View Full Version: The problem with "pro" reviews

The Third Moon > Splatterhouse (2010) > The problem with "pro" reviews


Title: The problem with "pro" reviews


Brick McBurly - January 7, 2011 01:19 PM (GMT)
As if I really needed confirmation that official reviews are basically nothing but frontrunning crap based largely on the personal tastes of the reviewers and the amount of advertising dollars the game producers reward their bottom feeder rags with...

...yesterday I picked up Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare. Now, I have no problem with the game. I like Westerns...I like zombie movies. I'm finding it enjoyable, if a bit uninspired. Controls aren't very intuitive, there's a lot of time spent wandering around empty 'wide open spaces', and the writers pressed far too hard to make all their characters sound witty, irreverent, and funny, making every conversation seem forced. VO work goes from solid to weak. Great graphics, great horse riding mechanics. Camera is awful, and hit detection/jumping seems rather random. Really good value at $29, even though I'll never bother with the multiplayer stuff. It's fun, but I wouldn't feel bad if I had missed it and I'd drop it in a second for something better (like, say, some new Splatterhouse DLC levels) even if I hadn't finished it.

So I'm getting ready to replace the disc in the box...and see that IGN (and yes, as has been stated in this thread we all know you can't spell 'ignorant' without IGN) gave this a '10 of 10'. I thought, "OK, maybe that's for the regular version of the game, and the copywriters just took liberties and used it". But no-they really gave this game a 10.

How in hell can you give a 10 to Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare and a 4 to Splatterhouse? There's no way. Splatterhouse's controls are tighter, the VO's more effective and natural sounding (even given the 'unnatural' subject matter of most of them), hit detection much better, the game is more focused, looks great, and even the mediocre camera is better. There's more variety in the enemies-sorry, a zombie is a zombie no matter how many different skins there are. Even the early RE's had a variety of enemies. I'm not going to bother bringing up how much more interesting the Splatterhouse story is, because that's just a case of my personal preference showing its face. I've played both the PS3 and XBOX 360 versions to 51 trophies/1000/1000, have downloaded all the DLC, and have noticed NONE of the glitches that many of the so-called critics have whined about. Not one. No matter, there's no way RDR:UN is a 10 and if it were, there'd be no way Splatterhouse is a 4.

Either the reviewer is a western junkie, or that big Rockstar logo on the front of the box (along with some generous advertising dollars) got it, say, six more points than it would have received if it had been Namco-Bandai instead.

Dire 51 - January 7, 2011 11:36 PM (GMT)
I just read IGN's review of Undead Nightmare. One thing that should be clarified here, Brick - and don't look at this is my defending IGN, because god knows I'm the last person that would want to defend them - they were reviewing the original $10 DLC, not the disc copy you bought, and they were reviewing it as DLC - which was totally worth the $10, I have to say. I enjoyed it from start to finish. Hell, I nominated it for Game of the Year here.

In that regard, I feel that it almost deserves the score it got. It doesn't deserve a 10, but I could see a 9. I think it scored the extra point because... well, you know why. I mean, come on. They pointed out issues with the game in their review that would have dropped the final score on another game, but they still gave it a 10. Something's up there. 10s should be given for absolutely perfect titles that have no flaws, and RDR does have its flaws.

But that's beside the point. Yes, they did review it as DLC, as opposed to a full game. But even if they had reviewed the disc version as a full game, it's pretty much a case of pineapples and hand grenades when it comes to comparing what kind of game they are. The horror theme is the only thing the two have in common. I mean, you're talking open-world sandbox vs. brawler here. RDR controls about as well as can be expected for a sandbox game, Splatterhouse has the controls for a brawler down perfectly.

Now, if there had been another horror-themed brawler that had shown up and didn't warrant a fantastic review compared to Splatterhouse, but had received one from IGN, I'd be right there with you. But that's not the case here, and therefore I can't see a basis for a comparison.

