Oh lord, Blinx gets a 6.3 from gamespot (1 Viewer)

[Romier S]

Romier, let's just say that I think a 6.3 for a game that tries to be innovative with some unique play mechanics is a slap in the face. Gamespot's review gave absolutely no props whatsoever to Artoon's attempt to create a novel play feature. Instead the reviewer refers to the time tricks as mere gimmicks.

Why is it a slap in the face? Because you felt these things were not gimmicky? How do you know? For all that any of us know he may be spot on with that assesment. Of course for all the we know he may be dead wrong and the time features are truly innovative and fun (something I'm hoping for!). Again it boils down to a difference of opinion.

 

[Peter Manojlovich]

Well, let me put it this way, Romier, if you actually need to employ time tricks to proceed further into the game, then, guess what, they're not a gimmick. They're a required play mechanic, just like the good ol' fashioned double jump employed by many a platformer to reach those high, out ot the way places.

 

[Romier S]

They're a required play mechanic

You mean like the mini-games in Dead to Rights Peter? They required you to complete them to progress in the game but does that mean that they are not a gimmick? There would no doubt be a great number of people that would disagree with that. (and no doubt many that would)
A play mechanic can very easily become a gimmick if not done properly. When talking about Blinx, at this time niether you nor I can tell anyone on this forum exactly how well the time mechanics are used until we have have played the game. Period.

 

[BrianB]

Well, let me put it this way, Romier, if you actually need to employ time tricks to proceed further into the game, then, guess what, they're not a gimmick. They're a required play mechanic, just like the good ol' fashioned double jump employed by many a platformer to reach those high, out ot the way places.

Oh nonsense.
A gimmick is a gimmick is a gimmick. How frequently a particular title uses it doesn't make it NOT a gimmick. Is the bullet time in Max Payne a gimmick? Yup! Is the time crystals in Blinx a gimmick? Yup! Are both games structured around them? Yup. Are they still a gimmick? Yup!
Dictionary.com definition: "An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance".
Blinx's crystals are a gimmick because it the "twist", or feature, that the game is written around! You make it sound like a gimmick is a bad thing!
As for having to mark the game /up/ because it's trying to be innovative... Surely that'd completely spoil the review system? A game deserves looking at because it tries something new. That doesn't mean it automatically should be marked 'good' - games should only get good marks if they're good games! Duh!

 

[Chris Bardon]

My question is why does stating your opinion (or a reviewer for that matter) mean that you will automatically be "bashed" by those with an opposing opinion? Surely we are adult enough to be aware that not everyone one of us thinks alike.

This is true here, but elsewhere this is sadly not always the case. Maybe "bashed" is too strong a word, but there are always advocates of a certain title who are quick to jump to its defense any time a disparaging comment is made about it.

I think that the real problem here is that you have reviews from different individuals with widely varying opinions on a game. Ideally, the reviews would be based on some sort of aggregation of multiple reviewer's scores (to hopefully get a more varied representation of tastes), but realistically that's not going to happen anywhere like Gamespot. I'm sure we'll have our own set of reviews within the week from HTF members, some of which will probably be of much higher caliber than either of the major "premium" sites offer.

 

[Ryan Peter]

As for having to mark the game /up/ because it's trying to be innovative... Surely that'd completely spoil the review system? A game deserves looking at because it tries something new. That doesn't mean it automatically should be marked 'good' - games should only get good marks if they're good games! Duh!

That's true, but I think when a game comes out that is fresh and interesting, ie something we haven't seen before like JGR, the reviewers ususally cream their pants.

Gimmick also has a very negative connotation. If you say something is a gimmick, it most likely means you are insulting it and saying it's superfluous.

The time thing in Blinx is no more superfluous than the jet pack in Mario, that's for sure.

 

[Peter Manojlovich]

Well, obviously we're defining gimmick in different ways. And the idea that most people view gimmick based on a dictionary reference is I think for the most part, inaccurate.

Max Payne's bullet time feature is what I would term a gimmick. You can beat the game and never have to use bullet time at all. On the other hand, this was a gimmick feature I liked and used all the time, just because it was so very cool. As far as the mini-games in DTR go, I don't view them as gimmicks, just very annoying side quests, much like the flying stages in Turok. Are those stages gimmicks? We could go on and on here.
Generally speaking, gimmick has a negative connotation, and IMO gamespot's review of Blinx views gimmick in a negative light. I think companies attempting innovation should be be given a pat on the back. That doesn't mean that you score a game highly just based on innovation. The innovative play mechaninc may not work. When you write a review for publication be it print or web, it's customary to list both the pros and cons. It's called being fair and objective, something that seems to be a feature all too missing from many game reviews today.

When Blinx comes out , I'll definitely give it a rental and render my own opinion on whether the time tricks are mere gimmicks or not.

