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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#101  Edited By Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@dvader654 said:

@Randolph: same here but let's not paint him as a saint, he does throw his share of well worded insults.

No one in this forum is a saint, not since Boat vanished.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#102 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Randolph said:

@Jacanuk said:

@Randolph said:

You should google "Grammaton Cleric", before making any more assumptions about the reason for his name.

And why would i do that? All that matters is what he/she do on the forum.

And the perception i get is that its someone who thinks about such things a lot.

So you can stop making ignorant assumptions?

Eh? but anyways why am i having a debate with you about a lame attempt by Gramma to be funny?

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#103 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

@Randolph said:

So you can stop making ignorant assumptions?

Eh? but anyways why am i having a debate with you about a lame attempt by Gramma to be funny?

I was just trying to point out that the reason you thought he had taken that user handle was wrong, and if you take ten seconds to google it, you'll see where it actually comes from.

Avatar image for buccomatic
buccomatic

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#104 buccomatic
Member since 2005 • 1941 Posts

@Metamania said:

I know I was. I just woke up, as of this writing, and went on to Gamespot, saw that the review was up and was shocked to see it being a 6 out of 10. I was thinking it was going to be given a much higher score, but as I read the review, I saw that Carolyn was turned off by two things about the game; the game offered nothing new or innovative and that the multiplayer's characters were frustratingly weak. So here's my question to you; are you surprised by her review of Batman: Arkham Origins? Were you hoping to see her rate it higher or do you feel that her criticisms of the game were poor at best?

Also, please keep in mind, I am not here to attack her at all nor to insult her either. That doesn't belong at all, but I am curious to hear your thoughts nevertheless.

i watched a little bit of arkham origins on theradbrad youtube channel. the game was boring and generic so i stopped watching. it looked like the game makers tried to make the game in such a way that it appeals to a wide/broad audience/demographic and because of this it got watered down. so i think, for this game, petit is spot on.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#105 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Randolph said:

@Jacanuk said:

@Randolph said:

So you can stop making ignorant assumptions?

Eh? but anyways why am i having a debate with you about a lame attempt by Gramma to be funny?

I was just trying to point out that the reason you thought he had taken that user handle was wrong, and if you take ten seconds to google it, you'll see where it actually comes from.

I don't care why he chose that handle Randolph. But actually googling it doesn't make my first assessment wrong, because someone who is "Chuck Norris" at writing, does not misspell names. So how could it not be a lame attempt at a insult.

But thanks for "trying" to "help".

Avatar image for El_Zo1212o
El_Zo1212o

6057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 El_Zo1212o
Member since 2009 • 6057 Posts

@Jacanuk: You're so cute when you try to put your big boy pants on. But seriously, even back when I tried going toe to toe with Gram for the first time, I knew- even if I'd choke before I'd admit it out loud at the time- when I was just plain beat. You're there now, so please, just give it up. He's so viciously disembowelled your arguments that personal attacks are all you have left. Just let it go.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#107  Edited By Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@El_Zo1212o said:

@Jacanuk: You're so cute when you try to put your big boy pants on. But seriously, even back when I tried going toe to toe with Gram for the first time, I knew- even if I'd choke before I'd admit it out loud at the time- when I was just plain beat. You're there now, so please, just give it up. He's so viciously disembowelled your arguments that personal attacks are all you have left. Just let it go.

It really is sad to watch someone go through that when you've been there before, because they just WILL NOT listen. Being wrong on the internet is NOT the worst thing in the world, contrary to popular belief.

Avatar image for Zensword
Zensword

4510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#108 Zensword
Member since 2007 • 4510 Posts

LOL double standard. A ton of rehash that bring nothing new to the table still get 9-8 scores while this game got pummeled for the same reason LOL

Gamespot needs to require all their review staff to conform to a consistent standard.

I don't care how well or how many big words she used in the review to impress readers that she's an intelligent pro reviewer but I regard this as a complete joke due to the "nothing new" criticism.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
c_rakestraw

14627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 64

User Lists: 0

#109 c_rakestraw  Moderator
Member since 2007 • 14627 Posts

You know, much as I enjoy watching Gram tear apart people's arguments, this has seriously gotten old. So -- Gram, Jacanuk: either you two learn to get along or just ignore each other. This constant back and forth of belittling one another has gotten ridiculous.