Brick McBurly - January 8, 2011 08:57 AM (GMT)
I can. They're using the same ratings scale to rate every game, whether it be apples, hand grenades, or rotting melons-so obviously, they can and should be compared, if for no other reason than to point out the obvious flaws and inequities of such a system. It's no different than a movie critic giving the latest art house drama five stars and the latest horror epoch zero. It's all about personal preference (and advertising dollars). As I pointed out, RDR has lots of technical and gameplay flaws-many more, I feel, than Splatterhouse. And as player reviews indicate, there's no way in hell Splatterhouse can be rated a 4 while RDR gets a 10-maybe they were releasing it as DLC, but it's the exact same thing as what's on the disc, and they're marketing that as a perfect 10/10. It's not so much as comparing the two games directly, but more about showing how certain genres and publishers get preferred treatment. Like I said, I enjoy RDR (especially riding those undead mounts and the 'four horses of the Apocalypse', and the dancing zombies were priceless), but is it over two and a half times better than Splatterhouse? No frickin' way. In my opinion, maybe half as good (which still makes it awfully good).

And on a brighter note, the situation has inspired me to write my first piece of 'Splatterhouse Fan Fiction', which you should be able to read later today when I find ten minutes to write it up :rolleyes: .

Dire 51 - January 8, 2011 11:22 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 8 2011, 03:57 AM)
It's all about personal preference (and advertising dollars).

It's not so much as comparing the two games directly, but more about showing how certain genres and publishers get preferred treatment.

Now that I can get behind. When the pro and player reviews are as skewed in different directions as they have been, you know something's up.

Personally, I still feel that games from entirely different genres shouldn't even be compared (I know when I wrote reviews, I would compare the game in question to other games from the same genre). It just doesn't feel right to me when they are. But that's me.

Looking forward to that fanfic. :)

Brick McBurly - January 8, 2011 11:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 8 2011, 06:22 AM)
Personally, I still feel that games from entirely different genres shouldn't even be compared (I know when I wrote reviews, I would compare the game in question to other games from the same genre). It just doesn't feel right to me when they are. But that's me.


I agree wholeheartedly-they shouldn't, but unfortunately they are. That's why I never went to a mainstream critic to read about a new horror movie or game-I always went to a horror critic who enjoyed and appreciated the genre and would know what works and what doesn't for horror fans.

B-MovieKing - January 8, 2011 10:01 PM (GMT)
The Official Xbox Magazine gave Splatterhouse a positive 7 out of 10. :rtfo

They praised the gameplay, tone, and the fact that they included the original three games as bonus unlockables. The negatives were all things we've mentioned here on the board ourselves...wonky platforming sections, long load times, and some checkpoints being too far apart.

Scissorman - January 8, 2011 10:46 PM (GMT)
Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare is, as of now, my favorite zombie game. It fullfills all of my zombie game fantasies but still only amounts to a potent 8.5 on my personal ranking system. The game suffers from the same flaws as Red Dead Redemption which is now being unanimously voted as the game of the year by most mainstream critics, which I am not happy with. RDR is repetitive, easy, and has one of the worst 'serious' storylines I've ever seen in any medium. I like Undead Nightmare a hundred times more than RDR because it pulls the stick out of RDR's ass and throws it in the middle of a hilariously absurd zombie apocalypse. Undead Nightmare deserves high praise for being the first great sand-box zombie game, but yeah, the IGN review was too influenced by the game being a good, cheaply priced spin-off of Red Read Redemption which is getting more praise than any game has ever deserved.

Heretic9 - January 8, 2011 11:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Scissorman @ Jan 8 2011, 05:46 PM)
Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare is, as of now, my favorite zombie game. It fullfills all of my zombie game fantasies but still only amounts to a potent 8.5 on my personal ranking system. The game suffers from the same flaws as Red Dead Redemption which is now being unanimously voted as the game of the year by most mainstream critics, which I am not happy with. RDR is repetitive, easy, and has one of the worst 'serious' storylines I've ever seen in any medium. I like Undead Nightmare a hundred times more than RDR because it pulls the stick out of RDR's ass and throws it in the middle of a hilariously absurd zombie apocalypse. Undead Nightmare deserves high praise for being the first great sand-box zombie game, but yeah, the IGN review was too influenced by the game being a good, cheaply priced spin-off of Red Read Redemption which is getting more praise than any game has ever deserved.

I'm the total opposite, I actually liked the original RDR more than the DLC-add on, but I'd still give them both an 8/10, not the perfect score Brick and Dire mentioned it getting from reviewers

I liked the storyline, even the ending that everyone else seems to despise, and I also didn't have too much issue with the controls outside of the covering system being a little wonky at times. The Dead Eye was nice, and the game did a good job of immersing me into the dying wild west enviroment. The Duels could have been explained better, auto aim could have been adjusted so that I don't accidentally target civilians, and the horseback riding could have been a little better, but otherwise I really liked Redemption.

Do I think it's better than Splatterhouse? Well, I liked RDR quite a bit, but I can't say I like it more than Splatterhouse. Splatterhouse was one of the very few 360 games I liked enough to get all the achievements for and got 100% in, while with RDR I didn't feel like it and put it back in my bookshelf after beating it.

Though I did vote for Undead Nightmare in the Game of the Year poll, that was mostly because I could see Splatterhouse kicking its ass and felt sorry for it. :rollin

Scissorman - January 9, 2011 08:21 PM (GMT)
Heretic9> I like Red Dead Redemption alot, but it's still highly overrated. It's the best open-world sandbox game yet if only for the impressively realistic graphics and environments that absorb the player better than any other game. While the story is bad, the cutscenes are excellently choreographed. The characters are likeable, the combat is fun(even if there's way too much of it,) the music is haunting and the 'Far Away' sequence is possibly my favorite moment in gaming. The game deserves all the technical awards it's recieved, but nothing more. Undead Nightmare takes all the stuff I like about RDR and throws zombies and a great horror atmosphere into the mix. What the hell could be better than that?

By the way, try playing Undead Nightmare without using Dead-Eye. Scary.

Dire 51 - January 10, 2011 12:16 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Scissorman @ Jan 9 2011, 03:21 PM)
By the way, try playing Undead Nightmare without using Dead-Eye. Scary.

I just looked up Dead-Eye on the RDR Wiki. I had no idea what it was. According to the wiki, "Dead Eye Targeting in both Revolver and Redemption allows Harlow and Marston to slow down time to get accurate shots on enemies. After marking the targets, normal time resumes and a flurry of bullets is released in quick succession. Marston is also invincible while in Dead Eye, even if it seems he is getting shot."

Interesting. Not only did I play the game without using it, I finished the game without using it. I guess that makes me the Undead Nightmare equivalent of The Waco Kid, eh? :smug

Heretic9 - January 10, 2011 12:47 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cutman er @ I mean Scissorman)
Heretic9> I like Red Dead Redemption alot, but it's still highly overrated. 


True, games like Fist of the North Star and Splatterhouse get bashed to hell and back while Redemption gets a wee bit more praise than it deserves.

QUOTE (Scissorman)
By the way, try playing Undead Nightmare without using Dead-Eye. Scary.


Heh, I've done that actually! It's harder to kill the motherfuckers because it's easier to headshot in dead-eye. Have you tried it in Expert aiming mode? That's even worse.

QUOTE (Dire)
Interesting. Not only did I play the game without using it, I finished the game without using it. I guess that makes me the Undead Nightmare equivalent of The Waco Kid, eh? 


Jeez, I'm not sure what's more impressive...The fact you didn't know about dead-eye, or the fact you beat the game without it! :p

Dire 51 - January 10, 2011 12:56 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Heretic9 @ Jan 9 2011, 07:47 PM)
Jeez, I'm not sure what's more impressive...The fact you didn't know about dead-eye, or the fact you beat the game without it! :p

Even though I own it, I've barely made a dent in RDR. Learning about Dead-Eye is still a ways off for me.

You could chalk up my non-Dead-Eye-using success in Undead Nightmare to a combination of things: the reflexes I developed during all the years I spent playing games like Contra and Metal Slug, and the intense training I put myself through in GTA: Vice City - in other words, not actually finishing the game but rather putting myself into all sorts of crazy situations I had to shoot my way out of. I had a lot of fun doing that.


Heretic9 - January 10, 2011 01:06 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 9 2011, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (Heretic9 @ Jan 9 2011, 07:47 PM)
Jeez, I'm not sure what's more impressive...The fact you didn't know about dead-eye, or the fact you beat the game without it!  :p

Even though I own it, I've barely made a dent in RDR. Learning about Dead-Eye is still a ways off for me.

You could chalk up my non-Dead-Eye-using success in Undead Nightmare to a combination of things: the reflexes I developed during all the years I spent playing games like Contra and Metal Slug, and the intense training I put myself through in GTA: Vice City - in other words, not actually finishing the game but rather putting myself into all sorts of crazy situations I had to shoot my way out of. I had a lot of fun doing that.

Heh, I play Contra and Metal Slug (Played Metal Slug 2 the other night in fact!) all the time, and I still can't imagine going through Undead Nightmare without dead-eye. If you can beat Redemption without dead-eye, then I think you need a medal.

Undead Nightmare definitely had crazy situations though. Redemption now seems tame in comparison.

Dire 51 - January 10, 2011 01:32 AM (GMT)
I'll have to see what I can do in the regular RDR, then. :smug

Brick McBurly - January 10, 2011 04:09 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Scissorman @ Jan 9 2011, 03:21 PM)
It's the best open-world sandbox game yet if only for the impressively realistic graphics and environments that absorb the player better than any other game.

Ryű ga Gotoku Kenzan! (an offshoot of the Yakuza series with Miyamoto Musashi as the hero) blows every other 'sandbox' game out of the water in every regard-realistic graphics, combat, tight controls, story, 'quests', etc. Too bad it never made it to the West since Sega didn't think people would be interested in Edo period Japan.

Brick McBurly - January 11, 2011 06:35 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 9 2011, 07:56 PM)
Even though I own it, I've barely made a dent in RDR.

You're probably closer than you think; I got 100% completion in two five hour sessions over the weekend. I'm assuming there were a lot less sidequests and missions in Undead than the 'full size' RDR game, and the challenges were really easy.

I didn't know about 'Dead Eye' either until I was finishing up the last couple of challenges that require you to use it-the instruction book does a crappy job of explaining it.

Dire 51 - January 11, 2011 02:02 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 11 2011, 01:35 AM)
You're probably closer than you think

No, I'm not. I've owned it for months and I'm only about a half hour into it.

sotenga - January 11, 2011 04:42 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 9 2011, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE (Scissorman @ Jan 9 2011, 03:21 PM)
It's the best open-world sandbox game yet if only for the impressively realistic graphics and environments that absorb the player better than any other game.

Ryű ga Gotoku Kenzan! (an offshoot of the Yakuza series with Miyamoto Musashi as the hero) blows every other 'sandbox' game out of the water in every regard-realistic graphics, combat, tight controls, story, 'quests', etc. Too bad it never made it to the West since Sega didn't think people would be interested in Edo period Japan.

Brickster, do you recommend importing it at this rate? With ThePatrick's fantastic FAQ out there, I'll be very willing to deal with the language barrier. I just LOOOOOOOVE the Yakuza series so much, and I really want to give this spinoff a shot. It seems to play very much like Yakuza 3, just set in the Edo period and having as much an emphasis on swordplay as on brawling.

Brick McBurly - January 12, 2011 02:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 11 2011, 09:02 AM)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 11 2011, 01:35 AM)
You're probably closer than you think

No, I'm not. I've owned it for months and I'm only about a half hour into it.

You finished the game in half an hour? Or am I missing something?

Oops, never mind-I see you're talking about the original. I was refering to Undead Nigthmare.

Brick McBurly - January 12, 2011 04:06 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (sotenga @ Jan 11 2011, 11:42 AM)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 9 2011, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE (Scissorman @ Jan 9 2011, 03:21 PM)
It's the best open-world sandbox game yet if only for the impressively realistic graphics and environments that absorb the player better than any other game.

Ryű ga Gotoku Kenzan! (an offshoot of the Yakuza series with Miyamoto Musashi as the hero) blows every other 'sandbox' game out of the water in every regard-realistic graphics, combat, tight controls, story, 'quests', etc. Too bad it never made it to the West since Sega didn't think people would be interested in Edo period Japan.

Brickster, do you recommend importing it at this rate? With ThePatrick's fantastic FAQ out there, I'll be very willing to deal with the language barrier. I just LOOOOOOOVE the Yakuza series so much, and I really want to give this spinoff a shot. It seems to play very much like Yakuza 3, just set in the Edo period and having as much an emphasis on swordplay as on brawling.

