Worst review ever: Gamepro reviews Sega Genesis Collection

I'm not sure how these idiots are still in business. The comment about Road Rash and Contra is inexcusable. How the fuck is Sega, who doesn't even make consoles anymore, going to be able to get the license from EA and Konami for these games? The guy is just trying to cover his negative-IQ ass

I honestly don't get how some fucking morons on Joystiq are defending this dumbass. This shit is basic knowledge to anyone who plays videogames, and if a REVIEWS EDITOR doesn't know shit for certain things that he writes in a review, he sure as fuck better double-check with the internets.

I honestly think they should just fire the whole staff of GamePro and just start over. They haven't been good in at least a decade.
 
Grave, the link you posted is giving me a error 404 listing on your site, is it down or is my compy acting a little bitchy?
 
I was getting Gamepro for free one year and still felt like I was getting ripped off. The magazine was never that great to begin with. I have a few from 1991 and while it was better then, it still was no prize in the gaming community. Everything looks better in hindsight with rose colored glasses on. :)

With that said... the review is his opinion take that or leave it, but getting the facts so mixed up is bizarre. The Genesis was in no way whipped by the SNES - it was in the lead for years before the SNES managed to catch up. And why would Sega have the rights to Contra? Even modern gamers that just fell out of the woodwork since the PS2 know that its not Sega. Geez.
 
[quote name='LostRoad']Grave, the link you posted is giving me a error 404 listing on your site, is it down or is my compy acting a little bitchy?[/QUOTE]

Check the joystiq link he posted later. It doesn't have the full review but it gives the details.

Kittycatgirl2k: I have been getting GamePro for free for like 3-4 years now. They keep sending it for free. I'm sure that 90% of their "subscriptions" are free giveaways like with me. Who would honestly pay for that shit? There's much cheaper toilet paper out there.
 
People who subscribe probably still think it kicks ass like in the good old days. To be fair gamepro DID kick all sorts of ass in the early and mid 90s.
 
lol, this guy is a game journalist?
http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps2/games/reviews/85661.shtml

He edited the Ecco typo. But it doesn't sound like he's ever used the Genesis before. He comments "The Playstation 2's Dual-Shock controller is also a big upgrade from the Genesis' ridiculously oversized 3-button pad". Uh, I don't remeber the Genesis game pad being ridiculously oversized. In fact it might be the same size or smaller than the Dual Shock. It's no Xbox Fatty controller.
 
If you read the Joystiq article, the comment about Road Rash and Contra makes sense. He meant that Sega should have contacted EA or Konami about getting the rights to add in the Genesis versions of those games to their collection.

It's a stupid idea altogether, but it makes a bit more sense this way.
 
[quote name='MadFlava']lol, this guy is a game journalist?
http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps2/games/reviews/85661.shtml

He edited the Ecco typo. But it doesn't sound like he's ever used the Genesis before. He comments "The Playstation 2's Dual-Shock controller is also a big upgrade from the Genesis' ridiculously oversized 3-button pad". Uh, I don't remeber the Genesis game pad being ridiculously oversized. In fact it might be the same size or smaller than the Dual Shock. It's no Xbox Fatty controller.[/QUOTE]

The original Genesis controller was pretty large and "fat". The six button they came out with later for Street Fighter 2 was much nicer. Its nothing compared to the giant that was the xBox controller though.
 
I used to get Gamepro for free. It stopped coming, and it's so bad that I wouldn't even sign up for free issues again. Too much work for such a big POS.
 
[quote name='Paco']People who subscribe probably still think it kicks ass like in the good old days. To be fair gamepro DID kick all sorts of ass in the early and mid 90s.[/quote]

I still have some older copies laying around for reading material while I'm on the can. Some of those issues were really big! And it did kick ass back in the day.

It did start to suck in the last few years so I cancelled my subscription.
 
[quote name='LostRoad']Grave, the link you posted is giving me a error 404 listing on your site, is it down or is my compy acting a little bitchy?[/quote]

Hmmm, I just checked and it's working for me. Is anyone else getting this error?
 
[quote name='Roufuss']If you read the Joystiq article, the comment about Road Rash and Contra makes sense. He meant that Sega should have contacted EA or Konami about getting the rights to add in the Genesis versions of those games to their collection.

