Jump to content


Somethings i hate about Critics


Recommended Posts

No offence to the people that are critics but i have read some of the bad stuff said about TFU and TFU 2 and i have to say i have played both games and i enjoy them no matter what is said. i mean Critics makes it sound like you should not buy the games and stuff like that i mean to be honest its the players choice to play the games. The Dark Side versions of the expansions to both Force Unleashed games are what ifs all they are, are alternate reality of the star wars universe. in the first game you kill darth vader and become the Emperor's assassin and you have to stop the rebel allience. in the second game you are the clone of starkiller doin darth vader's bidding who later gets betrayed by the Emperor after you kill Leia. Yea i have to admit that Han and Chewy die but thats the beauty of the alternate universe of Star Wars say what you want, i think the Force Unleashed 2 was made to be more like a movie of a game then a game i cant say i miss the after mission report even though the first game was good in my opinion but that after mission report was a tad bit annoying made me feel like i was taking small breaks. only thing i see glitch wise in TFU 2 is the no saber activation noise after you switch from the red crystal and from the dark side expansion the annoying saber tail from an unactive saber after killing han and chewy. other then this in my opinion i see nothing wrong with any of the The Force Unleashed games at all just wish the next mission and skin pack comes out soon. to me critics give a good game bad reputation before it is played by the players, yea ive seen some bad games that deserve the bad credit but critics say were good games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

That's kind of the point of a critical review. It's to give you information on the game and whether that person thought it was a worthwhile game or not. They're perfectly within their rights to say a game blows chunks and you shouldn't buy it.


If you agree with their criticisms, cool, if not then you may like it anyway. Not all reviews are helpful, but I think bashing critics because they don't like a game you happen to like doesn't make much sense. If only people who agreed with you were allowed to post reviews, that wouldn't be very helpful, since not everyone agrees with you anyway (and that goes for anyone here). It helps if I know what the person likes, but that's not always clear. So I like it when they say what they liked or didn't like, explaining why.


But it's not their job to only tell you the good things about a game and entice you to buy it. As long as a reviewer isn't lying, I am happy when they point out shortcomings in a product (here I'm speaking about a review of anything, not just of say, the Force Unleashed).


That said, some game companies (I'm not here pointing the finger at LucasArts, I'm just saying it happens) basically hold reviewers hostage. By that I mean let's say the writer works for a magazine or website, and that website or magazine is dependent upon advertising dollars to stay afloat. Let's say that the game company is one of those advertisers. Sometimes game companies put pressure on those sites/magazines that if they get too many bad reviews, they'll pull their ads. Thus, corruption enters in, so that they will only give positive reviews for their advertisers or risk losing that money. Hence, reviewers may fear that they'll be blamed for their site/mag losing advertising dollars and so feel pressure to give certain games a passing grade, even if they personally thought they were unworthy.


Another risk is that sometimes reviewers can be corrupted, because they may get free games, access to behind-the-scenes interviews and other freebies that may be taken as "bribes" to get them to give positive reviews, and they fear losing that access if they are too harsh on certain company's products.


Now all of those things of things would stem from companies that try to get good reviews by putting that kind of pressure on magazines/sites they interact with. In many cases these interests don't even represent the game developers themselves (as many games are so expensive nowadays they are managed by big companies more like movie companies, not just a small closely knit team of programmers and artists or even a single designer like in the old days). So it may not be the fault of the guys/gals who actually made the game even when it does happen. But somewhere down the line some of these companies become corrupt (by the Dark Side!).


On the other hand, while those risks of corruption exist, there are also those random online folks whom you don't know much about, who may not be held accountable or have any standards, that might give reviews for games they haven't played, or games they pirated and report technical problems that don't exist in the real product, etc. That sort of thing can happen too.


But putting all that aside, before I buy a game that I'm not already sure I am going to love, I read the reviews, I look at scores, to see what I'm getting myself into. I also value the input of other gamers, especially if I know they like the same kinds of things I like. If a demo version is available, I'll play that if I can, to see if it's a game I am willing to spend my money on. That said, I haven't paid full price for a game in a long, long time. I just don't have the spare cash to blow on a game, especially if it's going to be short and have limited replay value. So I wait until I get a bargain or a gift or whatever usually (patches, anyone?). That lets the dust settle as well and you can more easily separate the wheat from the chaff.


Anyway, that's my 25 cents worth. Don't get so upset if critics disagree with you, I say. Those reviews exist to help you, if you need them.


I personally didn't have a lot of problem with The Force Unleashed: Ultimate Sith Edition except that it felt a little buggy at times, and there were places where it seems they skimped on depth, while they really focused on other areas. Like it seems they pumped their time and effort mostly into making the cutscenes, beautiful architecture and graphics, weather, and the force physics, but they didn't spend much on making the saber combat complex and interesting from a skill based standpoint. They made too many of the battles into interactive cutscenes via the "quick time event" stuff. But the game does well what it sets out to do, which is to give you a good time messing around with the Force, and feeling like you're part of a Star Wars type story. Maybe if I had played the vanilla version first, I'd be upset that more wasn't added in this "special edition." I enjoyed the new missions, short as they were. I'm a little disappointed that the "alternate ending" wasn't expanded into a whole second campaign which would have been great. But I'm sure they were spending that time and money to create the sequel, which I'm just starting now. I've heard that criticized for having a weaker story and not enough new material to keep interest. I found the game so cheap I had to give it a chance. So I'll be the judge of that...

Edited by Kurgan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Well a few million of us were suckered into buying these games so a few people ought to be happy with them :p


But joking aside, if you enjoyed something you should just ignore what other people say. Otherwise you'll go nuts. I had the same feelings about "Singularity" developed by Raven. I thought that was the best shooter of 2010...and it bombed. That's just the way things roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...