Army of Two- Another reason why I hate critics

Gamerankings- 75%

Now, I've come to look past scores and numbers when it comes to critical view of a game, but there's a bigger problem at hand when it comes to the low-average marks that Army of Two got; the reviews are completely ridiculous.

Just about every time I saw one of them getting heat on the game, it was because of something like "The story and premise is stupid", or "The levels are too linear", or "The enemies are the same over and over. Yet numerous other games, most of the time, every single other shooter, features the same 'problems', and doesn't get trashed for it.
The best part comes when the majority of critical reviews lambast it for the underwhelming single player. Despite the fact that it was clearly designed and developed for the co-op experience, endless critics bashed it harshly for the single player simply because it was there. It's beginning to be a really irritating and downright petty reason for grading a game so low, epsecially when so many FPS on the market today have mediocre campaigns and still are glorified.

I know I work for a video game site and to some extent I'm one of the 'critics', but I just felt like restating how stupid certain parts of video game journalism are, and why critics today are becoming less and less trustworthy.

By the way, go play Army of Two. It rocks.

Giant Bomb Review

I generally trust Jeff Gerstmann's reviews, so I don't think I'll be buying this game.

Yeah I never listen to cirtics... i stopped listening to them long ago.
They've bashed so many gaes that I enjoy, and yet I still LOVE them!
I mean, come on, they didn't like Fire Embelm on the Wii because they said it was "too hard..."
Umm... If your a critic your supposed to play all types of games, and not judge it on hardness...
So yeah critics base on their opinions and eveyone has different ones; so, don't trust others unless you've played it first!

So, the game is good but not great, and gets a 75% review score average.

I don't understand your complaint. Is the average score not high enough for you? The reviews don't say it's a bad game, but that it's good, with some flaws, like a poor single-player campaign with shoddy AI and no LAN co-op play. From what I've seen, it seems like a decent game with a terrible story and reprehensible characters, tried-and-true shooter mechanics with a smattering of innovation, and a good online mode. Nobody's saying that the game isn't worth buying or that it's no fun.

^ Like I said, it's not really the scores, but the actual criticisms that don't make sense. The 'faults' that many critics have pointed out and thusly trashed the game for are beyond petty, and in some cases, hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Jeff

^ Like I said, it's not really the scores, but the actual criticisms that don't make sense. The 'faults' that many critics have pointed out and thusly trashed the game for are beyond petty, and in some cases, hypocritical.

I don't think I saw anything that was beyond petty (assuming you mean less than petty and not greater than), nor hypocritical. Please tell me how "the single-player sucks and the story is not just ****ty, but in disgusting taste" are not valid points to make against the game.

Because it obviously wasn't meant to be much of a single player experience; it was made for co-op. Is Brawl a fantastic single player experience? Not really, but it's not slapped around for that. Galaxy's multiplayer certainly isn't very compelling, but that was barely touched upon in reviews.

And story should never bring a game down that much, as the gameplay is what matters most. Otherwise, puzzlers, racers and fighters would always suffer greatly in this regard.

I do not bother listening critics much. I might read some of them to get a feel of what I might expect. But never do I take them to heart.

I rather play the game or watch the movie/show to get a first hand experience then to listen to someone who may or may not have the same taste as I do.

Honestly the kind of stuff your talking reminds of a review I read for the second .hack game that came out for the PS2 (don't remember the name) in an EGM magazine. One of the reviewers stated in the review that they did not play the first game yet in the review they complained that they didnt know what was going on. I laughed so much when I read that and still do when I think about it.


Anyway I agree that sometimes reviewers can be hypocritical. If any reviewer complains about the enemies in a shooter looking all the same in one game but doesnt in another then they are very much being hypocritical. With very few exceptions every enemy in a shooter looks the same.

Originally Posted by sea

So, the game is good but not great, and gets a 75% review score average.

You obviously aren't familiar with the absurdity that is game review scores.

In those, anything under an 80% is probably not worth buying, and if it's under 70% it's crap.

They don't actually need the rest of the numbers from 1-68, since the only games that go there are so terrible that you'd never buy them anyways.

