http://i.imgur.com/JD6oJ75.png

Do they bother you? They bother me a lot. That guy has basically no idea how games are made and how they work and he thinks that improving graphics is only done by creating a new engine everytime? Plus, he also mentions that there are no details in surrounding? I seriously think this guy is an idiot because there is detail in every corner of the game. Why would a game need minimum 6 GB of RAM and a decent quality video card to run this game if it had no details?

I've learned to distrust anyone with a Top #### Reviewer on Amazon. They tend to have shallow experience or no experience, spending their effort in quantity of reviews instead of quality.

I remember reading one of those top reviews at Amazon; the reviewer mentioned that they received a free sample of the product in question.

@thread: you can comment on other people's reviews, so you should share your thoughts there (without the 'idiot' part of course).

May I remind you the voter put up 5/5 stars and that contradiction matters a lot. He's still saying "I love this game, buy it".

This kind of over-smart reviews fuel myths, add momentum to the mouth to mouth, result in multi-page long discussions on sites like NeoGAF; all of this translating into sales and brand recognition.

As long as this kind of behavior results in higher sales; it will be encouraged (or at least, completely tolerated/not discouraged).
If you don't like it, you're barking at the wrong tree.

Besides, if the world were mostly composed of intelligent men, who comment only after thorough research, don't talk about things they ignore, think before they speak, and apply common sense; the world would be a far better place.

Never been a fan of the Treyarch single-player CoD games, I definitely felt the Modern Warfare single player was superior. Just more polished over-all.

I think the industry should stop the "single player game with tacked on multiplayer" and also "multiplayer game with tacked on single-player". When someone says "this [multiplayer] game has no singleplayer campaign!", the only thing I think is: "GOOD!".

That said, a standing family joke about bad reviews is someone on Amazon who gave Quest 64 a bad review saying, "You only ever get a fireball, a rock spell, a wind spell, and a water spell". No, you start off with those spells, and as you play you get ~16 spells in each of those four elements, roughly ~64 total (of which in a typical playthrough you'd've collected ~50 of them).

So our joke when talking about under-appreciated games is to loudly say, "YOU ONLY GET A FIREBALL!".

I can't find that specific review, but here's some good Quest 64 ones I just spotted:

Granted, Quest 64 was outdated on plot and graphics, but it was definitely an enjoyable game - the gameplay itself was solid, and is the only turn-based RPG I know of where you can physically dodge an enemy's attack by moving your character.

It also was colorful, so I guess people took that to mean "childish". It definitely wasn't a number-cruncher of an RPG.

Besides, if the world were mostly composed of intelligent men, who comment only after thorough research, don't talk about things they ignore, think before they speak, and apply common sense; the world would be a far better place.

But then there would be a bunch of men everywhere.
Without women, beauty can’t exist.


L. Spiro

I was expecting something a bit more extreme when i clicked the link. This reviewer is a lightweight in the school of ignorant game opinions. The worst are lengthy rambling reviews with claims like "I could have programmed this and this part better - I know because i took a javascript class in highschool/college" or some other educated-enough-to-be-completely-stupid opinion.

It's not a well written review either. Even the dullest of people know the difference between a well supported review and a short poorly thought out rant. They may not be able to say "i dont feel the review was comprehensive enough or explained his opinions well with examples of specific issues" but they'd still know it's not a good review. The only harm cruddy reviews do is to the average scores if they give it a "0" or "1" star, but most games will likely have to deal with this problem equally - which is why alot of people don't trust meta-critic and similar review sites. Even really amazing universally praised works often end up with surprisingly low scores.

The biggest problem with peer reviews is that people generally are more inclined to spout their opinions only when they're unhappy, but will often not mess with it if they're content or happy with a product. Only rarely does a game/movie/whatever have a hardcore fanboy/girl following that will ardently defend a product.

Besides, if the world were mostly composed of intelligent men, who comment only after thorough research, don't talk about things they ignore, think before they speak, and apply common sense; the world would be a far better place.

But then there would be a bunch of men everywhere.
Without women, beauty can’t exist.


L. Spiro

LOL, I meant men in the general sense, including women. English can be a sexist language full of miss-understandings. (e.g. took me years to get used that "girlfriend" doesn't mean female friend, but rather the girl someone is dating; but yet sometimes, depending on context, "girl friend" may actually mean a female friend... ugggghhhhh)

Never been a fan of the Treyarch single-player CoD games, I definitely felt the Modern Warfare single player was superior. Just more polished over-all.

I think the industry should stop the "single player game with tacked on multiplayer" and also "multiplayer game with tacked on single-player". When someone says "this [multiplayer] game has no singleplayer campaign!", the only thing I think is: "GOOD!".

That said, a standing family joke about bad reviews is someone on Amazon who gave Quest 64 a bad review saying, "You only ever get a fireball, a rock spell, a wind spell, and a water spell". No, you start off with those spells, and as you play you get ~16 spells in each of those four elements, roughly ~64 total (of which in a typical playthrough you'd've collected ~50 of them).

So our joke when talking about under-appreciated games is to loudly say, "YOU ONLY GET A FIREBALL!".

I can't find that specific review, but here's some good Quest 64 ones I just spotted:

Granted, Quest 64 was outdated on plot and graphics, but it was definitely an enjoyable game - the gameplay itself was solid, and is the only turn-based RPG I know of where you can physically dodge an enemy's attack by moving your character.

It also was colorful, so I guess people took that to mean "childish". It definitely wasn't a number-cruncher of an RPG.

It's not about that specific game, it's about judging a game based on an engine. I mean that guy has no idea that engines are created and upgraded constantly which keeps creating games getting better and better with every upgrade. He thinks that a studio should create a new engine for every game instead of upgrading the existing one. He clearly has no idea the amount of work involved in re-creating an engine. Plus, he says no details in surrounding. This again proves that he's clearly trying to act like he knows everything. Here are some screenshots of surrounding in that game.

As a gamedev, you know the amount of hard work that has been done to create these surrounding details and when someone tries to act smart by criticizing a video game on nonsensical points, you really want to punch that guy in face.

It's not about that specific game, it's about judging a game based on an engine. I mean that guy has no idea that engines are created and upgraded constantly which keeps creating games getting better and better with every upgrade. He thinks that a studio should create a new engine for every game instead of upgrading the existing one. He clearly has no idea the amount of work involved in re-creating an engine. Plus, he says no details in surrounding. This again proves that he's clearly trying to act like he knows everything. Here are some screenshots of surrounding in that game.

To be fair, major engine developers themselves promote that idea.

"This is a new generation of games, with their power unleashed by the new Unreal Engine 4 / Unity 5 / idTech 4 / Source 2, etc..."

Not every game publicly states what engine they use, and when people see:
GoldSrc engine = HalfLife 1, Opposing Force, Blue Shift, Counter Strike
Source engine = Left4Dead, Portal, Halflife 2, Counter Strike: Source

Everybody freaks out wondering what great leap of amazing graphical powers Source 2 has, tying the graphics purely to the engine.

This isn't helped by companies putting out intentional FUD like Microsoft:

Some people, simply because they haven't been taught otherwise, have believed the marketing that engines are directly responsible for improved graphics. Which is actually partly true, just not 100% true.