Gamespot trolled metacritics and gave NS2 60 out of 100 review..
Mango
Join Date: 2012-10-11 Member: 162061Members
Join Date: 2012-10-11 Member: 162061Members
<div class="IPBDescription">This proves if you don't give these reviewers lavish gifts like AA</div>Eric Neigher from Gamespot gave 60/100 review in metacritics. I read his review and it is all about minor issues nothing to do with the game play. I find it very disturbing that if you don't pamper these critics with lavish gifts like AAA companies do they will backstabb you in back. I am using a 5 year old computer and this game runs great, but Eric Neigher was complaining about it seems like these critics are using older PC than mines. I believe it was a poor review and should be removed from metacritics. This is a guy who gave 85/100 to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, but i notice most of his reviews are very low 50/100, so he either a angry sad person or just doesn't get games. <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/search/?qs=Eric+Neigher" target="_blank">Eric Neigher total reviews mostly all low reviews</a> cause of this review this game is not in the top 90/100 mark.
Comments
Not to mention how he probably played the game from the sh*t laptop/PC he has at home.
But on the bright side reading the comments on that have sufficiently sated my rage for the actual review.
Most games don't even have tutorials. That is a pathetic reason to give a game a bad review. If you want tutorials go to youtube.
seriously... 'dated graphics' ???? it's a f***ing indie game. i played CSS on and off for years, about ~1000 total hours played and as much as i like CSGO as a sequel - there's no way that it's equal to or greater than NS2. CSGO is more popular because of CS reputation, but it is nowhere near a better game than NS2 and additionally, CSGO has no potential to improve - unlike NS2 which is almost limitless.
holy crap gamespot... consistency please. go back and edit your indie game reviews and take off 5 points for graphics... super meat boy 9.5? you're having a fking laugh... it looks worse than sega megadrive.
Eric Neigher has no grey matter, between his ears i'm pretty sure you'll find brown matter.
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.
You know what it's missing? Lens flare, shellshock motion blur and depth of field effect on your ironsights!
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and his persona judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how ###### that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth?
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sorry, but that is bs.
whenever someone searches ns2 on gamespot, they see a disgustingly WRONG 6/10.
i haven't seen such an unfair score since dead island got a 7/10 (should be at least an 8/10, even including the technical cockup at us release). i mean, giving a game a 9 or 10 is personal opinion, giving a game lower than an 8 is unadulterated damage - because you effectively label the game as 'mediocre'.
look at gamespot reviews and browse through the 6-7 scores... if you think NS2 is in the same league as those games, you're mistaken.
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
qft
i didn't post a comment, it's not worth it.
but he is right to get slammed...
if people want to read a reviewers personal opinion, then that's fine. but if his personal opinion is entirely biased and unfavourable then i might as well have asked a walrus to review the game for me.
when i read a gamespot review it's because i wanted insight, not because i want to rub my nose between the reviewers bum cheeks.
Game - Reviewer Rating - User Rating
Painkiller: Hell & Damnation - 67 - 1.8
Natural Selection 2 - 77 - 9.3
Need for Speed: Most Wanted - A Criterion Game - 82 - 4.5
Primal Carnage - 69 - 8.7
A Game of Dwarves - 55 - 7.4
Doom 3 BFG Edition - 60 - 4.6
War of the Roses - 75 - 6.0
Cortex Command - 48 - 6.0
WoW: Mists of Pandaria - 82 - 4.4
Tryst - 50 - 7.3
Diablo 3 - 88 - 3.8
Grow up and take a long look at yourself OP. You're butthurt because someone gave a bad review of a game you enjoy on the internet. If you don't agree with the review and the judgements made, there's no reason to go on a crusade. I thought it was incredibly unprofessional for UWE PR to purposefully incite forum users to start flaming the comments section on the review.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutorial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meanwhile Dark Souls has no tutorial, objective screen or clear thing to do and it gets a 9.5.
You can run around that game for hours without any clear directions dying 100s of times.
Not to mention the factual mistakes and downright inane statements like "it costs 30 bucks", "Part of the reason it's difficult is because it's well balanced." WTF?
He only talks about the marines and commander dependency on players to build and of course the cherry on the cake: The game needs "hours of grinding necessary to learn the units, maps, controls, and balance".
So playing online games constitutes as grinding now?
People need some silly treadmill like in CoD? Medals? Prestige?
That's just a sign that the game is too boring to be played for the reason we play games: TO HAVE FUN.
It's very obvious this is a rushed review, and I doubt he has more than 1 hour of NS2 playtime his steam account.
No mention of modding support, mapping tools, casts and tournaments, just 5 small paragraphs of "OMG NEED INTERACTIBE TUTORIALZ, GAEM TO HARD!".