It's a stupid idea altogether, but it makes a bit more sense this way.[/quote]

But then you'd have to ask yourself why would EA allow Sega to use its old games when they are releasing a compilation themselves in EA Replay.

In fact, has any software company ever licensed games from another software company to be included in a compilation before?

These games are Sega games that were on the Sega Genesis. He needs to realize that. And to say there is more filler than thriller is crazy.

Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle
Altered Beast
Bonanza Bros.
Columns
Comix Zone
Decap Attack starring Chuck D. Head
Ecco the Dolphin
Ecco II: The Tides of Time
Ecco Jr.
Kid Chameleon
Flicky
Gain Ground
Golden Axe I
Golden Axe II
Golden Axe III
Phantasy Star II
Phantasy Star III: Generations of Doom
Phantasy Star IV: The End of the Millenium
Ristar
Shadow Dancer: The Secret of Shinobi
Shinobi III: Return of the Ninja Master
Sonic the Hedgehog
Sonic the Hedgehog 2
Super Thunder Blade
Sword of Vermilion
Vectorman
Vectorman 2
Virtua Fighter 2

How many of those games would you consider filler in there? More than two thirds of those games were popular titles.
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']Hmmm, I just checked and it's working for me. Is anyone else getting this error?[/quote] yes
nevermind, works now...
 
[quote name='oleander']yes[/quote]

Can you check again? For some reason, the post got put to Private instead of Published. The link should now be active.
 
I love how he uses supposed revisions to cover his ass in the Joystiq update. He supposedly removed a description of why he thought Sega should obtain the licenses to include Contra, etc (non-Sega titles) in a Sega collection. Hell yes, them's good edits, Mr. Review Editor.

I figure if you aren't going to play a game before you review it, forget pretending and just play hooky.
While the loading screen, which featured 16-bit characters galore, was quite charming, it was not enough to assist the game in actually loading. Due to the fact that Sega obviously mailed me a defective review copy which I could not test, I cannot in good conscience score the game any higher than 7.2 of 10.

UPDATE: Sega was kind enough to mail a replacement review copy to me, but unfortunately this copy must have been lost in the mail as I did not receive it. This is disappointing, as I really, really wanted to play this game containing old titles with which I am entirely unfamiliar. And by that I mean that while my extensive game mastery obviously extends to these titles, I elect not to discuss them at length or in any sort of superficial detail in this space.

UPDATE 2: Sega was kind enough to send a second replacement through certified mail, a precaution I especially appreciated. However, shortly after signing for the disc, my terrier, Rufus, snatched the disc from my hands and chewed it to a state of disrepair. Alas, my hopes of playing this collection and becoming reacquainted with classics like Toe Jammin' World, Goldenasses 2, and Contraband will never be.
Click to expand...
 
That review is stupid..it fails to mention a rerelease one of the greatest, rarest RPG's of all time Phantasy Star IV

Thing is, this game beats Sonic Gems, Sonic Collection, Sega Smash Pack for GBA, and Sega Smash for PC in every single way

All and I say ALL it is missing is Streets of Rage, Shining Force, and Beyond Oasis...

but come on, you could put Streets of Rage 1-3, Shining Force 1-2, and Beyond Oasis on a PSOne disc and even then it would sell more than Halo.
 
Seriously, a 7.2? What is he rating this on? Graphics alone?

Is he going "Omg dese grapx r teh suckz!"

I would say that maybe... MAYBE 4 or 5 games out of that list are filler. The rest are solid, if not great games.

You easily have 100+ hours of gameplay there.
 
[quote name='kittycatgirl2k']I was getting Gamepro for free one year and still felt like I was getting ripped off. The magazine was never that great to begin with. I have a few from 1991 and while it was better then, it still was no prize in the gaming community. Everything looks better in hindsight with rose colored glasses on. :)

With that said... the review is his opinion take that or leave it, but getting the facts so mixed up is bizarre. The Genesis was in no way whipped by the SNES - it was in the lead for years before the SNES managed to catch up. And why would Sega have the rights to Contra? Even modern gamers that just fell out of the woodwork since the PS2 know that its not Sega. Geez.[/QUOTE]

Not to dump on the ol' Genesis but you're completely wrong.