If you actually look at the review scores handed out by Gamespot and IGN you'll find that there are, essentially, no entries from 1%-59%. There's a sudden jump in the 60s, though it's not huge, then a huge one into the 70s, but the 80s are where it reaches it's staggering height, followed by a plummet in the 90s.

So, this leads to several bizarre conclusions:
75% is not average, it's "low end of the bell curve"
80% is somewhere between good and exceptional.
85% means it's one of the best games ever.
All ratings above 85% are equal.


So a game has to be considered rather bad to get a 75%.



Yeah, it's a stupid system caused by selection bias (mostly big-budget games are reviewed, which tend to be better) and advertising money boosting the score. It's also why you'll see people fight over a game getting 84% when they feel it should've gotten 87%; the spectrum that's actually used is so small (40% in total, and most reviews fall within a smaller 15% band) that every percentage point counts.)

Originally Posted by Tazryl

I do not bother listening critics much. I might read some of them to get a feel of what I might expect. But never do I take them to heart.

I rather play the game or watch the movie/show to get a first hand experience then to listen to someone who may or may not have the same taste as I do.

Quoted for truth

Originally Posted by Otaking

Honestly the kind of stuff your talking reminds of a review I read for the second .hack game that came out for the PS2 (don't remember the name) in an EGM magazine. One of the reviewers stated in the review that they did not play the first game yet in the review they complained that they didnt know what was going on. I laughed so much when I read that and still do when I think about it.


Anyway I agree that sometimes reviewers can be hypocritical. If any reviewer complains about the enemies in a shooter looking all the same in one game but doesnt in another then they are very much being hypocritical. With very few exceptions every enemy in a shooter looks the same.

Yeah i love .hack games... They are basically amazing! You could have been talking about .hack//G.U. or .hack (the 4 series one). But your absolutly right, cirtics said the game was repetitive, but I LOVE the games to death and they have one of the best storylines I've ever played...

I'm glad there are others around here that think as I do. I was in a parallel argument in the Critical of Ocarina of Time thread.

To recap, we must realize that these reviews are generally a person's own biased opinions. Theirs. Not ours. We must form our own opinion. Just because some doofus says that a game sucks in his review, it doesn't mean that it really does. It's just what he thinks about the game.

Reading reviews are fun, but I'm not about to let them form my opinion for me.

...Especially when they degrade things for the dumbest reasons, like the example in the first post. Reminds me of when Super Mario Galaxy was bashed for its story. *Face palm*

I listen to IGN, cause there a lot like X-Play, sometimes pickier. And I know a game is good and worth buying when they give it a 9.0 or better. Here is how it goes for me:

I generally see a new game announced on IGN/ or sometimes Gametrailers and if it attracts me I follow it. I follow it until I realize it's not the game for me or it's been previewed/reviewed. Now if it's a game I know I want and I'm gonna like I just watch/read the reviews for entertainment and curiosity. But other than that I usually don't buy a game that gets a 7.9 or lower. Or if the reviews are really varied, then I probably won't buy it.

Now I bought No More Heroes which IGN gave like a 7.5, And I think Gametrailers gave it a similiar rating. (Probably higher, cause there more linient and you naver can trust GT on controls... It's true most ppl will tell you.) I bought it cause I had followed it for a while and some other reviewers gave it 8.0's. But then I sold it. It just wasn't my game... and I rated it a 6.5 out of 10.

Now I haven't played Army of Two. I don't have a 360/PS3 so it's unlikely I would be playing it soon. I have to admit, I thought it looked pretty fun, and I think I can trust EA. That's who developed it I think.

I agree though, you cannot fully put your trust into reviewers. Espeacially Gamespot and X-Play. Both are really opinion based. X-Play advertises there not, but if you really listen to the show, well you can't have that much experience trashing a game and not be more opinion based.

