IGN review of red steel 2

IGN reviews the game and it seems they actually like it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6n0HIVPO8g
what are ur thoughts on it
note this video is still processing depending on whn u see this

in my personal opinion IGn had almost nothing bad to say about the game except u get too overpowered near the end of the game but it got a score as low as 8.6, i call shenanigans, tho i must see the full review before i judge 1st

"as low as 8.6"

8.6 isnt a low score but it seemed they rated it lower then they made it out to be

The score that was given didnt reflect on the review, if its suppose to be 'the best wii game this year' then why does it have a 'lower' score then NMH2 and TvC? I bet they lowered it because they didnt get an advanced copy sooner, bunch of whinny brats

i gotta say the review does not reflect the score...its as if they felt the game was great and well made but just COULDN'T give the freakin game the AAA score it deserved. they even called a high caliber game in the writen review, i just don't get it. and how in the hell did they give it a 7.0 for lastin appeal when the game is 10+hrs without doin side quests? games like GoW got 9.0-10s on lastin appeal and those barely last 4hrs.(my cuz beat GoW3 last night...his play time didn't even make 5hrs)thats almost 4-5hrs longer than the average AND AAA FPS and action games length goin straight through...hmph, anything to lower the score i swear man.

yea i dont see much reason, i didnt expect the game to be the best game of the yr period but they certainly knew they enjoyed the game alot more thn they wanted to score it on

yeah, and now x-play is gonna review it tonight...i just can't WAIT to see them find any reason to rip this game apart. 1000 bucks says they give it a 3/5 even though it deserves at LEAST a 4/5 lowest.

Who cares about the score? If they praise the game, then give it a contradictory score, that's nothing on the game.

This is why I don't like numeral review scores. They can't accurately capture how good a game is.

ign is starting to suck at reviewing it deserves a higher score it should get a 9.5

looks like i won 1000 bucks...did you guys see x-play today? it was just as i called it, a 3/5. just COULDN'T give the game a 4. i swear man, the only reason they gave the game such a low score is cause of its name.

darkwingdragon709 wrote:looks like i won 1000 bucks...did you guys see x-play today? it was just as i called it, a 3/5. just COULDN'T give the game a 4. i swear man, the only reason they gave the game such a low score is cause of its name.

No, it's because it's a wii game, they gave muramassa a 3/5

and then they went on to say it was the best Wii game of the year, saying just because it was the wii's best game that year, didn't make it good.

I raged like a motherfucker.

snaredrums123 wrote:

darkwingdragon709 wrote:looks like i won 1000 bucks...did you guys see x-play today? it was just as i called it, a 3/5. just COULDN'T give the game a 4. i swear man, the only reason they gave the game such a low score is cause of its name.

No, it's because it's a wii game, they gave muramassa a 3/5

and then they went on to say it was the best Wii game of the year, saying just because it was the wii's best game that year, didn't make it good.

I raged like a motherfucker.

- Muramasa is like a 7 .
The gameplay looks SUPER fun...but iHad it...and SOLD it.
After you get all the swords, it's all the same, different effects .
Constantly .
iStill got the poster though

KidZillah wrote:

snaredrums123 wrote:

darkwingdragon709 wrote:looks like i won 1000 bucks...did you guys see x-play today? it was just as i called it, a 3/5. just COULDN'T give the game a 4. i swear man, the only reason they gave the game such a low score is cause of its name.

No, it's because it's a wii game, they gave muramassa a 3/5

and then they went on to say it was the best Wii game of the year, saying just because it was the wii's best game that year, didn't make it good.

I raged like a motherfucker.

- Muramasa is like a 7 .
The gameplay looks SUPER fun...but iHad it...and SOLD it.
After you get all the swords, it's all the same, different effects .
Constantly .
iStill got the poster though

I agree, the game wasn't a "MUST BUY GAME" (not too much replay value) but they were ignoring all the great games that came to the Wii in 2009.

speaking of x-play have u ever noticed that when they're previewing or reviewing a multiplat game they always play it on 360 O_o i never will understand why they do. maybe keep it balanced by playing it both on ps3, wii, and 360? anyway onto redsteel 2.....it just seems like some reviewers just cant give a wii game anything above an 8 anymore.

seriously though, how contradictin can reviewers be? everyone is lowerin the score to the game cause of replayability? the game is about 10-12hrs long straight through, thats about 5-6hrs longer than critically acclaimed action games like GoW3, UC2, and gears 2. the game also comes complete with missions and bounties also boostin length, what action shooter out right now allows ANY leway from the level based linear gameplay?...not the ones i named. they let you earn money to not only buy skills and weapons, but also upgrades to said weapons and even armor. they even went out of thier way and added a mode on there that allows you to jump into ANY point in the game with all of your powers and gear for people who just wanna mindlessly kill enemies for mindless power abusin. but obviously thats not good enough when it comes to this game huh? OH, but GoW3 and gears 2's 3-4hr play throughs with about 2-3x less upgrades/content= a 9.5-10 in lastin appeal(single player only) huh? get the hell outta here with the double standards.

darkwingdragon709 wrote:seriously though, how contradictin can reviewers be? everyone is lowerin the score to the game cause of replayability? the game is about 10-12hrs long straight through, thats about 5-6hrs longer than critically acclaimed action games like GoW3, UC2, and gears 2. the game also comes complete with missions and bounties also boostin length, what action shooter out right now allows ANY leway from the level based linear gameplay?...not the ones i named. they let you earn money to not only buy skills and weapons, but also upgrades to said weapons and even armor. they even went out of thier way and added a mode on there that allows you to jump into ANY point in the game with all of your powers and gear for people who just wanna mindlessly kill enemies for mindless power abusin. but obviously thats not good enough when it comes to this game huh? OH, but GoW3 and gears 2's 3-4hr play throughs with about 2-3x less upgrades/content= a 9.5-10 in lastin appeal(single player only) huh? get the hell outta here with the double standards.

well it is a wii game so that may be part of it. seems as tho reviewers dont like the wii. i think reviewers have gotten used to giving wii games bad scores so they do it on the good ones too. annoying? yes. they need to get over themeselves

solidstudios wrote:

darkwingdragon709 wrote:seriously though, how contradictin can reviewers be? everyone is lowerin the score to the game cause of replayability? the game is about 10-12hrs long straight through, thats about 5-6hrs longer than critically acclaimed action games like GoW3, UC2, and gears 2. the game also comes complete with missions and bounties also boostin length, what action shooter out right now allows ANY leway from the level based linear gameplay?...not the ones i named. they let you earn money to not only buy skills and weapons, but also upgrades to said weapons and even armor. they even went out of thier way and added a mode on there that allows you to jump into ANY point in the game with all of your powers and gear for people who just wanna mindlessly kill enemies for mindless power abusin. but obviously thats not good enough when it comes to this game huh? OH, but GoW3 and gears 2's 3-4hr play throughs with about 2-3x less upgrades/content= a 9.5-10 in lastin appeal(single player only) huh? get the hell outta here with the double standards.

well it is a wii game so that may be part of it. seems as tho reviewers dont like the wii. i think reviewers have gotten used to giving wii games bad scores so they do it on the good ones too. annoying? yes. they need to get over themeselves

exacta

I'ts shame wii just can't win over HD Fanf**s