Are you surprised by Carolyn's review on Batman AO?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#251 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@capaho: I try not to get hysterical or anything, but the injustice(ha ha) of it all annoys me. How long did this woman play the game? Because after 6 hours with it, I could lodge a valid complaint that could help justify the score, but she apparently had time to play it to completion AND make some (presumably) significant headway in the multiplayer mode but she still missed the fact that the combat is less consistent in AO than it was in AC. Instead, she writes an entire review that basically amounts to: it's Arkham City all over again. Oh, and multiplayer sucks. 6/10.

@UpInFlames: Don't tell me it's a positive rating, because it isn't 6 on a 10 scale, it's a 3 on a 7 scale. 1s, 2s and 3s are reserved for games that are unplayable- games that suffer from glitches and bugs no matter where you look; games that suffer from a consistent, progress halting glitch; and games that are simply mechanically unsound.

#252 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o: I don't disagree with your assessment of the review, I just don't get all that worked up over GS reviews. Despite the 6/10 rating, when I read the review I thought the description of the game fit nicely with what I like about the Batman series, so it sounds like a good game for me. She dinged it for being more of the same, but more of the same is not necessarily a bad thing when that thing is a good thing to begin with.

#253 Posted by BranKetra (47740 posts) -

@c_rakestraw said:

@sabretooth2066: Funny you should mention Dark Souls...

@UpInFlames said:
@Randolph said:

If nothing else Carolyn and Tom deserve praise for making many gamers stop depending on scores on this website alone for game purchases and go more with their gut by making the sites reviews more of an interesting sideshow attraction than an actual main feature people actually take seriously. I think more people taking it upon themselves to make more informed purchases, rather than just glancing at a number on the main site and making a snap decision on the spot, is a good thing.

What does "take the review seriously" actually mean? So if you have an outlier review (which isn't even the case here, but even if it were), your take is somehow "wrong"? Sorry, and I don't want to be mean or disrespectful - but that is a huge load of crap. I just can't stand how people write off reviews they don't agree with as some sort of comic relief or something. But hey, those guys that gave a score I agree with, they're totally credible and I "take them seriously". What? This is GameSpot's take on the game, nothing more, nothing less. If you don't agree with it, more power to you, enjoy the game.

Though I agree completely, Randolph's position throughout the thread is wondering how Carolyn came to decide on a 6 for Batman for being more of the same when other games seemingly get a pass for the same thing. I don't think he's ever come outright and questioned her or GameSpot's credibility on the grounds of disagreement over a review.

That's fine, but I wasn't quoting his earlier posts, and what he said here is pretty clear. Carolyn's and Tom's reviews are "sideshow attractions" as opposed to being "taken seriously". That to me seems dismissive and that's what I wanted to address. It's a reality that people dismiss reviews they don't agree with and this thread is no different than any of the other millions of threads just like it.

Carolyn's review is clear and the score seems to reflect the criticisms. Call of Duty and FIFA have nothing to do with that and it's a hollow point to make. Batman: Arkham Origins isn't Call of Duty and Carolyn Petit doesn't represent the entire history of GameSpot's reviews. Even if Carolyn goes on to review Ghosts and gives it a higher score, that still doesn't mean much. Because maybe she just thought that Ghosts is a better game. This imaginary consistency people seem to expect just isn't going to happen because these are video game reviews, not lab tests.

Are you saying we should expect inconsistencies in reviews of games with similar selling points?

#254 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@Jacanuk: I meant a way out of your idea that Batman must, must, MUST be different every single time. You said Call of Duty gets a pass because they aren't trying to be different, but when I tell you that WB Montreal had that same intention, you claim it's a cover. There was an article around e3 this year where Eric Holmes stated outright that the game is built on the core mechanics of Arkham City and that their focus was on making the story stand out.

And before you repeat yourself, think about this: This was an entirely new studio taking their first stab at a juggernaut of a franchise. Would you take the risk of 'fixing it 'til it broke' on your very first shot at the big leagues?

#255 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@capaho: "Not necessarily"? Try "Not even remotely."

#256 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

@capaho: "Not necessarily"? Try "Not even remotely."

In the case of the Batman series, I agree. It's one of the best around, so why screw it up by diverging too much from the original?

#257 Edited by MirkoS77 (6971 posts) -

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

I actually came back in here for the purpose of sharing my thoughts and impressions on AO only to discover my character and posts once again being attacked .

So be it.

