Dead Space 3 single-player review: oppressively tense
We've played through the single-player campaign for Dead Space 3. Find out if the series' third installment is able to top its predecessors.
Feeders swarm in packs, when disturbed.
This Dead Space 3 single player review is based on an Xbox 360 retail copy of the game, provided by the publisher.
-
Jeff Mattas posted a new article, Dead Space 3 single-player review: oppressively tense.
We've played through the single-player campaign for Dead Space 3. Find out if the series' third installment is able to top its predecessors.-
I'm only up to Chapter 6, but I'm really loving the game. Yea, it may not be as scary/frightening as the previous entries but you know what - I'm okay with that. Yea, you now have to kill a few human enemies - I'm okay with that. Yea, the game now has Co-Op - I'm okay with that. The franchise and story has evolved / is evolving and I'm glad Visceral took some of these risks.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Conan has the best rating scales:
http://teamcoco.com/category/tags/video-games
-
-
-
-
There's a long-standing Shacknews editorial tradition of "scores are BS over-generalizations; please read the full text of my review," which goes against Metacritic's stance of monetizing statistics, and of publishers putting Metacritic aggregates into contract stipulations (see Bethesda refusing to pay out a bonus when Fallout New Vegas missed a Metacritic average threshold by 1 point).
In the Gibson-Goldstein Era there weren't many reviews at all, but the Brecko-Remo Era brought in more original opinion and criticism writing, with a mandate of "no scored reviews". The Gamefly Dynasty ramped up the volume of reviews, but held to that tradition.-
-
-
-
-
-
It was 84, not 79.
"[Fallout: New Vegas] was a straight payment, no royalties, only a bonus if we got an 85+ on Metacritic, which we didn't," Avellone said. The tweet has since been removed.
http://www.shacknews.com/article/72891/obsidian-misses-new-vegas-bonus-by-slim-metacritic-margin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
lol naw...i just don't want any spoilers(as they do happen more often than not) nor go through all the nuances that a reviewer might find important that i probably don't. generally i think a lot of the content in reviews can very easily be summed up in 1-2 paragraphs or a pro/con list. same goes for hardware...unless the item i am researching requires a lot of in-depth testing or bench-marking...i really only am concerned with the summaries as they'll note what the major problems are there.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What I do with most review sites is check the number first. On a 10 point scale, if it's 4 or lower, I just skip it entirely and move on. If it's 5 through 10 I read it. I've played plenty of games which scored 5-7 and have had good times with them; they're often rated down for repetitive gameplay or something like that, but if the gameplay itself is good (even if repetitive) then I end up liking the game.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nit
The egg of a louse (particularly head lice)
-
-
-
-
what I would like to see is the "shacknews 5 screenshot review". a nice article with 5 screenshots, and a paragraph or two for each, then a summary. make it your standard, and you can forego stars and decimals and whatever shitty metrics people try to use. you don't have to come up with SHACKPOINTS or something internal, either.
choosing the screenshots and then the language for each will be what I need to know for a game preview/review. -
-
-
Similar to "I would give it an 80", there's mock reivews, and how publishers want to see them align with actual reviews. EA's Frank Gibeau was alarmingly frank about wanting to see higher review scores for MoH:Warfighter: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/10/30/ea-medal-of-honor-launch-below-expectations.aspx
“We’re disappointed with the critical reception. Our internal testing and mock reviews indicated that the game is better than the actual score we have right now. We believe it is. However, we are seeing some folks out there that just don’t like the game."
Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, since there are examples of publications that take review scores VERY seriously, but also have great review writing in general. Giant Bomb's probably the best example of this, considering that they came from the Gamespot school of the importance of review scores, but the text of their reviews is usually very detailed (though I feel like Jeff Gerstmann has a habit of letting his personal tastes affect his review scores, especially anything Mortal Kombat).
Either way, by entering scores in your reviews, you are entering this dirty, unethical fracas known as scored video game reviewing. Don't be surprised if some other publication criticizes your review's score some time in the future.
-
-
-
-
-
exactly. the score system is so bad it has to be segregated, which makes it worse. both sides have an abundance of suck. fuck numbers and fuck stars.
5 screenshots, some text describing it, and then a brief summary at the end. maybe 2 mousewheel scrolls required. get a relationship going with the community instead of offloading it or integrating it.
if people need a TLDR summary they can go back to metacritic and try to sort through the polar opposite critics' scores against their peers, as well as users against users. and then users against critics. or whatever. fuck all of that - I will be disappointed if they use any sort of rating system.
show me you actually are playing the game. like that DXHR "review" that claimed HOLY SHIT THERE'S ADVERTISING IN THIS GAME, ALARM, 0/10, ETC! and that was all bullshit. there are no ads. it was ads for internalized products, like an ad for sunblock 5000 in robocop. I was pretty pissed off when "reviewers" TLDR the whole thing and royally fuck up.
Shacknews has a real opportunity here to bridge the gap between shitty TLDR/ADD scores and entire actual gameplay sessions broadcast on youtube or twitch or whatever. -
-
-
-
Review scores/ratings are terrible because people don't know how to subjectively evaluate different scores for different games, they just imagine everything as being on one continuum and that anything with a 5 is automatically "better" than everything with a 4. Roger Ebert has written about this extensively - what are you to do when Warm Bodies has 3.5 stars and Zero Dark Thirty has only 3 stars? Is that a commentary on how much "less good" Zero Dark Thirty is than Warm Bodies? Of course not! You have to read the review to fully understand the way a critic feels about something (and by extension, how you might feel about it relative to your taste). But many (maybe most) people don't see it that way, and it turns reviewing in to some kind of weird game of equalizing, which is why reviewers get pressured to turn in those 9's or 100's or 5 stars's or whatever the fuck. You know how it is on Metacritic now - anything below a 80% or so just "sucks".
-
-
exactly. like how we hate shitty top 10 lists? the shack 2012 list developed quite well. raw standalone ranking numbers are more often bad than good, and 2012 had substantive commentary and GAME RELATED stuff instead of smarmy self-indulgent bullshit.
the shack developed a method to release a list and it was pretty good, and it showed people behind the scenes actually cared about the content moreso than linkbait lists or numbers.
-
-
-
-
-
Please don't. I appreciate ShackNews reviews because of the lack of a quantitative metric, not despite it. The politics of scores are a distraction and I would be glad if ShackNews could remain above them. However, you know your page views and I would understand if you felt you needed to make the change in order to them.
-
Add a rating system. Get tied to metacritic to generate traffic like Entity said (great idea imo). Sometimes I'll read about a highly-rated game that wasn't on my radar previously. Without any kind of knee-jerk metric to pique my interest, however, I often tend to skip games I don't know about. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
-
-
Reeeeemo et al. hated scored reviews because they believed them to be inaccurate. I disagree. I think we should have scored reviews. They're useful. Over time as I've gotten to know reviewers I need to read less of their review unless I am concerned about certain aspects of the game. GamesTM, for example, has a good rep and if they rate a game highly there's a good chance I'll like it. If there is a game I'd never heard of getting a high score, then I'll read the review.
But I think it is silly one should have to read 2-3 pages of words before decided whether or not to just play a video game. At the end of the day you want a friend to recommend whether or not you should play a game. This is what a scored review offers. If I ask a friend if s/he liked Mass Effect 3, I don't want a 15-minute story about their playing experience. I want a yes or no. -
-
-
-