Why are you even defending this sham? Disgusting.
I wouldn't let this guy review android/iOS games, they might be too complex and confusing.
The video tutorials as idea are not bad, the execution is. Specifically do they run like crap in Steam's browser overlay for some reason. I usually get fluent Youtube videos there, but the NS2 ones run like on half framerate, i.e. with so much stuttering that it's not worth to watch.
Game - Reviewer Rating - User Rating
Painkiller: Hell & Damnation - 67 - 1.8
Natural Selection 2 - 77 - 9.3
Need for Speed: Most Wanted - A Criterion Game - 82 - 4.5
Primal Carnage - 69 - 8.7
A Game of Dwarves - 55 - 7.4
Doom 3 BFG Edition - 60 - 4.6
War of the Roses - 75 - 6.0
Cortex Command - 48 - 6.0
WoW: Mists of Pandaria - 82 - 4.4
Tryst - 50 - 7.3
Diablo 3 - 88 - 3.8<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Users review on metacritic are even a worse way to judge a game
Why?
1)it's either 9/10s or 0/1s for most of the users
2)it's way too easy to sabotage and troll for people that have time,more so close to the release of a game
That's why user/professional scores are usually so different:professionals might have bad reviews amongst the total,but users' review are completly random
whenever someone searches ns2 on gamespot, they see a disgustingly WRONG 6/10.
i haven't seen such an unfair score since dead island got a 7/10 (should be at least an 8/10, even including the technical cockup at us release). i mean, giving a game a 9 or 10 is personal opinion, giving a game lower than an 8 is unadulterated damage - because you effectively label the game as 'mediocre'.
look at gamespot reviews and browse through the 6-7 scores... if you think NS2 is in the same league as those games, you're mistaken.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously, this horse has been dead a long time. Any respectable gamer knows that scores are a bad way of rating games and that metacritic is overall an incredibly harmful and abusable system.
If your goal is to fight against every unfair game review score out there, you also have to be prepared to fight the other way.
<a href="http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natural-selection-2-review/" target="_blank">http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natu...ction-2-review/</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We Disliked:
No proper tutorial, steep learning curve for the Commander role, Commander UI needs some work, loading times are long, some issues with running the game but may not apply to everybody
Our Final Take:
5 / 5 - Superb<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is 100% possible if there are dislikes very similar to the gamespot review? Are we seeing a credible trend in first impression dislikes?
Welcome to the internet. It's totally impractical to start trying to police every crappy review/er out there. You're making it sound like gamespot has a reputation as a credible source for game reviews anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-tarquinnbb+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tarquinnbb)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if people want to read a reviewers personal opinion, then that's fine. but if his personal opinion is entirely biased and unfavourable then i might as well have asked a walrus to review the game for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the only valid personal opinion is the popular opinion? what? The entire meaning of <b>personal opinion</b> is to be biased.
*
<!--quoteo(post=2015737:date=Nov 9 2012, 06:30 AM:name=Onii-chan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Onii-chan @ Nov 9 2012, 06:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2015737"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Meanwhile Dark Souls has no tutorial, objective screen or clear thing to do and it gets a 9.5.
You can run around that game for hours without any clear directions dying 100s of times.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is so what? Why does this matter? Oh no, darksouls got a better score than ns2 and the reviews have no standards! Does this actually surprise anyone? If you enjoy ns2, tell your friends about it - its borderline childish to get all up in arms about bad reviews on the internet.
No it isnt. 'This game causes cancer' would be slander, 'i dont like this game' isnt.
Whilst its a bad review he does have some legitimate points. Lack of a tutorial is a serious oversight for a game like this, in spots texture work does look dated whilst the game itself eats computing power and balance is a wee bit awkward right now.
As for those who are crying because its a bad review, grow up it happens.
I keep seeing people saying he made gross factual errors yet all i see is an error on pricing. Aside from this single error, he really doesn't lie nor maliciously misrepresent NS2. It isn't really even a review per say but a statement of opinion and personal judgement of the game. That it affected metacritic goes to show once again how silly that system is anyway - did we all forget that what has, and will continue to drive ns2 is word of mouth? Crappy reviews are just that, crappy.
It's absolutely understandable to quickly form a negative first impression from the hackneyed way the ns2 tutoa rial system works. Youtube video links of all things, some of which are incredibly longwinded. No doubt UWE is aware of it and will most likely improve on it in time as they do all things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A couple of things.
There are more errors in this "article" than just pricing. Most people pointed this out simply because it has been confirmed by a dev.
Honestly, whatever level of professionalism has gone out of the window the minute that article was released. I really do wonder how it got past the editors (or lack thereof maybe?) at Gamespot.
