About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

inFamous Review

Brad Gallaway's picture

It Will be inFamous... for Beating Prototype to Shelves

inFamous Screenshot

HIGH Knocking waves of enemies for a loop with giant shock blasts.

LOW The story and characters are the weakest the studio's ever turned out.

WTF Some of the goofy, unnatural climbing animations.

The exclusive springtime blockbuster for Sony's PlayStation 3, inFamous from Sucker Punch Studios combines open-world game design with a main character packing a range of electricity-based super powers. It's got the visuals, it's got a great premise, and on paper this seems like a can't-miss sure thing. However, there's just one problem... it's lacking a soul.

Spiritual deficiency may seem like an odd criticism for someone to level against a video game, but after putting inFamous through its paces and adventuring with protagonist Cole McGrath in Empire City, it was really the only conclusion I could come to. The nuts and bolts are all there and the necessary elements seem to be in place, yet at no point did I ever feel immersed or convinced. I never felt as though the world ever drew me in, and couldn't envision myself in the main character's shoes. Kept at a distance by the hollowness of the game's core, I could mentally understand what was supposed to be happening, yet never felt it for a moment.

The game's problems begin almost immediately. After starting, it's clear that the developers want to get the player into the action without any downtime or dead space. It's an admirable goal, but without first properly establishing a frame of reference for the player, it's hard to mentally assign weight or relevance to the events that follow. Essentially, it's revealed that Cole was responsible for delivering a package which turned out to be a bomb. Caught in the blast, Cole develops special abilities while the city around him devolves into treacherous, cordoned-off chaos. This is certainly a decent-enough set up, but the way Sucker Punch tells it falls flat.

While light storytelling and quick-cut animation sequences between levels worked just fine for their fantastic Sly Cooper series, Sly himself was a ‘toonish raccoon jewel thief. There was never any expectation of deep characterization or gravitas, so what players actually got went above and beyond. This is not the case with inFamous—the entire game is presented in fairly realistic style, and Cole is a person players are presumably supposed to identify with, or at least relate to on some level. However, there is essentially no effort put towards character development, and events happen quickly, and with virtually no impact.  By telling through abbreviated clips and not showing through more substantial means, Sucker Punch's choices left me untouched and unmoved.

For example, early in the game one scene attempts to illustrate how Cole becomes estranged from his previously-loving girlfriend, yet so little time and effort is spent on this element that I very nearly missed it. Other areas of the game feel just as lightweight. With minor significance attached to events, progressing through the game feels more like guiding an avatar to arbitrary mission start points than taking a hero (or villain) through dramatic adventure.

inFamous Screenshot

If further proof of narrative weakness was needed, the "karmic" system of Good or Evil alignment is yet another instance. At certain points in the game, everything stops as text appears on screen and blatantly informs the player that they have the opportunity to make a good or bad choice. Although Cole's disposition affects which powers he has access to, very little else is changed besides whether he glows blue or red. In fact, the player has the ability to browse the powers before ever making a single decision, reducing the entire system from one of exploring morality to one of choosing which upgrades and color the player would prefer.

If the throwaway story and unsatisfying intellectual side were inFamous's only sins, it would likely be at least partially forgiven. However, other aspects of the game feel just as underdeveloped.

Since Cole becomes infused with electricity that manifests itself in several different ways, it's disappointing to find that underneath the sci-fi trappings, these abilities are really no different than you would expect to find in any other game of this sort. Although it may look like lightning, what Cole really has at his disposal are the equivalent to a gun, a sniper rifle, a rocket launcher, and grenades. With a few exceptions, there's a distinct lack of imagination on display, further reinforced by the artificial way each ability is introduced in cookie-cutter segments, and how insignificant the upgrades and unlocks to his powers are. I felt precious little motivation to max out my character, since the things I was supposed to be working towards seemed little better than what I began the game with. The hero starts off able to survive a fall from any height. Is earning the ability to glide really that significant? Is going incrementally from taking 10% less damage to 20% less supposed to make me feel power?

The missions themselves are structured decently enough and have good variety as long as too many sidequests aren't accepted. After being prompted by anyone who calls in on Cole's phone, he chooses from several missions that appear on the map. The player does them because that's what's expected, but personally, I felt no inner motivation or drive of any sort outside of the most basic "work my way to the credits" obligation. Most of inFamous' tasks feel disconnected from the rest, and the majority of the core story missions could practically have been done in any order. Not until the final third of the game was there ever a feeling of purpose, or of building towards a larger goal, and my patience for this mechanical product had already worn thin by that point thanks to a heavy over-reliance on drawn-out combat and vexing enemies constantly sniping at Cole from a distance.

Having ended inFamous, the highest praise I feel I can honestly give it is that it's competent and essentially succeeds at what it sets out to do—Sucker Punch presents players with an open city, a character able to wield lightning, and a choice to be made between being good or being evil. (Or both, with a second play through.) This much is absolutely true, yet the parts that make up its identity never come together in any holistic, cohesive way. It never feels as though it's doing much more than going through the motions, and as a result, neither did I. Lacking the joy and spirit intrinsic to truly inspired projects, inFamous may have painted by the numbers correctly, but technical success is not the same thing as creating a brilliant masterpiece. Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Disclosures: This game was obtained via retail store and reviewed on the PS3. Approximately 10 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed one time. There are no multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game contains blood, drug reference, language, mild suggestive themes, and violence. Parents don't have a lot to be concerned about, given that the game is aimed at a teen (and older) audience. Although the language feels a bit forced at times, there's really nothing here that isn't seen on primetime TV. It's milder than a lot of popular shows, in fact. Not appropriate for kids, but everyone else should be okay.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing:You can turn on subtitles for cut-scenes and mission briefings, yet there are no subtitles whatsoever whenever main character Cole is directed to watch broadcasts appearing on nearby television sets. It's an odd omission. Otherwise, sufficient information is presented on-screen (though the mini-map could've been a bit bigger) so that no audio cues are necessary for gameplay.

Category Tags
Platform(s): PS3  
Developer(s): Sucker Punch  
Publisher: Sony  
Series: inFamous  
Genre(s): Super Powers   Open World  
ESRB Rating: Teen (13+)  
Articles: Game Reviews  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Couldn't be further off from the actual experience of this game

Wow, what a crock. This guy clearly had something else going on in his head while playing inFAMOUS. The review couldn't be further from the truth... this is easily the best game I've played since GTA IV and Fallout 3. My opinion is not the only one that disagrees with this review... check out literally every other review of this game on the Internet or in print. Fire this Brad guy, he hasn't the slightest of clues. I'd like to see what games he DOES like... Petz? Oh now I see... his top ten list is all shitty JRPGs!!

The best since GTA4 and Fallout 3?

The best since GTA4 and Fallout 3? Do you play many games Jared? Putting inFamous up there with such those two games makes you look silly. That is unless you feel Fallout 3 and GTA4 were overhyped media darlings that weren't as good as the publicity behind them. If that is the case then, yes, inFamous is probably deserves to be mentioned in the same company.

yes it is

oh your so right i mean i LOVED all the ways you could accomplish a mission in gta4, you could either drive or shoot, WHY NOT BOTH?! oh god the variety, btw luckly the "gunplay" wasnt an auto-aimfest like in the previous games

but what would those magnificent gameplay elements be without the extremely impresive mission design that wasnt in NO WAY the same 3 type of missions just with a different paintjob

oh and we better not forget about the amazing character customization, 2 PAIR OF SUNGLASSES!!!!, oh god hold my hand im hyperventilating again!!!!

ok by this point you pretty much figured out it was sarcasm, too bad the reviewer couldnt figure out how well and fluidly the game mixed 3 well developed gameplay elements into a mush of fun

FROM THIS POINT IS MY PERSONAL REVIEW

now if the game was all about shooting, plaforming or desisions it wouldnt be that impressive, but the way the actions you make directly affect your powers, the fact that you can shoot from pretty much ANY angle is what makes this game fun, the sum of all its parts

that makes the game much more flexible (something that ironically the gta series always lacked (not sayin all gtas were bad)) the plat-shooting gives a new dimention to combat... literally, you can change the angle of the battle, something as simple as higher ground can make a great difference, but not only that, you can use trees, neon signs, even the edge of a building as cover, its the bastard son of gears of war and assasins creed!!

and desisions, well i have mixed feeling about that, altough some of the desisions or something like, "help this old lady cross the street or blow that bus full of orphans", many of them will leave you thinkin about your actions and they truthly capture the essence of being a super hero, its also a nice twist to the classic "RPG elements" that have become such a cliche lately

now if all that is not enough to make you move your ass to the closest game store to buy this game well theres more, especifically the story, i know by looking at the countless forum posts that i cant be the only one that felt sorry for cole after this tragic story, sucker punch managed to pull a good modern super hero story with such ease im still surprised these were the same guys that made the sly cooper

not only the story is interesting its also very well told through some stylish comic book cutscenes that only enforces the super hero feel of the game

however the game cetainly has flaws, yeah there r some minor things like the slow start and a redundant zeke spiting some shit like, "wow after you beated those reapers the area got safer" no shit sherlock, but well, if anything infamous mayor flaw is the least important aspect of any game, graphics, dont get me wrong the game is not ugly by any means its just not that flashy, cole looks great but everyone else looks err... the ingame cutscenes looks really awful, but overall is a decent lookin game with a great sense of style

bottom line, this is the best super hero game ever, the gaming equivalent a the dark knight, a dark world full of self sacrifice for the greater good

8.7

see i can do a better review than this ass clown

Wow! just wow!! Never heard

Wow! just wow!! Never heard of this site but I had to come here and see it for myself. I can't even begin to understand why would somebody give such an awful review of a game that just reaks of awsomeness! While I do agree that the game is not perfect (som minor popups), it is BY NO MEANS a game deserving a 6.5 score(according to Metacritic score)http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/infamous?q=Infamous

Just the mere fact the rest of the world (basically) gave InFamous a 9 score average, clues you in on how out of touch this guy Brad really is. I will say this, I just finished the game yesterday as good Cole and guess what? I already started the game again as evil Cole....The game is just that fun to play!

Mr. Gallaway, if you are trying to achieve credibility in this business? you are definately heading in the wrong direction.

Yes, credibility in the

Yes, credibility in the games review business is all about agreeing with everyone else… you’ve got it exactly right. I mean, if everyone else gave the game a nine, then how could someone possibly disagree with that? It doesn't make any sense!!

Dead-on Review

This review is probably the only one that's largely on the mark--this game DOES have zero soul.

It's a flat open world experience, the 'special powers' feel like muted Jedi hiccups and the story/setup is rushed-through and fails to be even remotely compelling or involving...it's just entirely platitudinal on all fronts.

Maybe it's just the emerging division between gaming neophytes and the entrenched generation of vets that's seen and played their share of what this medium's had to offer over the decade, but seriously--this game is exemplar of how you can design something that looks and sounds like a stellar gaming experience, but doesn't really approach playing like one.

With regard to the good vs. evil choices--if anyone's calling the over-the-head character choice mechanic in this game an 'RPG element' or even anything approximating a 'moral decision', then i suppose deciding between a Kit Kat and a Coffee Crisp at the local variety store should be theoretically just as riveting and compelling.

