Two Reviews Of The Same Game


Published By: Lucy O'Brien   On: Friday 4 Jun 2010 10:00 AM
Two Reviews Of The Same Game

NB: Take seriously at own Risk

Opening Paragraph

Reviewer A:

Ladies and Gentlemen: this is not a videogame. This is something else entirely.

This is a religious experience.

Reviewer B:

This game is a lazy product from a lazy developer who obviously only worked on it three hours a day in between spending their sweet mega-buck salaries on hookers in Vegas.

Reviewer A:

It’s tough, being a games reviewer. To find things to criticize in a medium you love. It can ruin the joy, that innocent pleasure you feel when playing a game. I would know. I’ve been doing it for years, and often I feel jaded, cynical, crushed under the pressure, like a giant arm made of steel and coated in advertising dollars is pressing down upon my head.

But, this time, ladies and gentlemen, the hype is justified. Goddamn justified. First shown at E3 in 2000, there has certainly been enough of a buildup for this title. But the developers have beaten the odds of time and produced something really, really AWSUM. I mean, er, ‘sublime.’

Graphics

Reviewer B:

The graphics look like the retarded love-child of Tokobot Plus and Transworld Surf.

And if you’ve never heard of those games, you suck.

Reviewer A:

Graphically, I’ve never seen anything like it. Beautiful, realistic and ultimate landscapes stretch out as far as the eye can see, and there’s no tearing (in the 360 version. We cannot vouch for PS3). The lens flare is cinematically perfect. The lead character, ‘Zed’, is really exquisitely portrayed, his muscular frame and dusty jacket perfectly-pitched, his gruff voice-work really suitable and excellent in the framework of his harrowing world of guns and death and men who have nothing to lose.

This game really lives up to its tagline: ‘In a world where death is law, believe in hope.’

Reviewer B:

And it’s sub-HD. It’s criminal we have to put up with 520p in this day and age. The developers were obviously too busy playing prostitute polo to upscale. Each and every one of them should be shot in their million dollar tuxedos made from baby flesh.

Sound

Reviewer A:

Sound-wise, this game is practically flawless. Picture this: Silence. The howl of a dog. Probably rabid. Then suddenly, the CRACK of a sub 9 breaks through the air.

Wow. Chills.

The developers have done an amazing job capturing the sound of a real gun fight in a real post-apocalyptic war. Every bit of it oozes atmosphere. The licensed music they use evokes underground cult classics like 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Pulp Fiction.'

Reviewer B:

Sound-wise, the game is a travesty. A blatant rip of the epic electro-synth soundscape in Guardian Heroes. And the dialogue is really shoddy. Where did they get those actors from, ‘According To Jim?’ Or worse, ‘Heavy Rain?’

Gameplay

Reviewer A:

The gameplay is certainly addicting. It’s like God of War and Mass Effect 2 had a really cool love child, and then that love child went on acid. And the morality system is one of the best I’ve seen all year, if not all time. It’s really an instant classic. I actually cried in a part involving a sweet little boy and a serial child murderer. I’m certainly not out to spoil anything, but let’s just say that part really made me look at narrative in videogames in an entirely different way (i.e. even in a videogame, child murder is really sad).

Reviewer B:

Suffice to say, the gameplay is derivative. Why does every game these days have to have this mishmash of styles? They’re all jut cloning each other. I mean, where’s the purity? It’s like David Crane made Pitfall for nothing. Alexey Pajitnov will probably have an aneurysm if he ever played this. Developers who make games like this one are worse than Satan’s bunghole.

Multiplayer

Reviewer A:

Some people have criticized this game for including multiplayer, considering it’s so heavily story-based and really linear. So, how does it fare?

Excellently. One of the best multiplayer experiences I’ve had in this generation. An instant classic. Easily one of the best. My favourite mode is ‘snatch the flag’, a quirky version of ‘capture the flag’. My feeling is that the developer may have an unexpected multiplayer hit on their hands.

Reviewer B:

This game doesn’t need a multiplayer. This game never needed a multiplayer. This’ll be buried in two weeks, tops. Also, it’s really hard to time the enemy’s spawn cycle in the Castle level. Fail.

Value For Money

Reviewer A:

This game really gives you lots of bang for your buck. With over 300 sidequests, there’s always plenty to do. An example of a really cool sidequest is when I had to tell a lady suffering from dementia that her husband died forty years ago. It’s amazing how they’ve really accurately portrayed the lameness of old age. I haven’t seen that since Metal Gear Solid 4.