Avatar image for ReddestSkies
ReddestSkies

4087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 ReddestSkies
Member since 2005 • 4087 Posts

@Zensword said:

LOL double standard. A ton of rehash that bring nothing new to the table still get 9-8 scores while this game got pummeled for the same reason LOL

Gamespot needs to require all their review staff to conform to a consistent standard.

I don't care how well or how many big words she used in the review to impress readers that she's an intelligent pro reviewer but I regard this as a complete joke due to the "nothing new" criticism.

The thing is that you CAN'T realistically have a consistent standard when you have dozens of different reviewers who use a 10 point scoring system to rate thousands of very different games. It's impossible.

Scores are pointless, stop crying about them.

Avatar image for Zensword
Zensword

4510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#111  Edited By Zensword
Member since 2007 • 4510 Posts

@ReddestSkies said:

@Zensword said:

LOL double standard. A ton of rehash that bring nothing new to the table still get 9-8 scores while this game got pummeled for the same reason LOL

Gamespot needs to require all their review staff to conform to a consistent standard.

I don't care how well or how many big words she used in the review to impress readers that she's an intelligent pro reviewer but I regard this as a complete joke due to the "nothing new" criticism.

The thing is that you CAN'T realistically have a consistent standard when you have dozens of different reviewers who use a 10 point scoring system to rate thousands of very different games. It's impossible.

Scores are pointless, stop crying about them.

I'm not crying at all as I don't give a damn about Batman series. And I just said in SW: do not focus too much on scores. If I'm a fan, I'd would go buy this game immediately because even though it's more of the same, I know I'd thoroughly enjoy it because it's well made and combat is still as solid as previous games. If it has something new, that would be just the icing on the cake.

Avatar image for buccomatic
buccomatic

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#112 buccomatic
Member since 2005 • 1941 Posts

batman franchise is overrated.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#113 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@ReddestSkies said:

The thing is that you CAN'T realistically have a consistent standard when you have dozens of different reviewers who use a 10 point scoring system to rate thousands of very different games. It's impossible.

Scores are pointless, stop crying about them.

What makes it worse though is that even the individual reviewers are not consistent within their own reviews with these standards.

Avatar image for ReddestSkies
ReddestSkies

4087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#114 ReddestSkies
Member since 2005 • 4087 Posts

@Randolph said:

@ReddestSkies said:

The thing is that you CAN'T realistically have a consistent standard when you have dozens of different reviewers who use a 10 point scoring system to rate thousands of very different games. It's impossible.

Scores are pointless, stop crying about them.

What makes it worse though is that even the individual reviewers are not consistent within their own reviews with these standards.

Have you ever tried rating every game you play? I did, and it was a headache. Every time I'd look at my list of scores I'd change it up a little. On Thursday I would disagree with a score I gave a game on Monday.

Games are too complex to be objectively rated on a scale of 1 to 10. And they're way too complex for one to be able to compare two scores directly and come up with a meaningful conclusion, so what's the point?

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
c_rakestraw

14627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 64

User Lists: 0

#115  Edited By c_rakestraw  Moderator
Member since 2007 • 14627 Posts
@Randolph said:
@ReddestSkies said:

The thing is that you CAN'T realistically have a consistent standard when you have dozens of different reviewers who use a 10 point scoring system to rate thousands of very different games. It's impossible.

Scores are pointless, stop crying about them.

What makes it worse though is that even the individual reviewers are not consistent within their own reviews with these standards.

Because it's hard, especially when so few games can easily fit a one-size-fits-all approach to critiquing them. Best we can do is try to justify why X game was panned for Y factor while another wasn't. And even that's difficult without straying too far into making heavy, unfair comparisons to other games which a lot of publications forbid, if I recall right.