Although 6.5 might be a smidgen harsh (i think the production value alone keeps it above the 6 mark for sure), i wouldn't give it an inch over 7.

dear brad

you reviewers are nothing but tools, WE customers use your criticism to decide which game we should buy

im not understimating em, theyr really important but hell thats what they are

some people think reviews are over glorified opinions, thats wrong

you all should evaluate FACTS about the game, graphics, gameplay, etc.

then why dont all reviewers give the same score to the same game? well they all have different standards and scoring systems, a good reviewer is the one that evaluates a game while being the least opinionated possible, a reliable review is the one thats closest to overall consensus about the game, your review is 20 points under metacritics score

ya know why thats so bad? a 85 score is a good game that most people will enjoy, your review doesnt show that, your misinforming the customer

To comment this review im

To comment this review im going to quote a simple phrase from it, one i think illustrates the overall skill on evaluating a game, from a game design point of view:

"The hero starts off able to survive a fall from any height.
Is earning the ability to glide really that significant?"

Gameplay wise, this hability doesnt server the purpose of protecting the player from a high fall, but instead to allow him to transverse the city via rooftops much rapidly, since the city itself is quite big and you would take too long to do it on foot. Also, gliding in Infamous is FUN, a sensation most players want when they play a game, you can try and pull alot of stunts using glide and other habilities...and its fun, really, trust me.

Alas, i dont really think you understood this game, or at least you are not a honest reviewer. There are standarts to reviewing games, its not just a glorified opinion. You fail your mark sir, and the little Prototype pun says it all. Its of extreme poor taste and pretty juvenile.

You are not a videogame lover.

I shall never read another review from this site again, or browse it for that matter.

>>you reviewers are nothing

>>you reviewers are nothing but tools, WE customers use your criticism to decide which game we should buy

IGN.com

>>You are not a videogame lover.

You got me. I've been playing games for nearly 20 years and finished pretty close to a thousand titles (reviewing nearly 400 of them) but I don't love games… it's all been a front, and now that you've called me out, I no longer have to live a lie.

I hate games.

It's true.

Thanks for outing me... I feel as though a great weight has been lited from my shoulders.

Brad the Prototype guy

''it will be infamous... for beating Pototype to shelves''

WOW! What's your title for prototype now that its out? (judging on the poor poor review prototype has gotten so far)

I got one for you

''prototype is better than infamous'' so then people can start talking about you some more''

I'm not judging your review... Just you're title of favoritism for a game that wasn't even out yet (prototype)

RE: dear brad

I'm curious exactly how many Gamecritics reviews you've read, because if you spend time on this site, you'd probably realize the truth: Gamecritics reviewers don't just go along with the consensus; they give their actual, honest opinion on games.

If you prefer reading reviews that are closer to the Metacritic score, then, well, you can go read them. I hate the idea that all reviewers have to give a game a similar score; what's the point of having multiple reviews if they're all the same? Games are a very subjective experience, almost more so than other mediums like film and music. Personally, I like the honesty of Gamecritics reviews. I think it feels more like a fellow gamer telling me his opinion of game rather than just some journalist.

Of course, I don't always agree with Gamecritics reviews, but most of the time I prefer them to the mainstream practice of buying into the hype of the game, giving it a high score, and then, about a year or so later, saying, "You know, in hindsight, we probably shouldn't have given that game a 9." I mean, I enjoy review websites like Gametrailers and Gamespot, but having all the review websites give me the exact same review would just be annoying.

Also, you can't always trust reviews. Sometimes, you're going to find a game that got a 50 or 60 on Metacritic and have a blast with it. Really, whether or not a game is good depends on the gamer's opinion, not just its Metacritic score.

MetaCritic's Factual Opinions?!

You aimed fair criticisms at the game, and it's unfortunate that a lot of the users leaving comments here can't take the fact that an editor's opinion, in a review, preview, or any other feature is NOT FACT!

You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for voicing it. I'd hate to read the same old dribble on a game. Besides, nothing on the internet can be fully trusted. Don't any of these users dogging this review, claiming it to be "inaccurate", have their own independent tastes and opinions? Why not start a website and voice those?

I give you props for defending your opinions. If everyone disagrees, they're more than welcome to voice those disagreements; don't get me wrong. But, as far as I see it, they have yet to make a compelling case as to why any other outlet's opinion is more valid than yours.

Oh, and it might help to know that I'm "in like" with InFamous, and have a much higher opinion of the game than you. But, that's just how that goes! Keep on reviewing. You've just gained a reader.

Wow... just wow.

They let any review be a part of GameRankings, nowadays, whether its good OR bad... or in this case shoddy. The gameplay was very well done as the moves were very basic, but blended well with one another - each move could combo into another and their animations/effects were superb. As for platforming, it was an evolution on the Sly Cooper engine - platforming was both fun and smooth as, just like combat, it was very easy to chain together moves.

The story was also finely crafted - I loved how you were kept in the dark, just like Cole, there was no "meanwhile, let's see what's going on with the bad guys" type deals and every scene depicted for the player, Cole was present. It also has a superb twist at the end.

As for the style and art direction of the game - something rarely taken into account by GOOD reviewers - it had the unmistakable Sucker Punch charm. Sure, the superficial appearance, a.k.a. graphics, wasn't mind blowing... but the design of the city (loved Empire City, had character, compared to say Liberty City just copying NYC and adding in made up advertisements), the rivaling gangs, the animation of the powers, Cole himself and even the way the cinematics (that's where the SP charm is in full swing) played out were all very well done.

At any rate, everyone is entitled to their own opinion... but it seems this reviewer, going into the review of inFAMOUS, definitely had other things on his mind. And, if the story was a throwaway to you, mister reviewer, you just not one that's into stories you have to think about or pay attention to - avoid such games.

Brad Gallaway wrote: >>you

Brad Gallaway wrote:

>>you reviewers are nothing but tools, WE customers use your criticism to decide which game we should buy

IGN.com

hi im the same guy

ok i really dont know what you meant of even if you thought i insulted you

i said your tools becuz your the ones that help us customers decide which game to buy, you ARE important, good professional reviews are probably one of the reasons why there havent been another videogame crash like the one back in 1989

its a filter

yet your still tools, the video game industry is a market, it obviously depends on the customers, your job is to help the customers

i just wanted to leave that clear

now your review isnt really helpful to the customer, 85 in metacritic pretty much means that almost everyone that played the game really liked it, your review doesnt show that

that DOESNT means your a bad reviewer, a reviewer evaluates facts about a game while being the least opinionated possible

edge magazine is an example of good reviewers makin bad reviews, while theyr well written and for the most part talk alot about the game, they nitpick way too much about ridiculous things most customers dont care about, they gave kz2 a 7 basically becuz of the story, THE STORY FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!

however judgin by THIS review, you werent really professional, seriously why bring up prototype in the first sentence? im not callin you bias, just callin you unprofessional, also you barely scratched the games surface, most of the upgrades for the powers were really different adding many sideffects to the attack, the climbing mechanics were excellent not only becuz of theyr fluidity but also becuz of they handiness, you could shoot from pretty much ANY angle and use anything as cover

you also didnt mention the level of polish the city has, among other things

whatever i think i made my point clear, sorry for the long comment

Hi again, Anonymous.>>ok i

Hi again, Anonymous.

>>ok i really dont know what you meant of even if you thought i insulted you

I didn't think you insulted me, and I wasn't trying to insult you back, I was just being blunt. Your statement about reviewers being a tool for people to judge which game to buy is only one way to see a review. What I meant in my reply was that if you want a straight-up graphics/multiplayer/buy-or-don’t-buy review that focuses mainly on the nuts and bolts, then something like IGN is probably closer to what you want. We may not hit the mark every time, but here at GameCritics we really try to be honest and engaging, and try to look at things besides the usual checklist of bullet points. Anyway, I do appreciate your returning to clarify your comment, so thanks for that.

>>now your review isnt really helpful to the customer, 85 in metacritic pretty much means that almost everyone that played the game really liked it, your review doesnt show that

To be honest, I don't really know what to make of your comment. It seems clear that you know the game ranks an 85 on MetaCritic, so if you want just a general recommendation of whether it's good or not, it seems that the MetaScore should be all that you need. I assume you came and read my review because it was on the lower end of the MetaCritic spectrum. If that's the case, then you knew my score was a lot lower than most of the other reviews, and I assume you were curious about why that was so. If all that is correct, then at least now you know why I didn't score the game as highly as some other reviewers did, regardless of whether or not this information is valuable to you as a ‘buyer’s guide’.

>>however judgin by THIS review, you werent really professional, seriously why bring up prototype in the first sentence?

I don't see what's so unprofessional about mentioning inFamous’ main competition. The two games are the same open-world genre, they have the same basic superhero concept, they have the same focus on powers, and they were released at almost exactly the same time. It seems pretty harmless (to me to at least) to mention the competition, and if you'll notice, at no point in the review did I make any direct comparisons between the two games.

it seems pretty clear you like inFamous a lot more than I did, and there's nothing wrong with that. Everybody's got their own taste, and I don't think any less of anyone for liking a game that I don't like. However, when you are a game critic, people often disparage YOU for not liking a game that THEY like, which is essentially what you're doing when you call me unprofessional.

Sorry you didn't agree with what I have to say, but there are plenty of other reviews on MetaCritic that are probably more in line with your own opinion. Just remember, there's little sense in giving a game a good score just because other sites do… it's exactly the same thing as when you hear that phrase about jumping off a bridge just because your friends do. You may not like our reviews, you may not like us, you may not like this site, but at the very least, I would hope that you could give us credit for giving our honest opinions.

Thanks for your comments.

Brad Gallaway wrote: Hi

Brad Gallaway wrote:

Hi again, Anonymous.

>>ok i really dont know what you meant of even if you thought i insulted you

I didn't think you insulted me, and I wasn't trying to insult you back, I was just being blunt. Your statement about reviewers being a tool for people to judge which game to buy is only one way to see a review. What I meant in my reply was that if you want a straight-up graphics/multiplayer/buy-or-don’t-buy review that focuses mainly on the nuts and bolts, then something like IGN is probably closer to what you want. We may not hit the mark every time, but here at GameCritics we really try to be honest and engaging, and try to look at things besides the usual checklist of bullet points. Anyway, I do appreciate your returning to clarify your comment, so thanks for that.

>>now your review isnt really helpful to the customer, 85 in metacritic pretty much means that almost everyone that played the game really liked it, your review doesnt show that

To be honest, I don't really know what to make of your comment. It seems clear that you know the game ranks an 85 on MetaCritic, so if you want just a general recommendation of whether it's good or not, it seems that the MetaScore should be all that you need. I assume you came and read my review because it was on the lower end of the MetaCritic spectrum. If that's the case, then you knew my score was a lot lower than most of the other reviews, and I assume you were curious about why that was so. If all that is correct, then at least now you know why I didn't score the game as highly as some other reviewers did, regardless of whether or not this information is valuable to you as a ‘buyer’s guide’.

>>however judgin by THIS review, you werent really professional, seriously why bring up prototype in the first sentence?

I don't see what's so unprofessional about mentioning inFamous’ main competition. The two games are the same open-world genre, they have the same basic superhero concept, they have the same focus on powers, and they were released at almost exactly the same time. It seems pretty harmless (to me to at least) to mention the competition, and if you'll notice, at no point in the review did I make any direct comparisons between the two games.

it seems pretty clear you like inFamous a lot more than I did, and there's nothing wrong with that. Everybody's got their own taste, and I don't think any less of anyone for liking a game that I don't like. However, when you are a game critic, people often disparage YOU for not liking a game that THEY like, which is essentially what you're doing when you call me unprofessional.

