This is why I hate sites like IGN.

I don't have a problem with such sites' censorious reviews, much less those towards retro games, as I've read enough biased and bribed pans of retro games when they weren't retro. I actually object to their praising so many new games that come out and, moreso, that illogic endemic to apparently the whole of the internet's serious reviewers whether mercenary or not which gives manifestly mediocre games 7s and 8s out of 10. "Meh" is not an 8. Better put: "Meh" is not 70 or 80 % of perfection.
Specific of this review the only thing I find objectionable is the opening line DarkDragon already quoted where he calls the one local boy who owned a Sega CD a "spoiled rich kid". Just cz he's not so poor as you he's spoilt? No, you envious turd. And of course the reviewer leeched off that boy to play his SCD. (As did I a friend's MD, except I didn't think/call him spoilt).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

commulative

---

Tag again. You owe me one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bastardcat

I love CGR, not a fan of CGR: Undertoe. It feels like a half-assed wannabe.

---

Agree completely. It's awful. It's like Mark plucked random kids off the street to do reviews.

What I like about Mark is that his reviews are so laid back, and he's not afraid to like games that a lot of people thumb their noses at, like some of the Cabela's games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bastardcat

What I like about Mark is that his reviews are so laid back, and he's not afraid to like games that a lot of people thumb their noses at, like Cosmic Carnage.

---

Fixed! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarMist

I actually object to their praising so many new games that come out and, moreso, that illogic endemic to apparently the whole of the internet's serious reviewers whether mercenary or not which gives manifestly mediocre games 7s and 8s out of 10. "Meh" is not an 8. Better put: "Meh" is not 70 or 80 % of perfection.

---

To be fair, this isn't remotely new or limited to online reviews; In UK mags at least this was a big problem when I used to read them years ago, Sega mags included. It used to be the case that anything below 80% was considered meh, and anything below 70% was a flaming sack of crap. I believe it was Stuart Campbell (UK games journalist) who suggested that 73% was the lowest score that a magazine could give a game without risking falling out with the game's publishers (and therefore risking loss of ad revenue), hence why "average" games tended to be awarded in the 70-80% range. I'd bet the same is pretty much true with sites today, and independent reviewers probably take their scoring cues from the systems of bigger sites.

I've found games that they've given scores as low as 3 to, to be perfectly enjoyable games. Nothing trail blazing, but enjoyable enough to warrant the purchase price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bastardcat

I love CGR, not a fan of CGR: Undertoe. It feels like a half-assed wannabe.

---

None of the reviewers are likable or entertaining, Derek especially. He sounds like he's 12 years old. I don't think any of the CGR spinoff channels are necessary.

I enjoy Mark's reviews every now and then, mostly when he reviews sega genesis and snes games.

But, he almost has nothing bad to say about any game he reviews. The only game I know he talked a lot of shit about was HEAVY NOVA for the sega genesis and I agreed with his statements.

Also, I hate when he reviews kids games like mama garden or ben 10 shit.