Below is a response I wrote to an user comment explaining why I thought the author did not so much as making it past a single game before he posted this rubbish of an article, which is judging a book by its cover in everything besides the literal sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except on this review, it sounds like Mr. Neigher didn't even spend a tenth of that time on the game. Many of the statements he made about the game makes it sound like he spent very little time on the game.
For example, he makes complaints regarding commanders yelling at newbies who are running around cluelessly. Over the 80 or so hours I have put in so far, I have ran into perhaps 3 matches where the commander does this. I find it very hard to believe that he is continuously running into bad commanders or that the same bad commander is taking helm through the matches that he has played.
Another example is the load time that he complains about. While the game does take a long time to load on the first match (which should have been part of the installation in my opinion), the subsequent matches load in a fraction of that time. While there are people complaining about loading time issues, the extremely long load time only occurs on the VERY FIRST MATCH. As such, I am having a very hard time believing that Mr. Neigher here has played over a single match.
Finally, if Mr. Neigher has played over even one single match, he would realize that the player composition of any given server changes every match, with people picking the sides they join each time they start a new match. I fail to see how a system like this would ensure that new players would lose over and over again. As such, I cannot place any faith in the author having played the game for longer than a single match.
There are many more points that I find questionable, more than I care to address, but having played the game and observing Eric's remarks about the three points I have mentioned above, I don't see how this article is informative or helpful to anyone in any way, shape, or form. It's bad enough that he not not spend enough time to properly assess the product, many of his observations and remarks seem to be based on erroneous findings due to his lack of experience with the product.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He does have some valid points, but the vast majority of it lost relevance after he spent a page ranting on how hard the game is and would otherwise prevent most anyone from enjoying the game.
Game - Reviewer Rating - User Rating
Painkiller: Hell & Damnation - 67 - 1.8
Natural Selection 2 - 77 - 9.3
Need for Speed: Most Wanted - A Criterion Game - 82 - 4.5
Primal Carnage - 69 - 8.7
A Game of Dwarves - 55 - 7.4
Doom 3 BFG Edition - 60 - 4.6
War of the Roses - 75 - 6.0
Cortex Command - 48 - 6.0
WoW: Mists of Pandaria - 82 - 4.4
Tryst - 50 - 7.3
Diablo 3 - 88 - 3.8<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Users review can be a good warning sign when you see a huge difference between "critics" and gamers but they're easily votebombed and trolled for various reasons that can be irrelevant to some people like DRM, day1 DLC abuse etc.
Just another of metacritic's and the general 1-10 numbered review system's flaws.
A factually wrong review is going to get trashed as this one is in the comments, especially when it's a known incompetent reviewers who rushed through it in 2 hours.
Really I din't mind if they keep it, and they'll likely will, it's just another nail in gamespot's slowly descending coffin.
It's probably better if it stays as the amount of drama it causes brings NS2 more spotlight than a 8.0 or whatever would. :3
If your goal is to fight against every unfair game review score out there, you also have to be prepared to fight the other way.
<a href="http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natural-selection-2-review/" target="_blank">http://pcgmedia.com/video-game-review/natu...ction-2-review/</a>
How is 100% possible if there are dislikes very similar to the gamespot review? Are we seeing a credible trend in first impression dislikes?
Welcome to the internet. It's totally impractical to start trying to police every crappy review/er out there. You're making it sound like gamespot has a reputation as a credible source for game reviews anyway.
*
The point is so what? Why does this matter? Oh no, darksouls got a better score than ns2 and the reviews have no standards! Does this actually surprise anyone? If you enjoy ns2, tell your friends about it - its borderline childish to get all up in arms about bad reviews on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never played a game and came away and said to myself "you know, this game has absolutely no problems, is completely and totally perfectly designed, and is pretty much my favorite game ever". True perfection is an unrealistic goal. Playing any video game is an exercise in finding the good around the bad. I think a review reflects how easily it is to see the good against how much the bad distracts from it.
NS2 does have long loading times, and needs more work in the tutorials... but the loading times aren't intolerable, and the comunity is friendly enough to explain things, in game, on the forums, on the IRC, on your own review site when you post a bad review.... Everywhere.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 does have long loading times<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It had long loading times for maybe two days. The first patch improved my loading times to roughly twice as fast as those in current-day TF2.
There are more errors in this "article" than just pricing. Most people pointed this out simply because it has been confirmed by a dev.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-onii-chan+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (onii-chan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A factually wrong review is going to get trashed as this one is in the comments, especially when it's a known incompetent reviewers who rushed through it in 2 hours.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Care to provide quote evidence of said errors? I honestly challenge people to do so. I've yet to see a single quote in support of said gross factual errors besides pricing.
I mean this with all respect, but simply 'hugh confirmed it' does not cut it. He isn't exactly rational when it comes to matters concerning negativity towards ns2 (understandably).