Sorry you didn't agree with what I have to say, but there are plenty of other reviews on MetaCritic that are probably more in line with your own opinion. Just remember, there's little sense in giving a game a good score just because other sites do… it's exactly the same thing as when you hear that phrase about jumping off a bridge just because your friends do. You may not like our reviews, you may not like us, you may not like this site, but at the very least, I would hope that you could give us credit for giving our honest opinions.

Thanks for your comments.

well you were repectful and your point is fair enough, im not sayin you must give the game a 85, the fact that you gave it a low score doesnt means that your a bad reviewer (like i said with the edge example) so i just wanted to check out your point of view about the game, your review is certainly much more informative that that joke on teletext site, but still i dont feel like you gave the game a chance, you barely talked about many of the games strengths, it just lacked information

also about the prototype thing, i think your just askin for trouble

i know games dont exist in a vacuum and theres a direct competition between them, but starting a comparison, specially with a game that wasnt out by the time you made this review seemed unnecessary

oh well thanks for listening to yet another fanboy trying to teach you how to do your work

I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that the review was largely devoted to his opinions of the story. While this is an important part of a game surely the game play mechanics should be the main focus. Perhaps you should go back to your book club where your literary elitism will be more appreciated.

Next, one of your criticisms is just plain inaccurate. You claim the only results of your good or bad choices were the colours red and blue and the powers you have access to. Well, I do not know what game you were playing in my version the city changed depending on my choices. It would become more dilapidated or become more habitable and the citizens would react differently to Cole depending on your Karma level.

And for the record I am 35 and have been playing games since I was 10 and according to my partner have an unhealthy love of my RPG games which are my game genre of choice, and no I do not necessarily meen the modern RPG/Action hybrids such as Oblivion and Fallout 3.

>>I find it interesting that

>>I find it interesting that the review was largely devoted to his opinions of the story. While this is an important part of a game surely the game play mechanics should be the main focus. Perhaps you should go back to your book club where your literary elitism will be more appreciated.

I find it utterly fascinating (and tediously predictable) that the majority of people who leave comments find it nearly impossible to do so without having some kind of insult. For someone who is “35”, you'd get more traction with a little courtesy.

>>Next, one of your criticisms is just plain inaccurate. You claim the only results of your good or bad choices were the colours red and blue and the powers you have access to. Well, I do not know what game you were playing in my version the city changed depending on my choices. It would become more dilapidated or become more habitable and the citizens would react differently to Cole depending on your Karma level.

Let's be honest here, the effects on the city are largely cosmetic and have basically no impact on gameplay. You see either heroic or evil posters plastered on walls, and the citizens react a little differently, but it's *hardly* significant in any sense.

Keep up the good work Brad.

Brad, you're right on the money here. Every single one of the comments posted so far that has disagreed with you has been insulting and/or suggested that a good review follows the crowd.

"Wow, what a crock."
"My opinion is not the only one that disagrees with this review... check out literally every other review of this game on the Internet or in print."
"Fire this Brad guy, he hasn't the slightest of clues. I'd like to see what games he DOES like... Petz? Oh now I see... his top ten list is all shitty JRPGs!!"

"see i can do a better review than this ass clown"

"Just the mere fact the rest of the world (basically) gave InFamous a 9 score average, clues you in on how out of touch this guy Brad really is."
"Mr. Gallaway, if you are trying to achieve credibility in this business?"

"a reliable review is the one thats closest to overall consensus about the game, your review is 20 points under metacritics score"

"You are not a videogame lover."

"Perhaps you should go back to your book club where your literary elitism will be more appreciated."

Furthermore, most of them--not all, but most--fail to address points that you make in the review. Instead of having a constructive, respectful discussion or debate, they'd rather deride and insult.

Also, reviews are not just about presenting facts. They are about coming to opinionated conclusions about a game. A good review will back up the opinionated points with facts. Saying that "The graphics are a 9 out of 10" is not a fact. It's an opinion. For example, most people would probably agree that Okami's graphics were technically well executed, but the style itself will not appeal to everyone exactly the same way, and they will rate it differently. What you get out of a game is directly affected by your opinions - your knowledge, your background, your aesthetics, your genetics, and a host of other factors unique to your experience affect how you interpret what you are sensing from a game and the decisions that you make in a game.

Odofakyodo wrote: Also,

Odofakyodo wrote:

Also, reviews are not just about presenting facts. They are about coming to opinionated conclusions about a game. A good review will back up the opinionated points with facts. Saying that "The graphics are a 9 out of 10" is not a fact. It's an opinion. For example, most people would probably agree that Okami's graphics were technically well executed, but the style itself will not appeal to everyone exactly the same way, and they will rate it differently. What you get out of a game is directly affected by your opinions - your knowledge, your background, your aesthetics, your genetics, and a host of other factors unique to your experience affect how you interpret what you are sensing from a game and the decisions that you make in a game.

not really

i think pretty much every reviewer gave credit to okami for its style, sure some may have been put tech over style, but impretty sure every single one of them praised okami for what it did

and as i said, reviews should be the least opinionated possible, ive yet to see a professonal review sayin "i dont like the game" they give you reasons why the games bad or good, otherwise things like "omg gears of war sux cuz on the xbox 3shitty" would be accepted as reviews since theyr opinions, not objetive evaluations

reviewers CAN add theyr personal point of view about the game, but generally as a sidenote

btw why did you add me to those quotes?

I added your quote "a

I added your quote

"a reliable review is the one thats closest to overall consensus about the game, your review is 20 points under metacritics score"

because it suggests that a review is inferior if it does not follow the crowd. It wasn't anything personal. I just walked down the list of comments, and if a comment disagreed with Brad, I noted if it either insulted him or suggested he was wrong simply because most other people disagree with him. The former is just immature, and the second is not that interesting of an argument to me.

When someone says "This game is good because x, y, and z" that is an opinion. Now x, y, and z taken in and of themselves may be facts, but in a game review they are facts that back up an opinion. Saying "this game is good" is a value judgement, which is an opinion.

Now I agree with you in the sense that a review is good if it uses facts to back up its opinion. That makes the opinion stronger and more persuasive.

Doh. Forgot my name. Sorry

Doh. Forgot my name. Sorry for the comment spam.

Odofakyodo i dont agree this

Odofakyodo i dont agree

this is not a matter of going along with the crowd, is a matter of being precise

tell me does statistical surveys gain credibility by portraying an unrealistic result?

ok maybe thats a bit technical but i think its the best example i can find

before 2009 if you saw a survey result from x organization that said that obama would NOT win, would you believe it? it wouldnt go with the crowd, it'd show contradictory results compared to other surveys, also do you think that organization would gain credibility by releasing an unrealistic result?

thats right, no

i see reviews as, in brad's words "buyers guide" becuz, they dont change what i think about the game, however theyr a great way to decide which games to buy

theyr not opinions or atleast they shouldnt be, theyr supposed to reflect what the average gamer thinks about the game, being personalistic is agaisnt that

i think a score of 85 means that pretty much everyone enjoyed the game right? it might not be the all time favorite game of a lot of people but its enjoyable, a 65 doesnt reflect that, and as i said, brad might not be a bad reviewer but his review isnt really helpful therefore is bad, or atleast misinformative

Just to clarify things, it

Just to clarify things, it needs to be understood that you can't use a piece of information without proper context in which to digest it.

Primarily, it seems clear that you are coming to GameCritics without the understanding that a score of 5 represents game that is totally average. By this scale, this means that inFamous is technically ‘above average’. We don't subscribe to the school of thought that rates games between 7-10 as most sites do, we strive to use every number between 1-10.

Secondly, it is impossible for anyone, anywhere to review a game from a totally neutral and unbiased place. Human beings simply don't function that way. We cannot assign something of value without comparing it to something else, and such a process inherently leads to having some sort of preference or bias. It's just a fact of life.

Finally, your assertion that this review is ‘bad’ or ‘misinformative’ has absolutely no basis besides your own opinion. If you disagree with it, that's one thing -- and don't misunderstand me, I completely support your right to disagree with what I say or to disagree with my final judgment on the game. However, it makes no sense to say that my opinion is improper or invalid simply because it doesn't line up with the general average score of 85 that you see on MetaCritic. Such a statement suggests that you don't quite understand the proper role or function of reviews in the first place.

I don't mean to be insulting, but if all reviews agreed with each other, then what would be the point of them at all?

Please correct me if I'm

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Anonymous, but it seems that you are saying that a collection of reviews is the equivalent of a scientific study, but that is not the case. Games do not inherently have a "score" that reviewers are trying to determine, and therefore the average score of a bunch of reviews cannot reveal it. The only thing the average review score is more precise about than a single review is how likely a reviewer is to like the game (and keep in mind that reviewers don't represent the average consumer, just a subset of them - a subset that plays a lot of games and tends to prefer certain kinds of games).

Buyer's guides are very different from reviews. Buyer's guides generally provide dry information about something and tend to avoid saying things like "This game is a must buy." On the other hand, reviews will say things like "The combat in this game is intense and satisfying!" and "The story was engrossing", which are OPINIONS. To say that a given review is bad because it does not match some statistical poll is, frankly, absurd. Reviews are written to give people an idea of what the reviewer thought of the game, not what everyone else thought of it. Even well-recognized critics uch as Roger Ebert express opinions in their reviews. They don't write reviews to explain what they think the "average" person thinks - they write to express what they themselves think.

Given your philosophy, it confuses me that you would even bother reading reviews since you can look at the average score to see whether or not the game is good enough. I assume you saw the Metacritic score before reading Brad's review. Why did you click on the link to come read his review? It's not because you took a "buyer's guide" approach; if you wanted that, you would have went to a site whose review score closely matched the average, with a reasonable expectation that what you're reading is fairly representative of what most reviewers OPINIONS might be. No, you came to read this review because you saw the score and wanted to know why someone might not like the game!

That's what reviews are for: to give different peoples' perspectives. Many people follow or avoid certain reviewers--not necessarily because the review was poorly written or the reviewer makes invalid points--but simply because the particular reviewer's opinion falls in line with the person's a lot. For example, let's say a reviewer plays a lot of fighting and sports games and generally hates puzzle games. Then if your taste in genres tends to match that reviewer's, you're probably going to want to read his reviews because you trust that he will give an accurate prediction of whether or not you will like the game. However, if you hate twitch-reflex games and prefer slower paced puzzle games, his reviews will be less likely to predict what you should buy. Does that make the reviews bad, not credible, or not true? NO! He just prefers different kinds of games, or in other words, he has a different OPINION!

Now I'm not arguing Brad's review couldn't have been more informative. I'm sure it could have. But I also consider that the reviews on this site are usually modest in word count, not a verbose 4-6 pages. Despite that, I usually get some insightful commentary that I haven't heard anywhere else, and even if I disagree with a point, the reviewers still back them up with examples.

One final point: Reviews DO change what you think about a game. Now the degree to which that happens varies, and I am not saying you should be a piece of clay to be molded by reviewers, but to deny that they change what you think is disingenuous. Chances are highly likely that other people will have very different experiences than you, and learning their experiences can give you new appreciation for the game. You might learn different tactics that provide a different or more fun play experience, or you might find new meaning in the narrative from something you missed or from viewing it through someone else's eyes. Even reading a review to find out if you should buy a game is changing what you think of the game.

Just to clarify one of my

Just to clarify one of my statements as I don't want to spread misinformation.

"No, you came to read this review because you saw the score and wanted to know why someone might not like the game!"

