Metal Gear Solid 4 post:#1067

I think this paragraph from Eurogamers review sets the scene for this game, and does perfectly:

This is what we should be pleading, beggin and praying for every time we buy a game, fuck compromises, media analyses, market researches and PR driven game development.

I´m gonna buy this game and maybe even hate it but it will still be worth every dollar...

 

Millions don't hate it. Millions either love it, or are indifferent.

yes I was looking for his reviews. What games has he reviewed? MGS should be given to the top editor, the most respected reviewer, even the PS3 reviewer. Eurogamer have done something very wrong here.

And what's this "We love you Snake. Don't come back." Who is he reviewing this game for? Himself? Reads and ends like a very selfish review.

Anyway, EG gave MGS3 an 8/10, but I have a feeling their MGS4 8/10 is less deserved.

 

Agree wholeheartedly.

 

I thought the review was written similar to what reviewer claims MGS4 is.
On the other hand, IGN UK review was a blast to read, pretty well written.
In the end though, I suspect I'll agree with Eurogamer more, but possibly with a score around 9ish.

Overblown GTAIV scores all make me sick, now that I've finished the game.

 

8/10 seems like a good score to me. Enjoyed the review. Points out both the good points and the flaws of the game without giving anything away. I'm struggling to see the big problem here.........

 

Please note that eurogamer is much harsher than the average review site. An 8 from eurogamer is usually consistent with 8.5-9\10 scores on usual sites. (Their average review score is 65,8% when 72.9% is the average score based on all website reviews.)

 

8 from Eurogamer doesnt mean much when everyone else gives it 9.5 and above

 

In defense of Eurogamer for sending a relatively new guy, I think all the reviews that are being released today are done by people who went to that special event in Japan. They may simply not have had anyone else available. And an 8 is probably consistent with their scoring so far, though I would be interested in putting SS Brawl review next to this one, because in that review fan service seemed to be valued a lot, and compared to Brawl, fan-service in MGS4 is probably a great white next to a piranha. Of course, if you were really evil, you could try to argue that Eurogamer's huge investment in terms of fairly unique Live integration features in their website (with special leaderboards for which Eurogamer site memeber finishes all achievements in GTA IV for instance) ... I don't think they had those features yet when they gave Gears of War (or Halo 2) a 8/10. Then again, Eurogamer's scores have always had a mind of their own, and the text of their review is often as good as the best of them. In that respect, you can't pay too much attention to their scores ultimately, as we've discussed very often before.

Anyway, because I think all of the reviews have been done by people who went to that special event, I think that is part of the reason why MGO hasn't been included in the review and why other aspects of the game have not yet been mentioned (not to mention that there were NDAs signed on what you weren't allowed to spoil or mention I think).

It will be interesting to see what the retail version will look like. I think I'll probably get it, even if it's just for historical purposes. I've bought at least 4 of the 5 games, even if I've probably never finished more than a third of them (my half-brother on the other hand has finished all of them several times over, and as he hasn't got a PS3 yet, maybe I'll invite him over and just watch him play ).

Anyway, good news for all the 'haters' that the non-interactive bits can be skipped. I know that has been an often heard complaint. For me it was the other way around, I couldn't wait until the next cut-scene. I had the same with all the PS1 and PS2 Final Fantasies - those cut-scenes were, to me, rewards that kept me playing, and I invariably stopped playing at some point because I got stuck in the game, yet always regretting not having seen the rest of the story. In that sense, the MGS3 non-interactive version on the third disc is a godsend and should always be included in these games. I'll be sure to watch at least that disc before I start on MGS4!

 

I actually thought the eurogamer was pretty good. He highlights all of the points that fans of the series will want to know without spoiling anything. He highlights all of the points that skeptics will want to know without ruining anything. It genuinely seems to be a "way it is" review, which is useful for all gamers, not just fans of the series. Overall, I'd say the review is glowing, but you can see the duality in a lot of the points he raises. It really is a love it or hate it affair with Metal Gear, a lot of the time.

I'd like to try this game out, but I doubt my brother will pick it up not having played any of the previous games.

 

Sorry for referring to another forum, but since almost everyone here knows GAF and almost everyone at GAF knows B3D, and there's many cross-referencing in both forum's posts, I guess there's no problem (and I think no one mentioned this yet).

The "Official" MGS4 thread over at GAF, right here, http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=303161, is an work of art, go take a look.

Let the images load, the OP is actually the first 39 posts. (yeah you read that right)


Regarding the EG review, I agree with deepbrown, that last section seems thrown in to justify the score. Also, while it's clear that usually reviews are just the opinion of a single person, seems to me they picked someone with somewhat of a bias against the series...

 

I agree with your analysis.
The Eurogamer review seems very subjective and clearly mirrors the reviewer's dislike for the MGS series. I don't want to jump to rushed conclusions but it almost seems like Eurogamer is in desperate need for attention and traffic.

 

I very much disagree. The review is an 8/10, which is a positive score. The reviewer is clearly a fan of the series, though he has some issues with it. It is a review written by an objective fan of the series, not a glowing fanboy.

If the only people allowed to review the game are unabashed fans, then all you'll see is 10/10 regardless of whatever flaws the game may have (see GTA4). At the same time, I don't really have a problem with that. Fanboys are allowed to write reviews too, because it services the other diehards who want to know how they'll feel about it.

Where some people see this guy as being unobjective and biased because of his criticisms, I see this as an objective review for exactly the same reasons. Is it bias because I have issues with the previous games? Maybe, but it's no more of a bias than the people who see the previous games as classics and are expecting review scores close to perfect.

I'm still confident that this review is well written to cater to both crowds, and will be fair and informative for both the diehards and the skeptics or new entrants to the series.

 

Eurogamer is a bless in these days of overhyped reviews and games, adding to that the easy (and totally predictable) tens. A bit sad they got caught in the hype of Halo 3, GTA, etc.

There is no game that deserves a 10. Not without a year of playing and beating it, if you still play it then perhaps. A perfect score, the way I see it, should be reserved to perfect games.

 

Thank god, I thought I was the only one that had actually read the review.......

 

Yet they gave Stranglehold a 8/10, Flatout a 8/10 and EDF a 9/10. I think they are inconsistent at best.

 

9 for Grid (good game, but a little bit generic) and 8 for MGS4 (an epic game). Definitely, I dont care about Eurogamer's reviews anymore.

 

Different reviewers. If you take a away a reviewers right to come up with their own score, then what's the point? If the reviewer says, I think MGS4 is an 8/10, what's the editor supposed to do? Can they say, "Well, Bill gave Grid a 9/10, and I think MGS4 is probably a better game, so you'll have to raise your score"? Is that what you really want?

I suppose the perfect answer is to invent an all-knowing robot or computer that will single-handedly review every video game in ever single region and language. That way, all reviews will be perfectly consistent.

 

[modhat]Can we not discuss reviewers' scores and policies, please? The same happens with every big title - some review, one of the big sites, gives it a lower than some folk (who have never played the game ) think it deserves, and then we have the same repeating arguments about reviews. Reviews aren't perfect, they're not a science. A review is a review, a subjective expression of a player's take on the game, weighted however they so wish in terms of their own idea of objectivity. Review scores are not right nor wrong, any more than my saying 'I like strawberries. I dislike Marmite' can be wrong.

I will get antsy and chop out future Review debate. Discuss the game, not the reviewers!
[/modhat]

 

I hope they've added the ability for Snake to play and review video games. That would be AWESOME!