I can be a caustic prick but there are no innocents in here and the manner in which I opt to use rhetoric and prose, however vicious, is almost always without exception a direct response to somebody else's decision to insult or deride first.

But since we've arrived at a point where I'm the bad guy I'm going to remove myself from the equation for a while and see if this forum becomes a better place in my absence. I'm not saying I won't be back for certain but at the very least a protracted sabbatical seems called for.

Thanks to those who provided some kind words in my defense.

Arrrrggggghhhh.

Really Gram, I meant no hard feelings but suppose that couldn't be avoided. Look, what I mean to say is that all in all I just think these things are not conducive to a friendly and easy going community. I would also not be surprised if some users are hesitant to post after seeing you post. It can be intimidating. I know that you never start on someone unless provoked, but really, these people should just be ignored. One or two personal slights should not bring the wrath of God down on their heads. Frankly, they're not even worth it.

Anyway, I suspect we are but hope we're not now at odds.

#258 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@capaho: I've never felt closer to you than I do right now. *cue single tear*

#259 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o: At least we can agree on the quality of the Batman series.

#260 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

I actually came back in here for the purpose of sharing my thoughts and impressions on AO only to discover my character and posts once again being attacked .

So be it.

I can be a caustic prick but there are no innocents in here and the manner in which I opt to use rhetoric and prose, however vicious, is almost always without exception a direct response to somebody else's decision to insult or deride first.

But since we've arrived at a point where I'm the bad guy I'm going to remove myself from the equation for a while and see if this forum becomes a better place in my absence. I'm not saying I won't be back for certain but at the very least a protracted sabbatical seems called for.

Thanks to those who provided some kind words in my defense.

Arrrrggggghhhh.

Really Gram, I meant no hard feelings but suppose that couldn't be avoided. Look, what I mean to say is that all in all I just think these things are not conducive to a friendly and easy going community. I would also not be surprised if some users are hesitant to post after seeing you post. It can be intimidating. I know that you never start on someone unless provoked, but really, these people should just be ignored. One or two personal slights should not bring the wrath of God down on their heads. Frankly, they're not even worth it.

Anyway, I suspect we are but hope we're not now at odds.

At this point it hardly matters.

The amount of shit thrown my way for simply refuting an argument or having the audacity to demand a bit of logic is asinine and as Reddest already pointed out, both of those quotes you cited were people clearly looking for a fight.

But I'm the dick for swinging back, right?

I love this place but I am done here because clearly, I no longer belong. Perhaps that is only fitting given the influx of new people coupled with the recent transition to a new format.

Regardless, my best to everybody, no hard feelings, and take care.

I won't be coming back.

#261 Edited by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -
@Grammaton-Cleric said:

At this point it hardly matters.

The amount of shit thrown my way for simply refuting an argument or having the audacity to demand a bit of logic is asinine and as Reddest already pointed out, both of those quotes you cited were people clearly looking for a fight.

But I'm the dick for swinging back, right?

I love this place but I am done here because clearly, I no longer belong. Perhaps that is only fitting given the influx of new people coupled with the recent transition to a new format.

Regardless, my best to everybody, no hard feelings, and take care.

I won't be coming back.

This is a dark day for GameSpot. The board will never be the same without you, Gram. Take care.

#262 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

At this point it hardly matters.

The amount of shit thrown my way for simply refuting an argument or having the audacity to demand a bit of logic is asinine and as Reddest already pointed out, both of those quotes you cited were people clearly looking for a fight.

But I'm the dick for swinging back, right?

I love this place but I am done here because clearly, I no longer belong. Perhaps that is only fitting given the influx of new people coupled with the recent transition to a new format.

Regardless, my best to everybody, no hard feelings, and take care.

I won't be coming back.

You never seem to understand that you are your own worst enemy in discussions like this. You provoke people by boasting about how you've "refuted" someone's argument, then you get defensive when they respond to your arrogant provocations. From that point on, the discussion becomes about you rather than the topic at hand. It's hard to refute an opinion that is based on subjective experiences, and we aren't discussing A Farewell to Arms or A Brief History of Time here, so it seems rather pointless to attempt to pursue intellectual discourse in this forum. Gaming is a personal, subjective, emotional experience. You never seem to be able to respect the fact that not everyone relates to any particular game the way you do. It's not your place to demand a bit of logic from anyone else here because no one here has any obligation to justify themselves to you.

In any case, if you really are gone for good, best of luck in your new endeavors.

#263 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

God damn it! An interesting discussion, a good fight and now Gram is gone? This is some bullshit! For fuck's sake, I even managed to find common ground with capaho in this thread! How could such a winner of a thread go so horribly, horribly wrong?