Brad didn't say he did not like the game. He said it was competent and successful and a 6.5 score reflects that it is above average. I guess he felt it could have been significantly better.

Brad Gallaway wrote: Just

Brad Gallaway wrote:

Just to clarify things, it needs to be understood that you can't use a piece of information without proper context in which to digest it.

Primarily, it seems clear that you are coming to GameCritics without the understanding that a score of 5 represents game that is totally average. By this scale, this means that inFamous is technically ‘above average’. We don't subscribe to the school of thought that rates games between 7-10 as most sites do, we strive to use every number between 1-10.

Secondly, it is impossible for anyone, anywhere to review a game from a totally neutral and unbiased place. Human beings simply don't function that way. We cannot assign something of value without comparing it to something else, and such a process inherently leads to having some sort of preference or bias. It's just a fact of life.

Finally, your assertion that this review is ‘bad’ or ‘misinformative’ has absolutely no basis besides your own opinion. If you disagree with it, that's one thing -- and don't misunderstand me, I completely support your right to disagree with what I say or to disagree with my final judgment on the game. However, it makes no sense to say that my opinion is improper or invalid simply because it doesn't line up with the general average score of 85 that you see on MetaCritic. Such a statement suggests that you don't quite understand the proper role or function of reviews in the first place.

I don't mean to be insulting, but if all reviews agreed with each other, then what would be the point of them at all?

ya know "average" is a VERY context sensitive term

lets say we have 10 students with the following grades

-7
-8
-9
-5
-10
-7
-10
-4
-7
-7

the average is 7.4, if one of those students gets a 6.5 it would be below average, no matter if its above 5

we usually call games with scores around 7 average, becuz its the lowest common denominator, its the least we expect to be an enjoyable experience albeit with many flaws

now there are... "things" well below that point that are still playable, but noone really buy those games

your a reviewer i bet you spend much of your time around "hardcore" gamers, tell me when was the last time you hear em talkin about a game with a metacritic score of 60 or lower?

i said being the LEAST opinionated possible, just like we expect to make the LEAST amount of mistakes in our lives (sorry if thats an elitist way to think), a game about your ex wife (total divorce 3: get the car) will probably get a low score from you, but the average gamer might find it enjoyable, and i think that AT THE VERY LEAST a review should tell us which games are good and which games r bad right?

there r countless opinions in this world, but only one truth, the glass being half full or half empty is subjetive, but theres a glass and theres water on it

maybe im gettin too philosophical at this point, but well my point is that a review should reflect what most gamers think about the game am i right?

its called an AVERAGE, your question should respond itself, noone expects 80 or so reviewers to agree on everything, again with the students example, a 7.4 as average, its a good class, the student no 8 is certainly not the smartest, but OVERALL is a good class

now, Odofakyodo well again

now, Odofakyodo

well again with the "review are opinions" argument, i guess this proves people use those arguments outside the classic "X got a 6.5 from Y" situations, oh well

ill give you a quote from one of my favorite review site's FAQ section

""Wait, reviews are just opinions. Right?"

Actually, we don't think so. We make no excuses for our verdicts about games and believe our reviews stand for themselves. While our reviews, of course, do contain an element of subjectivity to them, we see the process of reviewing games as one that primarily involves the reporting of facts. To an extent, we naturally color these facts based on our own experiences of having spent much time playing other games in the past, but we make every effort to look at every game on its own merits, and we describe each game in the most factual terms possible. To this end, in the rare event that one of our reviews contains a factual inaccuracy, we will correct the inaccuracy and will acknowledge it in an editor's note that's appended to the end of the review"

that was taken from gamespot.com and i agree, why should the game merits be underrated by excessively biased reviewers? (oh, im NOT talkin about brad, just in case)

but arent polls STATISTIC STUDIES BASED ON PEOPLE'S OPINION?

"who will you vote to be the next president of the USA"

sounds pretty subjetive to me

exactly what makes reviewers that different from us? you say they play a lot of games, should i assume you dont play many games then? you also said they tend to prefer certain kinds of games, so you like ALL games then

yes i always look at the metacritic average before buyin a game, BUT i look for specific reviews for more details about the game

i came to this site so see the review, as i said there r cases were a good reviewer can make a bad review

its impossible to be influenced enough to hate something you like, you expect me to hate the game just becuz some random guy i havent seen myself wrote something negative about it?

i like team buddies, i think its easily one of the best game on the ps1, however when i looked at gamerankings for the average rating i found out it had a 7.4 score, i was surprised, but my opinion about the game didnt change at all, i brought an original copy for over 50 dollars, i finished the game cuz i couldnt when i was younger and i enjoyed every single bit of it, specially the multiplayer, of course the ending is extremely lame but whatever

we are humans fragile psychological entities, molded by every single experience of our lives, every second, even our timeless thoughts change us constanly, but the influence of those experiences vary, text on a computer screen cant, or atleast shouldnt change what we think about what we like

experience makes us unique thats why your argument about following certain reviewers just becuz of their opinions is flawed

ZEN

Good point, Anonymous. I'm not bashing this review, either, just because it doesn't fall in line with majority opinion... but if that's the way of scoring, at GameCritics, maybe its a good idea that this "review" site not be taken into account with MetaCritic or, the site I saw this on, GameRankings.

I could care less if your way of thinking doesn't match other reviewers, but if your way of reviewing does... then we got a problem.

Aside from that, there were many things not taken into account during this review, like the presentation, that unmistakable Sucker Punch animation style and charm, and the karmic effects applied to the city... which did, indeed, have elements that effected gameplay (citizens joining you in a fight, cops turning on you, etc).

To NOT take these things into account, and start off with the much referred to sentence about Prototype, is very unprofessional... you don't see other reviews start off with such a thing - like in a Resistance 2 review, I never saw a "Here it is! Gears of War 2's primary competition! Let's review it!" or some such scenario.

You focus on the game you review and explore all its facets... many of which are absent in this article.

yeah and he didnt talk much

yeah and he didnt talk much about the amazing climbing system

i mean, you can shoot from any fuckin point!!, not to mention the animations while doing so are amazing, the game also throws many combat-platforming situations when you have to do both at the same time, pretty cool

i think its the game's main strength, the ability to mix so many elements so seamlessly

but well i think the review is misinformative in many areas, maybe i just like long descriptive reviews like the ones in IGN and Gamespot, (NO its not becuz they gave it 9s)

I don't believe that reviews

I don't believe that reviews are "just" opinions. That's oversimplifying my argument. I believe there are better opinions than others, and likewise some reviews are better than others. I think a review should be honest, have insightful commentary, provide useful information, and back up his or her points with facts. If a particular reviewer is excessively biased for some reason or another then his review will be more helpful if he is up front about it. But that does not make it a bad review necessarily, just less useful to most people. A terrible review is one that does not communicate the ideas effectively or coherently, is not honest about any biases, does not provide useful information, and does not back up the points with facts.

I did not say I liked ALL games - it seems like you're setting up a straw man and trying to get me to bite on it. In fact, I don't believe AnYONE likes all games. I'm saying reviewers are people with biases, whether they will admit it or not. Reviewers (as a general population) tend to play a lot of games and tend to enjoy hardcore games the most. Reviewers tend to favor games like Gears of War, GTA, Halo, God of War, etc. There are categories of people for which reviewers will not represent their opinion very accurately and consequently the reviews will be useless to them as a "buyer's guide".

For example, suppose there is a 75 year old grandmother who abhors violence and only plays friendly puzzle games with her grandkids and online card games with her friends. A MetaCritic score of 91 for Fallout 3 is completely useless to her and does not represent her accurately at all. It would probably take a significant amount of effort on her part to glean useful information from Metacritic's site. This is because the Metacritic average is extremely biased. In this context your claim that reviews are "supposed to reflect what the average gamer thinks about the game" seems silly.

Now suppose there is a reviewer who has a similar background to our grandmother. That reviewer will be more reliable to her than sorting through the reams of data found on Metacritic. Your statement that "experience makes us unique" only supports my argument because her experience is unique, and it is vastly more similar to the one reviewer than it is to the average score of a bunch of reviews. I fail to see your logic because the simple fact that everyone's experience is unique runs counter to your preference of looking at statistical averages, a method that minimizes uniqueness.

I agree with you that the question "who will you vote for?" is pretty subjective. Likewise, the question "Is this game worth buying?" is pretty subjective. Simply taking the average of answers to a subjective question and calling it a day does not guarantee that there is less subjectivity in the result. If you think so, then you are in error. Reviewers make up a very small subset of game consumers with a relatively clear bias. And honestly, I think Gamespot is deluded if they think there is little bias. It's a noble goal in theory, but the model does not match reality.

It's completely in the realm of possibility to hate something you like, even at the same time. For example, I usually like playing Final Fantasy XI but I also detest the amount of time it takes to just prepare to do just about anything in that game. The game is so huge and complex and my experiences with it are very bipolar and multidimensional and I don't believe that the "average" experience with it could possibly be reflected in any useful way by averaging review scores.

I don't expect you to hate a game you like just because someone else did not like it. You're setting up a straw man again. In fact, I went out of my way to explain that was not what I was saying when I said "I am not saying you should be a piece of clay to be molded by reviewers". I believe that it's possible to be significantly influenced by someone else's opinion and that is not necessarily a bad thing. If you think that you "should not" be influenced by other people's ideas then that's your prerogative, but personally I don't think I know everything or get everything out of every game, book, movie, or other life experience and I'm happy to hear what others have to say. I think I can learn from others and grow as a person.

As one example, I read Heart of Darkness in high school and we focused a lot on the character and literary aspects of it. Then a history professor in college mentioned the book in the context of imperialism, and I went back and read it again and he was right - there is a lot of commentary on colonialism. I got a lot more out of it because someone gave me a different perspective.

More to the point of like/dislike, suppose you have a favorite song that just sounds really cool and has a lot of cool lyrics. Then someone tells you how a lot of the metaphors are about child rape. I'd venture to say that would drastically change your opinion of the song.

Again, I'm not saying to believe everything everyone else says. I'm just saying that if you refuse to change your opinion just "because", then you could be missing out.

And like I said, the review could probably have been more detailed. I haven't played the game, so I don't really know.

