Code Name S.T.E.A.M.

An hour of gameplay.

 
4/10??

That's really laughable. When I think a 4/10 game, I think of like a movie-licensed game.
 
The above two posts are a microcosm of why mainstream vidya reviews are, were, and willl always remain terminally fucked.
 
Look I have no problem with rating the game, like, say, 7/10, even a 6/10 for an average outlier of, say, a Metacritic average of 76 which implies it's a functioning game with some sort of enjoyment for some people. But a 4/10 implies that the game is below-average (5/0) and it's a great outlier compared to the typical deviation of the game (which ranges from 6's-8's out of tens). I kinda get what GameSpot is trying to say with their review but I think a 4/10 is a little too harsh for it.

It's fine to disagree with a score, that's what I'm saying. For example, I think IGN's review of the game is a bit more fair and honest than Gamespot's. Hell I think Destructoid's score is more reasonable than Gamespot's, and it scored a 6.5.
 
The problem isn't disagreeing with the score, it's dismissing entirely based on the score.

Like, shit, I'm not even defending gamespot. I know they're generally terrible. I know the writer probably thinks videogames started with the NES, holds contempt for anything other than third-person cinematic cover shooter, and plays with less proficiency than a blind child wearing an helmet filled with bees. Hell, if I look at the metacritic excerpt of the review...

Code Name: S.T.E.A.M. offers the most frustrating kind of steampunk: It brushes up against potent themes, but then turns its back on them in favor of pure aestheticization.
Click to expand...

... I can somehow predict a review written by someone sincerely butthurt that a cartoony strategy game starring a gun-wielding Abrahan Lincoln isn't exploring the RICH AESTHETIC OF STEAMPUNK isn't going to be a beacon of cogent insight. But you two didn't dismiss the review because it is poorly written, or factually innacurate, or any other factor that could cause one to reasonably discount something, but because of the numerical rating the review is attached to. Because other publications gave it a different number. For a game that won't be out until another 10 hours. That's a problem.
 
Hmm I wonder who reviewed that game

EDIT: oh thought it wouldve been Jeff Gerstman

haha

(yes that was the 8,8/10 twilight princess guy)
 
Glowsquid said:
The problem isn't disagreeing with the score, it's dismissing entirely based on the score.

Like, shit, I'm not even defending gamespot. I know they're generally terrible. I know the writer probably thinks videogames started with the NES, holds contempt for anything other than third-person cinematic cover shooter, and plays with less proficiency than a blind child wearing an helmet filled with bees. Hell, if I look at the metacritic excerpt of the review...

Code Name: S.T.E.A.M. offers the most frustrating kind of steampunk: It brushes up against potent themes, but then turns its back on them in favor of pure aestheticization.
Click to expand...

... I can somehow predict a review written by someone sincerely butthurt that a cartoony strategy game starring a gun-wielding Abrahan Lincoln isn't exploring the RICH AESTHETIC OF STEAMPUNK isn't going to be a beacon of cogent insight. But you two didn't dismiss the review because it is poorly written, or factually innacurate, or any other factor that could cause one to reasonably discount something, but because of the numerical rating the review is attached to. Because other publications gave it a different number. For a game that won't be out until another 10 hours. That's a problem.
Click to expand...
thank you
 
I don't know, usually a review that's this low-scored usually doesn't really write well in the first place unless they really have something valid to say (Polygon on Bayonetta 2 has given a lower score than average but not THIS low, and their opinion is pretty valid imo). I already check out the review anyway if I see the score; the review barely says anything about the gameplay except that it's slow or something, it's hard to tell since it's rambling about I don't know what, the visuals?

The Janitor said:
Hmm I wonder who reviewed that game

EDIT: oh thought it wouldve been Jeff Gerstman

haha

(yes that was the 8,8/10 twilight princess guy)
Click to expand...

8.8/10 score is a great score so....uh?
 
Baby Luigi said:
8.8/10 score is a great score so....uh?
Click to expand...

there was a huge shitstorm following that because in 2006 the general gamespot/gamefaqs zelda fanbase considered a game scoring lower than 9/10 as unworthy or something

that guy is also known for hating yoshi and everything associated with him
 
Yeah I heard about it.

It's awful. "OH NOES DAT ZELDA GAME GOT A B+ WAAAAAHHHHH"

even low scores for my favorite games just warrant an eye roll from me at worst.
 
I'm interested in this for the plot.
does it require the L button?
 
This game is pretty rad. Beat the first boss yesterday.

henry fleming for smash 5 please
 
I got this game a while ago, I'm on the seventh mission and it's pretty fun, though it has some annoying maps sometimes. Also the online is horribly underused, it took me ten minutes to get a match and you can't even offer a rematch. I got wrecked though, so it wasn't like I planned on playing much more, but still.

If anyone found the length of the alien turns to be a problem, they gave this game an update; they now have a clearly existent fast forward button, but keep in mind this makes it hard to overwatch. Still very nice to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back