Dead Island really deserves a 4?

#1 Posted by mellyonz (3 posts) -

I guess they forgot to bribe Gamespot.

The main complaint seems to be story. That is irrelevant i have always thought game stories suck. If u wants a good story watch walking dead. People buy this game for fun coop experience. People want content not a whole new experience.

I think this game is brilliant. It builds one what we love even though at the moment it is bug ridden. Why create a whole new game and when what we really want is a better coop dead island one. I mean the biggest problem with the first in my opinion was the environment was bad. Who ever thought sewers where a good idea I guess got shot.

The combat is everything in this game and i think it does a great job at improving on it. Guns now do direct elemental damage or have retrievable ammo. The weapon levelling system lets you use other weapons outside your class for more tactical play style.

More mods and more varies weapons allow you to create some unique weapons. I mean a heavy weighted morning star makes and awesome crowd control weapon. While a harpoon gun can snipe the heads off infected before they reach you. Then a pistol can make easy work of a thug at close range.

Over all this game deserves a 7. A 4 is stupid this is coop game focused on combat not a story driven fps.

Gamespot get someone who knows what a game is about to review it

#2 Posted by TrueGB (117 posts) -
Actually, I'd say the main complaint is that it's too similar to the first which is actually a little unfair because there is just enough minor improvements to make a difference. Zombie Crushing has a huge impact on my strategy and the Uppercut ability is great fun. I agree this is more of a rehash than the polished sequel I wanted, but it has improved just enough for me to say it deserves whatever score the original got. At least 6.5 to 7.
#3 Posted by mellyonz (3 posts) -

I mean i primary thing that makes a games good is content. If you have nothing to do the game is obviously boring. So Im not opposing them making essentially the same game its not like the coop fps horror is saturated at the moment.

The coop here is on such a high level. No game beside the new defiance can pull off an enjoyable role-less combat. (maybe more)

#4 Posted by stewarty77 (243 posts) -

I was surprised to see a 4.0 score for this.  IGN have given it 7.2 which is quite a big difference.

#5 Posted by e1337prodigy (1114 posts) -

Harsh review. I haven't played it yet, played the first one. From other reviews I have read/watched they are saying it's very similar to the original but not as many bugs as the first. And yet, GS gave the original Dead Island a 7. 

 

The review seem to focus on all the slightly bad things but make them big problems. ie the quests, saying they are all fetch quests. Ok, yes that is all the same and probably boring after a few quests, but what other quests could there be. Escort missions? everyone hates them. Also, I'm pretty sure there are defending locations missions because I saw it in a video. 

What about the good things, graphics? they look ok, sound? if it goes by the original its good (not great but good) except the horrible voice acting. 

As for the combat, it's different from other games, but then it is meant to be. Although I do think they could have more guns in the game, especially mid-way and towards the end of the game. Maybe they have, like I said I haven't played it yet. But that would make the combat different and keep it mixed

#7 Posted by adamg78 (636 posts) -

so far I find the game much better then the first one  the fun factor  is much higher and find  exploring much better compaired to the first one still alot of fun but not as good as  riptide

#8 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

Well, if the reviewer tremendously despised his time with the game, what do you expect? There is a limit to anyone's patience, after all.

#9 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

I guess they forgot to bribe Gamespot.mellyonz

That's an old tiresome joke that is typically directed at any game site that has actual cash flow.

That is irrelevant i have always thought game stories suck.mellyonz

That's an oxymoronic statement.

If u wants a good story watch walking dead.mellyonz

Why bring the television show into this? Is that even relevant?

People buy this game for fun coop experience.mellyonz

Then they are better off with Left 4 Dead or any other co-op game that gives way better methods to get rid of hordes coming their way.

People want content not a whole new experience.mellyonz

You do know that Riptide recycles a lot from the original, don't you?

I think this game is brilliant. It builds one what we love even though at the moment it is bug ridden.mellyonz

Hence, you are biased enough to forgive issues with the game. Yet, here you are, p*ssing on some reviewer's review and ranting away.

The combat is everything in this game and i think it does a great job at improving on it. Guns now do direct elemental damage or have retrievable ammo. The weapon levelling system lets you use other weapons outside your class for more tactical play style.mellyonz

These are not new game designs. People who have been playing many other games - especially the Borderlands titles - would not find Riptide's improvements over the original to be refreshing.