Where are you going, Gram? I hate registering for shit, but if I have to, so help me, I will!

#264 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

God damn it! An interesting discussion, a good fight and now Gram is gone? This is some b******t! For f***'s sake, I even managed to find common ground with capaho in this thread! How could such a winner of a thread go so horribly, horribly wrong?

Where are you going, Gram? I hate registering for s**t, but if I have to, so help me, I will!

If it's in your nature to be provocative you have to be able to take it as well as you can dish it out, as you and I well know. If you're going to be a follower, choose your leader wisely.

#265 Posted by EnderX (42 posts) -

@capaho said:

@El_Zo1212o: I don't disagree with your assessment of the review, I just don't get all that worked up over GS reviews. Despite the 6/10 rating, when I read the review I thought the description of the game fit nicely with what I like about the Batman series, so it sounds like a good game for me. She dinged it for being more of the same, but more of the same is not necessarily a bad thing when that thing is a good thing to begin with.

60% isn't good. 70% is. Hell, 60% is barely passable. So... Arkham Origins is a barely passable game? Doubt it.

#266 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o: I know, right? Man... what a bummer this thread has become.

@enderx said:
@capaho said:

@El_Zo1212o: I don't disagree with your assessment of the review, I just don't get all that worked up over GS reviews. Despite the 6/10 rating, when I read the review I thought the description of the game fit nicely with what I like about the Batman series, so it sounds like a good game for me. She dinged it for being more of the same, but more of the same is not necessarily a bad thing when that thing is a good thing to begin with.

60% isn't good. 70% is. Hell, 60% is barely passable. So... Arkham Origins is a barely passable game? Doubt it.

Hogwash. A 6 is a perfectly fine score. I've seen plenty of reviews with a positive spin that have given games 6s. It's simply using the scale correctly. Anything below a 5 (that is, middling) is what should be considered bad. Treating a 6 like that is just plain ridiculous.

#267 Posted by MirkoS77 (6971 posts) -

Having played this I can't see a 6, but for over a year now GS has been more strict on their critiques. What used to be a 10 is now a 9, a 9 an 8, etc. And from my time with Origins I'd say a 7-8 is about a fair score. I don't find it to be as good as AC in a few areas but all in all it's scratching the Batman itch.

#268 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

@enderx said:

60% isn't good. 70% is. Hell, 60% is barely passable. So... Arkham Origins is a barely passable game? Doubt it.

It doesn't really matter what the actual rating is to me. There was enough information in the reviewer's description of the game to let me know that I will probably like it. I stopped taking GS ratings seriously after the awful LA Noire received a 9/10.

#269 Edited by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

@UpInFlames: Don't tell me it's a positive rating, because it isn't 6 on a 10 scale, it's a 3 on a 7 scale. 1s, 2s and 3s are reserved for games that are unplayable- games that suffer from glitches and bugs no matter where you look; games that suffer from a consistent, progress halting glitch; and games that are simply mechanically unsound.

It's in the upper half of the scale therefore it is a positive rating. Sorry, but this is not debatable.

Are you saying we should expect inconsistencies in reviews of games with similar selling points?

I am saying that the consistency argument in this context is hollow and pointless. Batman: Arkham Origins, Call of Duty and FIFA have absolutely nothing in common and trying to equate them makes no sense.

#270 Edited by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

I won't be coming back.

Come on man, don't let a bit of internet drama drive you away from here. I can relate as I was recently involved in something similar so I know firsthand just how crappy attacks on your character feel. But in the end, you just gotta cool down, shrug it off and perhaps be done with some people. It's just not worth leaving a great community over something like this. At least don't make any firm decisions in the heat of the moment.

And if you decide that you're truly done with this place, come to the new Ring of Fire. Actually, you're welcome regardless of your decision about this place. We would all love having you there.

#271 Edited by Jbul (4835 posts) -

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

I actually came back in here for the purpose of sharing my thoughts and impressions on AO only to discover my character and posts once again being attacked .

So be it.

I can be a caustic prick but there are no innocents in here and the manner in which I opt to use rhetoric and prose, however vicious, is almost always without exception a direct response to somebody else's decision to insult or deride first.

But since we've arrived at a point where I'm the bad guy I'm going to remove myself from the equation for a while and see if this forum becomes a better place in my absence. I'm not saying I won't be back for certain but at the very least a protracted sabbatical seems called for.

