Generally favorable reviews- based on 60 Ratings
May 13, 2011Yet another brilliant game that was way ahead of the curve. This game was never going to be a critical success like Halo (et al.) because itYet another brilliant game that was way ahead of the curve. This game was never going to be a critical success like Halo (et al.) because it demanded a lot from the player, it really is for the hardcore gamer. This is due to the very flexible combat system which enables you to dispatch the bad guys in almost any way you could imagine, resulting in great replay value. There is a huge variety of guns and hand to hand techniques to keep you busy, or my favorite, sneak up behind someone and break their arms. I think the reason this game reviewed badly was because you cannot passively experience this game and expect to win (I'm looking at you, Bad Company 2). The game provides the player with the tools to experience a manga-esque sandbox, so its really up to you to come up with a viable strategy to have fun. Reviewers that bagged this game probably wouldn't get Minecraft either.… Full Review »
GuangmianK.Nov 20, 2006It is a great game, so good and intense that the graphics do not matter at all. I love it, and i hate all who put it down.
Nov 19, 2013Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)
(If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (IfSingle Player/Multi Player (2/2)
(If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)
(If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)
(Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)
This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.
The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.
The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.
Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section
The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.… Full Review »