Gameinformer score

8 and the second opinion 8.5. The reason for the score is due to the lack of online play, they had good things to say about everything else though. Nothing we haven't heard before.

 

Pervtards! Man, fuck game informer, fuck them up their stupid asses, they're nothing but fucking clown shoes.

"Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"

 

Saw it today.

Not surprised and furthers the reason why I stopped giving a crap about gaming mags a long time ago.

Should've at the least been an 9.

 

THE GAME IS CRAZY GOOD!

 

That's a decent score. 8-8.5 isn't that bad. I kind of expected it to be like that, especially since I personally felt that sega wasn't to cramp up the game with a bunch of extra features.

 

This quote from Jay and Silent Bob is really great. And also it suits GI pretty well. They suck, they suck full time, and they suck so much, that it's hard to believe they gave our precious VF5 quite a decent score /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
Even so, f them /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

 

EGM said something similar but not the same but they point the lack of any online options. That’s why the game has no perfect score.

 

personally, I think that's a good score. average of 8.25 isn't bad. I think the whole reviewing process of games has become pretty retarted, nothing ever scores below a 5, and you have to remember people are judging this when they've gotten the entire set-up for free, so they're not coming at it from a consumer's point of view at all.

I like GI's reviews, they're pretty thoughtful, whereas I find almost anything written in EGM to be mindless. Basically, I'd probably give the game a simillar score due to the fact that they've botched up or completely omitted several features present in the last versions, no online component AT ALL (forget online play, how about vf.TV for the PS3?), and because VF5 overall didn't offer what it should have in terms of new ideas for the series. And Eileen is whack as hell...

 

i think vf5 need 10.is the best fighting game.for me 8.25 its very bad score for this superb game.

 

Honestly, the review should've at least been a 9. One whole point deduction for no online features is really dumb.

Also, the review appeared uninformed about about Sega's stance on online play and VF and there were some other insipid comments here and there. I mean, Sega has been holding a big fat neon sign in everyone's face saying <u>"NO ONLINE PLAY!"</u> with all the reasons in the world why and a guy who works at a gaming mag completely misses it? Inexcusable.

 

It's still inexcusable to gaming reviewers.

 

Gaming reviewers should step out from the Neverland and look at the circumstances. It's probably the best fighting game ever, and it gets only a "decent" score? By the time online play will evolve enough to let everone play without any lags (the only way to play a fightng game), VF6 will probably be already out. 1.5 point down for no online play in an otherwise perfect game?? Phhhhfffft.

This isn't a good grade at all... 8.25 for a game of this scale is something like saying "well, it IS playable, but ultimately the lack of online play screws it over. All this hype for nothing, better skip it". Argh, who cares about them anyway.

 

Which is why I gave up on magazines a long time ago because they focus more on hype and what's "in" now. Unless I end up starting my own mag, of course.

I am a journalism major, after all./forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

 

Why are people even debating the scores...

It's a fighting game they will always be judged on features and graphics over gameplay at times.

I can't think of the last really good review for a fighting game...

 

I don't know if you have played the game, but if you have read about, seen pictures or videos one should be able to see that this game is clearly head and shoulders above a 8 to 8.5. Wether it's ready for online play or not what more can a gamer want, which by the way I belive online play will put this game in the stratesphere. Having said that you are intitled to your opinion even though its a little low. LOL!

 

Lets face it, they give it a lower grade because it doesnt have online play, but what they never think about is if it did have online play. high-bandwidth internet is getting more and more popular, but there will still be considerable ammounts of lag. even one instance of lag would hurt the game. And if this lag was present, would they get a higher grade for it? Of course not.

One of my all-time favorite games, Resident Evil:Outbreak, got bad reviews due to the fact that the only way to communicate between teammates was to use a general statement (i.e. phrases like "Over here!" and "Help!"), but if there was open chat, the game would have been too easy.

Game reviewers often don't look at the negative side effects of the things that they suggest.