 

[Willy burz]

Troll?!?!

Just stating the facts their Ryan, if you can't handle the truth or don't know anything about IGN Xbox you would know that they always have overrated games for microsofts box.

While your at it eat your last name before you start calling people trolls, by the way with how your throw around troll so easily you'll prolly start saying the gay word "fanboy" pretty soon. Get a life.

Actually after reading your posts, you sound like billy gates's little ho.

 

[Joe michaels]

You know what? One day people will realize that a review that you read online or in a magazine is nothing more than one mans opinion

That's why I like EGM and their 3 person reviews. If all three strike out I avoid the game, especially if they give reasons such as way too difficult, or frustrating, or too few save points.

 

[Peter Manojlovich]

Willy, if you have any facts to state, please state them. All you have is supposition and your own quite frankly, ill-informed opinion.

Gamespot score of Quantum Redshift, a first party xbox title. 7.1

IGN Xbox score of Quantum Redshift, a 6.2.

So, how does that jibe with your groundless assertion that IGN has always overscored xbox games. Incidentally, the same reviewer scored both Blinx and QR for IGN.

Your vulgarity is out of keeping with the nature of this forum. If you have a problem with Ryan referring to you as a troll, I suggest taking it up with the moderators instead of launching into a personal attack.

 

[Willy burz]

Pretty much every hyped game ignbox has givin a good score.
I don't care either way or what game the system was made on, MY OPINION on what I have seen and what I have heard about ignbox is an opinion NOT TROLLING.
One game that you show does not make up for anything, should I now call you a troll since your opinion doesn't match mine?!?!
My point exactly.

 

[Dave Bennett]

well my dad can beat up your dad
Please guys, this thread is starting to read like one over at Gamefaqs.com

 

[GlenHaag]

Here's a few issues that I've started to notice with each of the two major game sites.

If they spend a great deal of time previewing the title, with tons of "Exclusive video's" and the like, that game will get a better review than the site that didn't have the Exclusive on it. As far as I've seen, that has gone both ways.

As for the reviewers of the games, each time I see a video of the IGN or Gamespot reviewers it seems as though they keep getting younger people to work there. I don't have any problem with younger reviewers, but it's hard for me to trust the judgement of someone who hasn't played games as long as most of us have. Someone who's game playing started with the Playstation will definately have a different perspective on games than someone who started playing games with an Odyssey or Atari 2600.

I usually take reviews with a grain of salt, but man, Kasavin really sounded like he had an axe to grind with Blinx.

Glen

 

[Dave Bennett]

Glen,
that's funny that you mention them having younger reviewers. I was reading a feature over at ign and the author said he was only 15! I'm sorry but that's just unacceptable. I'm not gonna take an article seriously if the author has to get a ride from his mom to go buy the game or peripheral in question.

 

[Willy burz]

Exactly

 

[Peter Manojlovich]

Yeah, right, Willy, whatever. It's just your opinion, now. A couple of posts ago, you wrote.

Willy Burz: Just stating the facts their Ryan, if you can't handle the truth or don't know anything about IGN Xbox you would know that they always have overrated games for microsofts box.

So, which is this, your opinion, or just the facts, ma'am? You can't have it both ways. I don't have a problem with you stating your opinion. I don't think you're a troll, and I don't think Ryan was justified in calling you a troll. I also think you like stating opinion as fact, and passing off rumor as truth a la, "How can you say IGN's score is a better evaluation when everyone knows that they always have overscored Xbox games in the past. It's a running joke among the PC, PS2, and Cube departments at IGN!"

Exactly who is this"everyone" you refer to. People with a similar mindset or pov as you. That's hardly everyone. And what point are you making anyway? Exactly. I can site additional examples where Gamespot scored an xbox exclusive game higher than IGN.

Two more examples.

Oddworld. GS 7.9 IGN 7.4
New Legends. GS 7.0 IGN 5.5

NFL Fever 2002 was scored identically by both sites at 7.9.

Commandos 2 for the xbox GS 7.8 IGN 7.0

IGN took a beating in the credibility department over a few reviews and perhaps justifiably so. WWF RAW, Wreckless, and Gun Valkyrie come to mind. On the other hand, I've been outraged by GS reviews in the past, especailly their propensity to give 9.0s to anything Sega put out for the dreamcast. I still shake my head over their 9.9 for NFL 2k for the dc.

Neither site is perfect, but I'll base my evaluation of a reviewer's worth based on what I read, and in the case of Greg Kasavin, I don' think his review is worth very much. On a side note, Kasavin posted in an xbox forum I frequent, and based on his response, I would label him as quite arrogant. He stood by his review, and stated unequivocally that once we played the game, we would all know what he was talking about. It didn't seem to occur to him, that different people might have different impressions and reaction to the game which would not coincide with his own.

