I ll use few words, to get to the point. Resistance on Ps3: 9.1 Wind Waker on gamecube: 9.6 Twilight princess: 9.5 GoW: 9.4 If Wind Wake was 9.6 and it wasnt the greatest Zelda ever..then why the hell did TP score lower? It is sufficiently certain that TP>WW, without looking at any reviews at all. GoW is a great game, from what I ve heard people talking, so 9.4 may indeed reflect the quality of the game overally. Which in turn bares the question, why the fuck did Resistance:Fall of Man get a 9.1? is it that good? I highly doubt it. It may be the only Ps3 title worth playing for a good while, but putting it in the same tier as Zelda and GoW just comes to show how biased these people are. Is it so hard to admit that the Ps3 doesn't have a single "perfect" game/killer app during its launch?? I don't get IGN. At times they seem to push hard , and claim to be "tough and rough" in scoring games, yet I turn around and see widely accepted games under-rated and generic stuff like Resistance being praised. They should be shot in the nut. And to think they have so many readers every day that depend on their opinion to spend cash. Poor fools will probably go and buy Resistance , thinking that its the same class of a game as GoW on 360, or the masterpiece that is bound to be Zelda (fanboyism's aside, nintendo makes sure zelda rocks, its no joke - they have the man-power and the experience to make it rock as well) quoting: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is, in my opinion, the greatest Zelda game ever created and one of the best launch titles in the history of launch titles – second only, perhaps, to the at-the-time ground-breaking Super Mario 64. It is also one of the finest games I have ever played. ...and then he turns around and slaps a score lower than WW, OoT and Majora's Mask. Very consistent. In the following replies, I would be more than glad to hear an opinion about Resistance from someone who has actually played it.
Zelda WW and TP were both done by Matt, no excuse there. As for different "channels" having different reviewers, a general consistency test must be applied in order to have valid opinions. I know people who loved games such as FIFA and hated games such as Zelda:OoT, but is that really the type of people who reflect the majority of gamers? Hopefully not.
The last IGN review I have read was the DoW: Dark Crusade and Destroy all humans 2 one. Anyways, I don't usually take most online site's reviews that seriously. Some of them don't want to upset their sponsors, you know. I reviewed GTA:SA in my profile at Gamespot in a negative light, and how I didn't really like it, and my review was taken down and I was warned for "trolling". EGM gives JRPGs bad scores for having a "very Japanese storyline" for Christ's sake! I've agreed with some of their reviews, from EGM to Gamespot to IGN, but they give undeserving popular titles more love than they deserve. Or too much loving for the games own good. Whenever I review things, I only review in .5s. I don't understand rating something as 9.65554 or whatever.
but come on.Resistance, a near perfect game?Since when? if it's so good, why the fuck isnt the PS3 selling 1:1 with it like it happened with SM64 and will happen with Zelda?
Reviews aren't about scores. It's about what they say about the game. If you say: This game sucks. The graphics aren't very good. I give the graphics a 5 out 10. That helps no one. If you say, the framerate is sluggish, the textures in some areas are bland, the play control is poor, etc. That helps people make up their mind.
