
GamersBook writes: "On tuesday, we saw the release of a very anticipated game, Portal 2 from Valve. The review scores for this title were incredible, gathering a great 95 from Metacritic but I noticed something interesting, Portal 2 is a game with only a single player campaign that can also be done in co-op, I'm not saying that is a bad thing, since the quality of the single player is great, and there really is no need for multiplayer, but the problem is when reviewers use double standards and give some great games with no replayability regular scores and give some other games near-perfect ratings".

Discover 10 timeless video games from the past that remain absolutely playable today. From Chrono Trigger to DOOM, these classics have aged like fine wine!
Hot damn that's a good list. The only one i never played is AOE2 and i never finshed Chrono Trigger but it was damn good.
Speaking of what's old but holds up amazingly well and plays like a dream.. i played Symphony of the Night for the first time in 2019.. yep that's right. It became one of my favourite games of all time that i replay almost every year. I couldn't believe how good it was. That is almost impossible for me with newer games let alone older ones. Truly a special gem.
The only one I’d disagree with is doom. It shows its age badly I think. After 5 minutes of play these days you put it down.

TSA revisits Enslaved Odyssey to the West to see how it holds up.
fantastic game. Criminally underrated. Yes, the combat was overly simple. But the sound design, world design, characters and lore were absolutely top-notch.
GB: "With this feature, we talk about 15 games on the PS3 that should be remade for the PlayStation 5."
Little Big Planet 1 and 2 deserve a mention, IMO.
Good call on Motorstorm, a game released 2 gens ago but still looks and feels so good. Motorstorm 2 and Motorstorm RC were gems as well. They followed up the Motorstorm games with the brilliant Driveclub, which still manages to put modern racing games to shame. Imagine closing down a studio as talented as that ... (!) Incredible.
A little 'arcade-gem' back then was The Last Guy, a top down 'follow the leader' snake-like game where you had to find and lead survivors to safety during an alien invasion, on terrible looking 'Google-earth' maps. Graphics were poor, even back then, but would love that same gameplay with modern maps and graphics.
Street Fighter 4, once it finally had a full roster, was quite good, but it was always an ugly game, sadly. Imagine bringing that back while using the current SF6 engine.
Some good choices here and Resistance: Fall of Man is my most wanted PS3 remaster/remake. Not sure about their claim it was Sony's answer to Gears of War though.
I’d rather have sequels than remakes. Look at Dead Space 1 Remake. Would’ve been cooler if we got a new entry and it failed with sales sealing the fate of a sequel rather than just replay the same game and it fail in sales and we never get a new entry.
Remakes are great for things like PS2 and earlier games to really get a crazy new graphical coat, but I think we should ease up on all these remakes and actually do sequels.
I rather they remaster and port over to PC and current gen all the games permanently stuck on PS360. Those games don't need remakes, they need to be given a chance to live again outside of their confined consoles and then give a few proper sequels. Like Sleeping Dogs, Motor Storm, LA Noir, should get another entry.
Great Article !
We can see this in IGN, they gave Enslaved and Heavenly Sword (awesome game) a regular score, they deserved better. But I loved Portal 2, I'm 4 hours in on the PC version and I think it deserved that 9.5
Well, all of those games are great and deserve same kind of score
whos beating this game in 4 hours???
today i was playing single player from 4 pm to 1130pm and i am still not completed with the game. i believe i just made it to chapter 9. the ppl that are beating this game in that short amout of time prolly had a stradegy guide or something. either that or they have no lives and do nothing but play games every second of their life.
Basically reviews hate, dislike, kinda dislike, like, really like, love or worship a game then fill in the score after with supposed objective reasons.
Reviews are entirely subjective so inconsistencies always arise. The problem is sometimes the reason they like one game more than another is their attitude towards the game before even playing.
I think that's why one game will be docked marks from something while another game will have the exact same quality ignored (like graphical glitches, messed up MP, linearity, length, replay, etc.)
Example: BFBC2 SP was described a "improved" by IGN and few marks were deducted but it really still sucked horribly, whereas Killzone 3 SP story was universally criticized but really it was decent and reviewers docked a lot marks for it. Crysis 2s story was entirely uneventful and anti-climatic but again, not really docked marks for it. The reason, reviewers played the game, thought it was worth x/10, and wrote some random stuff to justify it.
It's easier to like something you want to like and dislike something you want to dislike too, which is where bias comes in.