In the first two years of its existence in the US market the Genesis did quite badly. In Japan the PC Engine (TurboGrafx int he US) was far more popular. The NES was still hugely dominant due to Nintendo's stranglehold on third party publishers. The Genesis didn't gain any serious numbers until the SNES was accompanied by a big push to make the public realize that 16-bit did matter because the company that commanded the most mindshare now said so.

What also made a huge difference was the appearance of Madden and Sonic, coupled with Nintendo's inability to meet demand for the SNES during its first US Xmas. This caused a huge number of people who'd promised a new game system to their kids to settle for a Genesis, which in most cases turned out to be perfectly good if the kid wasn't fanatically attached to certain SNES exclusive franchises.

The next and probably most critical change was the results of Nintendo settling a lawsuit brought by Sega regarding the restrictions of third party developers to offer their games solely on Nintendo platforms for the first two years of the game's release. If it weren't for that change in access to third party publishers the Genesis would be a historical footnote and Sony would have been the one to sue Nintendo or never enter the US market.

After the dust had settled and both machines were retired, Nintendo had a lot more net revenue to show for their 16-bit entry.
 
Tons of stuff to comment on...:

-Gamepro IMO is BETTER now, not worse. It's never been that good, but at least it looks a bit more professional now, and has that "buyer's beware" thing that's kind of neat.

-I have FAR more complaints with that "Seganerds" review of the review than the actual review. After reading the review, my only serious complain is just that it's too short (which is the fault of the review format in the magazine).

They say it got a "low score"-how is 3.5/5 a "low score"? That's above average. They slam it for "only" getting a 3.0 for graphics...that's an average score for 15 year old games! That's not bad at all, and the review even praises it for supporting progressive scan! Anyone thinking games from 1990 are going to score better than average graphically in a market with Oblivion and Gears of War is nuts.

He specifically mentions it not having Streets of Rage-which I think is a complaint a lot of us have.

Seganerds claims Ecco is a "long running Sega franchise", when it's really not. Ecco CD was GREAT, but IMO the Genesis version wasn't, and it's basically just Ecco 1 and 2 (plus the terrible 3D game on the Dreamcast).

The review points out that stuff like Super Thunder Blade is filler, which it is. Vectorman too IMO.

READ the Gamepro review before slamming it. It's not bad at all-just too short. (And while it doesn't mention PS4 specifically, it does mention Phantasy Star as one of the reasons to buy it-again, it's a length problem.)

I can't believe I'm DEFENDING Gamepro here-but this review got a ridiculous bad rap. Seganerds is the site being silly.
 
[quote name='Puppy']-I have FAR more complaints with that "Seganerds" review of the review than the actual review. After reading the review, my only serious complain is just that it's too short (which is the fault of the review format in the magazine).[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. The blog dude obviously takes any negative comments about the game personally -- as some readers are apt to do -- and gets overly emotional. To me, the only problem with the review (aside from the spelling error) was mentioning third-party games; he should've just stuck with Streets of Rage, because it's a great point.

Graphics are dated, literally. Is he going to give it a 5/5 graphically? No, if there's a spot to rate them, he's gotta rate them. Everyone reading knows it's based on 16-bit titles, and we don't care.

Echo is a B-grade franchise. I doubt it sold any systems for Sega, and hasn't done much of anything since the Genesis (I found the DC game mediocre).

This wasn't so much a good example of a bad review as it was a good example of a reader taking a review waaaaay too seriously. Been there, done that. I'm sure somewhere, somebody's picking apart my low score for Killzone: Liberations this very minute.
 
[quote name='ViolentLee']I agree completely. The blog dude obviously takes any negative comments about the game personally -- as some readers are apt to do -- and gets overly emotional. To me, the only problem with the review (aside from the spelling error) was mentioning third-party games; he should've just stuck with Streets of Rage, because it's a great point.

Graphics are dated, literally. Is he going to give it a 5/5 graphically? No, if there's a spot to rate them, he's gotta rate them. Everyone reading knows it's based on 16-bit titles, and we don't care.

Echo is a B-grade franchise. I doubt it sold any systems for Sega, and hasn't done much of anything since the Genesis (I found the DC game mediocre).

