›

IGN's Penal Zone Review... 7.2 -_-

SlasherManSlasherMan
edited April 2010 in Sam & Max
Well I'm just saying this, i don't care if they give it a 3 out of 10 I'm still gonna be as excited for episode 1 as I did when I first heard it was coming!

You can read the effking review here:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1081931p1.html

Not to say I was expecting that score i was disapointed, but as seeing their ToMI Reviews i guess 2% of my mind was saying "I dont think this one will get an 8 like I expected" :(
«13

Comments

  • seanparkerfilmsseanparkerfilms
    edited April 2010
    It's a generally positive review. They just say that the episode feels more like a setup of things to come rather than a complete standalone experience. I wouldn't be surprised if there's truth to that, but I'm still eagerly anticipating it.
  • Hero1Hero1
    edited April 2010
    Isn't that what they said about the first episode of Tales of Monkey Island? I think as seanparkerfilms says the review is positive, it's just been given a low score. If you look at IGN's scores they rate Culture Shock the same as COTD so I don't place too much importance on that.
  • ShwooShwoo
    edited April 2010
    Review is slightly spoilerly. Just a warning. There's one bit about the ending I wish I could unread. Nothing serious, though.

    And the review wasn't negative at all.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited April 2010
    It's a very positive review, and is exactly what I expected from it. I expect IGN will rate the series the same as Telltale's others. Chapter 2 being the lowest, with 3 and 4 being the highest and 5 being a 50/50 with people between best and second best.
  • GinnyNGinnyN
    edited April 2010
    I don't understand why they lower points for been a Setup for more to come if it is a 1st episode: It's a setup for more to come!

    For something we buy the games by season, or not?

    The point is if it is a good setup for more to come. No if it a setup or not.
  • IrishmileIrishmile
    edited April 2010
    I think that episodic gaming is still new... despite TTG having been doing to for a while now.. at least in terms of videogames... I think reviewers are still struggling on how to review this type of gaming.... Its like only reading 1/5 of a book and expected to give a fair and accurate report about it.

    7.2 isn't a bad score... most reviewers score games below what I would, so that is a really good score actually...
  • GibbeynatorGibbeynator
    edited April 2010
    People really need to learn that 7s and 8s are not bad scores. The only reason AAA titles get such high scores is because the reviewers are afraid of being fanboy crucified for giving less than a 9.5 score to games like GTA4.
  • seanparkerfilmsseanparkerfilms
    edited April 2010
    Irishmile makes a good point. It's important to keep in mind that the "success" of a given episode will likely change based on story arc payoffs in future installments (supposedly even more so for this season, as it's going to be a more cohesive whole than the past two seasons). But since it's a setup for what's to come, and no one really knows just what will be coming in the future yet, it may be more difficult to review.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited April 2010
    So, you're mad that another person didn't like the game that you haven't played as much as you think you will.

    Got it.

    Ah, I do so love ratings scales of 7 through 10.
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited April 2010
    Not gonna read an IGN review of a story-driven game ever, especially not an episodic one, since they routinely spoil major things.

    And 7.2 is pretty reasonable for an Episode 1. Things will get better around Episode 3, I'm sure
  • patterspatters
    edited April 2010
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    So, you're mad that another person didn't like the game that you haven't played as much as you think you will.

    IGN.com
  • GinnyNGinnyN
    edited April 2010
    I don't really care if the game or the concept is difficult or not to review: He's getting paid for that! Minimum is try to understand how the system works! No talk the whole review of how cool Skun'ka'pe is! (And I'll still think that even if Skun'ka'pe is that awesome).

    Since this is a Game delivered by parts, a review which is updated everytime a part is delivered could work. But, really, how difficult is understand this is an episode and not an stand alone product which can rely on itself if the whole forum understand that? "Professional" Reviewers cannot be THAT stupid. Or at least been professional enough to declare they can't review it because they don't understand the concept. Or whathever.

    By the way, I read the whole thing. Yep, I don't think a 7,2 score is a bad score (I don't really cares about scores, so, that why I read it). Yep, is somewhat spoilerish but is more like a list of what he likes and what he don't. And, really, I think is a bad review (The text itself, no the score of the game).
  • IrishmileIrishmile
    edited April 2010
    LOL reviewing a review I love it.
  • GinnyNGinnyN
    edited April 2010
    Irishmile wrote: »
    LOL reviewing a review I love it.

    Thanks. But I'm pretty sure they are already sick of people tell to them they suck in their work. But they don't stop to think why people tell them that. (Maybe is because they actually suck!)

    I know is an irony...
  • ZeekZeek
    edited April 2010
    Have to say, those screenshots they uploaded with the review do have my curious, particularly as to why Max is lunging at Grandpa Stinky in his "Booga Booga!" stance.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited April 2010
    patters wrote: »
    IGN.com
    ...