I never think about what I criticized other games for when I'm writing reviews. I'm too focused on the game in front of me that even if I somehow leveled some hugely inconsistent issues against it, I wouldn't notice because I'm not checking older reviews as I write new ones. I'm sure every other reviewer in any field ever does the same.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#116  Edited By Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@ReddestSkies said:

Have you ever tried rating every game you play? I did, and it was a headache. Every time I'd look at my list of scores I'd change it up a little. On Thursday I would disagree with a score I gave a game on Monday.

Games are too complex to be objectively rated on a scale of 1 to 10. And they're way too complex for one to be able to compare two scores directly and come up with a meaningful conclusion, so what's the point?

I have, and point well made.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#117 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Randolph said:

@ReddestSkies said:

The thing is that you CAN'T realistically have a consistent standard when you have dozens of different reviewers who use a 10 point scoring system to rate thousands of very different games. It's impossible.

Scores are pointless, stop crying about them.

What makes it worse though is that even the individual reviewers are not consistent within their own reviews with these standards.

Then what are you doing posting here on the forum? i am sure that people would like to see you as a gamespot staff reviewing games.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#118 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@El_Zo1212o said:

@Jacanuk: You're so cute when you try to put your big boy pants on. But seriously, even back when I tried going toe to toe with Gram for the first time, I knew- even if I'd choke before I'd admit it out loud at the time- when I was just plain beat. You're there now, so please, just give it up. He's so viciously disembowelled your arguments that personal attacks are all you have left. Just let it go.

And what arguments is that El? since you think he has anyone beat.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#119 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

@Randolph said:

What makes it worse though is that even the individual reviewers are not consistent within their own reviews with these standards.

Then what are you doing posting here on the forum? i am sure that people would like to see you as a gamespot staff reviewing games.

Well, at least if I was we'd have a grand total of one GS editor who actually used their own forums to interact with the community. :)

But I'm pretty dang sure I wouldn't smack one game down for being too much of the same, then turn around and give another a pass for the same thing. Or punish a game for being too hard, then when a new version of the same exact game that addresses that issues comes out, slam it for being easier.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#121 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Randolph said:

@Jacanuk said:

@Randolph said:

What makes it worse though is that even the individual reviewers are not consistent within their own reviews with these standards.

Then what are you doing posting here on the forum? i am sure that people would like to see you as a gamespot staff reviewing games.

Well, at least if I was we'd have a grand total of one GS editor who actually used their own forums to interact with the community. :)

But I'm pretty dang sure I wouldn't smack one game down for being too much of the same, then turn around and give another a pass for the same thing. Or punish a game for being too hard, then when a new version of the same exact game that addresses that issues comes out, slam it for being easier.

Ya, the interaction is something to wish for, but most of them have a twitter and you can always send them a short msg there :)

But thats the problem, you can't compare how one game is reviewed to another game, nor should you be able to, particular not when one game is built around being the same and is a yearly release, after all there is limits on how much you can improve a game on just a year, opposite Batman which is not a yearly release.

So each game should be judge on its merits and i think Gamespot mostly does this and have a pretty decent review staff. So i really can't see any double standard in this case, and carolyn seem to have hit right smack in the general pot of reviews, its all pretty much 7´s across the board.

Avatar image for the_last_ride
The_Last_Ride

76371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 122

User Lists: 2

#122 The_Last_Ride
Member since 2004 • 76371 Posts

@Metamania said:

I know I was. I just woke up, as of this writing, and went on to Gamespot, saw that the review was up and was shocked to see it being a 6 out of 10. I was thinking it was going to be given a much higher score, but as I read the review, I saw that Carolyn was turned off by two things about the game; the game offered nothing new or innovative and that the multiplayer's characters were frustratingly weak. So here's my question to you; are you surprised by her review of Batman: Arkham Origins? Were you hoping to see her rate it higher or do you feel that her criticisms of the game were poor at best?

Also, please keep in mind, I am not here to attack her at all nor to insult her either. That doesn't belong at all, but I am curious to hear your thoughts nevertheless.

