Kodar wrote:

Your faith in the guys who write reviews is really amusing.. No, they don't run vendettas, but you should know a few things..

1) there is no such a thing as professional reviewer. not in the inet anyways. It's usually just a guy with enough time and experience in writing articles/spelling.

If they get paid for it it's what is considered a "professionality." I work with a local newspaper and the guys who review games and movies are still college students, but they've taken classes on writing and marketting. They get hired because they know what they're doing, thus "professional." It doesn't matter if you agree with a review or not but if they are getting paid to do their job, it is a "professional" review just like everyone who reviews for the New York Times.

Then again, if these guys aren't professional, why do you even care what they say?

2) Most of them do not even try to get rid of emotions during the work, go dig up review on TEN at IGN and see for yourself, that was a golden one.

What, the DotD reviews? They seemed fine to me, there was no "man they ruined Spyro" it was all just "well, as a game, this isn't very good."

Didn't the IGN review praise the story anyway?

3) I don't believe there is no score buying at all.

Is this sarcasm? If so, you do realize when there is score-buying the review will have a pretty noticeable POSITIVE bias? If not, usually games are given the typical fair review.

The guy who got fired over at Gamespot wrote a "medicore" review for a certain game that was being advertised all over the site. Apparently by paying Gamespot to advertise, the guys wanted a "positive review" as part of the package, so they fired the reviewer for some reason.

This is usually how score-buying works, you see.

As Kazoobie said...reviewers do get paid to do their work....I also know some guys who work for the local newspaper...none of them are older like she pointed out...most are right out of high school or in college...but they get paid to run through the game and grade it......and if you are paid to do something it is considered a profession.

And again she is correct on the reviews....none of them really go right after the character saying "Wow this was the most terrible game yet.."..most of them end generally positive about the subject...because most of them do want to see a Spyro game that they can all enjoy as much as the old ones.

On the last three DotD reviews I have been through..none of them have effectively trashed the game itself...I actually think they gave it very fair reviews compared to before...and they kept the fans hopes alive by finishing with pretty effective lines that show their support for the purple dragon.

As for the score buying thing...I'm not even gonna go into that. The reviewers are paid to do their work....I don't like certain sites or magazines...but not all of them are terrible...so far what I have read has been pretty fair save a given few.

Your faith in the guys who write reviews is really amusing.. No, they don't run vendettas, but you should know a few things..

1) there is no such a thing as professional reviewer. not in the inet anyways. It's usually just a guy with enough time and experience in writing articles/spelling.

If they get paid for it it's what is considered a "professionality." I work with a local newspaper and the guys who review games and movies are still college students, but they've taken classes on writing and marketting. They get hired because they know what they're doing, thus "professional." It doesn't matter if you agree with a review or not but if they are getting paid to do their job, it is a "professional" review just like everyone who reviews for the New York Times.

Then again, if these guys aren't professional, why do you even care what they say?

What, the DotD reviews? They seemed fine to me, there was no "man they ruined Spyro" it was all just "well, as a game, this isn't very good."

Didn't the IGN review praise the story anyway?

Is this sarcasm? If so, you do realize when there is score-buying the review will have a pretty noticeable POSITIVE bias? If not, usually games are given the typical fair review.

The guy who got fired over at Gamespot wrote a "medicore" review for a certain game that was being advertised all over the site. Apparently by paying Gamespot to advertise, the guys wanted a "positive review" as part of the package, so they fired the reviewer for some reason.

This is usually how score-buying works, you see.

1) there is no such a thing as professional reviewer. not in the inet anyways. It's usually just a guy with enough time and experience in writing articles/spelling.
2) Most of them do not even try to get rid of emotions during the work, go dig up review on TEN at IGN and see for yourself, that was a golden one.
3) I don't believe there is no score buying at all.

I really doubt professional reviewers hold personal vendettas against a game series. It sounds to me like they were merely unimpressed with ANB and TEN and their minds weren't changed with DotD.

They aren't paid to look at games as "fans of the series." Usually being a fan of something is what is considered a bias.