 

[Willy burz]

"IGN took a beating in the credibility department over a few reviews and perhaps justifiably so. WWF RAW, Wreckless, and Gun Valkyrie come to mind."
This is what I'm talking about, and in general many people think it still takes place! There you printed your facts right there.
What you want me to post coworkers and friends names that own all three systems and believe the same as I do?! Not gonna happen.
Analogy time, Say you get 5 speeding tickets, you say you won't speed anymore but you still do it... You're just lucky your not getting busted.
Ok that was kind of rough, but you get the point.
(exactly- was pointed at the crazy 15 year old reviewers)

 

[Peter Manojlovich]

Yes, IGN's credibility has been hurt by select reviews of xbox games such as RAW, GV, and Wreckless. But Gamespot's credibility IMO is actually worse.

Case in point, DOA. I have no problem with DOA3 scoring a 7.9 from a Gamespot, if DOA2 for the dc or DOA2: Hardcore for the ps2 had scored similarily. But, they didn't. DOA2 for the dc scored a 9.1 and DOA2:Hardcore for the ps2 scored an 8.9. NOW, I have a problem. It seems that GS chose this moment, with DOA3 for the xbox, to go, "Okay, well, we really don't like this series as much we thought we did." Considering that the biggest slam against DOA3 was that it didn't do that much different from previous DOA titles, it's hard to see the justification for such a steep drop off in scores. Again, according to Gamespot's own review structure, DOA went from superb on the dc to merely good on the xbox. When I look at this kind of sleight-of-hand, let's just say, my respect for the perps of these dubious tactics goes right out the window.

My classic, these guys must be doing mushrooms, gamespot goofiness are a pair of reviews for the ps2 and psone versions of Knockout Kings 2001. The same reviewer did both reviews. He stated that the ps2 version was essentially the same game as the psone version, but with upgraded graphics. Psone review 8.9, ps2 review 4.8. WTF!! And this reviewer still writes for them.

Gamespot's current rationalizations of their dubious scoring in multi-platform titles that they judge a game according to the system it's on is largely bogus and a convenient excuse for posting whatever score they feel like without having to explain themselves each time they decide to stray off the beaten path. Now, when I see a Gamespot review scoring the xbox version of a mp title higher than the ps2 version, I go, gee, the ps2 version must really tank. In a sense, Gamespot has screwed themselves with respect to regular readers, and is presenting a somewhat false impression with casual readers. Again, credibility or the lack thereof rears its ugly head when editors attempt to justify dubious scoring practices.

I can understand not comparing a GBA game to a Gamecube, ps2 or xbox title, but why this distinction should apply to a ps2 title vis a vis a gamecube or xbox title makes no sense to me whatsoever. They're all dubbed next-gen consoles with impressive technical specs. Isn't it fair and proper to inform would-be purchasers as to which version of a mp title is the preferred one on the next-gen systems. To do it surrepetitiously within the body of the text of the review while ignoring to post it in the most obvious place, the actual score, strikes me as somewhat fuzzy logic. Turok and Sega soccer slam are both apparently fairly wretched on the ps2 vis a vis Xbox and Gamecube versions, but you wouldn't know it from GS scoring. To me, if you're not going to warn people that a particular version of a game is NOT the one to get, then what are you good for as a reviewer.

 

[Damien]

doa3 was scored a 7.9 for the same reasons they gave quantim redshift a 7.1 and crazy taxi 3 a 7 or whatever it was, lack of innovation and a quick shallow experience...which was more accepted during the dc's heyday. The standard is being raised faster then I ever recall, which is a good and bad sign for the future. and also, different reviewers shouldn't use past reviews to do the sequel, again if the game hasn't changed much it needs to be docked...
again on KK's, if a game on PS2 even remotely looks AND plays like a ps1 game, it better not get more than a five. PS2 standards are about 3x higher than ps1's.
and multiplatform games do need to be scored according to console, even though they may be decieving like nfl2k3. again, if a game has great graphics on ps2, that game may have GOOD graphics compared to xbox exclusive games. but the xbox version will get higher if it improves the game with more features, but will get lower if the game isn't good for that time period.
and most imformed people know the xbox version is usually the best anyways
as for blinx, there is no way to know until it's released...but the graphics score of 7 is something that seems kind of weird.....and the one thing i don't like, it would get at least a 9 on ps2, even though it is not possible on it.... it does seem greg has played so many games, blinx would look amazing for a first time gamer with an xbox..again a 6.3 is very disappointing score...but good so that my money needed for gaming may not be as much as i thought...I will wait till i get user reveiws to see if it is worth buying or not.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Willy, my troll comment came as a result of your earlier thread crapping "Another overhyped tanker for the box.", and other anti-Xbox rhetoric I've seen from you before. My sincere apologies if I was off-base.