FIFA, NBA, F1 and COD will all get higher scores yet this i feel is a better overall game. Yet the games i have mentioned add nothing to the game aswell

Avatar image for TwistedShade
TwistedShade

3139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#123 TwistedShade
Member since 2012 • 3139 Posts

I definitely understand the negative points she made. Given how amazing of an upgrade Arkham City, was to Asylum it should have been reasonable to expect them to improve the series further in this one. Given the little if any graphical improvements along side the lack of new gameplay features this game feels less like a full 3.0 sequel and more of a 2.5 expansion. And her multiplayer points definitely made sense. I'm really enjoying the multiplayer so far, but while I think the Team Balance is fine for the gangs, Batman and Robin are frustratingly weak. It feels like it's simply impossible to win as them no matter how well they do, it really gets annoying given how hard I certainly try, that you never make enough progress. I don't think I've seen anyone win as them yet and they haven't even come close.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
Grammaton-Cleric

7515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#124 Grammaton-Cleric
Member since 2002 • 7515 Posts

Jacanuk,

Let's just hit the reset button and I'll take your word for it that you weren't looking to insult me and we'll call it done.

That said, as C_rake has already pointed out, this has grown tedious and clearly, there is no mutual respect so let's agree to never bother each other again.

I promise to never respond to another post you write and hopefully, you can do the same.

Sound fair?

Avatar image for Metamania
Metamania

12035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#125  Edited By Metamania
Member since 2002 • 12035 Posts

@c_rakestraw said:

You know, much as I enjoy watching Gram tear apart people's arguments, this has seriously gotten old. So -- Gram, Jacanuk: either you two learn to get along or just ignore each other. This constant back and forth of belittling one another has gotten ridiculous.

No no no, let them have it, because let's face it; we all love it when Gram, who is, IMO, one of the smartest, intelligent posters we have on here, comes in and destroys the arguments that are used against him. So let Jacanuk have his day in the sun, because it just makes it all the more awesome for Gram to rip him to pieces.

Avatar image for NightlyOne
NightlyOne

331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#126  Edited By NightlyOne
Member since 2009 • 331 Posts

To answer the original question of the topic, I am not surprised in the least bit. Having frequented the website for the past few years, I find the reviews by GameSpot to be very hit-or-miss; reviews trash games I like, and others favor games I don't like. On top of that, I take any and all reviews (not only from here but elsewhere) with a grain of salt, because reviews are done by people who have their own thoughts and interpretations as well.

I also read into things a certain way as well. For example, Carolyn Petit suggests in her review (and I paraphrase) that the game doesn't really bring anything "innovative" or new to the table. While that may be a bad thing on one hand, I can also look at the other hand - I can rest assured knowing that, with AO, I'd most likely be getting a Batman game akin to AA and AC - both kickass games in their own right. Getting more of the same is (sometimes) not a bad thing, depending on who you are and the things you like or dislike.
Just my 2 cents.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#127  Edited By foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

Yes, there was no mention of the subjugation of women, I'm disappointed.

Avatar image for Zensword
Zensword

4510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#128 Zensword
Member since 2007 • 4510 Posts

@Randolph said:

@ReddestSkies said:

The thing is that you CAN'T realistically have a consistent standard when you have dozens of different reviewers who use a 10 point scoring system to rate thousands of very different games. It's impossible.

Scores are pointless, stop crying about them.

What makes it worse though is that even the individual reviewers are not consistent within their own reviews with these standards.

All I'm asking is they must be consistent, i.e., they shouldn't give some games low scores while give other games free pass for the same reason (e.g. nothing new)

Avatar image for Metamania
Metamania

12035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#129 Metamania
Member since 2002 • 12035 Posts

@The_Last_Ride said:

@Metamania said:

I know I was. I just woke up, as of this writing, and went on to Gamespot, saw that the review was up and was shocked to see it being a 6 out of 10. I was thinking it was going to be given a much higher score, but as I read the review, I saw that Carolyn was turned off by two things about the game; the game offered nothing new or innovative and that the multiplayer's characters were frustratingly weak. So here's my question to you; are you surprised by her review of Batman: Arkham Origins? Were you hoping to see her rate it higher or do you feel that her criticisms of the game were poor at best?

Also, please keep in mind, I am not here to attack her at all nor to insult her either. That doesn't belong at all, but I am curious to hear your thoughts nevertheless.