    And?
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited April 2010
    I believe he was falsely attributing the quote to IGN for humor purposes.
  • lombrelombre
    edited April 2010
    Score seems fine to me. Especially considering they gave Night of the Raving Dead, one of my two favorite episodes, a mere 6.8 out of 10.
  • DideroDidero
    edited April 2010
    GinnyN wrote: »
    I don't really care if the game or the concept is difficult or not to review: He's getting paid for that! Minimum is try to understand how the system works! No talk the whole review of how cool Skun'ka'pe is! (And I'll still think that even if Skun'ka'pe is that awesome).

    Since this is a Game delivered by parts, a review which is updated everytime a part is delivered could work. But, really, how difficult is understand this is an episode and not an stand alone product which can rely on itself if the whole forum understand that? "Professional" Reviewers cannot be THAT stupid. Or at least been professional enough to declare they can't review it because they don't understand the concept. Or whathever.

    By the way, I read the whole thing. Yep, I don't think a 7,2 score is a bad score (I don't really cares about scores, so, that why I read it). Yep, is somewhat spoilerish but is more like a list of what he likes and what he don't. And, really, I think is a bad review (The text itself, no the score of the game).

    A few spelling mistakes, some unclear sentences. Therefore I give this review of a review a score of 7.6 out of 10. It would've been higher if the anger was toned down a bit.
  • Forrest_GIMPForrest_GIMP
    edited April 2010
    Why moan? It was a positive review. Some genres are just unable to attain high scores (adventure games and action rpg's mainly - look at titan quest and diablo II for example). Just reading what he wrote and it sounds as good as I hoped it would be. The main complaints are with it being a setting up episode, so it reviews more like a tv show than a game, but on the whole it was a good review.
  • FriarFriar
    edited April 2010
    seanparkerfilms wrote: »
    It's a generally positive review. They just say that the episode feels more like a setup of things to come rather than a complete standalone experience. I wouldn't be surprised if there's truth to that, but I'm still eagerly anticipating it.
    It seems they don't really get proper episodic gameplay. They mentioned the same thing with most of their TMI reviews, saying the storyline wasn't finished.

    It doesn't reaally matter, given you can't buy the episodes individually anyway. They should just wait and review them all in August.
  • TrixieTrixie
    edited April 2010
    1:Ignore the 'decent' one word review. 7.2 generally means a good game but nothing to be taken as a awsome game of awsomeness. Good but not awsome. 2: Most review sites keep Lasting appeal of games for all games, expecially point and click as they always give a medicore score to it (got to admit, point and click doesn't have the best replay value untill time passes). Wait for a site like Adventure Gamers to post a review as lasting appeal isn't a focus to them. 3: It's a review, I've liked games that get all negative scores so the review only really helps marketing the game tbh.
  • KromsKroms
    edited April 2010
    IGN still criticize episodic games for their length of 3-4 hours. That alone makes them moot in my book.

    Also:
    Still, there's really not as much story here as we've seen in previous episodes, which is a real shame because with a villain like Skun'ka'pe and constant reference to the "penal zone," the episode has a lot of potential.

    This makes me think they're disappointed it wasn't just a series of, uh, let's say, penal jokes. Though no-one takes IGN seriously, so whatever.

    God Hand and all that.
  • GinnyNGinnyN
    edited April 2010
    Didero wrote: »
    A few spelling mistakes, some unclear sentences. Therefore I give this review of a review a score of 7.6 out of 10. It would've been higher if the anger was toned down a bit.

    Uhh... Awesome. Pretty much you're telling me I'm probably get a 9 out of 10 If English wasn't my Second Language (learn it by playing video games and lurking on forums).

    I think I'm going to post somewhere the review of a review of a review with the disclaimer. *thumbs up*
  • pj23hpj23h
    edited April 2010
    Kroms wrote: »
    IGN still criticize episodic games for their length of 3-4 hours. That alone makes them moot in my book.

    I was just thinking the same thing. 3 or 4 hours for a single episode is great. If you take into consideration there are 5 episodes, that means that we're looking at a 15-20 hour game overall. Longer than most full price games, like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and it's sequel. Look at the reception that game received! I for one, am glad to see the return of the adventure game genre. :)
  • pj23hpj23h
    edited April 2010
    Oh yes, almost forgot. The price. Here in the UK, it's only half the price of a normal title. Long live Sam and Max!
  • ChemBroChemBro
    edited April 2010
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    patters wrote:
    IGN.com

    ...

    And?