Thanks to those who provided some kind words in my defense.

Arrrrggggghhhh.

Really Gram, I meant no hard feelings but suppose that couldn't be avoided. Look, what I mean to say is that all in all I just think these things are not conducive to a friendly and easy going community. I would also not be surprised if some users are hesitant to post after seeing you post. It can be intimidating. I know that you never start on someone unless provoked, but really, these people should just be ignored. One or two personal slights should not bring the wrath of God down on their heads. Frankly, they're not even worth it.

Anyway, I suspect we are but hope we're not now at odds.

At this point it hardly matters.

The amount of shit thrown my way for simply refuting an argument or having the audacity to demand a bit of logic is asinine and as Reddest already pointed out, both of those quotes you cited were people clearly looking for a fight.

But I'm the dick for swinging back, right?

I love this place but I am done here because clearly, I no longer belong. Perhaps that is only fitting given the influx of new people coupled with the recent transition to a new format.

Regardless, my best to everybody, no hard feelings, and take care.

I won't be coming back.

Fuck that. Grammaton -- do me a favor. I realize you are in a weird position -- an unprecendented amount of douchescrotes (yes, a combination of douchebag and scrotebag that I pesonally invented) challenging you, along with an all-time amount of well-deserved respect toward you may seem like a strange cocktail to process.. You basically came into the forum and transitioned from an outlier crusader against fanboy assclowns and trolls in a very respectable forum into a sort of legend (your current status) -- but realize something -- you have NOTHING TO PROVE to any of these idiots. The Jacunuks, the Capaho's, the HipHopBeats, the Areez's-- all those guys with shitty user names who want to come in here and try to take out their tiny peepee's -- they don't matter. They never will. You have nothing to prove. We like you for who you are -- an intelligent, outspoken gamer who is cool as shit and with whom it is a joy to share our gaming experiences with. Your presence would be sorely missed.

Take me for instance -- I stopped arguing with these morons years ago -- they are like the wind. They'll come, they'll go. One thing is for sure; they don't matter. People like me, Solid, Dvader, Juradai, PhantonLeo, C_rake, Carnage, Shameus, Contacts, Meta... dude, we love having you around. There aren't many people who come here who are so deeply appreciative of our hobby as you. I'd like to see you stay. Moreover, I'd like to see you stay and forget about all these shitbags who feel the need to challenge you and needlessly personally insult you. I personally ignore them, Every once in awhile I will own them, but usually, I just don't have the energy of desire to do so. The solution? Just don't bother. Ignore them. You don't have anything to prove. They will go away eventually. When these douche lords challenge you -- ignore it. None of us care. We want you -- your passion and intelligence for our hobby -- to be here, with all of us. I personally came online JUST TO SEE YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THIS GAME. Since you didn't give them, I bought it (in fact, it's installing now). Don't give them the power to take that away -- they really aren't worth it.

#273 Edited by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

I actually came back in here for the purpose of sharing my thoughts and impressions on AO only to discover my character and posts once again being attacked .

So be it.

I can be a caustic prick but there are no innocents in here and the manner in which I opt to use rhetoric and prose, however vicious, is almost always without exception a direct response to somebody else's decision to insult or deride first.

But since we've arrived at a point where I'm the bad guy I'm going to remove myself from the equation for a while and see if this forum becomes a better place in my absence. I'm not saying I won't be back for certain but at the very least a protracted sabbatical seems called for.

Thanks to those who provided some kind words in my defense.

Arrrrggggghhhh.

Really Gram, I meant no hard feelings but suppose that couldn't be avoided. Look, what I mean to say is that all in all I just think these things are not conducive to a friendly and easy going community. I would also not be surprised if some users are hesitant to post after seeing you post. It can be intimidating. I know that you never start on someone unless provoked, but really, these people should just be ignored. One or two personal slights should not bring the wrath of God down on their heads. Frankly, they're not even worth it.

Anyway, I suspect we are but hope we're not now at odds.

At this point it hardly matters.

The amount of shit thrown my way for simply refuting an argument or having the audacity to demand a bit of logic is asinine and as Reddest already pointed out, both of those quotes you cited were people clearly looking for a fight.

But I'm the dick for swinging back, right?

I love this place but I am done here because clearly, I no longer belong. Perhaps that is only fitting given the influx of new people coupled with the recent transition to a new format.

Regardless, my best to everybody, no hard feelings, and take care.

I won't be coming back.

Come on, the entire board wants you to stay. I'm looking at armchair gods as they trash Namoura's early works and I bet none of them can draw. Is there anything worse? That's the internet.