I think it's silly to hold a grudge against a review site because they use a different review scale. It's not Gamecritic's fault they are included in Metacritic averages. It really just exposes another weakness in the statistical average method, and that's really Metacritics fault for not normalizing the scale's before averaging.

really? they tend to favor

really? they tend to favor "hardcore" games? then why both boom blox games, warioware and wiifit have good-excelent scores in metacritic? reviewers shouldnt favor any games, they should review the game by its own merits

again by its own merits fallout is an excelent game, but since we all have different tastes there r certain genres we dont like

for example i dont like rpgs, specially the japanese ones, yet i brought ff12 and altough is not specially engaging for me i can see why it should get such high score, the story is good for the most part, altough characters r somewhat underdeveloped, the presentation is magnificent with amazing CG cutscenes, detailed in game graphics and an interesting style characteristic of all ff games, the combat system is original and refreshing, finally non-turn based, the gambits and liscence boards can be confusing as hell at first but you get used to em

see even if i dont like the game i can be honest about its merits, the fact that all humans are biased based personal experiences doesnt means we cant objetively appreciate something

again trying to find some reviewer with the exact same tastes as you i near impossible but if you watch metacritics score which is nothing more than the statistical result of what a bunch of people that play games a lot think about X game you are more likely to find something you like as ive said countless times an 85 score out of 100 means that most people enjoyed the game, statistics taken from results among a gaming population i dont think is that hard to understand

statistic minimizes uniqueness by reliying on common denominators, since i am pretty sure we all share the same plane of existence in this reality we MUST have something in common, but thats seeing the whole picture... we all play games, we all enjoy good games, there must be some common denominators here uhmm...

oh my bad what were we thinking when we thought about a society were we could consider every citizen innocent till proven otherwise, given the fact we are all different its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to conclude something objectively, destroy all jails and throw our justice system out the window, lets watch the super mario brothers movie since crappiness is subjetive

come on really?

i see what you mean but sayin that objectiveness is an utopia we cant even see is stupid

err thats becuz is hard to find a perfect game, and a metacritic score of 85 means theres still plenty of room for improvement

i like gta sa but i hate the aiming system, the missions r soo linear and towards the end they get pretty fuckin repetitive

but OVERALL i think it was an enjoyable experience

also since im a biased human being i can say that in my experience mercenaries 1 was a better sandbox game, that doesnt means i dont recognise gta sa merits, based only on that we can say its a better game, the huge world of san andreas is interesting and memorable, the game has a long SP campain and theres still a lot of fun to be had outside it, the 2 player mode is swallow buts a nice addition

your talkin about a different perspective which is acceptable, but i specifically said "make you hate something you like" i guess what your professor told you didnt change the fact you enjoyed the book

and the song example is pretty flawed, if that were the case we would be dealing with the existing taboos on our societies about such things, you wouldnt change your opinion about the song becuz of an opinion, youd be doing so becuz its prohibited by our society, yet youd still love the rhythm

im a socialist, i hear songs from protest singers, but that doesnt means i cant enjoy anything thats commercial, its idiotic, hell i listened to anti-flag even after they sold out, if i think its good, then its good to me

i completely agree with the last part, and i pointed it out at the beginning the lack of standarized scores means a lot of games get over or underrated, for example 1up gave prototype a -B according to metacritic thats a 67 out of 100, now im not american and i dont completely undertand your grade system but i dont think a -B can be that bad

Anonymous wrote: really?

Anonymous wrote:

really? they tend to favor "hardcore" games? then why both boom blox games, warioware and wiifit have good-excelent scores in metacritic? reviewers shouldnt favor any games, they should review the game by its own merits

Your argument is anecdotal. Sure, you can find casual games with good scores, but take a look at, say, the 50 games with the highest scores and you'll see that by far the vast majority of them involve shooting, fighting, or sports. It's not because there's anything inherently better about those games, it's because there is a clear bias toward a specific demographic.

Quote:

again by its own merits fallout is an excelent game, but since we all have different tastes there r certain genres we dont like

for example i dont like rpgs, specially the japanese ones, yet i brought ff12 and altough is not specially engaging for me i can see why it should get such high score, the story is good for the most part, altough characters r somewhat underdeveloped, the presentation is magnificent with amazing CG cutscenes, detailed in game graphics and an interesting style characteristic of all ff games, the combat system is original and refreshing, finally non-turn based, the gambits and liscence boards can be confusing as hell at first but you get used to em

see even if i dont like the game i can be honest about its merits, the fact that all humans are biased based personal experiences doesnt means we cant objetively appreciate something

Look, I agree with you that if a reviewer can get past an excessive bias and try and think on some purely objective level, then the review can be and often is useful. And I honestly really appreciate that about the reviewer.

However, that does not prove that relatively subjective reviews are not useful. I can easily find examples where someone would not find useful information from average Metacritic scores, but would be better served by a review that says "I am not into these types of games because of x, y, and z, and this game did not change that for me." That information can be extremely useful to someone with similar preferences.

Furthermore, *trying* is all well and good, but inevitably if you hate football and don’t know anything about the sport, try as you might, you are going to miss out on a lot of important things about a game such as Madden. In that case you’d probably be better off presenting your own views on the game instead of pretending to know what the “average” person thinks of it, because you’re going to completely miss the mark and do everyone a disservice.

Quote:

again trying to find some reviewer with the exact same tastes as you i near impossible but if you watch metacritics score which is nothing more than the statistical result of what a bunch of people that play games a lot think about X game you are more likely to find something you like as ive said countless times an 85 score out of 100 means that most people enjoyed the game, statistics taken from results among a gaming population i dont think is that hard to understand

First of all, you straw manned my argument – again! I did not say you had to find a reviewer with the EXACT sames tastes as you. We all know that is impossible. It is, however, quite easy to find someone with similar tastes that will give you useful information. Therefore, your initial assertion that Brad’s review is not reliable because it is not close to the Metacritic score is fallacious.

Second, I am not denying that Metacritic scores are useful. They can be quite useful to me as a rough gauge. However, they simply are not useful to everyone.

Quote:

statistic minimizes uniqueness by reliying on common denominators, since i am pretty sure we all share the same plane of existence in this reality we MUST have something in common, but thats seeing the whole picture... we all play games, we all enjoy good games, there must be some common denominators here uhmm...

A common denominator you say? Sure there’s lots of common denominators. One common denominator in particular is that most reviewers are males who play certain types of games. HELLO?! Anyone home, McFly? That’s called a “bias”. It works if it tilts your way, but it doesn’t tilt everyone’s way! The false assumption that you rely on is that Metacritic scores reflect most people’s views, when in fact what they actually reflect is those reviewers views. The gaming population is more varied than that.

Quote:

oh my bad what were we thinking when we thought about a society were we could consider every citizen innocent till proven otherwise, given the fact we are all different its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to conclude something objectively, destroy all jails and throw our justice system out the window, lets watch the super mario brothers movie since crappiness is subjetive

come on really?

i see what you mean but sayin that objectiveness is an utopia we cant even see is stupid

Are you even comprehending what I’m saying? You straw man my position yet a fourth time by implying that I don’t think we can conclude anything objectively. I’m talking about reviews of specific games, not some science experiment. Sure there are objective observations that can be made, but at the end of the day, the final game rating is a value judgement! I honestly agree with Brad here in that I don’t really think you completely understand the function of reviews.

Quote:

err thats becuz is hard to find a perfect game, and a metacritic score of 85 means theres still plenty of room for improvement

i like gta sa but i hate the aiming system, the missions r soo linear and towards the end they get pretty fuckin repetitive

but OVERALL i think it was an enjoyable experience

also since im a biased human being i can say that in my experience mercenaries 1 was a better sandbox game, that doesnt means i dont recognise gta sa merits, based only on that we can say its a better game, the huge world of san andreas is interesting and memorable, the game has a long SP campain and theres still a lot of fun to be had outside it, the 2 player mode is swallow buts a nice addition

your talkin about a different perspective which is acceptable, but i specifically said "make you hate something you like" i guess what your professor told you didnt change the fact you enjoyed the book

and the song example is pretty flawed, if that were the case we would be dealing with the existing taboos on our societies about such things, you wouldnt change your opinion about the song becuz of an opinion, youd be doing so becuz its prohibited by our society, yet youd still love the rhythm

Wait, now I’m confused… I thought child rape existed in a vacuum and I was trying to judge it by its own merits.

Quote:

im a socialist, i hear songs from protest singers, but that doesnt means i cant enjoy anything thats commercial, its idiotic, hell i listened to anti-flag even after they sold out, if i think its good, then its good to me

i completely agree with the last part, and i pointed it out at the beginning the lack of standarized scores means a lot of games get over or underrated, for example 1up gave prototype a -B according to metacritic thats a 67 out of 100, now im not american and i dont completely undertand your grade system but i dont think a -B can be that bad

One last observation: You obviously are an intelligent person who’s thought about this topic. However, I give your writing a 6.5 rating because of the lack of punctuation and capitalization - it makes your text much more difficult to read than it otherwise could be. But that’s just my opinion. Better check Metacritic for more accurate data.

sad

It's sad that people only get so passionate about something so trivial as a low score awarded to a favorite video game - one they presumably already own and enjoy, a fact which no number of poor reviews could ever change - while all around the world people are dying of war, disease, and famine.

On a subconscious level the hate posted in response to this review is driven by a tacit understanding that the reviewer is correct; that the money spent on the game could have been used to purchase lots of other things these kinds of people enjoy - you know, things like skateboard decals and bottle rockets, while all around the world...

Miffed Reviewer

Its funny that Sony didnt even send "Brad" a copy of Infamous, he had to go to the store any buy it himself! LOL! That shows that he is, in fact, not a legitimate reviewer (at least to Sony!). Ha ha ha!

Oh, and you could just tell he wanted Prototype to be better than Infamous cause he is a 360 fanboy. The crappy reviews of Prototype make him look stupid now.

Odofakyodo before we

Odofakyodo before we continue with our uncivilized raving f-bomb filled fanboy fight

let me do this first

rogue wrote:

It's sad that people only get so passionate about something so trivial as a low score awarded to a favorite video game - one they presumably already own and enjoy, a fact which no number of poor reviews could ever change - while all around the world people are dying of war, disease, and famine.

On a subconscious level the hate posted in response to this review is driven by a tacit understanding that the reviewer is correct; that the money spent on the game could have been used to purchase lots of other things these kinds of people enjoy - you know, things like skateboard decals and bottle rockets, while all around the world...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT?!

ok now back to our discussion

Odofakyodo wrote:

Your argument is anecdotal. Sure, you can find casual games with good scores, but take a look at, say, the 50 games with the highest scores and you'll see that by far the vast majority of them involve shooting, fighting, or sports. It's not because there's anything inherently better about those games, it's because there is a clear bias toward a specific demographic.

ok man, did you think for a minute that those games might have gotten such score becuz theyr good?

i mean look down on metacritic for the games with the lowest score ever and youll see that place is equally filled with "damnations", "ready 2 rumble revolutions" and "big beach sports"

those r just the most popular genres, they are everywhere and there r good and bad titles

now altough is true that casual games arent always awarded as masterpieces thats mostly becuz those games just dont have what it takes to be one

ive played boom blox and wario ware and hell i loved em, but i would never put em at the same level as shadow of the colossus or metal gear solid 3

Odofakyodo wrote:

Look, I agree with you that if a reviewer can get past an excessive bias and try and think on some purely objective level, then the review can be and often is useful. And I honestly really appreciate that about the reviewer.

However, that does not prove that relatively subjective reviews are not useful. I can easily find examples where someone would not find useful information from average Metacritic scores, but would be better served by a review that says "I am not into these types of games because of x, y, and z, and this game did not change that for me." That information can be extremely useful to someone with similar preferences.

Furthermore, *trying* is all well and good, but inevitably if you hate football and don’t know anything about the sport, try as you might, you are going to miss out on a lot of important things about a game such as Madden. In that case you’d probably be better off presenting your own views on the game instead of pretending to know what the “average” person thinks of it, because you’re going to completely miss the mark and do everyone a disservice.

well as said the least thing you can do if you have doubts about 1 game is read the review instead of simply lookin at the score, and i never said a bit of subjetivity is bad, as long as its a side note and doesnt take part on the review itseft

when i search for, lets say action games, i usually dont look at the score since im a fan of em i dont think i might have a problem with the game, and by simply lookin at a score of 93 i know its a quality action game and thats enough for me

Odofakyodo wrote:

First of all, you straw manned my argument – again! I did not say you had to find a reviewer with the EXACT sames tastes as you. We all know that is impossible. It is, however, quite easy to find someone with similar tastes that will give you useful information. Therefore, your initial assertion that Brad’s review is not reliable because it is not close to the Metacritic score is fallacious.