FIFA, NBA, F1 and COD will all get higher scores yet this i feel is a better overall game. Yet the games i have mentioned add nothing to the game aswell

Not exactly. I think people are getting tired of the same old, same old with certain cases. COD may be getting a high score, but I don't think it will be high enough to say it's going to get more attention than other games.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#130 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

For the people complaining about the numerical score, remember, Gamespot does "second opinions" now, and another reviewer will most likely give their opinion about it, and I don't doubt it will be drastically different (just look at BioShock Infinite). Petit justified why she gave the game the score she did. All we have to do is disagree, point out why we think she's wrong and go on with our lives. And maybe even play the game before passing judgement on those who actually have.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#131 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

@ Jacanuk

Yeah, too much time. And I disagree, its an already established game series , based on an already establushed character and is for sale across 4 different platforms, for now, why would you still believe it won't turn a profit ?

Avatar image for the_last_ride
The_Last_Ride

76371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 122

User Lists: 2

#132 The_Last_Ride
Member since 2004 • 76371 Posts

@Metamania said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@Metamania said:

I know I was. I just woke up, as of this writing, and went on to Gamespot, saw that the review was up and was shocked to see it being a 6 out of 10. I was thinking it was going to be given a much higher score, but as I read the review, I saw that Carolyn was turned off by two things about the game; the game offered nothing new or innovative and that the multiplayer's characters were frustratingly weak. So here's my question to you; are you surprised by her review of Batman: Arkham Origins? Were you hoping to see her rate it higher or do you feel that her criticisms of the game were poor at best?

Also, please keep in mind, I am not here to attack her at all nor to insult her either. That doesn't belong at all, but I am curious to hear your thoughts nevertheless.

FIFA, NBA, F1 and COD will all get higher scores yet this i feel is a better overall game. Yet the games i have mentioned add nothing to the game aswell

Not exactly. I think people are getting tired of the same old, same old with certain cases. COD may be getting a high score, but I don't think it will be high enough to say it's going to get more attention than other games.

But if FIFA has only "slight" improvments, yet it gets an 8. But this gets a 6 for doing the same?

Avatar image for Bigboi500
Bigboi500

35550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#133 Bigboi500
Member since 2007 • 35550 Posts

I'm kind of surprised to see all the fuss about the score, at least here on GGD where I used to think none of you guys gave a flying **** about GS scores. That's one of the things I like most about this board.

Avatar image for deactivated-584419ec3a052
deactivated-584419ec3a052

333

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#134 deactivated-584419ec3a052
Member since 2012 • 333 Posts

Yes and no. No I'm not because it does look pretty darn simliar to the previous 2 games, Arkham City moreso. But yes because COD manages to score very highly every year and it's damn near the same game every time. If nothing else, this only raises my suspicions towards the bribes that COD reviews receive. It's not like they don't have the money for it.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#135  Edited By Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@Bigboi500 said:

I'm kind of surprised to see all the fuss about the score, at least here on GGD where I used to think none of you guys gave a flying **** about GS scores. That's one of the things I like most about this board.

It's not about the score. It's how she got to the score. Read the thread again. If she gave the game an 8 out of 10 instead and still used the same major "flaw" of being too familiar, I would still point it out as something of a double standard, citing the many games that do objectively have the same "problem". The number attached to the review is utterly meaningless.

Avatar image for Flubbbs
Flubbbs

4968

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#136 Flubbbs
Member since 2010 • 4968 Posts

im more suprised that people actually read his garbage reviews

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#137 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ Jacanuk

Yeah, too much time. And I disagree, its an already established game series , based on an already establushed character and is for sale across 4 different platforms, for now, why would you still believe it won't turn a profit ?

Nope, because for what it is, even if its just the same , its better than most of the other games being released, and honestly i would probably buy this over Farcry: Black Flag any day of the week..

Its still Batman, and who doesn't love putting on that suit and running around solving "enigma´s " and beating down croc.

