hmm... The problem I have with this review is this note here
First, the discrepancy in ability between the Easy Sim and the Normal Sim was too great. Easy Sims are, for the most part, inept and perform in a semi-intelligent manner. Normal Sims, on the other hand, are extremely deadly. Boasting cat-like reflexes, a deadly aim, and an unmistakable ability to spot human opponents instantly (while you struggle along in your tiny window), these anything but "normal" Sims can become frustrating rather quickly.
I have to disagree with this guy. I probably know a couple people that think this statement is ridiculous also. I played with Dark Sims most of the time. Sometimes mixing in Perfect Sims for variety. I completed every challenge in Perfect Dark as well. So I feel I can comment on what this guy said. And give a very complete review of Perfect Dark.
Normal Sims are incredibly easy for me and my friends to defeat, and the Sims dont get the least bit difficult until Perfect Sims. So, this reviewer seems to have made a mistake. Many other reviews, I'm sure, do the same thing. For example, the difficulty of Gunvalkyrie probably lowered its score more than it deserved. This is why I believe reviewers should complete the game before they review them. Of course, if they did that they couldn't give a review in as timely a manner. So, I believe an adequate solution would be to review the game on time. And if the score is around the 8.0 mark or so, or if there is enough controversy, complete the game and review it again. EGM kinda does this, but they dont change the score. This would also prevent games like Blinx from getting 8.8 on IGN Because they would play further into the game and realize it sucks. (bleh Blinx)
0 comments:
Post a Comment