I'd highly recommend it. Sandbox games don't come any better or more immersive-you'll literally spend months if you want to totally complete the game, and getting to brawl or use your sword is fun. The odds of it becoming a Western release are nil.

Dire 51 - January 12, 2011 01:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 11 2011, 09:28 PM)
Oops, never mind-I see you're talking about the original. I was refering to Undead Nigthmare.

Oh, I gotcha. No, Undead Nightmare I blew through in about 12 hours, total.

I'll say this: RDR hasn't really hooked me yet. RDR: UN had me hooked from start to finish.

sotenga - January 12, 2011 03:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 11 2011, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE (sotenga @ Jan 11 2011, 11:42 AM)
QUOTE (Brick McBurly @ Jan 9 2011, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE (Scissorman @ Jan 9 2011, 03:21 PM)
It's the best open-world sandbox game yet if only for the impressively realistic graphics and environments that absorb the player better than any other game.

Ryű ga Gotoku Kenzan! (an offshoot of the Yakuza series with Miyamoto Musashi as the hero) blows every other 'sandbox' game out of the water in every regard-realistic graphics, combat, tight controls, story, 'quests', etc. Too bad it never made it to the West since Sega didn't think people would be interested in Edo period Japan.

Brickster, do you recommend importing it at this rate? With ThePatrick's fantastic FAQ out there, I'll be very willing to deal with the language barrier. I just LOOOOOOOVE the Yakuza series so much, and I really want to give this spinoff a shot. It seems to play very much like Yakuza 3, just set in the Edo period and having as much an emphasis on swordplay as on brawling.

I'd highly recommend it. Sandbox games don't come any better or more immersive-you'll literally spend months if you want to totally complete the game, and getting to brawl or use your sword is fun. The odds of it becoming a Western release are nil.

I'm thinking that if we hear a release date for one of the other two spinoffs (the PSP one and the upcoming Of The End zombie apocalypse one), and Kenzan will be nowhere to be found, I'm just going to bite the bullet and import the sumnabitch.

... hurmble. I realize I'm hijacking this now, aren't I? Okay, that's it, Yakuza thread now. :lol

thedarkcloak - January 14, 2011 08:40 PM (GMT)
I think, part of it is a bit of a placebo effect, too.

This seems to be the pattern I see, in relation to that...

Make a semi-crappy game, by a smaller company, without a big budget advertising push, without the 'weight' of a larger company - that game will get bad reviews.

Now, take that SAME EXACT semi-crappy game, slap a powerhouse company name on it (Capcom, Rockstar, Konami, etc), throw a crap-ton of advertising bucks behind it, strap it into the giant hype machine - that game will get much better reviews in general.

Not saying this is 100% true, 100% of the time... What I'm saying is, that I think the reason RDR:UN got a 10 from IGN, and SH got a 4, is because I think this lame placebo effect comes into play.

Same thing can happen with music. For example, You might come across a song that you're not sure you like, but the minute you realize it's from a band you support/like etc, it MAY change your perception of it some.

It's like some subconscious bandwagon thing, or something...

I forgot what I was going to say, so I'll just hit post. ;)

thedarkcloak - January 14, 2011 08:53 PM (GMT)
Oh...

I just wanted to quickly add, in regards to the first couple of posts, mostly:

Yes, I think certain publishers get preferred treatment, and it sucks. I guess that's the downside to having game magazines reviewing the products of the very same companies that help them make money (ad dollars, etc).

Also... in terms of rating scales... I think one of the things that gets lost across the board through the majority of review mags/sites is the overall QUALITY or craftsmanship of what's being reviewed. (as a ludicrous example, just because I wouldn't wear that leather jacket you're wearing, doesn't mean I couldn't appreciate the way it's made, especially if it was made WELL for what it is). And I think this is oftentimes not even considered when review scores are being handed out...

What I mean is, if a game is not quite your cup of tea, but the quality & production values of it is top-of-the-line, that should also be taken into consideration.

Of course, there is such thing as a big budget piece of crap, and if you have a big budget piece of crap... well, big budget or not, it's still a piece of crap (This is how I feel about Michael Bay's Transformers 2, but lemme not stray off topic with THAT rant!)