Second, I am not denying that Metacritic scores are useful. They can be quite useful to me as a rough gauge. However, they simply are not useful to everyone.

ok maybe i exaggerated

but hell maybe its becuz i was in love with psychology some time ago and i came to the conclusion that finding 2 people with similar taste is imposible

i think your suggestion is as reliable as fliping a coin... well more like throwing a die with 1 hundred sides, deep within that reviewer you think shares the same tastes as you there is a child trauma that wont allow him enjoy god of war, you might miss a great game just becuz of that

the endless amount of variables in one persons life makes your suggestion difficult

well you can see the metacritic score as chances youll like the game

you see, a game like mgs4

theres a 94% chance youll like the game

of course i made that statistic myself based on the score, but well my point is clear, the higher the score is, the higher are the chances youll like it

infamous has an score of 85, not everyone will like the game, so this score is kind of expected however i dont think a review like this is useful for most gamers

Odofakyodo wrote:

A common denominator you say? Sure there’s lots of common denominators. One common denominator in particular is that most reviewers are males who play certain types of games. HELLO?! Anyone home, McFly? That’s called a “bias”. It works if it tilts your way, but it doesn’t tilt everyone’s way! The false assumption that you rely on is that Metacritic scores reflect most people’s views, when in fact what they actually reflect is those reviewers views. The gaming population is more varied than that.

ok, just like our justice system, and democracy in general, its meant to favor most of people

and im pretty sure not even girls with an appreciable amount of taste can enjoy things like "my horse and me"

i dont know what you mean with certain types of games, since nearly all games are reviewed nowadays, so obviously reviewers play all kind of games

Odofakyodo wrote:

Are you even comprehending what I’m saying? You straw man my position yet a fourth time by implying that I don’t think we can conclude anything objectively. I’m talking about reviews of specific games, not some science experiment. Sure there are objective observations that can be made, but at the end of the day, the final game rating is a value judgement! I honestly agree with Brad here in that I don’t really think you completely understand the function of reviews.

well before we get to yet another comunication problem what do you think is the function of reviews?

Odofakyodo wrote:

Wait, now I’m confused… I thought child rape existed in a vacuum and I was trying to judge it by its own merits.

??? great now i dont know what your talkin about, we better forget it before the whole internet catch us being stupid

Odofakyodo wrote:

One last observation: You obviously are an intelligent person who’s thought about this topic. However, I give your writing a 6.5 rating because of the lack of punctuation and capitalization - it makes your text much more difficult to read than it otherwise could be. But that’s just my opinion. Better check Metacritic for more accurate data.

U BIAS XBOX360 FANBOI!!!111!11!

Good lord...

I had no idea the notion that game reviews are somehow objective was so firmly entrenched in some people. It's moments like these that make me feel gaming discourse has no future.

Matthew Weise wrote: I had

Matthew Weise wrote:

I had no idea the notion that game reviews are somehow objective was so firmly entrenched in some people. It's moments like these that make me feel gaming discourse has no future.

your right

what i was thinking? games reviewed based on its own merits rather than the subjetive opinion of someone else?

pff crazy, i mean its not like objectiveness is the basis of any just verdict

A central point of your

A central point of your position is:

Quote:

well you can see the metacritic score as chances youll like the game

Now I think this is a pretty valid viewpoint as long as “you” refers to males in the 18-35 range. That's what I mean by "certain types of games". The types of games that get the highest Metacritic scores – sports, fighting, shooting – are biased toward that particular demographic. For other groups of people – say kids under 12 or most women – it will not be accurate.

Your example illustrates my point:

Quote:

you see, a game like mgs4
theres a 94% chance youll like the game

If you’re a middle-aged woman, there’s no way you’re that likely to enjoy MGS4. I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with that.

Where we really differ is in our approaches to a single review. You are approaching a single review with the idea that it is somehow supposed to reflect what the average gamer thinks of the game, or otherwise it is not useful. I think that is unfair and unrealistic because:

1) How is one person supposed to know what the “average” gamer would think about a game? From a statistical point of view, one review is one sample point. How could you reasonably expect a reviewer to guess the chances of every other person liking a game would be? To be successful at that would in many instances takes significant speculation and luck.

2) The “average” score for a game is not necessarily useful to everyone. I think I’ve demonstrated that pretty clearly already.

Quote:

i think your suggestion is as reliable as fliping a coin... well more like throwing a die with 1 hundred sides, deep within that reviewer you think shares the same tastes as you there is a child trauma that wont allow him enjoy god of war, you might miss a great game just becuz of that

3) Following particular reviewers because you trust their taste can be useful to you even if their tastes does not match the “average”. I guarantee you many people align themselves with or against certain reviewers because of taste. Yes, this has its faults because no one has the exact same tastes. Then again, no one has the exact same tastes as the theoretical “average gamer”, so your argument doesn't have much weight. It's all about being a critical thinker and reading actual words from actual reviews.

4) Not all reviewers can possibly objectively review all games. My Madden example illustrated that pretty clearly. A person’s unique identity contributes greatly to how much he or she enjoys a game, even more so than other art forms because in games you get to control what happens – you get to configure the story, so to speak.

5) It would be really boring if all reviewers wrote simply to appeal to what they supposed the average person would think. It would restrict variety and creativity because all reviews would be the pretty much the same. I think this would ultimately undermine the experience.

Quote:

??? great now i dont know what your talkin about, we better forget it before the whole internet catch us being stupid

My point is that *anything* can be good at what it does if considered completely independently of everything else. Even child rape is great at what it does when judged solely “by its own merits” – it’s visceral and extremely effective, and if we don’t let that pesky thing called morality get in the way, I’m sure it’s a blast. Obviously that's a pretty silly thought, but it's where your argument naturally leads. Games are not developed in a vacuum and they are not played in a vacuum. They are meant to provide interesting choices, to provoke thoughts, to be compared to life experiences, and yes, to provide frivolous entertainment. Without proper context, you lose a lot of meaning.

Quote:

well before we get to yet another comunication problem what do you think is the function of reviews?

I was talking to one of my friends who writes movie reviews about this, so he gets the credit for formulating this answer, but I felt it was a good one. The purpose of reviews is to communicate what it is like to experience a work of art. Inevitably the experience of the reviewer is colored by his own unique perspective. In addition, though, effective communication requires that the reviewer knows his audience.

btw

Quote:

U BIAS XBOX360 FANBOI!!!111!11!

good 1 i loled irl

Odofakyodo wrote: Now I

Odofakyodo wrote:

Now I think this is a pretty valid viewpoint as long as “you” refers to males in the 18-35 range. That's what I mean by "certain types of games". The types of games that get the highest Metacritic scores – sports, fighting, shooting – are biased toward that particular demographic. For other groups of people – say kids under 12 or most women – it will not be accurate.

if that were the case EA sports active wouldnt have a score of 83 in metacritic

whats more if that were the case ratchet and clank, mario, jak and sly cooper wouldnt be critically acclaimed franchises since theyr aimed to younger audiences

each of those games has its own merits and theyr reviewed based on that

Odofakyodo wrote:

If you’re a middle-aged woman, there’s no way you’re that likely to enjoy MGS4. I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with that.

Where we really differ is in our approaches to a single review. You are approaching a single review with the idea that it is somehow supposed to reflect what the average gamer thinks of the game, or otherwise it is not useful. I think that is unfair and unrealistic because:

1) How is one person supposed to know what the “average” gamer would think about a game? From a statistical point of view, one review is one sample point. How could you reasonably expect a reviewer to guess the chances of every other person liking a game would be? To be successful at that would in many instances takes significant speculation and luck.

2) The “average” score for a game is not necessarily useful to everyone. I think I’ve demonstrated that pretty clearly already.

its not really unfair, with a score of 85 this is kind of expected, not everyone liked the game

1) if you review a game based on its merits, your verdict cant be far from the average gamer, after all it all ends up being just variations of the same reality, its not all about luck, if you recognize a good game then your score wont be far from the average

2) youd truthly demostrate your point if you show me one of those non-hardcore games with bad scores

Odofakyodo wrote:

3) Following particular reviewers because you trust their taste can be useful to you even if their tastes does not match the “average”. I guarantee you many people align themselves with or against certain reviewers because of taste. Yes, this has its faults because no one has the exact same tastes. Then again, no one has the exact same tastes as the theoretical “average gamer”, so your argument doesn't have much weight. It's all about being a critical thinker and reading actual words from actual reviews.

4) Not all reviewers can possibly objectively review all games. My Madden example illustrated that pretty clearly. A person’s unique identity contributes greatly to how much he or she enjoys a game, even more so than other art forms because in games you get to control what happens – you get to configure the story, so to speak.

5) It would be really boring if all reviewers wrote simply to appeal to what they supposed the average person would think. It would restrict variety and creativity because all reviews would be the pretty much the same. I think this would ultimately undermine the experience.

3) the theorical "average gamer" is nothing but the lowest common denominator in a population, is almost impossible to not to match the "average gamer" tastes

4) that doesnt make impossible to be objetive, we have a justice system that relies on takin shit from rapers and killers in courts while being as objective as possible, having different tastes shouldnt be a problem to review those games, specially if youve played other sports game to compare experiences

5) on the other hand it would be more precise

im all for creativity and shit, but you cant make chocolate skycrappers for the the sake of being creative

Odofakyodo wrote:

My point is that *anything* can be good at what it does if considered completely independently of everything else. Even child rape is great at what it does when judged solely “by its own merits” – it’s visceral and extremely effective, and if we don’t let that pesky thing called morality get in the way, I’m sure it’s a blast. Obviously that's a pretty silly thought, but it's where your argument naturally leads. Games are not developed in a vacuum and they are not played in a vacuum. They are meant to provide interesting choices, to provoke thoughts, to be compared to life experiences, and yes, to provide frivolous entertainment. Without proper context, you lose a lot of meaning.

it all ends up being reviewed within the limits of our society, in the spectrum of what can be considered entertaining, and itd be dumb to say that we all dont somewhat share the same meaning of whats entertaining

after all if that were the case god of war, mario and halo wouldnt be such loved franchises

Odofakyodo wrote:

I was talking to one of my friends who writes movie reviews about this, so he gets the credit for formulating this answer, but I felt it was a good one. The purpose of reviews is to communicate what it is like to experience a work of art. Inevitably the experience of the reviewer is colored by his own unique perspective. In addition, though, effective communication requires that the reviewer knows his audience.

well dont you think that might corrupt the messange? after all the review would talk more about what the reviewer thought about the movie/game, rather than the movie/game itself, makin the review useless to everyone but the person that made it

Odofakyodo

Odofakyodo wrote:

Inevitably the experience of the reviewer is colored by his own unique perspective.

This is the part no one gets. Without the "unique perspective" there's no fucking point to writing reviews/criticism in the first place.

Gamers, in particular, have a really hard time grasping this concept (far more than people who read film criticism) and that's why gaming journalism and criticism is such a joke. There are guys out there writing about games who actually believe they can be "unbiased"--and that leads to incredibly generic writing and criticism that isn't criticism at all but instead is the equivalent of a studio press release/

Anonymous wrote: well dont

Anonymous wrote:

well dont you think that might corrupt the messange? after all the review would talk more about what the reviewer thought about the movie/game, rather than the movie/game itself, makin the review useless to everyone but the person that made it

Why would the two things have to be mutually exclusive? If the critic can write, he can relate a great deal about the thing being reviewed through his reactions to it.

