it' s a 6/10, i think IGN again want to penalize developers from not being innovative, they often do this shit and screw a game just to push developers to change (because these reviewers/gamers feel cheated as they say), i don' t think this game deserve a 6, yes i didn' t play it but the game is better in gameplay than genji first, the graphics are awesome as they said, controls are nice, so why 6, 6 for me is CRAP.


http://ps3.ign.com/articles/744/744611p2.aspx

If the game is boring, a 6 is in order? even though it gets a low grade, some might like it!

please VX , if a game didn' t innovate from last gen , it doesn' t mean it' s boring, since when i' m bored with my ps2, heck even the 360 didn' t offer TRUE next gen on its launch, (gameplay and graphic wise) pdz and kameo still got 8.4 each, EVEN KING KONG WHICH IS A STRAIGHT PORT WITH SO MANY DRAW BACKS IN GAMEPLAY managed to get a much better score 8, they should stop the bullshit, screwing games like this , be objective. at least this has awesome graphics, mix that with an improved gameplay over the original genji, and you would conclude it' ll have to score better than a poor 6.

read the review , their biggest problem is that it doesn' t offer something really diferent in gameplay and bam they gave it a 6 WTF.

If games like RE4, Ninja Gaiden and Gears are 9-10 the yeah, Genji would be a 6.

someimtes people have high expectations of a game, and dont like that it might not be so good, ask quez and N3

ABA you attackj me for saying N3 was fun,and look at the reviews 9/10 complain it doesnt have " next-gen" gameplay.

Now a ps3 game get bashed and its wrong?

Come on...

And you VX is also wrong,if the game was fun for me it wasn' t " bad" atleast not for me i do get why they complain,but i had a fun time.

I defintly recommend to rent it atleast.

Objectively N3 wasn' t a bad game, there was just far too much expected
from it, people forget that it' s just a hack and slash, but were expecting the
next... I dunno... what were people expecting from it???

As a hack n' slash, they could have probably added a few magical elements to it,
that' s why the only fun or difference of play you' ll probably experience in the game
is with Tyurru the water sorceress, as most of her moves rely on using water, but
it doesn' t break up the game elements much, they should have put more
gameplay mechanics with fire, water etc.

As for Genji, the first one was very subpar, I don' t really expect the second one
to be much different, Genji plays like a bad version of Onimusha..

Speaking of expecting too much from a game...*cough* Lost Planet *cough* Lost Odyssey.

The problem with game reviews is that in most cases the reviewers are trying to be proffessional which means removing personal preference. Which is to their credit but videogames are not just technical achievements it' s art, and art is subjective. I' d say that how much you like a game is based on 25% concrete technical merit while they' re based also on 75% personal preference. Often times our preferences overlap because the developers try to please most people.

The reason games like GOW and Lost Odyssey are considered to be overhyped is because they have great technical merit. But there are always gamers that aren' t attracted to a cetain gameplay and the technical merit will not matter to them.

The reverse is also true, where a game that has little technical prowess like N3 yet you have devout fans because the game appeals greatly to their tastes.

Thats why I don' t read the scores the reviewers give, because they can only speak for themselves.

Edit: fixed spelling mistake, the funny thig is that I changed with a " a" as I thought I was spelling it wrong as " cough" , its easy to make spelling mistakes when you speak two languages with the same alphabet.

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

Speaking of expecting too much from a game...*caugh* Lost Planet *caugh* Lost Odyssey.

It' s *cough* , and yes those games are quite hyped for the time being, but I
wouldn' t rule them out from being brilliant, of course Lost Planet looks to have
more variation than Gears with the inclusion of vehicles and 16 (or was it 32??)
people in multiplayer.

I wouldn' t expect you to like Lost Odyssey either, I mean, I am not even looking
forward to Lost Odyssey, but you can' t deny that the game is looking promising
for JRPG fans, just like Gears looked promising for you because you' re a
war shooter fan.

I think Lost Odyssey' s and Lost Planets hype are in just about the right place.

If we are talking about " expecting too much from a game" you need look no
further than Halo 3 *cough*..

Then again, when something like Rengoku, or 187 Ride or Die get 2, 3, 1 marks and are named Turds of the Week...you generally listen...

EGM' s three-person judgement is pretty fair. Even for some games which are admittedly not great, like Enchanted Arms, there' s at least one person in there who would give it some honorable mentions and talk about its good points while the others state honestly its myriad bad points.

Then again, when something like Rengoku, or 187 Ride or Die get 2, 3, 1 marks and are named Turds of the Week...you generally listen...

Well yeah, some games everyone can agree are bad. Its much easier to review a hoplessly abysmal game then anything else. There are many things that no one will tollerate with games. With good games you almost have to make assumptions about what people like while being impartial at the same time. So you can see how reviewing games can be self defeating, and why we always look at many because a single review means next to nothig to each person.

Quez isn' t wrong for liking N3 even when the rest of us don' t care for it, it' s his taste which is the most valid measurment we have. Reviews can' t really take that into consideration.

Its one thing to judge the individual technical merits or failings of a game but giving a score to a game just doesn' t work.