Reviewer B:

Longevity? If, for some obscene reason you want to suck all the life out of this turd after finishing single player, you can take on some optional sidequests, all of which involve tedious busywork such as fixing pipes, collecting invisible trading cards, and talking to retarded NPCs about their lost cats. And there's an escort mission. Double fail.

Closing Paragraph

Reviewer A:

I cannot even begin to express how much I loved this game. An epic story, jaw-dropping graphics, practically perfect sound, and an infinitely sublime multiplayer, this game really has it all. In ten years, this small development team has done the unthinkable, achieved the unachievable, and reached the unreachable. They have created a masterpiece. They have created art. Yes, you heard me, Mr. Ebert. Art. Stick that in your smug, pasty face.

For once, you can part with your $120 dollars knowing that you have invested. Invested in ART. I PLEAD WITH YOU. BUY THIS.

BUY THIS GAME.

SCORE: 9.8

Reviewer B:

This game is just another example of what’s wrong with videogames today, and how the medium is dying a slow and painful death. Just another hackneyed, lazy, unworkable rush-job from a development team obviously far too busy with their own sh*t to put any thought into what the consumer wants. And they haven’t even announced any DLC. Next time, guys, don’t bother. We don’t need another $120 coaster sitting on our coffee tables. In fact, this is probably the last game I’ll ever play. I’m sick of wasting my time with this childish cr*p. I haven’t frickin smiled since I was ten years old.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON’T BUY THIS GAME.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Noobs.

SCORE: 6.5



» Return to Top

 

COMMENTS (10)

You must be logged in to post comments.

Log in to comment or Register now!
Srassy
On Friday 4 Jun 2010 10:21 AM Posted by Srassy
Wah! Is that the Angry Video Game Nerd's head on Marcus Fenix's body? I didn't think I'd see that today.

It was an interesting article. Reviewer B actually isn't so unrealistic imo.
 
 
+ - 1
Reply  
djkicks
On Friday 4 Jun 2010 11:43 AM Posted by djkicks
O_o heh an odd article. I think the best place to get opinions on a game is the community, forums and such. :-)
 
 
+ - 2
Reply  
Liam_OConnor
On Friday 4 Jun 2010 12:24 PM Posted by Liam_OConnor
Hyperbolic. Reviewer A sounds like he just dropped an ecstasy tab before being flown to a review event, and Reviewer B sounds like he doesn't get any social interaction outside NeoGAF and /v/. Both fail, although I'm more likely to side with Reviwer B as he didn't use 'addicting' instead of 'addictive' and knew what Guardian Heroes was.

:P

Regardless, it shows the futility of assigning an empirical result of an analysis that is utterly subjective. At the end of the day, the best way to decide whether or not a game is for you is to just check out some videos on YouTube. It took all of one video comparing a race of Blur to a race of Split/Second to know that Split/Second would be the game that suits my tastes. :)
 
 
+ - 1
Reply  
luce
On Friday 4 Jun 2010 12:50 PM Posted by luce
It's not my intention to dismiss game reviewing altogether, more so to highlight the blurriness that can occur round the edges of that blanket term 'gaming journalism'. Sometimes, reviewers are less of the 'journalist' kind and more of the 'enthusiast' kind. Both reviewers in this instance are, erm, enthusiasts.
 
 
+ - 1
Reply  
Ubercuber
On Friday 4 Jun 2010 1:24 PM Posted by Ubercuber
10/10
 
 
+ - 0
Reply  
leopardsqueezy
On Friday 4 Jun 2010 1:48 PM Posted by leopardsqueezy
Just goes to show why the best way to judge a game is by playing it yourself. As per with driving a car on NZ roads, it's best to assume that all other users are essentially retarded, blind and possibly slightly inbred (unless you happen to be driving in Hamilton, in which case it's not so much an assumption as a certainty).

Interestingly, Review(er) A sounds like Sam's recent review of RDR.
 
 
+ - -1
Reply  
Sp3kt0r
On Friday 4 Jun 2010 1:53 PM Posted by Sp3kt0r
Reviewer A obviously got paid
 
 
+ - 0
Reply  
emetic
On Saturday 5 Jun 2010 2:31 AM Posted by emetic
Having two reviews like this is certainly better than just one of those reviews though.
 
 
+ - 1
Reply  
JMavz
On Monday 7 Jun 2010 8:27 PM Posted by JMavz
I liked the AVGN reference in the pic. I'd like to think i'm more of a reviewer A =)
 
 
+ - 0
Reply  
Soyerz
On Friday 11 Jun 2010 4:53 PM Posted by Soyerz
I like it! Great idea for an article!
 
 
+ - 0
Reply