Gamespot get someone who knows what a game is about to review itmellyonz

This is yet another old and tiresome statement directed at game sites by a person that does not realize that he/she is no less biased than the next person.

You start your post with one, and then end with another one - how typical.

#10 Posted by ewjiml (15 posts) -

Sorry but copying and pasting the same game does not make it an immediate 6 or 7.  The first Dead Island was fun but way to repetitious, to the point where I just stopped playing.  THey obviously did not listen to any of their fans and think they can make a few new levels and call it a sequel.  I don't understand the appeal of killing the same zombies over and over and over, while you do a fetch-quest and then kill more zombies.  It is like a constant adrenaline rush with no stop, and after awhile it loses its appeal way too quickly.  I would say a 4 or 5 is appropriate. 

#11 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

There's so much hoo-ha over arbitrarily assigned numbers. :roll:

#12 Posted by so_hai (1688 posts) -
If bribing gamespot is required for a good score, then forgetting to do it is the greatest incompetence of all.
#13 Posted by razerbladeGDP (156 posts) -

I never listen to reviews anyway .. but having said that .. COD which is basicly always the same with new guns.. and a few hours of a different campainge always gets high scores.. so.. its whatever scores dont really mean much 

#14 Posted by REALITYKINGZ (7 posts) -

I rarely care about the story no matter what game I'm playing (not a graphic whore either). But it's a zombie game, it's all about killing billion of zombies, smashing their heads and all that fun stuff so I don't really care about what kind of story I experience in a game. The sequel was fun and I really enjoyed it same as the first one but the ending was kinda questionable. Yes, the dialogues and characters are superbly weak, I agree with GS that characters are soulless but once again - it's all about killing zombies.

#15 Posted by Geogyf (18 posts) -
Gamespot values originality above all else, their holy grail if you prefer. If a game doesnt match that, then its off to the garbage can with scores like 4 or 4.5. Was the game mediocre? Probably. But it was not garbage. Gamespot praised original Dead Island combat, but BURIES Riptide combat. Was that worse? or just the same (most likely). The real question here is that Gamespot judges with one blind eye. *cough*cough* Call of Duty
#16 Posted by Geogyf (18 posts) -

what about call of duty then? why was it praised by Gamespot?

same things here but judged differently

#17 Posted by CHROMEFLAMIN (1902 posts) -
While the game is fun , I myself cannot reward a developer for totally ignoring everything that was broken in the first . That alone is a 4.0 in my opinion .
#18 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

what about call of duty then? why was it praised by Gamespot?

same things here but judged differently

Geogyf

Heh, I was wondering when someone would bring in Call of Duty when complaining about game reviews.

Way to go for perpetuating a trope and a fad - one that was started by people who cannot seem to acknowledge that any review for any game by any reviewer is its own special case and more importantly, a unique opinion.

#19 Posted by Avenger1324 (16344 posts) -

Well I'm about 18 hours in and so far I've got exactly what I expected from this - more of the same fun I had with the original Dead Island.

I did prefer the initially sunny and inviting location of Resort to the darker and more threatening jungle, but just about everything from the original is still in this, plus a bunch of new weapons, some new zombies, new skills and a new character.

If you enjoyed the original and want some more of the same then this is good fun and worth getting. If you didn't like the original then there is nothing here to convince you to like the Dead Island series.

I disagree with Mark's score of 4/10, both as an absolute score for the game, but also in comparison to the 7/10 the original was awarded. Many of the criticisms Mark had about Riptide were also present in Dead Island - the characters, the story telling, the combat, the quests - all the same as the original - yet somehow now only worthy of half the score.

#20 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

Many of the criticisms Mark had about Riptide were also present in Dead Island - the characters, the story telling, the combat, the quests - all the same as the original - yet somehow now only worthy of half the score.Avenger1324

You fret too much over arbitrarily assigned numbers.

That said, you may want to know/be reminded that Mark Walton did not review the original Dead Island - his former colleague Jane Douglas, who is much more forgiving of problems in games than very jaded Mark, did.

Different people, different opinions. Some people can't keep that in mind when all they see are digits that have been given more significance than numerical characters deserve though.

#21 Posted by Avenger1324 (16344 posts) -

In my eyes a review is most useful when the reviewer comes from a similar viewpoint to your own - has similar likes and dislikes. Generally those looking into buying a sequel are those that enjoyed the first game, so having a reviewer that enjoyed the first game is more likely to give a useful review to you.

