes not from wanting to blast a Big Daddy in the face with a shotgun or zap a distracted Splicer sitting in water, but rather to experience the visual and narrative journey of Andrew Ryan's Rapture for oneself.

Ok, yet you have to admit the Plasmid system complemented really well the gunplay and expanded greatly the ways in which combat was approached. That gave an incentive to replay the game an experiment with different builds.

 

[JaseC]

calling Fallout 3 an FPS is stupid for lots and lots of reasons.

When I began my Fallout 3: GoTY play-through, I - while aiming - tried to shoot a giant cockroach with my pistol. It couldn't have been more than half a meter away. I missed nonetheless.

 

[jett]

I find this current discussion pointless. Fallout 3 is an RPG, not a shooter. If you played it like a shooter, you're an idiot. Rage is a shooter, not an RPG. If you judge it as an RPG, you're of equally impaired intelligence.

 

[plagiarize]

Or they were reflected, and the game was so good it was still GotY. The 'bad' shooting is basically optional. The bad RPG of Rage is not.

but Rage is barely an RPG. the RPG elements may be 'bad' but it's such a small element of the game, optional or not, and unlike the racing you can't choose to make it more of an RPG.

i could have played Fallout 3 like a shooter if i wanted to, and many did. i can't play Rage like an RPG even if i wanted to. you can basically argue it any way you want.

i don't really see the point.

 

[StuBurns]

but Rage is barely an RPG. the RPG elements may be 'bad' but it's such a small element of the game, optional or not, and unlike the racing you can't choose to make it more of an RPG.

i could have played Fallout 3 like a shooter if i wanted to, and many did. i can't play Rage like an RPG even if i wanted to. you can basically argue it any way you want.

i don't really see the point.

I wouldn't judge Rage as an RPG, but the people who are suggesting FO3 should be judged as a shooter should be.

 

[Wallach]

Lovely jab at my language problems, gets your point across. The fact that you came up with that post goes to show that i was right claiming the first answer was a weak one. Taking pot shots at Bioshock doesn't bother me in the slightest because i had called to the game at System Shock Lite.

Moving on, just like Rage lifted tons of elements from other games but executed them worse? Gameplay is very well done in Bioshock despite your opinion and it strays away from the standard shooter, it wasn't the innovator but not the typical FPS also.

Rage has over Bioshock the actual gunplay, but it doesn't mean Bioshock one sucks. I don't have any problems admitting the good qualities of any game leaving aside my own preferences or bias.

It's not a jab, I'm highlighting the fact that you seem incapable of fully understanding what I'm saying but are trying to use that to say my posts are bad.

 

[CitizenCope]

Jeesh take it outside guys.

 

[JaseC]

Jeesh take it outside guys.

Into the wasteland? But there are bandits out there!

 

[DaBuddaDa]

i don't really see the point.

I think the point is the people on the very bottom end of the Rage review scale did exactly that: review the game based on their expectations of RPG elements that do not exist. Fallout 3 is in the discussion because the exact opposite did not happen when it first came out.

To echo what Wallach was saying, the excitement for revisiting the Fallout universe was immense enough that anything bad about the game would be overshadowed by the pure joy of returning to a beloved world. Rage, as a new IP, could benefit from none of that.

I wouldn't judge Rage as an RPG, but the people who are suggesting FO3 should be judged as a shooter should be.

Not wholly judged as a shooter, but the shooting mechanics should be compared to other games with shooting mechanics.

 

[AcciDante]

If you guys are talking about Rage being marked down for its RPG elements (haven't been keeping up), I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I think the reason for that is because it borrows a lot of structure and traversal elements of an RPG, but without any of the things that make that interesting. I found the quest-like structure of getting your missions, and traversing the open world to and from objectives to be really monotonous. The story in this game doesn't interest me whatsoever, there's not really anything to do or see in the world more than once, and there's no interesting character interactions going on either. You just sit through all that dribble to get to some shooting.

I'm liking the shooting more now that I'm further in, but all that other stuff really made getting to where I am now a chore.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[CitizenCope]

Into the wasteland? But there are bandits out there!