#274 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

Gotta agree with Jbul Cleric, don't let the unwashed masses drag you into their filth. Anytime I see your name in a thread I will check it out just to see what you have to say, rise above the douche brother they aren't wroth it. Like Jbul says just ignore them, it is what I do as well otherwise you waste all your time and energy slogging mud in the dirt with people who live there.

#275 Edited by Jacanuk (3845 posts) -

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@Grammaton-Cleric said:

I actually came back in here for the purpose of sharing my thoughts and impressions on AO only to discover my character and posts once again being attacked .

So be it.

I can be a caustic prick but there are no innocents in here and the manner in which I opt to use rhetoric and prose, however vicious, is almost always without exception a direct response to somebody else's decision to insult or deride first.

But since we've arrived at a point where I'm the bad guy I'm going to remove myself from the equation for a while and see if this forum becomes a better place in my absence. I'm not saying I won't be back for certain but at the very least a protracted sabbatical seems called for.

Thanks to those who provided some kind words in my defense.

Arrrrggggghhhh.

Really Gram, I meant no hard feelings but suppose that couldn't be avoided. Look, what I mean to say is that all in all I just think these things are not conducive to a friendly and easy going community. I would also not be surprised if some users are hesitant to post after seeing you post. It can be intimidating. I know that you never start on someone unless provoked, but really, these people should just be ignored. One or two personal slights should not bring the wrath of God down on their heads. Frankly, they're not even worth it.

Anyway, I suspect we are but hope we're not now at odds.

At this point it hardly matters.

The amount of shit thrown my way for simply refuting an argument or having the audacity to demand a bit of logic is asinine and as Reddest already pointed out, both of those quotes you cited were people clearly looking for a fight.

But I'm the dick for swinging back, right?

I love this place but I am done here because clearly, I no longer belong. Perhaps that is only fitting given the influx of new people coupled with the recent transition to a new format.

Regardless, my best to everybody, no hard feelings, and take care.

I won't be coming back.

Ok, i said i wasn't going to respond to your post and you can take this any way you like, disregard it , use it to laugh or "what ever"

But come on stop the f´ing dramaqueen routine mate, you clearly are not a 15 year old girl. You know that some people like you so why the need to get them to write it out? your ego can't be that shallow can it?

Also Capaho hits the nail right on the head with his post, so i would listen to him, because he says some pretty accurate things.

#276 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@c_rakestraw: I'll take your hogwash and raise you a balderdash- see my reasoning on the 1-3+4-10 scale for further information.

#277 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@Jbul: I'm seriously disappointed I wasn't on that list of yours. I'll be keeping an eye on you...

@UpInFlames: Was a D a positive grade in High School? Because scoring 60% on a test is a D. Now, there are a couple of other points I was going to try to make with Gamespot's take on a 6 game, but what it all boils down to is that a 6 is what Gamespot gave to a Superman movie tie in mobile game. Is that really how they view the new Arkham game?

#278 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

@UpInFlames, @Jbul: Well said.

@UpInFlames: Was a D a positive grade in High School? Because scoring 60% on a test is a D. Now, there are a couple of other points I was going to try to make with Gamespot's take on a 6 game, but what it all boils down to is that a 6 is what Gamespot gave to a Superman movie tie in mobile game. Is that really how they view the new Arkham game?

Equating the scale to the school grading system is a faulty way of looking at it. GameSpot's been clear from the very beginning they weren't treating it like that. The scale, as it's always been applied to game reviews, is anything within the 6-10 range is considered good, a 5 is average/middling, and anything between 4-1 is considered bad. This is how it's always been and always will be. Ask any of the editors and they would tell you the same thing.

#279 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

@UpInFlames, @Jbul: Well said.

@El_Zo1212o said:
@UpInFlames: Was a D a positive grade in High School? Because scoring 60% on a test is a D. Now, there are a couple of other points I was going to try to make with Gamespot's take on a 6 game, but what it all boils down to is that a 6 is what Gamespot gave to a Superman movie tie in mobile game. Is that really how they view the new Arkham game?

Equating the scale to the school grading system is a faulty way of looking at it. GameSpot's been clear from the very beginning they weren't treating it like that. The scale, as it's always been applied to game reviews, is anything within the 6-10 range is considered good, a 5 is average/middling, and anything between 4-1 is considered bad. This is how it's always been and always will be. Ask any of the editors and they would tell you the same thing.