One of the things that always bothers me about the way games are reviewed (I'm sorely reminded of the Aliens vs Predator reviews) is that some of the reviews were done by people who don't even PLAY FPS, let alone, have any familiarity with the lore/material involved in the games. And a big part of what cause those same reviewers will then deduct points from a game 'because the controls are too hard if you're not a FPS player' or 'the characters didn't make sense', without acknowledging the quality of the game itself, as a general judgment.

If I want to know if a FPS game is any good, I want to hear it from some one who knows their way around FPS games. RTS. RPG. Sports. etc.

Joestarsan - January 16, 2011 06:02 PM (GMT)
Has anyone mentioned/discussed the column by Dan Hsu in this month's EGM? I haven't seen anything on the board yet.


B-MovieKing - January 16, 2011 08:35 PM (GMT)
Haven't seen it. What's it say?

Scion238 - January 16, 2011 09:06 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (thedarkcloak @ Jan 14 2011, 03:53 PM)
I think one of the things that gets lost across the board through the majority of review mags/sites is the overall QUALITY or craftsmanship of what's being reviewed. (as a ludicrous example, just because I wouldn't wear that leather jacket you're wearing, doesn't mean I couldn't appreciate the way it's made, especially if it was made WELL for what it is). And I think this is oftentimes not even considered when review scores are being handed out...

What I mean is, if a game is not quite your cup of tea, but the quality & production values of it is top-of-the-line, that should also be taken into consideration.

THIS.

An honest reviewer's job is to do THIS before saying whether they like it or not. Good reviewers can separate their taste for the subject matter from the quality of its craftsmanship. Unfortunately, most reviewers suck.

Dire 51 - January 16, 2011 10:50 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Joestarsan @ Jan 16 2011, 01:02 PM)
Has anyone mentioned/discussed the column by Dan Hsu in this month's EGM? I haven't seen anything on the board yet.

I haven't. Now I'm very curious about it.

I did, however, stumble upon this earlier. According to the author, it should not be the "Top 10 Worst Games of 2010," it should be the "Top 10 Most Underrated Games of 2010." Coming in at number four:

QUOTE
Switching developers mid-development can mean a good or a bad thing for any game. In this case, switching may have saved it from what it could have been. A return to its true form, the remade Splatterhouse game features what made the game awesome nearly 20 years ago; bloody, bloody violence. There's blood everywhere in this game. And I do mean that.

Rick is trying to save his girlfriend from an evil mad scientist, which is the same storyline as the previous games, however this time there is a reason, and a purpose. Rick, near death, puts on a mask that grants him Mariusz Pudzianowski-size muscles and demon powers that can chop up his monster enemies into chunks. It's what you expect from the series; bloody, gratuitous gore.

The mask talks (many say his voice is annoying, I think it's hilarious). The plot is thin, and the difficulty curve may be a bit steep for some, but Splatterhouse delivers what made the originals so great. For those looking for a great, fun time playing a game, this is it.

Heretic9 - January 16, 2011 11:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 16 2011, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (Joestarsan @ Jan 16 2011, 01:02 PM)
Has anyone mentioned/discussed the column by Dan Hsu in this month's EGM?  I haven't seen anything on the board yet.

I haven't. Now I'm very curious about it.

I did, however, stumble upon this earlier. According to the author, it should not be the "Top 10 Worst Games of 2010," it should be the "Top 10 Most Underrated Games of 2010." Coming in at number four:

QUOTE
Switching developers mid-development can mean a good or a bad thing for any game. In this case, switching may have saved it from what it could have been. A return to its true form, the remade Splatterhouse game features what made the game awesome nearly 20 years ago; bloody, bloody violence. There's blood everywhere in this game. And I do mean that.

Rick is trying to save his girlfriend from an evil mad scientist, which is the same storyline as the previous games, however this time there is a reason, and a purpose. Rick, near death, puts on a mask that grants him Mariusz Pudzianowski-size muscles and demon powers that can chop up his monster enemies into chunks. It's what you expect from the series; bloody, gratuitous gore.

The mask talks (many say his voice is annoying, I think it's hilarious). The plot is thin, and the difficulty curve may be a bit steep for some, but Splatterhouse delivers what made the originals so great. For those looking for a great, fun time playing a game, this is it.