This wasn't so much a good example of a bad review as it was a good example of a reader taking a review waaaaay too seriously. Been there, done that. I'm sure somewhere, somebody's picking apart my low score for Killzone: Liberations this very minute.[/QUOTE]


Ecco was actually a pack in at one point, almost for a whole year. And there's been..

Ecco
Ecco Tides of Time
Ecco Jr
Ecco CD
Ecco [Game Gear]
Ecco [Dreamcast]

I think, honestly, if you are a "Seganerd", then it is a very memorable franchise, the Genesis Ecco games were beautiful, sounded wonderful, were quite unique in concept, and were a real challenge. I didn't fully beat the first one until about a year ago..some things still throw me off [that Octopus at the beginning of the game] I
 
[quote name='sarausagi']Ecco was actually a pack in at one point, almost for a whole year. And there's been..

Ecco
Ecco Tides of Time
Ecco Jr
Ecco CD
Ecco [Game Gear]
Ecco [Dreamcast]

I think, honestly, if you are a "Seganerd", then it is a very memorable franchise, the Genesis Ecco games were beautiful, sounded wonderful, were quite unique in concept, and were a real challenge. I didn't fully beat the first one until about a year ago..some things still throw me off [that Octopus at the beginning of the game] I[/QUOTE]
When I said it hasn't done much, I meant as far as impact upon the industry and gamer attention. When I think Sega franchises I think Sonic, Shining Force, Phantasy Star, Streets of Rage -- not Ecco. I remember renting the first one and thinking it was a neat concept. I've always thought a platformer in water has potential; Ecco just didn't thrill me much. Neither did subsequent sequels. But yes, I see how a "Seganerd" would beg to differ.

I think it would've been neat if one of the games had revealed that the star shape on Ecco's head was a tumor, like the cause of John Travolta's powers in "Phenomenon." I apologize if that was a spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen the 10-year-old movie, by the way.
 
[quote name='Puppy']Tons of stuff to comment on...:

-Gamepro IMO is BETTER now, not worse. It's never been that good, but at least it looks a bit more professional now, and has that "buyer's beware" thing that's kind of neat.

-I have FAR more complaints with that "Seganerds" review of the review than the actual review. After reading the review, my only serious complain is just that it's too short (which is the fault of the review format in the magazine).

They say it got a "low score"-how is 3.5/5 a "low score"? That's above average. They slam it for "only" getting a 3.0 for graphics...that's an average score for 15 year old games! That's not bad at all, and the review even praises it for supporting progressive scan! Anyone thinking games from 1990 are going to score better than average graphically in a market with Oblivion and Gears of War is nuts.

He specifically mentions it not having Streets of Rage-which I think is a complaint a lot of us have.

Seganerds claims Ecco is a "long running Sega franchise", when it's really not. Ecco CD was GREAT, but IMO the Genesis version wasn't, and it's basically just Ecco 1 and 2 (plus the terrible 3D game on the Dreamcast).

The review points out that stuff like Super Thunder Blade is filler, which it is. Vectorman too IMO.

READ the Gamepro review before slamming it. It's not bad at all-just too short. (And while it doesn't mention PS4 specifically, it does mention Phantasy Star as one of the reasons to buy it-again, it's a length problem.)

I can't believe I'm DEFENDING Gamepro here-but this review got a ridiculous bad rap. Seganerds is the site being silly.[/quote]

He ended up giving the review a 7/10, which is average. However, he never went into detail as to why he scored it this way. His biggest complaint was that there are a "handful of hits sandwiched between bunches of fluff."

That's the foundation for his review and score. However, that is clearly not correct. Any gamer worth his salt knows at least two thirds of the games in the collection. His main point is way off base. Sure there are a few games that are filler here, but most of these games aren't. And how the hell is Vectorman filler? That's a really fun franchise.

Futhermore, he never explained why he gave the game's graphics a 6/10. I was really interested to find out how well the games are emulated or if there are any graphical glitches or hiccups, but he failed to even go there at all. To me, at least, you have to grade a compilation differently from the rest of the games out there. You can't fairly rate a 16-bit game against current-generation games. However, you can compare them against other compilations available on the system.