That's not to say the reviewer should automatically give it a good review or be blind to its flaws - but you are starting from the same point - both enjoyed the original and want to see how the sequel compares. I'm not a fan of third person cover shooters, so while I could write a review of the latest Gears of War laying into the cover system and shooting mechanics, the review would be of little value to someone that was a fan of the Gears series and enjoyed the gameplay.

What Mark's review shows is that he dislikes many elements of the game that are common to both Dead Island and Riptide - if he didn't enjoy it in DI, then he isn't going to enjoy it in Riptide - it makes no pretence at re-inventing the wheel. The criticisms are not that Riptide has somehow screwed up the series, but that the reviewer doesn't like the whole system - making it a review that really isn't much use to those that enjoyed the first game and want to see how Riptide compares.

#22 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

The criticisms are not that Riptide has somehow screwed up the series, but that the reviewer doesn't like the whole system - making it a review that really isn't much use to those that enjoyed the first game and want to see how Riptide compares.Avenger1324

At least you are wise enough to realize that.

However, I would add that not a single game site has an obligation to have reviewers with tastes that reflect every possible permutation of preferences in any person in the consumer base. To assume that is to have an idealistic notion, and the wise would know that idealities will never be possible.

#23 Posted by greenpuppet2 (4 posts) -

Couldn't have said it better myself, I love the game.

#24 Posted by hireath (261 posts) -

the review isn't necessarily bad, but the score of 4.0 is inarguably wrong... and i'll explain why.

a review can be subjective, but at the end of the day - your score system must be relative to other reviews and other game scores. a game which you merit a 4.0 must be the same bland, dull, unimpressive game as the next 4.0 game you can find. i've played games rated <7.0 by gamespot, and they were a disappointing waste of time, ergo i feel that a 4.0 is basically saying that dead island riptide is fecal matter which i should avoid like the plague.

however, i loved dead island 1 - sure it wasn't mindblowing in the way of firaxis' xcom or skyim, but it was a LOT OF FUN. it's easy to immerse and savour the moments in a zombie game because it's slow and macabre (or should be, i really don't find left4dead etc to be fun), and dead island took advantage of that like no other game. although the DLC arena was immensely disappointing, i was hoping for some kind of objective or pvp options at least... the 'survive vs waves of AI' mode is ancient cliche and soooo boring, it's a cop out.

i will get riptide, but waiting for the steam sale now - thanks mostly to gamespot's negative review. if i enjoy riptide as much as i enjoyed dead island, then gamespot have done me a disservice. saved me some money, but i feel more comfortable in knowing that i send a larger donation to the developers - rather than a desperate discounted sum months after launch.

anyway, gamespot keep making this mistake time and again. look no further than the natural selection 2 fiasco where gamespot retracted their ostentatious and attention-seeking scaulding review for a 'fair' review.

 

i hope gamespot learn...  because these dramatized reviews (scores) are becoming tedious and turning the mighty gamespot into the video game review quality you'd expect to find in a cheap tabloid.

#25 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

the review isn't necessarily bad, but the score of 4.0 is inarguably wrong... and i'll explain why.hireath

Spoken like a narcissist.

Also, you complain a lot over systems of arbitrarily assigned numbers.

i will get riptide, but waiting for the steam sale now - thanks mostly to gamespot's negative review. if i enjoy riptide as much as i enjoyed dead island, then gamespot have done me a disservice. saved me some money, but i feel more comfortable in knowing that i send a larger donation to the developers - rather than a desperate discounted sum months after launch.hireath

You aren't even making yourself clear on whether you are listening to GameSpot's "recommendation" or not. :roll:

look no further than the natural selection 2 fiasco where gamespot retracted their ostentatious and attention-seeking scaulding review for a 'fair' review.hireath

Except that this one isn't getting replaced. Sure is convenient citing another review article that has different circumstances and is about a different game, isn't it? Next thing, you may well be citing the reviews for Call of Duty games, though I hope you would not be this predictable.

i hope gamespot learn...  because these dramatized reviews (scores) are becoming tedious and turning the mighty gamespot into the video game review quality you'd expect to find in a cheap tabloid.hireath

Maybe you should be looking elsewhere other than GameSpot for whim-ridden scores or learn not to give mere numbers more significance than they deserve.

