PC Zone UK 62 out of 100 - stupidest review ever?

[bravesirknight]

Man I just saw this on gamerankings.com. Unfortunately it's a print review so I don't know what it says but wow... what kind of person did they get playing this game? I'm guessing they had an IQ of 70, 2 hours to play the game, and have never heard of it beforehand.  Oh and I'm sure "sandbox gaming" was their least favorite thing as well. I guess **** like this happens to indie devs with some reviewers, I knew it would.

But seriously I've played this game 100's of hours, and I don't do that with games that are shoddy in any way. In fact I tend to stick with games that are usually labeled classics after awhile because they're so good. Just a shame to see the true "hardcore" aren't in some media places and they have no idea what this game is. A shame, but not surprising.

update:

Keanerie found the review online and it's extremely short and sounds like the writer played the game a couple hours to me:

"Hey guys, if you want to read the actual review it's up http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/mount-blade/review/mount-blade/a-20080916134024316007/g-20080804164447631022

Here's a choice quote:

While the horse handles rather well, the heralded mounted combat is patchy. The archery is OK but largely ineffective with large numbers of enemies, and the sword/knife/axe hits are annoyingly random in their effectiveness (which applies to on-foot fighting too). Hiring recruits for battles with more than 50 units, visiting taverns for the local gossip, trading items for more cash, upgrading your weapons and be-hooved companion, racking up quests and claiming the throne in a bloody coup will provide much entertainment, but they won’t dispel the feeling that despite the horse-based combat, Mount & Blade is really an anorexic Oblivion set in a budget version of Tolkien’s Rohan."

 

[Ringwraith #5]

Well before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, let me just say let's face it, M&B does have some jarring flaws and it's not exactly everyone's cup of tea. I obviously haven't read the review, but I think I could come up with a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why M&B should get a low rating (the fact that 62 out of 100 is still above average notwithstanding). One man's rags are another man's riches, we like the humans-only setting because it's realistic, someone with a different taste might decry it as bland, for example.

 

[Astor]

I'm guessing they had an IQ of 70, 2 hours to play the game, and have never heard of it beforehand.

But seriously I've played this game 100's of hours, and I don't do that with games that are shoddy in any way.

As Ringwraith says, it's not to everyone's liking. Just because we happen to like the game and spend inordinate amounts of time playing it doesn't mean everyone else should like it.

 

[MountainBlade]

Well before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, let me just say let's face it, M&B does have some jarring flaws and it's not exactly everyone's cup of tea. I obviously haven't read the review, but I think I could come up with a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why M&B should get a low rating (the fact that 62 out of 100 is still above average notwithstanding). One man's rags are another man's riches, we like the humans-only setting because it's realistic, someone with a different taste might decry it as bland, for example.

All I heard was torches and pitchforks, and I already brought enough for everyone. Quick, where does the reviewer live?

 

[sheek]

Well before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, let me just say let's face it, M&B does have some jarring flaws and it's not exactly everyone's cup of tea. I obviously haven't read the review, but I think I could come up with a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why M&B should get a low rating (the fact that 62 out of 100 is still above average notwithstanding). One man's rags are another man's riches, we like the humans-only setting because it's realistic, someone with a different taste might decry it as bland, for example.

Nope, that's not it - don't look for reasons, PC Gamer UK are a well known bunch of whores

 

[sheek]

Nope, that's not it - don't look for reasons, PC Gamer UK are a well known bunch of whores

Or PC Zone UK, they're pretty much interchangeable in their mendacious cock sucking

 

[Will Greaves]

62% is not average in game reviews.  It is low.

 

[Sound Chaser]

Yes it is, besides, having only humans in the game is not an excuse to rate it bad. The reviewer's task is to rate the game unbiased, not based on his personal preferences.

 

[Phoboshobo]

Some reviews break it down into its parts and say

"Graphics are 5/10, story 2/10 and gameplay is 9/10 so the average is 6/10."

Others say "I dont know why its so good.  I mean you break it down and it doesnt look like much, but put it all together and its brilliant."

M&B is one of those games you either like or you dont so its hard to review the same way as other games.

 

[Nordmann]

Well before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, let me just say let's face it, M&B does have some jarring flaws and it's not exactly everyone's cup of tea. I obviously haven't read the review, but I think I could come up with a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why M&B should get a low rating (the fact that 62 out of 100 is still above average notwithstanding). One man's rags are another man's riches, we like the humans-only setting because it's realistic, someone with a different taste might decry it as bland, for example.

