bad reviews on a great game...

[idloveacupoft]

If you really like a game, then don't let the reviews bother you. I rarely read reviews because sometimes they can taint my own opinion of a product. So take reviews a lot less seriously because, as posted already by guys, a review is a person's personal opinion and no review is really objective. Just don't let them bother you, I watch Zero Punctuation's "reviews" and when he completely rips the piss out of a game which I like, I quite enjoy it. Mainly because he's hilarious, but also because if I like the game, I like it

Oh and as far as the Vita goes: I do not have one so I only ask people who do have them what they are like. And from what I've heard, they are well worth the money For this reason I am looking forward to getting them. By the way, this is not just a few guys saying it's good but a lot of people and friends on different sites. I don't think they can all be wrong

[mf_emokiller]

I would say the game for me is a 8/10 it just a pain in the ass when there are like 20 guys all hitting you at once and nothing to do, plus the rediculous grind for things like trying to get cards and shit to refine with and why only able to near 5 cards whats the point then???

[lporiginalg]

Gee another thread about omg they gave this game a bad score and clearly they are wrong and idiots and butthurt because all the other sites gave it a better score (this just happened with gamespot giving TLOU "only" 8/10).

 

If someone didn't like the game they didn't like it, it's simple as that. If I had to give FF13-2 a score, it would probably be about 4/10 if I was feeling generous. And I am a big fan of RPGs. This is a lot lower than most sites scored it I think, but it's just my opinion. But then Squeenix is one of the bigger players and as we all know there's a certain issue game review sites have with "biting the hands that feed them". Maybe it's not as bad as the pre-internet days but it's still a factor and still to take all reviews with a grain of salt, especially the good reviews. 

 

I'm not an Angry Joe fan either. He makes good points but usually takes about 20 minutes longer than he needs too, that time being filled with his failed attempts at humour. Put on another dress Joe, that's always good for a laugh...NAWT!

 

The only reviews I think are worth watching are zeropunctuation

[Darkbreezee]

Meh. A review is a single person's opinion. Not everyone is going to like a game. That's an impossibility. Getting upset/ticked off because someone rates a game you like poorly is useless - you're getting upset because someone simply doesn't think like you do.

 

 

although that topic is already pretty old i still want to point out that, that is just not true.

A review should set up all the aspects of a game and name "Pros" and " Cons" for it, doing that you have to be objective and NOT SUBJECTIVE.

E.G. a good review is not even naming a score but listing up the games goals and mechanics, genre etc.

 

From my point of view Ragnarok Odyssey is a must buy for the Vita since it really is damn amazing hunting action.

The graphics are awesome the fights fluent and combobased, and the multiplayer is even as amazing.

 

Now that is my opinion and NOT a reivew .. lol

if there is someone out there who is only into arcade games or racers he/she would ppbbly rate Ro: Odyssey being the worst game for the vita.

aside from that IGN has become pretty bad ever since..., even now (1 year later), you cant trust them at all.

Being that said i get my reviews on my own, asking the community as well as watching gameplay videos and read at LEAST 2-3 different reviews.

[RHGSniperFox]

although that topic is already pretty old i still want to point out that, that is just not true.

A review should set up all the aspects of a game and name "Pros" and " Cons" for it, doing that you have to be objective and NOT SUBJECTIVE.

E.G. a good review is not even naming a score but listing up the games goals and mechanics, genre etc.

 

From my point of view Ragnarok Odyssey is a must buy for the Vita since it really is damn amazing hunting action.

The graphics are awesome the fights fluent and combobased, and the multiplayer is even as amazing.

 

Now that is my opinion and NOT a reivew .. lol

if there is someone out there who is only into arcade games or racers he/she would ppbbly rate Ro: Odyssey being the worst game for the vita.

aside from that IGN has become pretty bad ever since..., even now (1 year later), you cant trust them at all.

Being that said i get my reviews on my own, asking the community as well as watching gameplay videos and read at LEAST 2-3 different reviews.

 

I actually write reviews myself. What you wrote? What you consider "just your opinion"? That technically is a review. It's how you feel the game is. What you feel the game is worth.

 

A review is still just one or two people's opinion on the game - regardless of whether it's objective - not everyone is going to agree with it. Where one person thinks a game's controls are clunky - another might think they enhance the atmosphere of the title [iE: The Last of Us].

 

Being objective simply means you aren't being biased in your love for the title and are actually acknowledging both the game's merits, and its flaws. Just because someone is only into Arcade games, doesn't mean they can't love something outside of that genre. I dislike FPS titles - but I love games like Bulletstorm, Deus Ex and Unreal Tournament. I hate sports games with a passion - but I'll play the hell out of NFL Blitz, MLB Slugfest, or  skate.

 

Reviewing only the games in a genre that you like isn't being objective. Being objective is being fair to any game that you play, no matter what the genre is. That's exactly what the IGN Ragnarok Odyssey review was. They didn't feel it was worth more than an average score [That's what a 5 is, it's not a "bad" score - it's literally the middle of the road.]

 

And like I said before - the actual review isn't bad, the score just makes people freak out. People see "5/10" and instantly think "OMG THEY HATE IT! BURN THEM!", when in reality, it just means "average". And again, the actual written review, is extremely fair.

[castlehominid99]

this or soul sacrifice?

[Darkbreezee]

if you are into hunting type of games, like to slay large monsters, improve urself and get better .. both of them ^^

Both games support an awesome Online Multiplayer mode and will take you busy for a lot of hours.

 

Soul Sacrifice Platin Avg time (60-80 hrs) , for full completion joy/ players preference in "when" a game is finished (80-120 i'd say), the problem is for the platinum you do not need the extremely extra difficult bonus pacts, those pacts will make you try to hang urself if not played with an awesome grp of lvl 100 players.( and even then they provide a decent challenge)

 

Ragnarok Platin Avg time (70-80 hrs) or even more , depends on your drop luck with cards and the opportunity to trade cards via "near". for "full" completion way more than 120+ hrs, finding rare weapons/cards and materials needed will cost you a lot of lifetime.

 

Yet both games are your prefered choice if it comes to hunting games, another "good" game might be Earth Defense Force portable, yet i cant confirm that yet, since i havent played that one yet.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Darkbreezee

[Tomato]

Don't even bother looking at ign or almost any western site JRPG reviews, I never trust reviews to begin with I just watch gameplay videos and make up my mind if I should buy the game or not, only Resident Evil games and Naughty Dog games which I don't bother looking because I know I will enjoy it.