#26 Posted by hireath (261 posts) -

[QUOTE="hireath"]the review isn't necessarily bad, but the score of 4.0 is inarguably wrong... and i'll explain why.Gelugon_baat

Spoken like a narcissist.

Also, you complain a lot over systems of arbitrarily assigned numbers.

i will get riptide, but waiting for the steam sale now - thanks mostly to gamespot's negative review. if i enjoy riptide as much as i enjoyed dead island, then gamespot have done me a disservice. saved me some money, but i feel more comfortable in knowing that i send a larger donation to the developers - rather than a desperate discounted sum months after launch.hireath

You aren't even making yourself clear on whether you are listening to GameSpot's "recommendation" or not. :roll:

look no further than the natural selection 2 fiasco where gamespot retracted their ostentatious and attention-seeking scaulding review for a 'fair' review.hireath

Except that this one isn't getting replaced. Sure is convenient citing another review article that has different circumstances and is about a different game, isn't it? Next thing, you may well be citing the reviews for Call of Duty games, though I hope you would not be this predictable.

i hope gamespot learn...  because these dramatized reviews (scores) are becoming tedious and turning the mighty gamespot into the video game review quality you'd expect to find in a cheap tabloid.hireath

Maybe you should be looking elsewhere other than GameSpot for whim-ridden scores or learn not to give mere numbers more significance than they deserve.

i'm afraid i'm not going to bite and join in with the provocative labelling.

but will entertain you, brave defender of gamespot, as you've entertained me.

firstly, gamespot were quick to disassociate with the NS2 review, pointing out that the reviewer was 'freelance' and just as quick with the apologies.  you can throw this away as irrelevant if you like, but i thought it was a very relevant point on disputing the reliability and confidence in gamespot's review system.

i must ask, what use is a review rating/score when it's not relative to the other reviews on the site?  must we become clairvoyants and disscern our own relative gamespot rating by taking the reviewers score and then looking deeply into the eyes of the reviewer's profile picture to winkle out whether they would have given a 4.0 to walking dead, dead island 1 or whatever ??

 

also, i do look elsewhere than gamespot.  i have been a frequent visitor/reader of gamespot AND ign for about 10 years.  also, i heed reviews from various other sources before deciding to buy a game.  however, whether it's gamespot or ign who make what i consider to be an ill-judged move, i still have a right to voice my concerns. 

it's not in my best interests as a gamer for gamespot to become low quality trash and lead to ign being the only voice in my ear.

#27 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

firstly, gamespot were quick to disassociate with the NS2 review, pointing out that the reviewer was 'freelance' and just as quick with the apologies. you can throw this away as irrelevant if you like, but i thought it was a very relevant point on disputing the reliability and confidence in gamespot's review system.hireath

Hey, I did not and am not going to refute that GameSpot did not examine the games that freelancers review frequently. You may have been thinking that, and if you had, you are putting words that I did not say into my mouth.

i must ask, what use is a review rating/score when it's not relative to the other reviews on the site?hireath

Bah, that's more whining about arbitrarily assigned scores.

That said, you are barking up the wrong tree. You should be putting forth that question to CBS Interactive instead of its subsidiary GameSpot, since this is a matter of operation.

however, whether it's gamespot or ign who make what i consider to be an ill-judged move, i still have a right to voice my concerns.hireath

Your mileage may vary.

it's not in my best interests as a gamer for gamespot to become low quality trash and lead to ign being the only voice in my ear.hireath

You would be more honest if you just say that you want gaming sites to tell you what you want to hear.

#28 Posted by gameexpert33 (9 posts) -

lol to-shay though I think the game will be fun, I like to mindlessly kill zombies.

#29 Posted by basskill2000 (313 posts) -

well, my opinion is the game is great I see 7 to 7.5 would be a decent and fair score for it. Gamespot has always been a harsh game rater.

every other site i look at for my game reviews gave the game between 6.5 and 7.5 including gameinformer. while on the same hand all those sites realize it is a rehash of the 1st game, but they also realized there was more (i.e. weapons, mods, and even a new character that was compared to the likes of chuck norris in one review i read)

so I have lost faith in Gamespot reviewers. i take them with a grain of sal now a days.

#30 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

so I have lost faith in Gamespot reviewers. i take them with a grain of sal now a days.basskill2000

When other sites stop telling you what you like to hear, you will take them with a grain of salt too - then eventually you will have figurative kidney failure.