Exactly. The reviewers are meant to look at the games equally and in the same terms. Holding favoritism wouldn't bode well...and I'm pretty sure they don't include it in their reviews. The game didn't deliever as well as it was suppose to...and many things were ignored by the developers. Granted it's still a rather enjoyable game...but it fell short...and all in all they gave very impressive reviews....at least I think they did.

They aren't paid to look at games as "fans of the series." Usually being a fan of something is what is considered a bias.

Kazoobie64 wrote:

How do you know this? Have they been clamoring on about how much it will suck before they played it?

Exactly. "Just let him die, the series are dead" is the most common impression established in press after TEN. Now i see the fruits of it with my own eyes..

Bad move man lol....yikes....

And Kazoobie is right....if you take a look through most of the reviews leading up to the game...and even after the game....you will find that many say they have high hopes for this game...and that even though it didn't meet expectations...we will not leave our favorite purple dragon behind in our minds.

Many do remember the old series...and they have expected great things from the newer ones....but more time had to be taken during development..and things were just much too rushed for the good of the game.

How do you know this? Have they been clamoring on about how much it will suck before they played it?

Exactly. "Just let him die, the series are dead" is the most common impression established in press after TEN. Now i see the fruits of it with my own eyes..

but the only problem that LoS has done is effectively split the fanbase between this series and the old series.

I don't think this is true in my case I love old spyro as a part of my childhood, and because it is so calm and peaceful and it is great to take off stress. I conseder LoS, DotD esply, as a healthy addition to it, wideing the universe and making fresh food for my grown mind.

They are just biased, they expected the game to suck, they've made a "review" in their mind long before the game came out, that's it. i can't explain overall poor quality of the reviews themselves other way.

How do you know this? Have they been clamoring on about how much it will suck before they played it?

A lot of reviewers have commented stuff along the lines of "well, while we had high hopes for this game" or "they gave it their best effort" or "they were hoping the trilogy would go off with a bang" and still gave it low scores.

Kazoobie64 wrote:

It's not so much as the "little flaws" hindering the game but rather the little flaws adding up into a bigger detail. The game's overall low scores from other critics comes from its length and limits in gameplay, and of course, the un-strategized combat system.

They are just biased, they expected the game to suck, they've made a "review" in their mind long before the game came out, that's it. i can't explain overall poor quality of the reviews themselves other way.

I do agree with Kazoobie on this one...the reviewers did their job how they have always done it...and I don't know about you but I found this review to be much more open then the others...check out some of the other ones I posted up on here....overall they are not bad at all.

It's not so much as the "little flaws" hindering the game but rather the little flaws adding up into a bigger detail. The game's overall low scores from other critics comes from its length and limits in gameplay, and of course, the un-strategized combat system.

They are just biased, they expected the game to suck, they've made a "review" in their mind long before the game came out, that's it. i can't explain overall poor quality of the reviews themselves other way.

Yes there is no perfect game and their never will be...but the only problem that LoS has done is effectively split the fanbase between this series and the old series. Those flaws don't matter to us per say...but to the reviewers they do...that's just the way they do it and it's not gonna change.

I'm happy that the game turned out how it did...could it have been better...heck yes...but I give credit to EL for their efforts. In my mind ANB was better then TEN...but DotD still blew them both away.

Either way it's a different market with different reviewers...all we can do is continue to support the series.

What about her poor defense? Also, if you're playing in co-op, this doesn't apply as your experience is shared with both players. I never played this game in one player, so I wouldn't know. Personally, I thought Spyro's elements packed more of a punch rather than Cynder doing little damage but hindering them.

I've played single. I haven't noticed any huge difference in defense, in fact, Cynder has a lot of magic to control enemies which works better than straight up mitigation. In other words, as Spyro i was losing health faster. And elite enemies hurt them both the same way.

Devil may Cry

Well, you also could've guessed that if the camera does not show it, there is nothing to see I played solo btw..

Also unlike, say, DMC you can't fall into trouble because of camera. You can't fall and suffer in this game, period..

The CPU never falls down, it cheats the game actually to stay close to you, it does not follow your path. The only way you can cause CPU to cripple you by the tether if you have switched during a climb up scenario and let him lose. Why would you want to do this anyways? Just let him hang around as he likes and everything will be fine. The only location where it might possible get stuck is the river in avalar, that's it..