I'm happy to see there are at least a few honest writers left out there. Major kudos to the author for having some class.

QUOTE (Scion)
An honest reviewer's job is to do THIS before saying whether they like it or not. Good reviewers can separate their taste for the subject matter from the quality of its craftsmanship. Unfortunately, most reviewers suck.


True, very true. But most of todays reviewers aren't going to do that. They wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the ass. The only thing they care about is how much of a pay off they get out of it.

That's why sites like West Mansion, Hardcore Gaming 101, Flying Omelette, etc are the way to go. They stand no benefit from bending their writing one way or another.

Dire 51 - January 17, 2011 02:19 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Heretic9 @ Jan 16 2011, 06:04 PM)
That's why sites like West Mansion, Hardcore Gaming 101, Flying Omelette, etc are the way to go. They stand no benefit from bending their writing one way or another.

That was something that was worrying me. Anyone that had been following West Mansion over the past couple of years knew I was in contact with Namco Bandai. They knew I'd gotten perks. Did they think it was going to affect how I reviewed the game?

Luckily for me, the answer ultimately turned out to be no. At least, no one ever told me they were worried I was going to go into full fanboy suck up mode with my review.

Heretic9 - January 17, 2011 02:50 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 16 2011, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE (Heretic9 @ Jan 16 2011, 06:04 PM)
That's why sites like West Mansion, Hardcore Gaming 101, Flying Omelette, etc are the way to go. They stand no benefit from bending their writing one way or another.

That was something that was worrying me. Anyone that had been following West Mansion over the past couple of years knew I was in contact with Namco Bandai. They knew I'd gotten perks. Did they think it was going to affect how I reviewed the game?

Luckily for me, the answer ultimately turned out to be no. At least, no one ever told me they were worried I was going to go into full fanboy suck up mode with my review.

I don't speak for anyone here, but I for one didn't think for a second you would be biased in any way. I was pretty convinced you would give it a fair shake even if you turned out not to like it.

Dire 51 - January 17, 2011 11:25 AM (GMT)
Thanks. I appreciate that.

Heretic9 - January 17, 2011 10:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 17 2011, 06:25 AM)
Thanks. I appreciate that.

No problem, I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it! :cheers

ddp72984 - January 25, 2011 09:08 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dire 51 @ Jan 16 2011, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (Joestarsan @ Jan 16 2011, 01:02 PM)
Has anyone mentioned/discussed the column by Dan Hsu in this month's EGM?  I haven't seen anything on the board yet.

I haven't. Now I'm very curious about it.

I did, however, stumble upon this earlier. According to the author, it should not be the "Top 10 Worst Games of 2010," it should be the "Top 10 Most Underrated Games of 2010." Coming in at number four:

QUOTE
Switching developers mid-development can mean a good or a bad thing for any game. In this case, switching may have saved it from what it could have been. A return to its true form, the remade Splatterhouse game features what made the game awesome nearly 20 years ago; bloody, bloody violence. There's blood everywhere in this game. And I do mean that.

Rick is trying to save his girlfriend from an evil mad scientist, which is the same storyline as the previous games, however this time there is a reason, and a purpose. Rick, near death, puts on a mask that grants him Mariusz Pudzianowski-size muscles and demon powers that can chop up his monster enemies into chunks. It's what you expect from the series; bloody, gratuitous gore.

The mask talks (many say his voice is annoying, I think it's hilarious). The plot is thin, and the difficulty curve may be a bit steep for some, but Splatterhouse delivers what made the originals so great. For those looking for a great, fun time playing a game, this is it.

guys, I posted a topic on it on the main 2010 page. I also have the review and editorial posted, as well as my opinion on it. Sorry to steal thunder, I didn't see this thread until after I gave the scans to Dire.

And speaking of, Rob, you said at the beginning that you would give Splatterhouse a fair shake..and you did. You spoke of all the high points of the game and yet, admitted it wasn't the greatest thing in the world. If that isn't unbiased, I don't know what it...

EDIT: I just re-read that Joystiq article posted. A funny thing occurred to me: There really was a fucking CLYDE?! I thought that they were being smartasses....




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree