tealovertoma wrote:
It's clearly a marmelade title. People complaining about low review scores need to take 2 things into account: the words the reviewer used to justify the score, and the fact that if it only got high ratings, it wouldn't be fair to all the people who end up regretting buying it. If you're into extremely-hard survival horror and you don't mind hitting dozens of zombies 5 times with a cricket bat for hours, then this is probably a good game for you.
I myself prefer more variety, so I'm glad there's reviews warning people of the negatives.
"But repetitive gameplay isn't an issue in survival horror games, because it's realistic!"
Sure it is, to plenty of people. Including me.
This whole "reviewers only play the game for 3 minutes and only score high when the publisher pays them a big bonus" crap's really annoying. Read several reviews, get a balanced opinion, and decide if a game is right for you. It's not rocket science.
I did read the negative reviews. They were the worst written reviews that said the least about the game (well mainly Gamespot). That's the problem. The fact that others will jump on the score automatically doesn't mean they weren't terrible reviews from laughably dumb sites.
There's this show I watch called Video Game Awesome where Fraser and his buddies are like the anti-thesis of the people who appreciate this game and despite being apparently really dissappointed with ZombiU, even he thought the most negative reviews were bs.