    It's more like a neogaf meme. You don't need to discuss/dislike reviews by IGN, because everyone knows it's a IGN review. Or something like that.
  • pj23hpj23h
    edited April 2010
    You have a very valid point there Chem! What really matters is that we ourselves enjoy it, and I have no doubt that will be the case. Roll on next Thursday!
  • KromsKroms
    edited April 2010
    ChemBro wrote: »
    It's more like a neogaf meme. You don't need to discuss/dislike reviews by IGN, because everyone knows it's a IGN review. Or something like that.

    I've seen it start somewhere else. But yeah, IGN are just freaking ridiculous. I wouldn't mind if they weren't so popular and influential, but that's not the case.
  • guitarsareboringguitarsareboring
    edited April 2010
    Kroms wrote: »
    I've seen it start somewhere else. But yeah, IGN are just freaking ridiculous. I wouldn't mind if they weren't so popular and influential, but that's not the case.

    Bit like Pitchfork is for music then.
  • KromsKroms
    edited April 2010
    Pitchfork plus Rolling Stone.
  • seson3churiousseson3churious
    edited April 2010
    I would play Sam and Max even if IGN would give them a -1 out of 10 ;)
  • KromsKroms
    edited April 2010
    seson3churious wrote: »
    I would play Sam and Max even if IGN would give them a -1 out of 10 ;)

    Especially if IGN gave them -1.
  • ZoninoZonino
    edited April 2010
    You can't spell ignorant without IGN!

    However 7.2 isn't a bad score. Too many 9's and 10's for AAA titles have made people forget that when it comes to scoring out of 10 5 is average and anything above that is varying levels of good.
  • JJoyceJJoyce
    edited April 2010
    Irishmile wrote: »
    I think that episodic gaming is still new... despite TTG having been doing to for a while now.. at least in terms of videogames... I think reviewers are still struggling on how to review this type of gaming.... Its like only reading 1/5 of a book and expected to give a fair and accurate report about it.

    7.2 isn't a bad score... most reviewers score games below what I would, so that is a really good score actually...


    Game reviewers may be struggling a little to grasp episodic gaming, sure.

    I can tell you those of us in the mainstream press (yes, we're still around) don't have a problem with it, but that's because episodic content has been around for years in the format of TV shows/book series, etc.

    The example of trying to review 1/5 of a book isn't really accurate. A more accurate example would be to say that it's like reviewing one book in a multi-book series, or an episode of a TV series.

    Good episodic content should stand on its own, it's why we all have favorite episodes of a show and not just favorite series. At the same time, depending on format, it's important for an episode to have a place in the season story structure rather than existing simply to exist.

    In essence, reviewing an "episode"/"chapter" of Sam & Max is like all else episodic. You're looking at overall plot/pacing/writing/scoring of the episode, but you're also looking for the seeds of what should become overarching themes and season-long plot lines and throughline(s).

    Of course, that's drastically simplifying the review process at publications I've worked with, but it should give a little insight at least.

    I wouldn't worry too much about IGN's 7.2....People tend to get too obsessed with numbers, stars or thumbs in rating systems which is why we don't use them (that and people tend to just look at a score or rating rather than reading the review.)

    I'm pretty sure most of us here will be very happy with Telltale's premiere of the new S&M season (which should never be abbreviated that way as it sounds like a fashion event for fetishists.)

    I, at least, am expecting a hell of a ride as the season unfolds.
  • Hassat HunterHassat Hunter
    edited April 2010
    The gamemagazine I read does understand episodic gaming, and has done so since S&M 1.

    Which is why I read their mag instead of some online review. The format should be no limitation for a professional review.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited April 2010
    JJoyce wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure most of us here will be very happy with Telltale's premiere of the new S&M season (which should always be abbreviated that way as it sounds like a fashion event for fetishists.)
    I agree.
  • GibbeynatorGibbeynator
    edited April 2010
    I tend to ignore these numbered reviews anyway. My best example for why they are generally unreliable is because X-Play gave Final Fantasy 12 a 5 out of 5, but .hack only got a 3, and Kingdom Hearts 2 got a 4. And I feel that .hack was a far and better game than Final Fantasy 12, same with KH2.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited April 2010
    Gibbeynator wrote: »
    I tend to ignore these numbered reviews anyway. My best example for why they are generally unreliable is because X-Play gave Final Fantasy 12 a 5 out of 5, but .hack only got a 3, and Kingdom Hearts 2 got a 4. And I feel that .hack was a far and better game than Final Fantasy 12, same with KH2.
    Of course! Their opinions aren't valid because I don't agree with them!
  • JJoyceJJoyce
    edited April 2010
    Actually, the sentiment seems not so much 'their opinions aren't valid' but rather 'their numbers aren't valid.'

    And just to reiterate, this is why we don't do ratings systems. The rating gets noticed and commented on but not necessarily the reviewer's opinion and discussion of the factors and elements that led to that rating.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.