Statements in Reviews that annoyed you

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

or "YOU'RE SO WRONG, WHY ARE YOU EVEN DOING STUFF WHEN YOU'RE WRONG". This isn't about complaining about them loving or hating a game that you disagree with, it's when the review gets the facts so very wrong or makes a statement so stupid that you cannot agree with in the very least.


My most hated one was in the Allmusic.com review for Reflector by Killing Heidi when they said that they should be considered the female version of Silverchair.

Considering that
a) Killing Heidi has only the female lead singer
b) Killing Heidi isn't a grunge band
and
c) they sound nothing alike

it was a highly idiotic statement which in addition to his describing Weir and Mascara, and I quote, "are catchy pop hits with just enough of a grrl-rock edge to mollify young audiences" comes across as someone that didn't really pay much attention to what they were listening to.

Another would be the infamous IGN review of God Hand where they gave it a 3.0 and actually did an additional part where they essentially went that everyone in the office hated it. And then they had the nerve to put it as number 100 of the best PS2 like it could redeem them.

[Nasty Nate: The Giant Midget]

" God of War ripoff"

9 times out of 10, I will stop reading a review after this. GameInformer loves this phrase.

[DSR]

I remember reading a review for the PUNISHER WAR ZONE movie that briefly mocked the filmmakers for the "unoriginally named Jigsaw" villain, in light of the Jigsaw from the SAW films. The reviewer clearly didn't do any research, or he'd know that the Jigsaw of the comic books was introduced long before the SAW movies were made.

[Mister Pigwell]

Any mention of Tolkien in EVERY SINGLE modern fantasy book.

"This belongs on the shelf next to Tolkien" "Heir to Tolkien's legacy" "In the true Tolkien fashion" "Move over Tolkien there's a new master" etc etc.

I could go search my book shelves and in five minutes come back with at least 2 dozen of these.

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

Jan 3, 2011 3:02:05 GMT -5 Mister Pigwell said:

Any mention of Tolkien in EVERY SINGLE modern fantasy book.

"This belongs on the shelf next to Tolkien" "Heir to Tolkien's legacy" "In the true Tolkien fashion" "Move over Tolkien there's a new master" etc etc.

I could go search my book shelves and in five minutes come back with at least 2 dozen of these.

Well, to be fair, the guy basically re-invented the fantasy genre for the past century, so it's only fair that he's the measuring stick when it comes to reviewing fantasy.

[necktiechokehold]

As someone who dies a lot of reviewing myself, I'll admit to doing stuff along these lines occasionally, but it's a fine line between drawing a comparison to help the reader and making a reference to avoid actually describing the object of the review.

[darthalexander]

There's one local critic here that hates long films. A long film is one that is longer than 90 minutes. If he sees one that happens to be longer than 90 minutes, even if he likes it, he will often make some joke about it. Hey a-hole, if you don't want to review films - don't review them! He even wrote an article about it and went on and on about it like he was really suffering. Yeah, some suffering there numbnuts. Being paid to review a film that happens to be 2 hours long. Poor him.

Another annoying critic is Red Reed. Sometimes he can make you laugh, but other times he is so off-base that you think he comes from another galaxy.

[EvenBaldobombHasAJob]

recently I read the forward to 100 Bullets bol. 5 trade. it was written by some university professor who was praising 100 Bullets, but every 5 lines or so he'd talk about how it was so much more mature than "all those superheroe comics" and how they were juvenile etc. while it's all good and well (though wrong) for him to think that way, it's really out of place considering that aside from being a comic book, 100 Bullets has nothing to do with superheroes at all, so the comparison is off base, and felt like an ad hominem. and it also made it sound like 100 Bullets is the only non-superhero comic around, when it obviously isn't. just really poorly written, and I can't help but think it would've been better had he left his irrelevant complaints about a completely different genre out of it.

[Deleted]

A few that bother me from video game reviews:

- When a review starts out in the first person, describing what the reviewer is doing in the game. I don't need to read someone narrating what will ultimately be a small portion of the whole game.
- Any time graphics are brought up as a big reason to buy a game.
- Related to that, any time a sprite-based or 2D game is reviewed and the graphics are brought up as a negative.

[Pervy Stone Cold]

Someone's comment regarding SunChips:

"A way for rubes to think they're eating healthy while still scarfing down junk food. They are about as healthy as rectal cancer. About as appetizing too."


Jeeze. Sorry, that they bothered making a more healthful alternative to chips..........

[rapidfire187]

Basically any ICP related review I've ever seen. I saw one in particular where the guy said ICP were terrible rappers but other artists on their label like Dark Lotus were talented. Kind of a funny statement since Dark Lotus is a 5 person group with ICP as 2 of the members.

[Jiren]

Jan 3, 2011 2:44:00 GMT -5 Nasty Nate: The Giant Midget said:

" God of War ripoff"

9 times out of 10, I will stop reading a review after this. GameInformer loves this phrase.

