Discussion

8 comments
Humorguy_basic
Humorguy_basic

(Continued from below) Your reviews all have one thing in common: If the game has had $20 million plus spent on it, you give it a 9.0 plus, and if it didn't, the review, as in the Two Worlds II review, implies it will be a better game, and will garner a better score, when a future title has that $20 million spent on it! I could go on, and one day soon I will write a book about it, but don't worry, I will change the names to protect the guilty!!

Humorguy_basic
Humorguy_basic

The User scores are as you say because of who you now attract to your site! I could give a million reasons to prove a biase. How about Bioshock having resuscitation sites that reviewers said 'helped the story move forward' and yet the very same site sites in Two Worlds were "game breakers" How about the fact that a smaller published game with bugs gets marked down for them, and yet a broken Fallout New Vegas doesn't? What about the fact STALKER was marked down for bugs, then Clear Sky was marked down for bugs and then Call of Pripyat didn't have bugs and got the same score as the first two?! What about the fact that the media can give Mass Effect RPG of the year and not The Witcher? The Witcher is the same type of RPG we have seen in PC gaming for over 20 years. Mass Effect in most of those 20 years would have been seen as a Action-Adventure! If it was just Gamespot it would be one thing, but it's all the major sites! How much coverage did you give to the Gothic games versus the Bethesda games? How much did you give to Metro 2033 versus Far Cry 2? How much coverage and what scores do you give to smaller dev's versus the bigger companies? When have you EVER given a 9.0 or above to a European title, however good? (Continued)

Kevin-V
Kevin-V moderator staff

@Humorguy_basic - I also wonder why you say we "blast" this game. Far from it--I state, in fact, that this game on PC is a very good one. That is what 7.5 means: "very good." By clicking the help link on any page, you can read our reviews criteria. A 7.5 is exactly the right score for this good, somewhat flawed RPG. It would be fun to talk about RPGs with you. Perhaps we can do so one day--respectfully.

Kevin-V
Kevin-V moderator staff

@Humorguy_basic -- The game actually got a different score on the PC than it did on consoles. Furthermore, the written review details the differences between platforms. The game is fundamentally the same on all platforms; where it is different, the video review AND written review explain those differences. Furthermore, the video review used footage from all three versions. The video review is not just a "360 review." In fact, the video review used more footage from the PC version than the other two combined. And the video you are actually placing this comment on is a PC video only.

Dragon Age and Two Worlds II are very different games, even though they are both RPGs. Because one is open world and one is not does not make one necessarily superior to the other. We write bunches of words, detailing what we think about certain games, and why. You can read those words to discover more about the quality of those games.

I would also point out that we are not alone. Our reader score for Two Worlds II on the PC is actually lower than the editor score, at a 7.4 average. Our readers also believe that Dragon Age is a much better game than TW2, rating it a 9.1 as I write this. Shockingly, it seems not everyone shares the same opinion as you. Do you think that the only good reviews are those that agree with Humorguy_basic?

Humorguy_basic
Humorguy_basic

Another biased Gamespot review. Negatives that would have not been mentioned if this game came from a big publisher get mentioned over and over and bring the score down when it would not be brought down for the big company. Example: Did any reviewer point out that Dragon Age was the first RPG in over 30 years of gaming to have forced fast travel? No. Can you imagine Fallout 3 or Oblivion with ONLY fast travel?! Exactly! By unfairly blasting games from small publishers, game sites like Gamespot can point out how fair they are when they give a 9.0+ to a crappy game! Problem is they only praise games that cost $35 million to develop, and this is killing gaming, as it means only 20% of AAA releases make any money nowadays! What's wrong with a game that isn't better than the best? Is every TV movie crap because it's not a movie blockbuster? Cannot smaller budget movies be good a looked at in their own right? Finally, why do PC gamers have to read/watch a 360 review? the reviewer points out the game is better on PC, but we get no specific PC review and the game is given a generic score across all formats! I barely come to Gamespot anymore. This Two Worlds II review reminds me why.

ciaxhieu
ciaxhieu

demon soul is an by far superior in every way..how can u even compare then when two world isnt even in the same league

redeer
redeer

Demon's souls cannot be topped by Two Worlds by any means.

Lantern-Cusp
Lantern-Cusp

I dont get how demons souls can get a 9.0 but this gets a 7.5......IMO Two Worlds 2 is a superior game in every aspect. By far some of the best combat in a RPG to date.