Postal 2's first review. Take a guess

IGN gives it a 5.5/10: http://pc.ign.com/articles/392/392215p1.html

Not that IGN is the bastion of game reviews, particularly lately, but I would be surprised if they are far off the mark with this one.

I find the review hard to believe. There’s no way IGN has ten editors.

After reading the review, I wonder how bad a game has to be to get a score below 5? Did he say anything positive about it?

Troy

Don’t you know? IGN’s scale goes from 6 to 11. Postal 2 is scouring the depths of Golgantha.

Don’t you know? IGN’s scale goes from 6 to 11. Postal 2 is scouring the depths of Golgantha.[/quote]

Yeah, I know, but why bother with the pretense? If you’re going to only use five numbers…use five numbers or stars or drools or toast or something.

They clearly use the 3s and 4s for category ratings, so they can find them on their keyboards.

The text is unsurprisingly damning of this ridiculous sequel. I don’t see why he need three pages to say how awful it was.

Troy

That’s easy. He needs to get paid. To get paid, IGN needs to sell and deliver ads. To do so, they need pageviews.

Welcome to the real world, Neo. ;)

That’s easy. He needs to get paid. To get paid, IGN needs to sell and deliver ads. To do so, they need pageviews.

Welcome to the real world, Neo. ;)[/quote]

Then why don’t they just put one sentence per page, and we can keep loading em up?

I thought this “game” came out on April 14th?

Did they get it early from kazaa or their “connection” in Hong Kong, or something?

Publishers release the games to reviewers before shipping it off to the printing press.

That’s always bugged me about most reviews in general, along with the fact that most critics tend to put what they “feel” the number should be, such that a 7.2 this week can mean something completely different than a 7.2 a month ago.

I’ve always wished that reviewers would either do a word based summary (“hated” to “meh” to “outstanding”), a -5 to 0 to +5 rating system, or even just a "how much money would I pay for this game/movie/album.

Isn’t that what the review part is for?

Yes and no. When I’m trying to find out what someone thinks about some game, movie or whatnot, I look for both a conscise summary and a more detailed critique as two parts to a full review.

It’s kind of like asking your friends first if they like a movie (the summary) and then why they like it (the critique). For me personally, only having one or the other is only half of the picture.

After all, we all have games that if we wrote long critiques on, we could point out more than enough flaws as to make one think twice about buying the game, even though we would be willing to give it a summary that recommends it overall.

That’s why I wish score summaries were better reflective of their importance and were taken a little more seriously by reviewers, something I think that most 1 to 10 scoring systems tend not to foster.

< /rant >