I don't think you're really looking for reviews--you're looking for buying guides that highlight the features of a title. Criticism has always been about the critic's reaction to the the thing being evaluated and then usually placing it in some kind of historical context to highlight its success or failure as a creative endeavor (I really don't want to say art...). That doesn't make the review useless--only potentially useless to people who don't share a perspective similar to the critic.

Criticism is a symbiotic relationship between the critic and his audience. The reader is best served by finding a critic with a similar viewpoint (and viewpoint doesn't necessarily equal taste) to their own. Maybe Brad and you view the world in such a fundamentally different way that it makes it so that his opinion is of little value to you. Conversely, there are other people who'll feel the exact opposite. There's no right or wrong here.

Well said Mike. I'll just

Well said Mike. I'll just add one thing. The point of criticism isn't to come to common consensus about what's good and bad. The point of criticism is to expand the dialog and understanding of what we are playing (very often in the context of what's good and bad) in hopes that it would enrich all of our experiences/lives. The consumer what-to-buy element is a byproduct of what readers expect from criticism/reviews, but it's not the goal of any critic who understands the purpose of criticism.

Quote: if that were the

Quote:

if that were the case EA sports active wouldnt have a score of 83 in metacritic
whats more if that were the case ratchet and clank, mario, jak and sly cooper wouldnt be critically acclaimed franchises since theyr aimed to younger audiences

Again, anecdotal. Bias doesn’t mean it's *always* one way, just that it leans that way. The vast majority of top rated games are clearly targeted toward the 18-35 male population. I did the research on Metacritic. Did you?

Quote:

each of those games has its own merits and theyr reviewed based on that
if you review a game based on its merits, your verdict cant be far from the average gamer, after all it all ends up being just variations of the same reality, its not all about luck, if you recognize a good game then your score wont be far from the average

Do games have an inherent value independent of anyone’s opinion? If so, please provide an example. Also, what makes the average gamer's verdict more representative of the hypothetical true value of the game?

Quote:

youd truthly demostrate your point if you show me one of those non-hardcore games with bad scores

My point: “The ‘average’ score for a game is not necessarily useful to everyone.”
My example: MGS4 has a 94 rating. That is not useful to a 10 year-old girl.
QED

Quote:

3) the theorical "average gamer" is nothing but the lowest common denominator in a population, is almost impossible to not to match the "average gamer" tastes

If "almost impossible" really means "happens all the time", then you would be right. Do games have an inherent value independent of anyone’s opinion? If so, please provide an example.

Quote:

4) that doesnt make impossible to be objetive, we have a justice system that relies on takin shit from rapers and killers in courts while being as objective as possible, having different tastes shouldnt be a problem to review those games, specially if youve played other sports game to compare experiences

Laws are created based on a society’s opinions. Otherwise all societies would have the same beliefs and laws, when in reality we find very different cultures with very different sets of laws.

Quote:

5) on the other hand it would be more precise

Precise is how exact a statement is. I’m pretty sure the term you mean is “accurate”, or how close a statement is to the truth. And if that’s what you meant, then your statement implies that there is in fact a true value of a game. Please provide an example. Convince me of a true value of a game.

Quote:

well dont you think that might corrupt the messange? after all the review would talk more about what the reviewer thought about the movie/game, rather than the movie/game itself, makin the review useless to everyone but the person that made it

By saying “corrupt the message” you imply that there is a “true” value to the game. Please, give me an example.

Also, point me to an “objective” review that has something meaningful to say and is not just a breakdown of everything you could find in an instruction manual.

Mike, you rock. Thanks for succinctly and eloquently advocating meaningful game reviews.

Le Sigh

It seems here that the mass majority of people visiting this site and leaving negative reviews towards this review are forgetting one base principle in life: opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. Seriously, I may not entirely agree with Brad's review either, but I'm not going to slam him for it. Those points of objection towards ImFamous are uniquely his, just as my love for the game is my own. You are all being immature for dissing a man, who like you, is allowed his own free opinion. No where in that review was he screaming, "don't buy this game, by God it was horrible; Prototype is by far the best game ever!" Nor did he EVER show bias towards the Playstation 3, so to you fools calling him a fan-boy of the 360 are in a form proving nothing more than being fan-boys, albeit for the PS3. As already pointed out, most of you ALREADY love this game, and likely own it. So, in practical theory it is unlikely you will change you opinion over the game simply because ONE man gave the game a 6.5 versus the average 9 everyone else is blessing it with. Most reviews and reviewers, Brad included, realize that reviews are not just there to sell a game, because with enough press and hype the game will inevitably sell. Reviews are there to address the game from different perspectives to give the audience at hand a wider perception to see if the reviewed is adequate for them. The majority of us may not agree with Brad, but not all of us are similar to him either! What we like is different. It is HIS opinion, and the point of there being a wide range of reviews is because not everyone will share the same opinion. So, we see the GameSpot and IGN reviews and the majority agree with the reviewers and their form of reviewing games. But, not everyone will. That's why Brad is here, to fill the void; allowing those who maybe don't look at games the same way as the mainstream reviewers do and allows them to find what they feel is a review that is appropriate and fits with their opinions and views on games. If we only had one outlet in which to receive our reviews the entire market of video game consumers would not be properly represented.

So, if you don't agree with Brad, fine. Simply shut up and act mature for once in your lives. He is subject to his opinion like the rest of us. 'Cause God only knows if you stated your opinion no one would ever bitch or disagree.

its so sad that Brad is a Xbot

its so sad that Brad is a Xbot. you have to do a better job of hiding your clear bias twoards the PS3. this review was such a waste of my time. i'm never coming back here again and i'm not alone.

Way to go!

It's so obvious that the ONLY reason this game got such a low score was to get hits. Congradulations! But unlike yours every other website will get respect of the gamers. Congradulations again.

Mike Bracken

Mike Bracken wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

well dont you think that might corrupt the messange? after all the review would talk more about what the reviewer thought about the movie/game, rather than the movie/game itself, makin the review useless to everyone but the person that made it

Why would the two things have to be mutually exclusive? If the critic can write, he can relate a great deal about the thing being reviewed through his reactions to it.

I don't think you're really looking for reviews--you're looking for buying guides that highlight the features of a title. Criticism has always been about the critic's reaction to the the thing being evaluated and then usually placing it in some kind of historical context to highlight its success or failure as a creative endeavor (I really don't want to say art...). That doesn't make the review useless--only potentially useless to people who don't share a perspective similar to the critic.

Criticism is a symbiotic relationship between the critic and his audience. The reader is best served by finding a critic with a similar viewpoint (and viewpoint doesn't necessarily equal taste) to their own. Maybe Brad and you view the world in such a fundamentally different way that it makes it so that his opinion is of little value to you. Conversely, there are other people who'll feel the exact opposite. There's no right or wrong here.

thats an interesting way to see it mike, however your ignoring the relationship between customers and reviews

any artistic mean that gathered high critical praise is likely to recive some sort of sales boost, for example dont you think the critical reception of haze had a negative effect on the sales? same cant be said about persona 4, the game came out december last year, on an 8 year old console, with very little hype, yet it managed to sell half million units according to vgchartz, its the best sellin persona game to date and a metacritic score of 90 probably helped

theres a difference between audience and customers, your audience may already have the game, look as a customer i DONT need something that highlights the features of a title, yeah 15 hour campain and coop mode sounds good on paper, but does it work? i NEED objective reviews that evaluates games based on its merits, reviews that not only highlights the features of a title but also point out its flaws, i need an objective point of view, the games capabilites are the lowest common denominator that can exist

just to let you know buddy

just to let you know buddy im none of these assholes

Anonymous wrote:

It's so obvious that the ONLY reason this game got such a low score was to get hits. Congradulations! But unlike yours every other website will get respect of the gamers. Congradulations again.

Anonymous wrote:

its so sad that Brad is a Xbot. you have to do a better job of hiding your clear bias twoards the PS3. this review was such a waste of my time. i'm never coming back here again and i'm not alone.

so just to avoid confusion from now on my name will be "same Anonymous"

Odofakyodo wrote:

Again, anecdotal. Bias doesn’t mean it's *always* one way, just that it leans that way. The vast majority of top rated games are clearly targeted toward the 18-35 male population. I did the research on Metacritic. Did you?

ok those games are masterpieces and anyone with a little amount of taste can see that

i know about 11 year old girls who enjoyed zelda ocarina of time back in the day when it was released, it has little to do with demographics

Odofakyodo wrote:

Do games have an inherent value independent of anyone’s opinion? If so, please provide an example. Also, what makes the average gamer's verdict more representative of the hypothetical true value of the game?

an example? the fact that it exists is the only example i need, it exists therefore it has an inherent value

just as i said, the glass being half full or half empty is a matter of opinion, however theres a glass and theres water on it

the average gamer's veredict is the closest appreciation we can get to the true value of the game, its a middle ground that represents the consensus among gamers

Odofakyodo wrote:

My point: “The ‘average’ score for a game is not necessarily useful to everyone.”
My example: MGS4 has a 94 rating. That is not useful to a 10 year-old girl.
QED

why would a 10 year old girl be playing a M rated game?

anyways your using an extreme example, nearly everything is unappreciable for a unborn child but that really proves nothing, altough its not like 10 years old didnt play MGS when it first came out

Odofakyodo wrote:

If "almost impossible" really means "happens all the time", then you would be right. Do games have an inherent value independent of anyone’s opinion? If so, please provide an example.

thats funny, we should do a survey about "whats favorite video game?" then look for the metacritic score and see if those games didnt gather almost unanimous critical praise

Odofakyodo wrote:

Laws are created based on a society’s opinions. Otherwise all societies would have the same beliefs and laws, when in reality we find very different cultures with very different sets of laws.

yet they all have a common goal of establishing order and justice

again my statement of common denominators seems to be right

Odofakyodo wrote:

Precise is how exact a statement is. I’m pretty sure the term you mean is “accurate”, or how close a statement is to the truth. And if that’s what you meant, then your statement implies that there is in fact a true value of a game. Please provide an example. Convince me of a true value of a game.

accurate! thats the word

Odofakyodo wrote:

By saying “corrupt the message” you imply that there is a “true” value to the game. Please, give me an example.

Also, point me to an “objective” review that has something meaningful to say and is not just a breakdown of everything you could find in an instruction manual.

Mike, you rock. Thanks for succinctly and eloquently advocating meaningful game reviews.

well finding a truthly objective review is hard, we are not robots, am i contradicting myself? no, im just saying that reviewers shouldnt try to evoke that subjectivity so they can give accurate reviews

don't be so anonymous

same Anonymous wrote:

just to let you know buddy im none of these assholes

Anonymous wrote:

It's so obvious that the ONLY reason this game got such a low score was to get hits. Congradulations! But unlike yours every other website will get respect of the gamers. Congradulations again.

Why don't you just use your real name or some name without the word anonymous in it?

Re: Miffed Reviewer

Brad" the reviewer! wrote:

Its funny that Sony didnt even send "Brad" a copy of Infamous, he had to go to the store any buy it himself! LOL! That shows that he is, in fact, not a legitimate reviewer (at least to Sony!). Ha ha ha!

Oh, and you could just tell he wanted Prototype to be better than Infamous cause he is a 360 fanboy. The crappy reviews of Prototype make him look stupid now.

Honestly, I read this comment like 10 times and I still don't get what you were trying to say here.