Haha

"Are you sure you want to leave without your vehicle?"
Come on now just give me my damn vehicle without having to stop by the garage. Does anyone actually walk around out there?

 

[plagiarize]

I wouldn't judge Rage as an RPG, but the people who are suggesting FO3 should be judged as a shooter should be.

why? you can make a good case either way as to whether Rage is more an RPG than FO3 is a shooter. so why should they think Rage is as much an RPG as FO3 is a shooter?

i do like how no one is talking about how much of a racing game Rage is.

 

[JaseC]

why? you can make a good case either way as to whether Rage is more an RPG than FO3 is a shooter. so why should they think Rage is as much an RPG as FO3 is a shooter?

i do like how no one is talking about how much of a racing game Rage is.

It controls much how I hope the upcoming Carmageddon game will control.

 

[plagiarize]

To echo what Wallach was saying, the excitement for revisiting the Fallout universe was immense enough that anything bad about the game would be overshadowed by the pure joy of returning to a beloved world. Rage, as a new IP, could benefit from none of that.

it's hard for me to listen to that viewpoint. Fallout 3 was loved by many that had never played a Fallout game before. i know, because i was one of that group. loved that game. one of the very few RPGs that pushed the right buttons for me.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

it's hard for me to listen to that viewpoint. Fallout 3 was loved by many that had never played a Fallout game before. i know, because i was one of that group. loved that game. one of the very few RPGs that pushed the right buttons for me.

I'm talking about review scores, not your own personal experience. All I'm saying is the deck was in many ways stacked in favor of Fallout 3 from a reviews perspective.

 

[plagiarize]

I'm talking about review scores, not your own personal experience.

again though, how much any one thing is a negative about any one game is entirely a matter of opinion. if all you disagree with are the SCORES, then get over it. if you don't disagree with the text, then you need to let it go.

honestly, that's advice that if you take it, you'll be glad you did.

i think Fallout 3 is as good as the reviews made out. i have no love for Elder Scrolls. i have no love for Fallout 1 and 2. the deck wasn't stacked FOR me. so why would i look at those reviews with any amount of suspicion?

 

[mikeGFG]

This game is SO BORING.

just finished Mutant TV, on nightmare, using only my fists and few rockets for the last dude. I was literally laughing at how fucking easy the game was the whole time.

 

[Peterthumpa]

i do like how no one is talking about how much of a racing game Rage is.

And it's a pretty good one at that. Really, racing in this game doesn't feel tacked on and actually the vehicle handling is better than a good amount of arcade racers that I played in the past.

Really, if RAGE was a racing game only, with better track design, it would be worth the money.

 

[Mr_eX]

Rage had as many RPG elements as the most recent Wolfenstein and no one called that a RPG.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

again though, how much any one thing is a negative about any one game is entirely a matter of opinion. if all you disagree with are the SCORES, then get over it. if you don't disagree with the text, then you need to let it go.

honestly, that's advice that if you take it, you'll be glad you did.

That again is not the point. I am curious from an academic standpoint as to why the opinions differ so greatly. One review will say "Graphics good, shooting good, game good" and the next review will say "Graphics bad, shooting bad, game bad." It's just peculiar and hyper-polarized; I want to get down to why.

 

[StuBurns]

why? you can make a good case either way as to whether Rage is more an RPG than FO3 is a shooter. so why should they think Rage is as much an RPG as FO3 is a shooter?

i do like how no one is talking about how much of a racing game Rage is.

FO3's real-time shooting combat is optional. The same way I wouldn't damn Rage for it's shitty racing, because the game made me race twice, and in retrospect, I think it might be possible to only race once, three minutes out of eight hours is not a worthy complaint to me. If people didn't like the shooting in FO3, they didn't have to do it, and they shouldn't be doing it anyway. There is nothing you can do to avoid the bland post-mission downtime in Rage, which I initial found charming actually.

Of the three SKUs of FO3, the middle Metacritic score is 91, that's only ten percent above the middle score for Rage. I don't understand why people think Rage has been treated unfairly at all.

 

[pakkit]

Why are the characters so interesting looking and distinct if the script is such SHIT. I'm not simpatico, eh! Kvasir's robotic arms have more character than any of the dialogue.