Avatar image for the_last_ride
The_Last_Ride

76371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 122

User Lists: 2

#138  Edited By The_Last_Ride
Member since 2004 • 76371 Posts

@Bigboi500 said:

I'm kind of surprised to see all the fuss about the score, at least here on GGD where I used to think none of you guys gave a flying **** about GS scores. That's one of the things I like most about this board.

it's not the score per se, it's more of what is said in the review. Because Carolyn didn't like two things in the game like innovatiion or lack of, and being more of the same. But FIFA got an 8 just for that. Now i am not saying Origins is GOTY or worthy of a 9 or higher. It's just feels that she subtracted 4 from the score just because of that. The multiplayer isn't well balance, sure. They can fix that in patches and it's kind of an experiment being the first time. But i just think it's inconsistent

Avatar image for Bigboi500
Bigboi500

35550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#139  Edited By Bigboi500
Member since 2007 • 35550 Posts

@Randolph said:

@Bigboi500 said:

I'm kind of surprised to see all the fuss about the score, at least here on GGD where I used to think none of you guys gave a flying **** about GS scores. That's one of the things I like most about this board.

It's not about the score. It's how she got to the score. Read the thread again. If she gave the game an 8 out of 10 instead and still used the same major "flaw" of being too familiar, I would still point it out as something of a double standard, citing the many games that do objectively have the same "problem". The number attached to the review is utterly meaningless.

GS has been docking scores for non CoD/Battlefield/sports games for being "too similar" for years. Really makes me think they've been schwagged and shagged by certain companies for a while now.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
c_rakestraw

14627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 64

User Lists: 0

#140 c_rakestraw  Moderator
Member since 2007 • 14627 Posts

@Grammaton-Cleric: Thank you.

@Bigboi500 said:

I'm kind of surprised to see all the fuss about the score, at least here on GGD where I used to think none of you guys gave a flying **** about GS scores. That's one of the things I like most about this board.

Any topic about reviews always eventually involves scores. It's the natural course of things. Difference is we don't go bananas over them like the dolts over in System Wars do.

Avatar image for Bigboi500
Bigboi500

35550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#141 Bigboi500
Member since 2007 • 35550 Posts

@c_rakestraw said:

@Grammaton-Cleric: Thank you.

@Bigboi500 said:

I'm kind of surprised to see all the fuss about the score, at least here on GGD where I used to think none of you guys gave a flying **** about GS scores. That's one of the things I like most about this board.

Any topic about reviews always eventually involves scores. It's the natural course of things. Difference is we don't go bananas over them like the dolts over in System Wars do.

Thank Heaven for the small things. :D

Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
ZZoMBiE13

22934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#142 ZZoMBiE13
Member since 2002 • 22934 Posts

The multiplayer was part of her review. She said it was kind of busted. I think that's a pretty big fact that this thread seems to overlook.

This isn't like CoD coming out every year with incremental changes. This would be like CoD coming out with the entire single player game being fundamentally broken. I think the criticism of "more of the same" is on top of the other issue.

If the multiplayer is in the game, it gets to be part of the critique. And she said the entire third "side" (Batman and Robin) of the three team combat felt weak and ineffectual. That's a pretty big knock for the Batman. If there's one thing Batman needs to be, it's effective at taking out street thugs and bad guys. That's kind of his thing. And if the shooting parts of a shooter mode don't work very well, as she said, that's kind of big too.

For the record I'm not taking a stance on the multiplayer portion of the game. I've heard some people say they're having a good time with it. I haven't had a chance to play that mode yet so I can't say if it's busted or what. But she did make mention of it in her review and I think that's a big part of the issue.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
c_rakestraw

14627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 64

User Lists: 0

#143  Edited By c_rakestraw  Moderator
Member since 2007 • 14627 Posts

@Bigboi500: Indeed!

@The_Last_Ride said:

it's not the score per se, it's more of what is said in the review. Because Carolyn didn't like two things in the game like innovatiion or lack of, and being more of the same. But FIFA got an 8 just for that. Now i am not saying Origins is GOTY or worthy of a 9 or higher. It's just feels that she subtracted 4 from the score just because of that. The multiplayer isn't well balance, sure. They can fix that in patches and it's kind of an experiment being the first time. But i just think it's inconsistent

Sports games are a weird case. They're entire model is built upon yearly incremental updates, which is why they change so little. (Well, that and the fact that they're sports games. Not a whole lot of room for innovation there.) As such, to trash them for not being some massive redefining game every year is missing the point.

