I looked on the front page today, which I'm trying to do more often,
since so much work goes into it by the staff.
I was surprised to a Worms review, both because it is a somewhat niche title
and because the game has been out for perhaps 6 weeks or so.
The surprise quickly turned into disappointment.Review is here
Mitch opens his review of Worms 2 for DS with:
"I donít get it."
Mitch is absolutely correct on this point, because clearly, he doesn't.
Mitch opens the gameplay portion of the review with:
"This game sucks."
Here, Mitch is absolutely wrong, because it's his review that falls into this category.
You see, Mitch has struck upon a pet peeve of mine where reviews are concerned.
He makes it quite clear from the very start of the review that he doesn't understand
the series nor does he like the series.
So I must ask the question: Why then, Mitch, did you review the series?
You know what...it sounds like I'm trying to be clever here, and I'm really not.
I'm cheesed because a great game was dragged through the mud by someone
that had no interest in liking it regardless of how good it might have been.
Open Warfare 2 is the best incarnation of the Worms series in a long time,
which is quite an accomplishment given that the original Open Warfare was so
frustrating. I've had a lot of fun with the game, as have my son and the customers
I've spoken with.
Is OW2 liable to convert people that don't like the series? No, as is painfully clear
from Mitch's review. However, Mitch fails to take into account that some of us
love the Worms games, tell us that this one is far superior to the last, or generally
give any indication as to whether people that actually like games like this should get it.
Metacritic currently has the game at an 81, including Mitch's review.
Drop that score and it goes up over half a point.
The original Open Warfare on DS has a combined score of 64.
That does a pretty good job of speaking to the quality of the game.
Mitch is entitled to his opinion of the game. However, I believe it should
be the duty of the reviewer to indicate who might like or might not like
a title. Furthermore, it would have been nice to expound on what improvements
had been made from the previous entry (e.g. a multi-cart play mode)
rather than spend time insulting long-standing conventions of the series
(e.g. he calls the end of a turn when a worm takes damage "incredibly stupid").
A game should be reviewed for what it is, not what the reviewer wants it to be.
If that isn't possible, then have someone else conduct the review.
One last thing I'd like to address is Mitch's reference to "hidden pixels".
I'm honestly not sure what he is referencing here. I haven't seen any
issues with this when I was playing. Maybe he's referring to the fact that terrain
hangs in the air as the surrounding terrain is destroyed. Sure that can be
a challenge at times, but he makes it sound like there is invisible terrain.
If that were true, it would be a MAJOR problem. However, I haven't seen mention
of this in other reviews and am forced to conclude that this is simply another case
of Mitch not liking the conventions of the series.