The artistic vision of this world is incredible. No level looks like another, no room looks like another, and the lighting that varies from area to area is just superb.

I feel like I'm walking through a museum. I can shoot all the enemies I like (in an awesome amount of ways), but I cannot touch or interact with the environment. It's only there to be appreciated visually. I would've like some more destructive elements, personally.

Regarding racing: I like the elements of play, but the tinny whirr of the car engines is so unappealing to me.

 

[Mr_eX]

And it's a pretty good one at that. Really, racing in this game doesn't feel tacked on and actually the vehicle handling is better than a good amount of arcade racers that I played in the past.

Really, if RAGE was a racing game only, with better track design, it would be worth the money.

I haven't enjoyed racing in a game this much since Rock N Roll Racing on the SNES.

 

[bloodydrake]

Rage had as many RPG elements as the most recent Wolfenstein and no one called that a RPG.

i really enjoyed Wolfenstein's hub design as well.great single player but many did they squander the MP opportunity so bad.

 

[plagiarize]

FO3's real-time shooting combat is optional. The same way I wouldn't damn Rage for it's shitty racing, because the game made me race twice, and in retrospect, I think it might be possible to only race once, three minutes out of eight hours is not a worthy complaint to me. If people didn't like the shooting in FO3, they didn't have to do it, and they shouldn't be doing it anyway. There is nothing you can do to avoid the bland post-mission downtime in Rage, which I initial found charming actually.

Of the three SKUs of FO3, the middle Metacritic score is 91, that's only ten percent above the middle score for Rage. I don't understand why people think Rage has been treated unfairly at all.

well, because they think it deserves a higher 'score'.

i really wish review scores would go away. they're so banal and people can't see past a metric which basically comes down to pulling a number out of thin air. when i used to write reviews i hated coming up with a score.

most of the time, if there were already a bunch of reviews and there was a metacritic average that looked about right, i'd just go with that. if i'd had my way i wouldn't have had one.

a short sentance or two at the TOP of the review to sum up your feelings would be at least as useful for people who don't want to read the text as a number plucked out of thin air would be, and they wouldn't cause nearly as much controversy.

Spoiler

though you'd still have people arguing whether a given review sounded like a 7 or a 9.

 

[Peterthumpa]

well, because they think it deserves a higher 'score'.

i really wish review scores would go away. they're so banal and people can't see past a metric which basically comes down to pulling a number out of thin air. when i used to write reviews i hated coming up with a score.

Nah, we can't generalize like this. Reviews, when well done, are a good way to keep away potential buyers from crappy products.

 

[Gvaz]

Then he's wrong, I saw that criticism a lot.

Fallout is not primarily a shooter, so those people are retarded.

 

[Peterthumpa]

I haven't enjoyed racing in a game this much since Rock N Roll Racing on the SNES.

Nailed it. Exactly what I felt when playing. Hell, racing here is better than in Blur, a game focused on racing combat ONLY.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Fallout is not primarily a shooter, so those people are retarded.

And Rage is not primarily an RPG, so why is it critiqued so heavily on its lack of deep RPG mechanics?

 

[StuBurns]

well, because they think it deserves a higher 'score'.

Exactly, and I don't understand why. That's not to say I can't see why someone would love Rage, I certainly can, but why can't they see why someone else wouldn't? A reviewer isn't wrong to give the game an 8, or a 7, or a 2, if that's their impression of the game, it's valid.

The graphics are an interesting point, lots of people on GAF are blown away by the game visually, I think it looks like ass. Neither party are objectively wrong, they just look for different things in the visual appearance of games.

 

[Lothars]

Nah, we can't generalize like this. Reviews, when well done, are a good way to keep away potential buyers from crappy products.

Yes but I think that's the complaint a majority of reviews are not well done.

The graphics are an interesting point, lots of people on GAF are blown away by the game visually, I think it looks like ass. Neither party are objectively wrong, they just look for different things in the visual appearance of games.

I can understand that, I am in the side that thinks it's one of the best looking 360 games but I haven't seen it yet for PC, I don't think your wrong for not liking the visuals.