That is what the editors may say but that is not the way the industry or the rating system as a whole actually works. A game is either 8. 9 or 10 in this industry or it is shit. That is the way people use the rating system (including most reviewers these days) that is pretty much unfortunately what the industry transformed into over the past 5 years or maybe even the past 10. Most people look at the ratings and that is how they are viewed, things have been that way for a long time.

Whether that is right or not is unfortunately irrelevant, it's just the way it is.

I blame young people.

*shakes fist*

#281 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -


@UpInFlames: Was a D a positive grade in High School? Because scoring 60% on a test is a D. Now, there are a couple of other points I was going to try to make with Gamespot's take on a 6 game, but what it all boils down to is that a 6 is what Gamespot gave to a Superman movie tie in mobile game. Is that really how they view the new Arkham game?

And what the hell does school have to do with video game review ratings? You should be comparing it to music and film reviews, not high school grades.

As for you second point, so what if they do? Seriously, SO WHAT?

#282 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@UpInFlames: I compare it to school ratings because that's the closest analogue we can get to show why 1s 2s and 3s on the traditional 10-point scale are irrelevant to a game's quality, which in turn shows why 6 is below par. As to the second point, are you agreeing that Arkham Origins is inthe same league as the Superman Returns movie tie in mobile game?

#283 Edited by BranKetra (47740 posts) -

@UpInFlames said:

@El_Zo1212o said:

@UpInFlames: Don't tell me it's a positive rating, because it isn't 6 on a 10 scale, it's a 3 on a 7 scale. 1s, 2s and 3s are reserved for games that are unplayable- games that suffer from glitches and bugs no matter where you look; games that suffer from a consistent, progress halting glitch; and games that are simply mechanically unsound.

It's in the upper half of the scale therefore it is a positive rating. Sorry, but this is not debatable.

@BranKetra said:

Are you saying we should expect inconsistencies in reviews of games with similar selling points?

I am saying that the consistency argument in this context is hollow and pointless. Batman: Arkham Origins, Call of Duty and FIFA have absolutely nothing in common and trying to equate them makes no sense.

I disagree, UpInFlames. The commonality between Fifa, Call of Duty, and the Batman Arkham games is that they each use a same core system and the next iterations feature changes to the system which are meant to alter the gameplay in some way while keeping those systems intact. The same can be said about fighting games and trilogies in general. When people bring them together, I think that is what is being equated. The difference between those two franchises and Batman Arkham is that the changes to Batman AO are not refreshing.

GameSpot's reviews:

The headline for the FIFA 14:

"FIFA 14 is an exercise in subtle refinments and clever tweaks that transforms the familiar into something that feels fresh, exciting, and always engaging.

Call of Duty: Black Ops II:

"A sinister villain, some tough choices, and a new kind of multiplayer arena invigorate the reliably intense action of Call of Duty: Black Ops II."

Then Batman Arkham Origins:

"Holy predictability, Batman!"

If not for that and the multiplayer, AO would have received a better score, but that is aside the point.

#284 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

El, Jacanuk -- knock it off.

That is what the editors may say but that is not the way the industry or the rating system as a whole actually works. A game is either 8. 9 or 10 in this industry or it is shit. That is the way people use the rating system (including most reviewers these days) that is pretty much unfortunately what the industry transformed into over the past 5 years or maybe even the past 10. Most people look at the ratings and that is how they are viewed, things have been that way for a long time.

Whether that is right or not is unfortunately irrelevant, it's just the way it is.

I blame young people.

*shakes fist*

Damn kids. They ruin everything.

#285 Posted by Bigboi500 (29044 posts) -

lol @ the stupid drama going on in this thread. Gramm, this place would be totally boring if you left, so don't go all rage-quitter on us.

#286 Edited by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

@UpInFlames: I compare it to school ratings because that's the closest analogue we can get to show why 1s 2s and 3s on the traditional 10-point scale are irrelevant to a game's quality, which in turn shows why 6 is below par. As to the second point, are you agreeing that Arkham Origins is inthe same league as the Superman Returns movie tie in mobile game?

Well, to put it simply, you're doing it wrong. You're trying to make a point by shoehorning one system into another when in reality, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I don't even know what the hell is this mobile game you're talking about and I have not played either Arkham Origins or that, so I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. I am asking you - what is the big deal if GameSpot sees it that way?

#287 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

lol omg. what in the living fuck is going on in here.

