The lights are on
Why does Game Informer have such a hard-on for Resident Evil 5? Why? Who is paying you to give this good reviews? Stop it. I now officially do not like you guys and I will no longer look to your site for reviews. You are wrong about 90% of games. Just look at most of the user reviews on games, compared to your reviews. How much are these games paying you to give them good reviews. Good games you rate poorly, and retarded games that obviously have tons of flaws in them like RE5, you give good reviews to. Does anyone there actually play the games, or just play the 5 minute demos on easy? I don't mean to sit here and seem like a jerk, but come on. A 9.5 for RE5? Are you serious? Really? Wow...
What are these flaws you mention again?
Here's a thought. Maybe they gave RE5 a high score because THEY like it? It's their opinion and many people who rates them gave doesn't even play the whole thing, or as you said, played the demo for 5 minutes.
And by the way, what's the flaws of RE5 you carefully left out?
this is not a review.
this is you ripping on GI, on GI's site.
iProdigy101 is completely right. All game reviews-ALL OF THEM-are an opinion, regardless of who gives them, and GI is no different. Furthermore, Astroass, do you have a clue how many copies of "Resident Evil 5" have been sold worldwide, not to mention the other games that GI gives high reviews to?
I may not be a fan of "RE5" personally, but I know plenty of people who are and they all have good reasons for liking the game. My guess is the reason you're pissed about all of these critically-praised games getting such high scores is because you've tried them and can't beat them.
What Dustin said.
I really would like to know what flaws your referring to.
Must've been a lot people with bad taste, myself included, I seem to remember RE5 being quite the success, commercially and critically.
GI is by and large, one of the fairest places for game reviews out there, if they give a game a bad/good review, they have their reasons, none of which have anything to do with games paying them for reviews; how does that work exactly? The game comes with the cash inside, or is it direct deposited?
If you're going to go on a rant about how much you disagree with professionals, do it in coherent manner, with an argument containing the specific points with which you disagree, don't just slap the keyboard in a frothy-mouthed hate spasm.
I agree totally with Astroass34; all I have to do to get a realistic review is to turn to Adam Sessler, who isn't shy about detailing the faults of any game. The rating he gave this game was 3/5, which when converted to the GI scoring system is 6.0/10 - quite a shocking difference to GI's 9.5/10, but not so surprising when you realize GI's relationship with the retailers depending on healthy sales numbers & cash flow.
When there is a 35% difference in scores on a consumer product, where the favorable score is coming from someone with a vested interest in the success of retail sales, it is impossible to escape the shadow of a conflict of interest here.
Just think how that impresses the reader/consumer - it gives rise to the significance of GI being too closely tied to the retailer whose bottom line depends on brisk sales of a hyped game where the real-world sees it all as a money-grab.
If GI really wants to be respected for objective reviews, they need to find a method of assuring subjective reviews like this are a thing of the past. Think peer-reviews for a start and work yourselves up to full-on governance; you might even forego reviews and partner with another respected reviewer who doesn't have an interest in the bottom line of the product.
I'd rather see the retailers stimulate cash flow by reducing the price of their stock of brand new collector's edition games that have been stuck on the shelves for 2+ years.
For you guys that don't understand what he is saying, I have made a list of flaw for RE5:GE he has made...
Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?
1. What flaws? 2. People are entitled to thier opinion. 3. This game must be too hard for you. 4. What games do you like? E.T? 5. I just bet he's angry that he can't move and shoot. 6.This isn't a review this is just you saying that GI sucks. 7. GI doesn't suck. That's my analysis.
I had played most of the RE games--RE Zero, Resident Evil, RE 2, Code: Veronica X, RE 3 Nemesis, RE 4, with of course 4 being the best of them all and one of the great games of all time. Therefore, I'm disappointed that you gave RE 5 such a high score when it is not, for the most part, a RE game.
Co-Op with the AI support character Sheva throughout the entire game? That's not RE. A support character that gets in the way of my shot, routinely shoots me instead of shifting positions to aim at the enemy, doesn't understand the concept of flanking so she moves to my side when I'm taking cover, doesn't assist me at all in puzzles even though she is present?
By the way, where are all the puzzles that are traditionally in a Resident Evil game? Where is the sense of doom--the feeling of being chased--the fear that at any point some big boss or deadly creature is going to burst into the room or turn the corner and face you? Who decided to screw with the item management system? Small briefcase, medium briefcase, large briefcase--that's RE. I'm playing RE 5 and I am constantly out of space. I can't carry the herbs I want, and carry all the weapons and ammo I need. I can't maneuver the way I want to because I have to worry about someone else. I had to do that too in RE 4, but only in some parts of the game.
The Resident Evil series has always been about survival horror, even though RE 4 perfectly mixed the horror with action. RE 5 is action with some horror elements. It is like a reboot of the series, with some familiar characters. Even the way players collect items to sell and upgrade equipment has been altered. There is no challenge behind it anymore. Going from room to room, and from area to area--solving puzzles to assemble the pieces of a treasure to get the maximum value for sale, that has been taken away. Why? New management? I understand that change is necessary to keep things fresh, but disregarding the elements that made the earlier games popular? And what's with the ridiculously cheesy dialogue?