It's better for a critic to be in Sony's pocket than to be at all independent?

Quote: ok those games are

Quote:

ok those games are masterpieces and anyone with a little amount of taste can see that
i know about 11 year old girls who enjoyed zelda ocarina of time back in the day when it was released, it has little to do with demographics

If you look at the top 50 games and not just the #1 game, you'll see 40 of them were either fighting, sports, or shooting, and that doesn’t even count any of the Zelda games!

Take Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2, for example It received a 98 rating, so according to you there is a 98 percent chance that any given person will like that game. But considering that 40 percent of the game playing population is female and 25 percent is over 50 years old (see the ESA’s web site), a random sampling of 100 people would be lucky to find 70 people who like that game. In fact, virtually all females and all people over 50 would have to like THPS2 in order for the 98 rating to be "accurate", as you put it.

“little to do with demographics"? Ladies and gentlemen, on your right you’ll see the Pyramids, and on your left you’ll see Denial.

Quote:

an example? the fact that it exists is the only example i need, it exists therefore it has an inherent value
just as i said, the glass being half full or half empty is a matter of opinion, however theres a glass and theres water on it
the average gamer's veredict is the closest appreciation we can get to the true value of the game, its a middle ground that represents the consensus among gamers

Here’s where we fundamentally differ. I don’t think that games have an inherent value simply because they exist. I submit to you that if they did, you’d be able to find an example. Come on, just one example of a true value of a game.

Quote:

why would a 10 year old girl be playing a M rated game?
anyways your using an extreme example, nearly everything is unappreciable for a unborn child but that really proves nothing, altough its not like 10 years old didnt play MGS when it first came out

Straw man again. My argument was for an independent human being capable of complex thought, not a fetus with a half-developed brain. A child who plays video games is not extreme by any means. Anyway, by asking why a 10-year-old would be playing an M rated game you basically admit that a 94 rating is not useful to the girl, thus agreeing with my point.

Quote:

thats funny, we should do a survey about "whats favorite video game?" then look for the metacritic score and see if those games didnt gather almost unanimous critical praise

Again, I submit that if they had a true value independent of people’s opinions then it should be easy for you to find a specific example.

Quote:

yet they all have a common goal of establishing order and justice
again my statement of common denominators seems to be right

Sure, we have a common goal of, say, bringing criminals to justice or feeding the most people possible, but it is the implementation details that really matter, and that’s where societies differ. Likewise, most (if not all) games have a common goal of providing entertainment, but that is not what reviews analyze, now is it? Reviewers write about the actual experience, not the mere intentions! Intentions are all well and good, but at the end of the day, they are not all that meaningful if they don’t get the job done.

Quote:

well finding a truthly objective review is hard, we are not robots, am i contradicting myself? no, im just saying that reviewers shouldnt try to evoke that subjectivity so they can give accurate reviews

OK. Point me to a “mostly objective” review that has something meaningful to say.

Quote:

theres a difference between audience and customers, your audience may already have the game, look as a customer i DONT need something that highlights the features of a title, yeah 15 hour campain and coop mode sounds good on paper, but does it work? i NEED objective reviews that evaluates games based on its merits, reviews that not only highlights the features of a title but also point out its flaws, i need an objective point of view, the games capabilites are the lowest common denominator that can exist

Maybe I’m missing something here, but aren’t the game’s “capabilities” the same thing as the “features”? If all you want is a review with the games “capabilities”--that is, what it can and cannot do--couldn’t you find that in an instruction manual? Why would you need a review?

Dale Weir wrote: same

Dale Weir wrote:
same Anonymous wrote:

just to let you know buddy im none of these assholes

Anonymous wrote:

It's so obvious that the ONLY reason this game got such a low score was to get hits. Congradulations! But unlike yours every other website will get respect of the gamers. Congradulations again.

Why don't you just use your real name or some name without the word anonymous in it?

cuz i like being mysterious

Odofakyodo wrote: If you

Odofakyodo wrote:

If you look at the top 50 games and not just the #1 game, you'll see 40 of them were either fighting, sports, or shooting, and that doesn’t even count any of the Zelda games!

Take Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 2, for example It received a 98 rating, so according to you there is a 98 percent chance that any given person will like that game. But considering that 40 percent of the game playing population is female and 25 percent is over 50 years old (see the ESA’s web site), a random sampling of 100 people would be lucky to find 70 people who like that game. In fact, virtually all females and all people over 50 would have to like THPS2 in order for the 98 rating to be "accurate", as you put it.

“little to do with demographics"? Ladies and gentlemen, on your right you’ll see the Pyramids, and on your left you’ll see Denial.

i just thought if i used the game that regarded as the best game of all time by critics and gamers alike as example, id be enough to ridiculize your point

err i, my brother and my two sisters loved tony hawk pro skater, my brother and little sister are 3 years younger than me and my big sister is 3 years older than me

so people from both genres and with a age difference of up to 6 years can enjoy a 98 game, uhmm somethings fishy about your argument

Odofakyodo wrote:

Here’s where we fundamentally differ. I don’t think that games have an inherent value simply because they exist. I submit to you that if they did, you’d be able to find an example. Come on, just one example of a true value of a game.

why almost everyone loves mgs, mario and zelda? becuz those games are inherently good

but really what your sayin is basically askin for footage of the big bag, is something we know is real altough we dont have prove of it

however my concept is more abstract

Odofakyodo wrote:

Straw man again. My argument was for an independent human being capable of complex thought, not a fetus with a half-developed brain. A child who plays video games is not extreme by any means. Anyway, by asking why a 10-year-old would be playing an M rated game you basically admit that a 94 rating is not useful to the girl, thus agreeing with my point.

not really, sometimes they simply cannot appreciate it

lets say someone who doesnt know about art says picasso is a mess of colors, should we take his word?

but regarding your question, i played gta vice city when i was like 13, and i loved it, not as much as san andreas, but i really liked it

Odofakyodo wrote:

Again, I submit that if they had a true value independent of people’s opinions then it should be easy for you to find a specific example.

it is

if i need a good sondbox game i look at metacritic and usually i find what im looking for

Odofakyodo wrote:

Sure, we have a common goal of, say, bringing criminals to justice or feeding the most people possible, but it is the implementation details that really matter, and that’s where societies differ. Likewise, most (if not all) games have a common goal of providing entertainment, but that is not what reviews analyze, now is it? Reviewers write about the actual experience, not the mere intentions! Intentions are all well and good, but at the end of the day, they are not all that meaningful if they don’t get the job done.

Odofakyodo wrote:

not really they review how succeful are those games at providing entertainment

OK. Point me to a “mostly objective” review that has something meaningful to say.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/mercenaries/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review&page=2

gamespot review of mercenaries, really good, altough i think they underrated the AI a bit

Odofakyodo wrote:

Maybe I’m missing something here, but aren’t the game’s “capabilities” the same thing as the “features”? If all you want is a review with the games “capabilities”--that is, what it can and cannot do--couldn’t you find that in an instruction manual? Why would you need a review?

if that were the case an open world game with 5 settings, lots of crazy weapons, original concept and coop campaign like destroy all humans 2, shouldnt have been the repetitive and uninspired mess it was

the concept is original but its executed in a really bland way, the humor is delivered mostly on an awkward dialogue system the AI is retarded, theres no incentive to use different weapons, the missions are incredibly repetitive and the boss fights are pathetic, the game isnt really all that pretty but what really hurts the presentation is the incredibly high amount of glitches which are even worse when you play coop

unfortunately the misinformative IGN review didnt told me that and i ended up buying that crap

Quote: i just thought if i

Quote:

i just thought if i used the game that regarded as the best game of all time by critics and gamers alike as example, id be enough to ridiculize your point

err i, my brother and my two sisters loved tony hawk pro skater, my brother and little sister are 3 years younger than me and my big sister is 3 years older than me

so people from both genres and with a age difference of up to 6 years can enjoy a 98 game, uhmm somethings fishy about your argument

Anecdotal evidence does not counter real statistics and common sense.

Quote:

why almost everyone loves mgs, mario and zelda? becuz those games are inherently good

but really what your sayin is basically askin for footage of the big bag, is something we know is real altough we dont have prove of it

however my concept is more abstract

I can't even begin to see how the Big Bang analogy applies here. You can actually touch an play games here and now, and it doesn't take an expert in cosmology to write a review.

Quote:

not really, sometimes they simply cannot appreciate it

lets say someone who doesnt know about art says picasso is a mess of colors, should we take his word?

but regarding your question, i played gta vice city when i was like 13, and i loved it, not as much as san andreas, but i really liked it

If the person cannot appreciate it, the rating is meaningless to them. That's my point.

Quote:

it is

if i need a good sondbox game i look at metacritic and usually i find what im looking for

That's not an inherent value of a game.

Quote:

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/mercenaries/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review&page=2

gamespot review of mercenaries, really good, altough i think they underrated the AI a bit

That review is littered with opinions.

Quote:

if that were the case an open world game with 5 settings, lots of crazy weapons, original concept and coop campaign like destroy all humans 2, shouldnt have been the repetitive and uninspired mess it was

the concept is original but its executed in a really bland way, the humor is delivered mostly on an awkward dialogue system the AI is retarded, theres no incentive to use different weapons, the missions are incredibly repetitive and the boss fights are pathetic, the game isnt really all that pretty but what really hurts the presentation is the incredibly high amount of glitches which are even worse when you play coop

unfortunately the misinformative IGN review didnt told me that and i ended up buying that crap

That entire paragraph explaining what you would want to know from a review is littered with opinions.

This has been an interesting discussion, but I'm pretty much done here unless there's something new to bring to the table. Thanks for your thoughts.

Oh my, i strive to find

Oh my, i strive to find decent critiques on these fair interwebs, yet all i come across is a mediocre site amply named 'game critics'. I ask you, do you understand what a critique is? You fall so far from the idea and the deep intricate weaving of words involved in forming a competent critique that i fear you know not the meaning of what a true critique is. To even have read this (lackluster) review (you get review, not critique) i feel a little sadder for the idea of game critics. For shame

P.S. If you had given a much more developed critique of this game, i would not care less. I am berating your style and lack of understanding, not the score awarded :)

well...

i guess is a bit late to answer, isnt it Odofakyodo?

Infamous is definitely

Infamous is definitely better than GTAIV. A comparison with fallout is tougher but I didn't finish fallout but I did infamous.

Keep up the great work guys!

I just picked up this game a few weeks ago and finished it. Your review reflected many of the same feelings that I had with the game. After reading the comments I wanted to pop in and say a few things. As gamer it is extremely disheartening to see such angry and misguided anger from inFamous fans. Just disappointing to see the angry metacritic crowd ignorantly storming to Gamecritics with plenty to say. If they could only see how silly they look. What I really want to say is Brad, don't let them put you down! There are many gamers who enjoy the insightful reviews you constantly put out. You guys at gamecritics are a bright light in the dark sea of game critisim. Keep up the awesome work!

Thanks very much for the

Thanks very much for the kind words, Bondage! ^_^

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Code of Conduct

Comments are subject to approval/deletion based on the following criteria:
1) Treat all users with respect.
2) Post with an open-mind.
3) Do not insult and/or harass users.
4) Do not incite flame wars.
5) Do not troll and/or feed the trolls.
6) No excessive whining and/or complaining.

Please report any offensive posts here.

For more video game discussion with the our online community, become a member of our forum.

Our Game Review Philosophy and Ratings Explanations.

About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999–2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.