Grammaton, i know how you feel. It's aggravating, insulting and downright frustrating having to constantly deal with these folks attacking you in one way or another. It's almost impossible to ignore. And no matter how hard you try to be the bigger man, you cant help but notice your name being dragged through the mud. I completely understand you taking a break. God knows how many times I have rage quit this forum in the recent months.

However, next gen is almost upon us. We are finally going to be leaving the confines of linear corridor style level design and into full open world/sandbox design of gameplay. Your favorite design of gameplay. Mirror’s Edge is open world. Dragon Age and Halo 5 as well. KZSF is full of wide open sandbox levels. Just imagine the impressions threads. You are going to be in heaven. And that’s just the launch era games. Developers are going to be doing a lot of GPGPU stuff to do some insane simulations in their games as the gen goes on.

Don’t worry about what some idiots think of you. These guys wont last more than a few months. But like I said I understand the need to take a break. Just be back by November 15th. :P

Also, like UIF said, check out the new RingOfFire. You wont have to worry about people insulting you or having to constantly field attacks on you. And better yet, you will still see people who will disagree with you in a heartbeat, but do it in a much more constructive and civil manner. (UIF’s Uncharted 2 review thread notwithstanding :P We have our dark chapters every once in a while in ROF)

#288 Edited by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Another reason why Grammaton cant leave. Look at how pretty Drive Club is looking.

#289 Edited by BranKetra (47740 posts) -

@GodModeEnabled said:

Anytime I see your name in a thread I will check it out just to see what you have to say

I do, too. I do not know Grammaton-Cleric as well as some of you all, but I think he is a good poster and it would be a shame to see him go.

#290 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

I disagree, UpInFlames. The commonality between Fifa, Call of Duty, and the Batman Arkham games is that they each use a same core system and the next iterations feature changes to the system which are meant to alter the gameplay in some way while keeping those systems intact. The same can be said about fighting games and trilogies in general. When people bring them together, I think that is what is being equated. The difference between those two franchises and Batman Arkham is that the changes to Batman AO are not refreshing.

GameSpot's reviews:

The headline for the FIFA 14:

"FIFA 14 is an exercise in subtle refinments and clever tweaks that transforms the familiar into something that feels fresh, exciting, and always engaging.

Call of Duty: Black Ops II:

"A sinister villain, some tough choices, and a new kind of multiplayer arena invigorate the reliably intense action of Call of Duty: Black Ops II."

Then Batman Arkham Origins:

"Holy predictability, Batman!"

If not for that and the multiplayer, AO would have received a better score, but that is aside the point.

Well, that broad reasoning can be applied to every sequel ever made, really. But the games, the actual design is completely different. You mentioned similar selling points in your previous post. These games have completely different selling points. FIFA is a yearly sports game, its entire design and purpose is predicated upon subtle annual improvements or just mere statistical updates. Call of Duty is a hodge-podge of purpose and design, ranging from annual sport-like updates to its multiplayer component to a brand new single-player campaign. And then you have Batman: Arkham Origins, a open-world action/adventure game. All of these games NEED to be reviewed based on their own individual merits, their place in the series and possibly genre. If you go any further than that, it just stops making any sense. FIFA simply has nothing to do with Batman.

If you want to compare Batman to something, then it makes sense to compare it to Assassin's Creed which has also been criticised for being overly familiar. So there's your consistency, if you want it so badly. But you can never expect reviewers to go "oh wait, both of these games have similar faults so I need to give them the same score". All of these games are too different to use such broad reasoning. Because like I already said, maybe none of these games changed that much, but on the flipside, maybe some are just better games than others. According to the reviewer, naturally.

#291 Posted by Bigboi500 (29044 posts) -

Another reason why Grammaton cant leave. Look at how pretty Drive Club is looking.

I hope the delay really makes this game shine. You gonna just download the free ps + version of this game, or the total version?

#292 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I hope the delay really makes this game shine. You gonna just download the free ps + version of this game, or the total version?

Free PS+ version then upgrade to the full version for a reduced price. Shouldn't be more than $30.

#293 Edited by Bigboi500 (29044 posts) -

@Bigboi500 said:

I hope the delay really makes this game shine. You gonna just download the free ps + version of this game, or the total version?

Free PS+ version then upgrade to the full version for a reduced price. Shouldn't be more than $30.

I think I'll do that too, provided it's still available when I get a ps4 early-mid 2014.

#294 Edited by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

@S0lidSnake said:

@Bigboi500 said:

I hope the delay really makes this game shine. You gonna just download the free ps + version of this game, or the total version?

Free PS+ version then upgrade to the full version for a reduced price. Shouldn't be more than $30.