Avatar image for Metamania
Metamania

12035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#144 Metamania
Member since 2002 • 12035 Posts

Just to let people know, my impressions are as follows....

It's pretty much the same game we've been playing since Arkham Asylum, just with some improvements, like fast travel or being able to practice challenge maps within the campaign, stuff like that. The combat is pretty awesome still and I've yet to encounter a predator situation, which I think will be soon.

Leveling up is a little different. Each time you level up, you earn an upgrade point, which you can use in three different categories. The more abilities and enhancements you earn, the stronger Batman is going to be (no surprise there). I've heard of a gadget that's called the Shock Gauntlet (which I heard isn't new, that debut in the Wii version of Arkham City), which, from what I understand, can pretty much one-hit everything, which is disappointing to say the least. We will see though...

Otherwise, same game we've been playing, so it's more of the same. But will it be the best one yet? Only time will tell.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#145 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

For the record I'm not taking a stance on the multiplayer portion of the game. I've heard some people say they're having a good time with it. I haven't had a chance to play that mode yet so I can't say if it's busted or what. But she did make mention of it in her review and I think that's a big part of the issue.

We'll see how big an issue it was if she reviews the Wii U version, as it lacks that feature altogether.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#146  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@c_rakestraw said:

@Bigboi500: Indeed!

@The_Last_Ride said:

it's not the score per se, it's more of what is said in the review. Because Carolyn didn't like two things in the game like innovatiion or lack of, and being more of the same. But FIFA got an 8 just for that. Now i am not saying Origins is GOTY or worthy of a 9 or higher. It's just feels that she subtracted 4 from the score just because of that. The multiplayer isn't well balance, sure. They can fix that in patches and it's kind of an experiment being the first time. But i just think it's inconsistent

Sports games are a weird case. They're entire model is built upon yearly incremental updates, which is why they change so little. (Well, that and the fact that they're sports games. Not a whole lot of room for innovation there.) As such, to trash them for not being some massive redefining game every year is missing the point.

Like it is the case with Call of Duty, they are built around a multiplayer but also built around being a game that isent inventing the wheel again every year.

Batman on the other hand is not that and i agree with the reviews that being the same isn't enough, its a decent game but nothing new.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
c_rakestraw

14627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 64

User Lists: 0

#147 c_rakestraw  Moderator
Member since 2007 • 14627 Posts
@Randolph said:
@ZZoMBiE13 said:

For the record I'm not taking a stance on the multiplayer portion of the game. I've heard some people say they're having a good time with it. I haven't had a chance to play that mode yet so I can't say if it's busted or what. But she did make mention of it in her review and I think that's a big part of the issue.

We'll see how big an issue it was if she reviews the Wii U version, as it lacks that feature altogether.

Wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a review for that one. Warner Brothers was apparently picky with handing out review code, and with next-gen consoles now arriving (GameSpot just got their PS4, I hear), along with all the other big-name games coming out next month, they probably won't have any time to devote to checking out the Wii U version of Arkham Origins.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#148  Edited By Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

@c_rakestraw said:
@Randolph said:

We'll see how big an issue it was if she reviews the Wii U version, as it lacks that feature altogether.

Wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a review for that one. Warner Brothers was apparently picky with handing out review code, and with next-gen consoles now arriving (GameSpot just got their PS4, I hear), along with all the other big-name games coming out next month, they probably won't have any time to devote to checking out the Wii U version of Arkham Origins.

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. One other way to see just how big a part in the conclusion of the review that the multiplayer was as compared to the lack of change complaint would for the reviewer to come in and field a few questions. Remember when GS editors did that? Good times.

But no seriously, if they don't use the forums themselves it creates a disconnect with the community that's harmful to the site. They want people to believe their new forums are so great... but then people see that they don't use them themselves. Makes no sense. With how the forums have slowed down a bit since the relaunch this would be the best time for them to get in here and create some direct camaraderie with us.