It's the same with

"GTA Ripoff" or "Like GTA But"

[rapidfire187]

Jan 3, 2011 12:11:27 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Jan 3, 2011 2:44:00 GMT -5 Nasty Nate: The Giant Midget said:

" God of War ripoff"

9 times out of 10, I will stop reading a review after this. GameInformer loves this phrase.

It's the same with

"GTA Ripoff" or "Like GTA But"

I can understand comparing games to GTA though because not only was the GTA series the first of it's kind, it's also massively popular. Saying that a game is "Like GTA but..." is a pretty easy description.

I'm not even sure what a God of War ripoff would be honestly. Granted, I only played the first one, but it didn't seem to bring anything all that new to the table. There's been tons of games before it that were similar in terms of combat and whatnot. Devil May Cry comes to mind for instance.

[Jiren]

Jan 3, 2011 13:22:54 GMT -5 rapidfire187 said:

Jan 3, 2011 12:11:27 GMT -5 Jiren said:

It's the same with

"GTA Ripoff" or "Like GTA But"

I can understand comparing games to GTA though because not only was the GTA series the first of it's kind, it's also massively popular. Saying that a game is "Like GTA but..." is a pretty easy description.

I'm not even sure what a God of War ripoff would be honestly. Granted, I only played the first one, but it didn't seem to bring anything all that new to the table. There's been tons of games before it that were similar in terms of combat and whatnot. Devil May Cry comes to mind for instance.

It's not the comparison that annoys me it's the way some reviewers (Even Some Gamers) won't give other Sandbox games a chance because "It's not GTA" or "It's a GTA Knockoff".

It's irritating because their's some decent games out there

[shadowangel]

Jan 3, 2011 10:30:16 GMT -5 @thickmcrunfast said:

- Any time graphics are brought up as a big reason to buy a game.
- Related to that, any time a sprite-based or 2D game is reviewed and the graphics are brought up as a negative.

THIS
I hate it when great, innovative games get a bad review because the graphics aren't so good that the reviewer can jerk off to them.
It's been a real problem in the past few years.

I also hate it when you basically can read the the person only played the game for 30 minutes, heard a music cd with boths ear closed or watched a movie one time while doing something different and then writing a half-assed review full of mistakes


When it comes to game reviews, i hate it when reviews write something like "I don't have a problem with nudity, but" or "I don't have a problem with action and blood, but" and then go on and on how that game is bad because of it (and the reviewer's basically admitting he is the exact opposite of what he said)
Sometime around 1995 a game was released in germany called Bing, it was about managing a hospital and a satire about every hospital clichee out there plus lots of nudity and sexual innuendos, albeit in a comical and funny kinda way. All the reviewers basically admitted they had a problem with nudity and are prude and gave the game bad ratings - except for one magazine were a woman was reviewing the game and said she thought it was challenging and funny or with violent game, all the crying why the game has so much gore and violence.

As i write reviews myself and publish them, i really wonder what's so hard about it..

[hollywood]

There's no specific statements that reviewers constantly make that annoy me, per se, but I do get a little irritated when they take a condescending approach to something they don't like. It comes across like an attitude that anyone who disagrees is somehow beneath them and possibly society as a whole.

Take Twilight, for instance. I'm not a fan. After watching three movies and reading one book (my girlfriend is a fan), I just can't appreciate it or understand why so many people out there think it's the greatest vampire story in existence. I absolutely hate every character, except (ironically) Edward.

But my girlfriend loves it, and I can't help but feel a little overprotective whenever someone takes it upon him or herself to explain how horrible it is and how stupid she is for liking it. So I get frustrated whenever I happen upon a review saying something like "It's not a good movie, but the teenyboppers will make sure it turns a profit."

I deal with it myself with plenty of films I enjoyed that others didn't...like Superman Returns, Tron: Legacy, or even Knight and Day (yea, I liked it, bite me). With the first two, so many reviewers take this "Well, they aren't good, but the kiddies will eat up the special effects" attitude...despite the fact movies haven't been able to sell themselves on special effects alone for over 10 years.

In Superman Returns' case, specifically, I kinda laugh at people who say things like "No REAL Superman fan would enjoy this atrocity..." (Taken from various Superman sites and their reviews of the film...paraphrased, of course.) Hey, genius, I own every Superman DVD and Blu-Ray in existence, and I have a mini-library of Superman comics, CDs, trades, and novels...and I still enjoyed Superman Returns.

Bit of a long diatribe, I know... But the one thing that annoys me about so many reviewers isn't any one statement, it's this high and mighty attitude that they know what good films are, and anyone who disagrees is both wrong and stupid.

They don't all fall into that category, of course. Unfortunately, a few too many do.

[Red Impact]

Mine isn't really a statement, but one thing I really, really hate in online reviews is when reviewers think stringing together expletives or the like constitutes a joke. It doesn't.

Jan 3, 2011 14:53:32 GMT -5 hollywood said:

With the first two, so many reviewers take this "Well, they aren't good, but the kiddies will eat up the special effects" attitude...despite the fact movies haven't been able to sell themselves on special effects alone for over 10 years.

