Yeah, this review made me want to pick up Alone in the Dark, after almost all of the reviews were so negative.

But I did have some problems with the review - most of was done in what I feel was a professional manner ("the review said this, but this other thing was really the case"), but the author kind of kills some of his credibility by making personal attacks at the IGN reviewer and editors. The shots may well be deserved, but 9 points of logical criticism are undone by one point of snottiness.

Still and all, a good read.

If you only watched the first ten minutes, you'd be asking "Where's the space odyssey?"

This guy is right on every point except the bit where he thinks that Alone in the Dark is a good game.

As much as I adore any and all IGN-bashing, and his suspicion that the reviewer probably never played much of the game is probably true, I don't buy most of his argument at all. If he enjoyed the game more than the average person, that's fine. So is claiming it got unfairly maligned or that it's just underrated. But most of his "points" come off as subjective claims that he had a far less frustrating experience then, let's face it, the majority of critics out there, and resorts to the all-too-familiar line of "you're playing it wrong". Also, maybe if it was a game I liked I would agree with him that reviews don't tend to mention the "good" things in a game that's universally panned, but that's just human nature to not notice those things when you're not enjoying yourself. Haze also had no loading times, and I never saw a single review mention that either.

The demo was fun, but I don't understand how it can even begin to claim to be full of rational, realistic problems and solutions when pouring lighter fluid into a loaded gun makes it shoot "fire bullets."

I read the linked article and y'know, it makes a lot of good points... then it commits the dire sin of over-arguing its case.

So basically, this guy is faulting Ryan for saying that it takes fire to kill enemies based on what seems to be his opinion that "killing" something does not necessarily mean it is "dead?" It's not like this is such a rare game mechanic as to be unclear... Hell, I remember casting Melf's Acid Arrow to finish off trolls in Baldur's Gate! Believe me, they weren't dead until you hit them with acid or fire, no matter how horizontal they got.

Y'know Maverick, that kind of thinking will make health care costs skyrocket.

Without this test, how many zombies would now be wandering the streets? HOW MANY?!

This message brought to you by the Association of Shovel Manufacturers

I know that IGN is the whipping boy (or one of them) for what's wrong with game criticism, but really the article above doesn't really do a good job showing that IGN is teh evil.

When it comes to IGN it really comes down to the channel. Most consider IGN's Nintendo team the best in the business.

He makes a lot of good points, however the game *is* badly flawed. It's still got some fantastic innovative elements to it but flawed it remains. (In particular, 2/3 of the way through you hit a virtual brick wall with the pacing - which is where I had to give up on it...after spending a couple of hours chasing a dozen plot maguffins you finish up and then....have to chase ANOTHER dozen or so plot maguffins).

I'll maybe give the PS3 version a look when it's out though - as apparently it's going to be heavily patched (streamlined inventory, different control scheme, etc).

I just saw something talking about how their might be a 360 patch as well... can't remember where I saw that bit of news, though...

EDIT: here it is.

http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/08/21/ps3-alone-in-the-dark-fixes-comi...

Hmm...I've already traded in the 360 version unfortunately...

Guess I'll wait and see which turns out to be better - the 360 version is already dirt cheap second hand so re-buying it shouldn't be an issue if necessary.

Or, not. Maybe the games really are good or bad and thus you see trends in reviews. Reviewers and critics should love to be "one out" - why not? It gets you more hits on the website. Think about it - would any person here care AT ALL what anyone else thought about something if it was your job to review said item? It could be food, art, or games. Why should you? It's just not logical.

This is the one guy that thinks this game deserves more than it got and his website is getting a lot of attention. There were people who were luke warm to Halo3 as well, but I don't think anyone (professional) came out and said it was crap.

See, my bigger beef here is the expectation one. A review is nothing more than one persons experiences with a game, just like a movie review. The IGN piece is NOT a hackjob. It's a pretty dirt-standard review, and I've read a lot of them that were much more poorly thought out. I give the guy props for even playing the game all the way through. I beat my head on that game for about an hour and a half before I realized the control system was NEVER going to get better. Personally, it was unplayable. That's just me. Obviously other people loved it.

And there's the rub, as always. I don't follow this guys work, but maybe this was the wrong reviewer for the job. Genre matters. Just look at Rolling Stone: the reason they can credibly review C&W, Rap, Rollins and the Jonas Brothers is that they don't have the same dude reviewing everything "because it's all music."

I suspect there's some of that going on here in both directions: Weissenberger (at GC) clearly goes for the big-boy games in principle. He's reviewed R6 Vegas, GTA, Kane & Lynch, Virtua Fighter, Devil May Cry, Dark Sector and Operation Darkness this year. On this later, somewhat out of character review he opens by saying:

I see that as what's at work here. Weissenberger was clearly predisposed to like AitD. I think Geddes approached this like a pretty dirt-standard review.

Tempest meet Teapot. I think both gentleman have their points. If they both played all the way through this game, they're better gamers than I am.

It's just a pattern I've noticed recently, it may be nothing, but I am very skeptical about basing purchase decisions on 'professional' reviews, I prefer to get the opinions of people I know and respect. I'm not saying that it is deliberate either, maybe after a few impressions have hit people convince themselves that things are not as they really are.

What else explains the mass fellatio for GTA 4? The game was good, yet nowhere near deserving of the accolades it got. I don't think anyone wanted to be out of step with the hype.

Oblivion was the best thing since peanut butter in review, yet down the line the consensus is that the game, while good, was flawed in a number of ways.

It just seriously seems that there is a frenzy around some games.