Did you know GregK was so involved that back in 2002 when he only had two admins (Lee Koo and Phil something from CNET) off on the weekends, Greg would volunteer to handle our ban requests since none of us mods could even temporarily suspend someone if they were attacking the forums? I'm talking hours of sustained porn attacks. He did that on TOP of reviewing, what seems like anyway, every other game that came out for quite some time.

So even when I disagreed with him, or thought he was using weird and inconsistent standards for his reviews, (DMC3 and DMC3: Special Edition) I still respected the hell out of him because it felt like he was one of us.

Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
ZZoMBiE13

22934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#149 ZZoMBiE13
Member since 2002 • 22934 Posts

@Randolph said:

@c_rakestraw said:
@Randolph said:

We'll see how big an issue it was if she reviews the Wii U version, as it lacks that feature altogether.

Wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a review for that one. Warner Brothers was apparently picky with handing out review code, and with next-gen consoles now arriving (GameSpot just got their PS4, I hear), along with all the other big-name games coming out next month, they probably won't have any time to devote to checking out the Wii U version of Arkham Origins.

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. One other way to see just how big a part in the conclusion of the review that the multiplayer was as compared to the lack of change complaint would for the reviewer to come in and field a few questions. Remember when GS editors did that? Good times.

But no seriously, if they don't use the forums themselves it creates a disconnect with the community that's harmful to the site. They want people to believe their new forums are so great... but then people see that they don't use them themselves. Makes no sense. With how the forums have slowed down a bit since the relaunch this would be the best time for them to get in here and create some direct camaraderie with us.

Did you know GregK was so involved that back in 2002 when he only had two admins (Lee Koo and Phil something from CNET) off on the weekends, Greg would volunteer to handle our ban requests since none of us mods could even temporarily suspend someone if they were attacking the forums? I'm talking hours of sustained porn attacks. He did that on TOP of reviewing, what seems like anyway, every other game that came out for quite some time.

So even when I disagreed with him, or thought he was using weird and inconsistent standards for his reviews, (DMC3 and DMC3: Special Edition) I still respected the hell out of him because it felt like he was one of us.

Greg was the best. That guy's absence has been felt since the day he left this site. There's a GregK shaped hole in Gamespot.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#150  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

@Randolph said:

@c_rakestraw said:
@Randolph said:

We'll see how big an issue it was if she reviews the Wii U version, as it lacks that feature altogether.

Wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a review for that one. Warner Brothers was apparently picky with handing out review code, and with next-gen consoles now arriving (GameSpot just got their PS4, I hear), along with all the other big-name games coming out next month, they probably won't have any time to devote to checking out the Wii U version of Arkham Origins.

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. One other way to see just how big a part in the conclusion of the review that the multiplayer was as compared to the lack of change complaint would for the reviewer to come in and field a few questions. Remember when GS editors did that? Good times.

But no seriously, if they don't use the forums themselves it creates a disconnect with the community that's harmful to the site. They want people to believe their new forums are so great... but then people see that they don't use them themselves. Makes no sense. With how the forums have slowed down a bit since the relaunch this would be the best time for them to get in here and create some direct camaraderie with us.

Did you know GregK was so involved that back in 2002 when he only had two admins (Lee Koo and Phil something from CNET) off on the weekends, Greg would volunteer to handle our ban requests since none of us mods could even temporarily suspend someone if they were attacking the forums? I'm talking hours of sustained porn attacks. He did that on TOP of reviewing, what seems like anyway, every other game that came out for quite some time.

So even when I disagreed with him, or thought he was using weird and inconsistent standards for his reviews, (DMC3 and DMC3: Special Edition) I still respected the hell out of him because it felt like he was one of us.

Greg was the best. That guy's absence has been felt since the day he left this site. There's a GregK shaped hole in Gamespot.

You two have spent way too much time on gamespot :D

But i do miss Ryan Davis and that old crew, today it seems gamespot have gone to great lengths to mimic Polygon.

Also what happend to shows like On The Spot and their marathons when big games came out that made me come here instead of IGN, now they just hire some guy from Twitch to do their marathons. A guy i never even heard about until i saw that marathon.