I understand your point and agree with a lot of what you said (hell, I think the airplane scene of Superman Returns is one of the best things on film in a long, long time), but disagree with that sentence.

The spectacle aspect of it has sold a lot of movies and drawn audiences to movies that probably wouldn't be drawn to that genre. That's a large part of what makes the stereotypical summer action movie so big, and you hear a phrase along the lines of "this is the type of movie you just turn your brain off and enjoy" or "just enjoy the movie for what it is and don't try to analyze it" so often with these types of movies that it's a tired cliche. Sure, an explosion in the trailer doesn't mean people will flock to a movie, but it's still possible for a movie whose biggest attraction by far is the special effects to be sold on that basis.

[Phosphor Glow]

Jan 3, 2011 14:53:32 GMT -5 hollywood said:

There's no specific statements that reviewers constantly make that annoy me, per se, but I do get a little irritated when they take a condescending approach to something they don't like. It comes across like an attitude that anyone who disagrees is somehow beneath them and possibly society as a whole.

Take Twilight, for instance. I'm not a fan. After watching three movies and reading one book (my girlfriend is a fan), I just can't appreciate it or understand why so many people out there think it's the greatest vampire story in existence. I absolutely hate every character, except (ironically) Edward.

But my girlfriend loves it, and I can't help but feel a little overprotective whenever someone takes it upon him or herself to explain how horrible it is and how stupid she is for liking it. So I get frustrated whenever I happen upon a review saying something like "It's not a good movie, but the teenyboppers will make sure it turns a profit."

I deal with it myself with plenty of films I enjoyed that others didn't...like Superman Returns, Tron: Legacy, or even Knight and Day (yea, I liked it, bite me). With the first two, so many reviewers take this "Well, they aren't good, but the kiddies will eat up the special effects" attitude...despite the fact movies haven't been able to sell themselves on special effects alone for over 10 years.

In Superman Returns' case, specifically, I kinda laugh at people who say things like "No REAL Superman fan would enjoy this atrocity..." (Taken from various Superman sites and their reviews of the film...paraphrased, of course.) Hey, genius, I own every Superman DVD and Blu-Ray in existence, and I have a mini-library of Superman comics, CDs, trades, and novels...and I still enjoyed Superman Returns.

Bit of a long diatribe, I know... But the one thing that annoys me about so many reviewers isn't any one statement, it's this high and mighty attitude that they know what good films are, and anyone who disagrees is both wrong and stupid.

They don't all fall into that category, of course. Unfortunately, a few too many do.

I agree with absolutely everything you just said. I'm also a big Superman fan, movies/comics/etc., and I thought Superman Returns was fantastic. Not the absolute pinnacle of modern cinema or Superman, but it was really good.

Also, I'm alright with the Twilight movies, it's just the books I can't stand. My fiancee, however, is pretty into it. Not a hardcore fan, but she likes it, and I don't think it's so bad. There's a lot worse out there.

[hollywood]

Jan 3, 2011 15:13:21 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Mine isn't really a statement, but one thing I really, really hate in online reviews is when reviewers think stringing together expletives or the like constitutes a joke. It doesn't.

Jan 3, 2011 14:53:32 GMT -5 hollywood said:

With the first two, so many reviewers take this "Well, they aren't good, but the kiddies will eat up the special effects" attitude...despite the fact movies haven't been able to sell themselves on special effects alone for over 10 years.

I understand your point and agree with a lot of what you said (hell, I think the airplane scene of Superman Returns is one of the best things on film in a long, long time), but disagree with that sentence.

The spectacle aspect of it has sold a lot of movies and drawn audiences to movies that probably wouldn't be drawn to that genre. That's a large part of what makes the stereotypical summer action movie so big, and you hear a phrase along the lines of "this is the type of movie you just turn your brain off and enjoy" or "just enjoy the movie for what it is and don't try to analyze it" so often with these types of movies that it's a tired cliche. Sure, an explosion in the trailer doesn't mean people will flock to a movie, but it's still possible for a movie whose biggest attraction by far is the special effects to be sold on that basis.

I dunno...I think the days of films that were just explosions and special effects are long gone. Even The Expendables had it's own portion of exposition and character (not much, but it was there). Compare that with some old 80's flicks like Rambo II, Commando, or Invasion USA. The only real plot thread to those was something like "BOOM!! BAMM! Bad pun/kickass one liner."

I think today, we've become a little bit spoiled when we say films just rely on those aspects rather than telling a good story. I'm not suggesting films like Transformers have some deep resonance or anything (they don't), just that there is quite a bit more substance these days. When compared with a great many summer blockbusters of yesteryear, today's "turn your brain off and enjoy" films are sometimes Oscar-worthy.

EDIT: Just want to mention that I still love old 80's flicks like Rambo II, Commando, and Invasion USA.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

I find it hard to say that Transformers is successful on anything but effects, Megan Fox and brand recognition.