Originally Posted by AMP1317

Yeah I never listen to cirtics... i stopped listening to them long ago.
They've bashed so many gaes that I enjoy, and yet I still LOVE them!
I mean, come on, they didn't like Fire Embelm on the Wii because they said it was "too hard..."
Umm... If your a critic your supposed to play all types of games, and not judge it on hardness...
So yeah critics base on their opinions and eveyone has different ones; so, don't trust others unless you've played it first!

Fire Emblem is too hard. I bought it a few days ago...died three times on the prologue. And have yet to beat the first mission after the prologue. Fire Emblem radiant dawn was pretty much designed for fans of the series. Me being someone who plays RPGs ALL THE TIME, expected this game to be possible to beat, but I guess it's not because I've never beaten a Fire Emblem game before. I wanted to get Path of Radiance but never got around to it, I guess now I'm being punished by god because for once I can't beat a game I own. Now back to the point.


Basically, throughout that whole first post when you said things like "epsecially when so many FPS on the market today have mediocre campaigns and still are glorified." All I wanted to do was scream "HALO" to the heavens.

Yeah, it's a stupid system caused by selection bias (mostly big-budget games are reviewed, which tend to be better) and advertising money boosting the score. It's also why you'll see people fight over a game getting 84% when they feel it should've gotten 87%; the spectrum that's actually used is so small (40% in total, and most reviews fall within a smaller 15% band) that every percentage point counts.)

I agree its a stupid system, but I think the trend is influenced mostly by the mental projection of the academic grading system upon the scores, in which 0-60 is a failure, 60-70 is below average, and so on, than a slanted system . That's why I prefer an actual letter grade system for reviews, because those are more widely understood than a percentage or even ten point range.

Originally Posted by xxRaxx

X-Play

Now they are the absolute worst reviewers in the world. I remember when the reviewed Killzone for the PS2. They complained that you shot bullets instead of lasers and that the enemies wore helmets while your characters didnt. And don't even get me started on their review of The Darkness. They stated that your Darkness powers were absolutly useless in the game but if you actually play the game you'd know that without them you can't beat the game.

G4 in general is full of the biggest idiots in the gaming industry.

Originally Posted by Otaking

Now they are the absolute worst reviewers in the world. I remember when the reviewed Killzone for the PS2. They complained that you shot bullets instead of lasers and that the enemies wore helmets while your characters didnt. And don't even get me started on their review of The Darkness. They stated that your Darkness powers were absolutly useless in the game but if you actually play the game you'd know that without them you can't beat the game.

G4 in general is full of the biggest idiots in the gaming industry.

...I'll level with you, yes bad reviewers, yes Kristin Holt (However you spell it) is a liar, she's not a gamer at all. Olivia Munn is...Ican't explain her she's..I don't know. But Kevin Pereira is a god.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

I'm glad there are others around here that think as I do. I was in a parallel argument in the Critical of Ocarina of Time thread.

To recap, we must realize that these reviews are generally a person's own biased opinions. Theirs. Not ours. We must form our own opinion. Just because some doofus says that a game sucks in his review, it doesn't mean that it really does. It's just what he thinks about the game.

Reading reviews are fun, but I'm not about to let them form my opinion for me.

...Especially when they degrade things for the dumbest reasons, like the example in the first post. Reminds me of when Super Mario Galaxy was bashed for its story. *Face palm*

Again quoted for truth...

Originally Posted by Forte

Fire Emblem is too hard. I bought it a few days ago...died three times on the prologue. And have yet to beat the first mission after the prologue. Fire Emblem radiant dawn was pretty much designed for fans of the series. Me being someone who plays RPGs ALL THE TIME, expected this game to be possible to beat, but I guess it's not because I've never beaten a Fire Emblem game before. I wanted to get Path of Radiance but never got around to it, I guess now I'm being punished by god because for once I can't beat a game I own. Now back to the point.


Basically, throughout that whole first post when you said things like "epsecially when so many FPS on the market today have mediocre campaigns and still are glorified." All I wanted to do was scream "HALO" to the heavens.

Not quite... My mate bought the game, never played a single game in the series and got halfway through the game pretty easily... He also usually plays games like MGS4, and is not much of an RPG buff... He still did decent though... ANd I played a little bit of it, and didn't do half bad.