They also tend to rate games like the dynasty/samurai warriors and the Armored core series lower because they are more of the same. Even though there are various improvements to the game, they get flak for being more or less the same game. Samurai warriors was got decent reviews because it was very different from the dynasty warriors series, but it still had flaws. When Koei(they make the game) fixed those flaws, added more characters, and changed the level/skill system, it got worse reviews for being "too much like the first game."


You can take games with bigger fanbases, such as the FF series, and they get similar/higher grades. Do they have, essentially, the same combat system? yes. Do they have highly similar stories/characters? yes. Sure the production value might be the same, but when does production value have anything to do with gameplay. Ever Play Tetris? thought so.

Well enough of my ranting. that was just a timebomb waiting to blow up. yeah its unfair, but all that matters is that it is played. If it is played more than a game with a higher score then guess what? I dont even think i have to answer that question

 

You have to keep in mind even the "best" of anything multiplayer that doesn't have online will lose points with casual reviewers. Because online adds to replay value, the fact that VF5 content wise is pretty barebones doesn't help it.

If Gears of War or Halo 2 were offline only it would have counted against them as well. VF5 doesn't get special treatment.

It's just one reviewers opinion, but nearly every review has taken off points for not having an online mode. Just some more than others.

Thats not true at all. They wouldn't take away, just give it less. Just look at most of DOA4s reviews. There were complaints of lag, but it never hurt the score. In most cases it helped.

 

I kind of liked when greg kasavin of gamespot dressed up for VF4 /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/video_play...ideos;related;0

 

Everyone always blames the entity that mentions bad about what you care about.

I hate X because they rated this movie bad. This is why I don't care about reviews because they said Devil May Cry 2 isn't as good as the first one. Who cares about reviews anyways, I'll still get Marvel Legends on Day 1. Someone is just a Sony Fanboy when they think that Blu-Ray will eventually win.

I see these things ALL the time, and it really doesn't matter what Board you are on. Whether it is gamefaqs, to Virtua fighter, to Shoryuken (remember Capcom fighting Jam), to Tekken Zaibatsu, to unrelated things like Cars, AVS forum, and so on.

Listen guys, we are in a different generation. POINT BLANK, we are in a different generation. The days of making a game that you could beat on the day you buy it, and it being only 2 hours long is over, so if a game were to come out now with 8 tiny levels and quickly beaten like they were plentiful 15 years ago, it would be ripped just like it deserve. With that said, Games these days are online. A first person Shooter that isn't online will probably never get 10s anymore. That is just a function of the genre. In the case of Fighting games, and the Glaring fact that competition is damn hard to find for most people Not willing to pay tons on quarters in an arcade however distance away, or spend a weekend traveling across the country to find competition at a tournament.

NOW, it's one thing if 1 magazine was doing this out of left field. ie. 90, 88, 85, 93, 45, 86. I mean, that 45 grade would be out of left field. But when everyone is saying it, then I think it is a genuine concern. And as Virtua Fighter fans, trying hard to get more people to play and like the game, I think it would be the nail in the coffin for Virtua Fighter, in it's ever competition with Tekken, if Tekken 6 were to come out and is online. At least in the US. Seriously, how could Sega compete when there would be thousands of players duking it out online in tekken, while we are begging our neighbors and friends to give VF a go.

Now i'm not stupid, I know the reason Sega said it wasn't possible. And in a way, I commend that. Sometimes other companies will tack on a feature, just so they can boast that they have this feature. But couldn't have sometype of video sharing or posting feature, the inevitable online update of a new version, Something. Plus, Why not go the route of Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence. Use Virtua Fighter 4: Evo, or even Final Tune, as your avenue to test out online. After all, a lot of people will treat it as an aberation to an already established game,and if it completely fails, you simply end the project. If it succeeds, make it better for VF5.

 

Very true. We should just screw the scores and enjoy what we got, because ultimately, the only score that matters is our own.

At the same time, since I will be going into this line of work, I can't help but point out the flaws in gaming mags, where there's tons of them.

That way, I can do it a million times better. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif