DragonGirl wrote:The consensus from people actually playing the game is that it's great, and reviews attacking it are baffling. There's definitely a disconnect between the experience of most gamers posting about the game and what the low score reviews are saying. The review scores themselves have been all over the place.
Watch the vid. It shows major problems. People who buy games aren't critics and so they are less discerning about a games' problems.
Yeah, and so far the critics have been pretty revealing.
Gamespot 4.5 (Terrible site/known for shovel reviews)
IGN 6.5 ('im and Gamespot are like bros)
Game Informer 60/100 (Oddity, but seeing how it's Gamestop's only line in reviews is pretty telling. GI is only good for exclusives and interviews)
Gametrailers 6.5 (The only outlier, as I don't tend to have much of a problem with them)
Were the ones giving shovel reviews.
Now let's look at some of the positive reviews:
Eurogamer 9/10 (For the most part I tend to agree with them. They also don't have too much in the ways of controversy and bribed reviews like I can find for the likes of Gamespot/IGN)
Joystiq 9/10 (Don't think much of them)
Destructoid 8/10 (Better, but dunno 'bout that Sterling fellow)
Edge 7/10 (From what I've found, Edge is pretty rough, and doesn't adhere to the "8-10" ratio that a lot of review sites have. Plus they were pretty positive from the looks of it)
Any review site that was able to put time and effort into the game got a lot out of it. And the sites who are known to have terrible critique and shove 9.5-10s across the board for any publisher whose got $$$ have been giving the shovel reviews.
Now, I am not one to usually say this, but the so-called "repetitive combat" and "bad controls" are what make this game. Seriously. I know, weird. But think back. Did Resident Evil have clunky controls/piss-poor combat and shovel AI? Yes. Did Silent Hill have the same? Yes. The most relished and remembered Survival horror games tended to be the ones with imperfect designs, because they complemented the fear and hopelessness of the struggle. That's WHY these games works. And THAT'S why "real" survival horror fans are jumping to this game, cause that well has been dried up for so long! And THAT's especially why reviewers *coughgamespotcough* are giving it shovel scores, because they don't know how to digest this content. And historically, survival horror games tend to get mixed to negative scores, barring some exceptions. (Resident Evil)
And even beyond that- One thing I've been hearing is that the scores have been "all over the place". That's not even true. We have 4 bad scores. And ten scores that say it's a really great game with some minor but not broken flaws. That's not "all over the place". Not even close.http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/zombiu
Saying that the people who are playing it don't know how to discern whither or not it's a bad game is just asinine. Are you are saying they should be sheep and only listen to IGN telling them that killstreaks are a thing and that every game should have them?