I think he's saying that we didn't have time to make sure our scores meshed up with everyone else's.
Printable View
I think he's saying that we didn't have time to make sure our scores meshed up with everyone else's.
By "meshed up with everyone else's" do you mean "were based in reality"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
Sure don't.
That IGN review was painful to read. Do they even have editors?
No, but it's very telling when you don't. Still, no harm done, anyone stupid enough to use HGM as a buying guide deserves to miss out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
LOL.Quote:
Innovation has been the key to DS's success in the past year. Nintendo risked all by offering a cheaper, more innovative product, rather than embracing macho consumerism ala PSP. It is this innovation that sets DS products apart as well, making the "good" games less than appealing, and the "great" games legends. In true Nintendo fashion, when people think of the DS they will remember the first party greats. Games like Advanced Wars, Mario Kart, and Animal Crossing come to mind as the pinnacle that all games hope to achieve. Every once in a while, however, an outsider is allowed into the hierarchy of gaming goodness. We've seen this with Tony Hawk DS, and we see it again now with Age of Empires: The Age of Kings.
This writing is as bad as the Dailyradar Majora's Mask review, its just not as memorable because its so fucking dull and clunky. I am constantly amazed at how incompetent the supposed flagship of online videogame sites is. I would never trust the opinion of anyone who writes a review like that.
So HGM lets other review scores influence theirs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
No, and g0zen, I don't see how having different scores than most is a bad thing. We're supposed to be standing out as a publication after all.
Standing out due to quality is one thing, standing out due to delusional reviewing and garbage design is another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy
Im not gonna hate on HGM because they scored this game different from everyone else. I played Empire Earth 2 and thought it was the biggest piece of shit ever. But go check the reviews for it. While I like to believe that those guys are clueless and just thought "AOE2 + RoN + more crap = better", that may not be the case.
The magazine sucks big time but this isnt a reason why. What matters is how they backed up their arguments (and IGN isn't exactly making a great case here).