This is a really bad review, and I think it's plain to most of the people out there. It doesn't seem like he has any real knowledge of the games he's reviewing, and I think that clearly showed in his review.
 
Correct, they should have given the review to someone that knows the games and loves the games, someone who doesn't can't properly review a compilation title...

One thing is giving a game to someone who has no experience with it or plain doesn't like the concept or franchise just to get a different type of review than all the other gaming magazines [for example, a magazine that would give Twilight Princess to someone who doesn't like Nintendo in the least, that's okay...get a different perspective out there]

However, it's plain obvious he doesn't "remember" these games like many of us do..so not only can he not appreciate that point in history, but he can't comment on what didn't translate so well. Does the music sound distorted? Did the graphics come out as crisp as possible and better looking than ever? Is their slow down or lag on Sonic? How is the saving on the RPG's? Do the controls carry over well?
 
Worst review ever? Not quite, as I've read some bad ones in my day. But it's also true that the good ol' Gamepro from 2001-early 2003 'tis no more. Gamepro used to actually have talented writers on their stuff during those time periods but as the editors changed so did the quality of the magazine. The Watchdog who does Buyer's Beware is still great though.

But really.... they should have considered letting someone whos a bit more of a Sega fan to review this, but really, who takes reviews seriously? I could give a shit if this game got 3's and if I was still interseted I'd buy it in a heart beat.

Edit: Actually, to some it might make more sense for someone who isnt familiar with these games to review it for those who have never played them before. The fans know they'll be buying it on launch day anyway, so what about those who never grew up with Sega and were still considering playing it anyway?
 
[quote name='ViolentLee']When I said it hasn't done much, I meant as far as impact upon the industry and gamer attention. When I think Sega franchises I think Sonic, Shining Force, Phantasy Star, Streets of Rage -- not Ecco. I remember renting the first one and thinking it was a neat concept. I've always thought a platformer in water has potential; Ecco just didn't thrill me much. Neither did subsequent sequels. But yes, I see how a "Seganerd" would beg to differ.[/QUOTE]
I consider Ecco the Dolphin to be right up there with Shining Force, Phantasy Star, and Streets of Rage. And the Shining Force and Phantasy Star series on Genesis are my favorite games of all time. Its certainly underappreciated now... Its too bad most people didn't get to play them on Sega CD, the soundtracks were stunning.


Epobirs, the Genesis doing poorly in the US was largely due to marketing. The reason for their turnaround was 100% because of Tom Kalinske.
http://www.sega-16.com/Tom Kalinske- American Samurai.php
http://www.sega-16.com/Interview- Tom Kalinske.php

In the 2nd link, what happened in the buildup to the Saturn days is particularly stunning (nothing to do with what we're talking about though).
 
[quote name='Paco']People who subscribe probably still think it kicks ass like in the good old days. To be fair gamepro DID kick all sorts of ass in the early and mid 90s.[/QUOTE]

I read through the April 95 issue a while back and I noticed that their writing style was relatively similar to that of a 6th grader that doesn't natively speak English.
 
[quote name='Paco']People who subscribe probably still think it kicks ass like in the good old days. To be fair gamepro DID kick all sorts of ass in the early and mid 90s.[/quote]

That was the only time I subscribed to it. Back then it was really only EGM, Nintendo Power or Gamepro in my area until Gameplayers and Gamefan started appearing on the shelves. Gamepro wasn't that bad then. Of course, back then I didn't have the internet to get alternative sources of info.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']That was the only time I subscribed to it. Back then it was really only EGM, Nintendo Power or Gamepro in my area until Gameplayers and Gamefan started appearing on the shelves. Gamepro wasn't that bad then. Of course, back then I didn't have the internet to get alternative sources of info.[/QUOTE]
I remember buying Gamepros from the grocery store in, like, 6th and 7th grade, then bringing a stack to study hall and loaning them out. I think I was more into EGM, though, as it was cooler and smarter to me -- though I didn't like how short the reviews were.

Of course, then I started working at Funcoland and got into Game Informer. Then I worked for them, so my perspective got all screwed up.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']I get GamePro for free. I use it as padding whenever I mail something in a big box.[/quote]

Same here, it really isn't worth my time to read it. Nice sig. by the way.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top