I think I'll do that too, provided it's still available when I get a ps4 early-mid 2014.

Just login to your PS+ account on the cell phone app and download the free version when it comes out. It should stay attached to your account.

#295 Edited by BranKetra (47740 posts) -

@UpInFlames said:

@BranKetra said:

I disagree, UpInFlames. The commonality between Fifa, Call of Duty, and the Batman Arkham games is that they each use a same core system and the next iterations feature changes to the system which are meant to alter the gameplay in some way while keeping those systems intact. The same can be said about fighting games and trilogies in general. When people bring them together, I think that is what is being equated. The difference between those two franchises and Batman Arkham is that the changes to Batman AO are not refreshing.

GameSpot's reviews:

The headline for the FIFA 14:

"FIFA 14 is an exercise in subtle refinments and clever tweaks that transforms the familiar into something that feels fresh, exciting, and always engaging.

Call of Duty: Black Ops II:

"A sinister villain, some tough choices, and a new kind of multiplayer arena invigorate the reliably intense action of Call of Duty: Black Ops II."

Then Batman Arkham Origins:

"Holy predictability, Batman!"

If not for that and the multiplayer, AO would have received a better score, but that is aside the point.

Well, that broad reasoning can be applied to every sequel ever made, really. But the games, the actual design is completely different. You mentioned similar selling points in your previous post. These games have completely different selling points. FIFA is a yearly sports game, its entire design and purpose is predicated upon subtle annual improvements or just mere statistical updates. Call of Duty is a hodge-podge of purpose and design, ranging from annual sport-like updates to its multiplayer component to a brand new single-player campaign. And then you have Batman: Arkham Origins, a open-world action/adventure game. All of these games NEED to be reviewed based on their own individual merits, their place in the series and possibly genre. If you go any further than that, it just stops making any sense. FIFA simply has nothing to do with Batman.

If you want to compare Batman to something, then it makes sense to compare it to Assassin's Creed which has also been criticised for being overly familiar. So there's your consistency, if you want it so badly. But you can never expect reviewers to go "oh wait, both of these games have similar faults so I need to give them the same score". All of these games are too different to use such broad reasoning. Because like I already said, maybe none of these games changed that much, but on the flipside, maybe some are just better games than others. According to the reviewer, naturally.

In my opinion, entertainment value is something that is simpler than what genre a game is and that basic idea influences any review. It is a great thing because it can last for a long while. Sometimes, it sways opinions of games that would get rated lower than they did not have that. Games like Call of Duty and FIFA have that. The proof is their consecutive consecutive decent scores. The Batman Arkham games might not get as good of a reception because the fundamental gameplay mechanics of that franchise might have less longevity. Their not having annual releases might be proof of that.

#296 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6001 posts) -

@BranKetra: I don't know about anybody else here, but chasing high scores on my favorite challenge map kepy me chomping away at my copy of Arkham City for nearly 300 hours after I finished the campaign.I only really put it down for an extended periodas of about March this year.

#297 Edited by BranKetra (47740 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o said:

@BranKetra: I don't know about anybody else here, but chasing high scores on my favorite challenge map kepy me chomping away at my copy of Arkham City for nearly 300 hours after I finished the campaign.I only really put it down for an extended periodas of about March this year.

Are you saying that the Batman games have a good amount of longevity to them?

#298 Edited by MirkoS77 (6971 posts) -

My post was an observation on Gram's debate style when he gets angry. It was constructive criticism presented with a respectful manner with many compliments thrown into the mix in the hope of having him tone it down a bit and take it a bit easy in future threads. But apparently wishing for such now qualifies as "dragging someone's name through the mud". And if my single post (which I still stand by) had such an impact as to have him decide to leave the boards forever (unfortunate if he does), then there's other things at play here instead of just me and a few other users voicing our opinions.

#299 Posted by Jacanuk (3845 posts) -
#300 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Ok, i usually sorta respect Destructoid and Sterling but this one is harsh

http://www.destructoid.com/review-batman-arkham-origins-264357.phtml

So what does people say to this one, Caro´s was a 6 , Jim´s 3.5 is a complete and utter annihilation of the game.

That's rather worrisome. I didn't know that AO was coming from Warner Bros. rather than Rocksteady. Game releases from movie studios have a poor record when it comes to the quality of the game and the gaming experience, so I am now wondering if this is really just an exploitation of the series for a quick profit rather than a meaningful addition to it. The emphasis on DLC is a major negative for me.