DiRT 3 arrives in 2011, Gamespot gvies Starcraft II a 9.5 and IGN has gone nuts!!!!!!
August 02, 2010
i dont know Gamespot's review seems a bit biased....its ALLLLLLLL praise and seems the game has no faults whatsoever.....i havent got it yet so i dont know what the game is all about.....anyone here got it yet???
IGN has lost it it seems.....instead of reviewing Starcraft II they currently have a main feature about 'how ugly Starcraft II can get....apparently a useless and stupid graphical comparison...didnt bother clicking on it.....maybe their copy of Starcraft II was lost in the mail and they also dont wanna pay $10 extra than a normal PC game for this one....
aaaaaaaand the best news of the day so far....Codemasters has announced DiRT 3 at X-Games 16....hopefully this one will have dynamic weather and from the trailer that was shown it seems it will have explosions on the track of some sort.....no details, only time will tell....
| Most recent blog posts from Sohail Saleem... | |
| Feedback | |
 |
Lewis - August 03, 2010 (12:35 AM) Ugh. Okay. StarCraft II has been getting phenomenal reviews across the board. Personally I don't think it's quite that good, though I enjoyed it a lot. But Gamespot is far from the only site giving it a glowing review. What possible reason would the website have to be biased? Think about it. As for the IGN stuff, well, while StarCraft II does look beautiful, there have been several reports of certain graphics cards not getting on so well with it. And review copy lost in the post? No, I'd imagine not, but Blizzard did prevent journalists from playing the game ahead of launch. The singleplayer game alone lasts upwards of 20 hours, and that's without even tackling the multiplayer. Unless IGN were prepared to allow their reviewer 100% of working hours to play the game, instead of writing, I'd imagine that's why it's taken so long. This no-reviews-before-launch thing was widely reported. It kinda feels like you're throwing around accusations without understanding how it's all worked. |
 |
blood-omen - August 03, 2010 (12:44 AM) i dont mind IGN being late with their review but its not like IGN to be late with their reviews....they usually are among the first few who get a review up and running.... yeah i cant also believe that Starcraft II can be THAT GOOD.....praise praise praise thats all ive seen.....ill get the game over this weekend hopefully and then see for myself.... |
|
blood-omen - August 03, 2010 (12:45 AM) oh and i was just kidding about the review copy being lost in the mail....they are probably using it as a coffee mug stand.... |
 |
fleinn - August 03, 2010 (05:55 AM) :p Reasons why Gamespot would skew their reviews: .. .. 1004: They use their forums as an indicator for what their audience wants, and will adjust their scores to fit with that. Specially noticeable after betas. 1005: They actively wish to avoid antagonizing anyone who might have an interest in the game. 1006: Their reviews typically go for an "impression" style, so anything can be adjusted up or down at will. |
|
blood-omen - August 03, 2010 (08:07 AM) for me Gamespot has been a source of inspiration.....i like to imitate their writing style(s) so even when i dont like their scores, i still like reading the reviews coz it gives me something to read..... |
 |
zippdementia - August 03, 2010 (10:52 AM) IGN is all about hits. To get hits, you have to do something no one else is doing AKA bashing Starcraft II. We all know, in the film industry, that ANY press is good press. And sometimes, bad press is better press. |
|
blood-omen - August 03, 2010 (12:12 PM) hahahaha!!!!!! good one Ben |
 |
Halon - August 03, 2010 (06:49 PM) Scores tend to be inflated beyond belief to the point where scores like 9.5 and 9.0 really don't mean much anymore since so many games are getting them. I think Nick Evil even mentioned this on Segabastard once (think he called it the "Play problem" or something after Play magazine): every year or two there seems to be a new standard for the genre or best game ever or whatever they call it. So either today's games are making yesterday's games obsolete or people are getting too caught up in what's new and flashy and forgetting to take a step back and actually analyze the game for a moment. For the record, I hear Starcraft 2 is basically an update to one of the best and most balanced RTS of all time. At least that's the multiplayer portion; haven't heard much about singleplayer but SC's hasn't aged well at all, so it can't be much worse. |
 |
hmd - August 03, 2010 (07:37 PM) http://gamejournos.tumblr.com/ |
|
blood-omen - August 03, 2010 (09:36 PM) yeah i do agree....a lot of games have started getting high scores these days so i guess we can expect what kind of ratings Fallout: New Vegas, CoD: Black Ops etc will get..... |
 |
Suskie - August 03, 2010 (11:15 PM) I didn't buy into the StarCraft II hype and I don't think it quite deserves all of the phenomenal praise it's received since, as Sportsman said, it's pretty much just a graphical update and little more. That said, It's still a great game, and I'm actually pleasantly surprised by how much the campaign has been improved without changing any of the basic mechanics. I can easily see myself giving it a 9/10, though I'm far from finished with the game. |
 |
True - August 03, 2010 (11:25 PM) I remember I said that same thing about Prototype, and made the mistake of reviewing it when I was 6/8ths of the way through. And they completely fucked it up right at the end, and I probably would have dropped my score by two--if not three--points. |
 |
honestgamer - August 04, 2010 (12:00 AM) At least you didn't review it when you were 3/4 of the way through it, True! |
|
True - August 04, 2010 (12:06 AM) Er...dumb mistake on my part. 3/4s. |
|
Suskie - August 04, 2010 (12:14 AM) Really? I thought Prototype's last two boss battles were actually pretty sick. But yeah, I won't be reviewing StarCraft II until I've finished the campaign and spent some time with all three races online. I haven't had as much time as I'd like with the game but I'm hoping to get some serious playtime in over the next week. |
|
True - August 04, 2010 (12:33 AM) The bosses were cool, but I was sorely disappointed with the ending, as well as how chaotic things became. I couldn't go anywhere without a seemingly unending battle with hundreds of soldiers--even when I was trying to do something as simple as a side-quest. |
|
Suskie - August 04, 2010 (12:39 AM) That became my big problem with Prototype. The game just turned into a sensory overload after a while where everything was just bam bam bam. Anyway. |
|
blood-omen - August 04, 2010 (01:47 AM) totally agree with the Prototype mayhem but it was good game and thankfully not a sequel....a welcome new IP.... as for Starcraft II....I WANT THAT GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
zippdementia - August 04, 2010 (06:48 AM) Good one, Ben, but Mel Gibson makes more money every minute than you or I make in combined salaries. So, yes. It is good press. I've been playing Starcraft II the last two days when I can get a moment. I think it's amazing simply because it is mostly a graphical update. Changing the base mechanics would be stupid of Blizzard. They've touched it up here and there with some much improved (and much needed) AI paths and a few more hotkeys, but it retains the beauty of the original game. I'm glad they didn't go the Warcraft route and make it overly micro-managed, though. It is much faster paced and way harder. I'm having fun just trying to beat the early levels on Brutal. Hard I can get with little trouble, but brutal is... well, brutal! You have to know the level inch by inch and execute your plan with no errors. Even beating the first mission leaves Raynor at about 16 health if you do it right: 2 hits away from death. Very exciting. |
|
blood-omen - August 05, 2010 (10:07 PM) if i dont get this game this weekend, there will be some serious ass-whopping...... |
|
© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors. |