All I heard was torches and pitchforks, and I already brought enough for everyone. Quick, where does the reviewer live?

I brought an axe, does that count?

Well before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, let me just say let's face it, M&B does have some jarring flaws and it's not exactly everyone's cup of tea. I obviously haven't read the review, but I think I could come up with a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why M&B should get a low rating (the fact that 62 out of 100 is still above average notwithstanding). One man's rags are another man's riches, we like the humans-only setting because it's realistic, someone with a different taste might decry it as bland, for example.

Nope, that's not it - don't look for reasons, PC Gamer UK are a well known bunch of whores

Indeed, there are much better PC mags out there, I stopped reading their crap a long time ago. They're basically technology whores, most of the mag is dedicated to advertising and their ratings are based on shallow attributes. I seriously doubt they even played the game for more than an hour, and even then they most likely had already made up their minds beforehand. It's always the same.

Mount&Blade has it's flaws certainly, but it's fun and addictive, which is what games used to and still should be about.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

The reviewer's task is to rate the game unbiased, not based on his personal preferences.

That's not possible to do. The purpose of a game is to entertain, every aspect of it is a means to achieve that, but fun is a highly subjective thing. You can't objectively rate games any more than you can objectively rate movies, or music, or paintings.

 

[Vovolov]

Then don't review anything at all. What's the point in reviewing when everybody's different anyway?

 

[sheek]

Nowadays I never read game reviews, I once could be bothered and learned that 98% of the time I would guess right and just be reading an overpaid idiot's opinions. I ask friends or come to game forums like these which works out to be far more informative and reliable. The only reason to buy gaming mags is for the occasional CD or if you enjoy collecting glossy paper.

 

[samoht]

Well before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, let me just say let's face it, M&B does have some jarring flaws and it's not exactly everyone's cup of tea. I obviously haven't read the review, but I think I could come up with a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why M&B should get a low rating (the fact that 62 out of 100 is still above average notwithstanding). One man's rags are another man's riches, we like the humans-only setting because it's realistic, someone with a different taste might decry it as bland, for example.

I couldn't agree more.  I love M&B but it isn't exactly perfect.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

Then don't review anything at all. What's the point in reviewing when everybody's different anyway?

To find a reviewer who has a taste similar to yours and see what he thinks about this or that? I don't read game reviews anymore, but when I used to I didn't read magazines, I read reviewers. When my favorite guy switched magazines, so did I.

 

[Vovolov]

I watch reviews on TV, but mostly just to see what new games come out, and because the guys that review it are a bunch of funny numbnuts. Not because of what they think of the game they're playing.

And even your favorite guy will fail on you at some point in time.

 

[Wally]

There's something terribly wrong here.

An anorexic "Oblivion" set in a budget version of Tolkien's Rohan.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

There's something terribly wrong here.

An anorexic "Oblivion" set in a budget version of Tolkien's Rohan.

Okay, disregard my first post in this thread. That guy is a total douche. It's one thing to not like this or that about a game, it's a whole another thing to not even realize which genre it's in.

 

[sheek]

So my guess was right and the accuracy of my theory has risen to 98.1%.

 

[Nordmann]

Well before everyone breaks out the torches and pitchforks, let me just say let's face it, M&B does have some jarring flaws and it's not exactly everyone's cup of tea. I obviously haven't read the review, but I think I could come up with a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why M&B should get a low rating (the fact that 62 out of 100 is still above average notwithstanding). One man's rags are another man's riches, we like the humans-only setting because it's realistic, someone with a different taste might decry it as bland, for example.

I couldn't agree more.  I love M&B but it isn't exactly perfect.

No games are, but I suspect the reviewers would have you believe otherwise where their favourites are concerned. Mount&Blade may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than most of the mainstream rubbish that's released these days.

There's something terribly wrong here.

An anorexic "Oblivion" set in a budget version of Tolkien's Rohan.

What a moron, seriously, I can't believe how retarded some of these reviewers can be. Oblivion's a completely different game, it doesn't even have any of the same goals as M&B, for starters it's the usual monsters and magic crap, and secondly it doesn't feature mounted warfare, or warfare of any kind for that matter. Sure, it's a good game, but so is M&B. The fool clearly can't see beyond graphics or questing, the sign of a small mind.

Okay, disregard my first post in this thread. That guy is a total douche. 

You said it.