#31 Posted by hireath (261 posts) -

[QUOTE="basskill2000"]so I have lost faith in Gamespot reviewers. i take them with a grain of sal now a days.Gelugon_baat

When other sites stop telling you what you like to hear, you will take them with a grain of salt too - then eventually you will have figurative kidney failure.

 

hilarious...  are you here as a fan of dead island/riptide or were you just lured here because you sensed some gamespot bashing would occur because you in yourself were able to perceive that the gamespot rating was highly controversial?

 

granted, 4.0 is not the worst rating of dead island riptide.  however, it's still detached from reality.  i was massively disappointed with deus ex human revolution, dragon age 2 and modern warfare 2, but i wouldn't give them 5.0 in a SERIOUS review - because it's quite easy to tell my subjective disdain and disappointment apart from their objective merits and potential fun.

 

i expected better from gamespot, i care about gamespot, that's the only reason i complain here and not some of the low ballers who love nothing more than posting attention-seeking reviews to get more views.

 

you seem to be acting like one of those over-protective spouses who sugarcoats everything, because you're afraid your lover can't cope with a bit of honest criticism.

#32 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

...4.0 is not the worst rating of dead island riptide.  however, it's still detached from reality.hireath

...you seem to be acting like one of those over-protective spouses who sugarcoats everything, because you're afraid your lover can't cope with a bit of honest criticism.hireath

You are not always aware of the possibility of irony in your statements, are you?

Also, you ramble.

#33 Posted by hireath (261 posts) -

[QUOTE="hireath"]...4.0 is not the worst rating of dead island riptide.  however, it's still detached from reality.Gelugon_baat

...you seem to be acting like one of those over-protective spouses who sugarcoats everything, because you're afraid your lover can't cope with a bit of honest criticism.hireath

You are not always aware of the possibility of irony in your statements, are you?

Also, you ramble.

 

i think that rather pointless reply signals the end of our discussion.  goodbye.

#34 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

i think that rather pointless reply signals the end of our discussion.hireath

Well, you should have realized that yourself before you responded to me for the first time.

#35 Posted by basskill2000 (313 posts) -

all i did was state my opinion of the rating. nothing more, and nothing less. 

some of gamespots review are pretty good, but lately they have been lacking. 

#36 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

all i did was state my opinion of the rating. nothing more, and nothing less. 

some of gamespots review are pretty good, but lately they have been lacking. 

basskill2000

So your opinions decide which reviews are "good" and which are "lacking" then?

Heh, you are really just one more narcissist.

#37 Posted by basskill2000 (313 posts) -

whatever you want to believe man. I now know you take $hit too literal

#38 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

I now know you take $hit too literalbasskill2000

Oh, you are one to talk, you who take reviews so seriously that you can know which ones are good or bad.

#39 Posted by basskill2000 (313 posts) -

yea i do. when you look at a bunch of site for game reviews and GameSpot is the only one that tears it apart and the others rate higher... there is something wrong with gamespot reviewers perception on things. But i do say there are SOME games that they get right. Maybe its the reviewer themselves, the guy could be a RPG style player, but is reviewing a fighting game, he judgement is clouded based on his own preference. I could be wrong. but that is what it seems. that is my Opinion on the matter. You dont have to like it or agree to it, nor do i care if you do. So with that I am ending this conversation now.

#40 Posted by Gelugon_baat (19392 posts) -

So with that I am ending this conversation now.basskill2000

You should have never started it in the first place. :roll:

#41 Posted by davidsworld3 (3010 posts) -

Ahh give me a break this game sucked, was a lot shorter than the first game, very little for exploring, I only managed to find a couple of people to join me for a few hours or more on co op but never could find anyone again, as far as I know you gotta directly be friends with people to play this other wise you are simply random luck that someone will join you much less actually talk with you. This game is too easy, they give you nothing but powerful weapons, yeah I died a lot but thats because I didn't care about surviving you just come back anyways, this game is a cliche, and I dont see why we cant have a good story and good gameplay. The only good thing about this game is the gore thats it othewise they are just being lazy and dont deserve to make anymore games.

I'd play left 4 dead 2 but I've played that so many times back in the day, I doubt that many people still even go on regularly most people like to try new games, experience new stories than playing something over and over again.