LIMBO Review (PC/PS3) | ZTGD

Michael Futter writes: It’s been a little over a year since Limbo launched to enormous critical acclaim on the XBox Live Marketplace. Now, the game-meets-art title is coming to the PC and the PSN, with a small amount of additional hidden content, for those that haven’t yet had a chance to experience it. I immediately started writing this review upon finishing the game (which took approximately four hours in one sitting) and, while I know which components I liked and disliked, I’m not sure if I’ll ever settle on one opinion of Limbo as a whole.

[coolfool]

I completely agree with the reviewer. I would have liked some reward for completing in the form of a story or something. The end is open so you can draw your own conclusions say the devs but conclusions are usually drawn from facts or at least hints but as the game gives nothing it not possible to take anything away from it.

[PaladinXII]

Thanks. I'm glad to know that I'm not alone on this. :)

[thorstein]

Your Random Review of Limbo for the PS3 is trite. It is a poor example of critique. Your comments are wonky and your analysis is tacked on. It would be even more cliched had I not had to grind through all of the tacked on, random hype of your prowess as a reviewer. And since you have written a review before, it certainly doesn't live up to the standards previously set by your review of From Dust for Xbox360.
I give your review a 0.13.
The Good: It was in English.
The Bad: Cliched Terminology should be avoided like the plague.
The Ugly: Putting your photoshopped picture next to your review doesn't make you less of a tool.

[DMLFury]

Your review of his review is trite. It is a good example of how trolls on the internet act when they don't agree with something. Instead of saying "I don't agree with this review." you attack the review and the writer itself. What should be done is giving examples of why you disagree instead of attacking the writer.
I give your review of his review a 0.12
The Good: Nothing.
The Bad: Your presence still plagues this website.
The Ugly: Your mom.

[PaladinXII]

@Thorstein:

I respect that you may disagree with my opinion. That's fine, and I welcome your thoughts on the game and my review.

I would be interested to know what you thought was trite about it and which comments you believe to be "wonky." I'm also not sure what "random hype of my prowess as a reviewer" you are talking about.

If you'd like to have a mature conversation about the game or my review, I'd be glad to engage in one. Your personal attack, though, is uncalled for. I don't regret that you disliked my review, but I do wish that you had been constructive in your criticism.

Your insults help neither of us.

[thorstein]

Funny. I just flipped through your comments on this site and you claim others can't get satire or a joke. If you didn't realize the satire (ie a generic review of a generic review) then I guess you can't take a joke.

Shall I quote many of your responses to others?
"Aaaannnnd no one can take a joke. Glad to see all is fine in the world."
"Why are people getting so upset up over this? It's a joke article."

And then you get all serious at the end. You purport to be a critic. But then, once the critic is criticized: well, then that is a problem? Oh well, no one builds statues to critics. Especially since it took you half an hour to rip apart something you couldn't do yourself in a lifetime.

But, since you asked:
http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

[PaladinXII]

There was nothing funny or satirical in your response to my review. Put simply, it was rude and a personal attack. To retreat by claiming that you were just kidding and making a joke is cowardly. Stand up and defend your concerns with my review. Be specific. What did you disagree with? Where do you think I went wrong?

Considering I didn't use the words "random," "wonky" or "tacked on" in my review and was pretty damn specific about my problems with the game (and what I liked about it), I'm not sure what your blog post has to do with anything. Perhaps you read someone else's review and got confused. I'm still not sure what "random hype of my prowess as a reviewer" you're talking about.

I am still willing to have that mature conversation about what you disliked about my review, but I have a feeling that's not what you're looking for.

As for the critic being criticized, it's clear you have a reading comprehension problem. I stated quite clearly that I have no problem with people disagreeing or offering constructive criticism of my reviews. I welcome debate, in fact. You have not engaged in either of those things and, for lack of anything substantive to offer, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks.

I asked you to point out specific elements of my review that you disagreed with. You responded that I couldn't make LIMBO. Congratulations, you have outed me as someone who is not a game designer. I never claimed to be one. However, the publishers seem to disagree with your perspective on critics since they keep sending us review material.

So, one last time, if you have something constructive to say, I'm glad to hear and consider it.

[DMLFury]

I hate feeding the trolls but I have this juicy T-bone steak in my hand and I just have to throw it. There is no way in this world that your response was a joke. The last time I checked, when writing a review of a video game, the focus is on the game, not the author of the review. You personally attacked the writer without any thought, and the fact that you copied and pasted what you wrote in your blog is down right lazy. If you seriously made your response to be a joke, you really need to take a look at some proper joke delivery techniques.

If you disagree with the review, JUST SAY THAT. Don't automatically attack the writer for HIS OPINION. If you have an opinion, let us know rather than spouting off childish remarks on the writer.

I'm done arguing with this person because as we all know arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. (and yes, I copied and pasted that from a blog too.)

[thorstein]

Of course it was a joke. The blog (that I wrote, AND LINKED) that I copied it from verbatim is found right here:
http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

It is the final paragraph. As you can tell by the posting date of 182 Days ago, it was actually written before your review of Limbo. It is something I post at the bottom of many generic reviews. Although it is the first time I posted the "review of a review" on N4G, I have been often critical of game "journalists" precisely because "it took you half an hour to rip apart something you couldn't do yourself in a lifetime. "

You could never make a masterpiece like Limbo. In fact, I would hope you would try so you could really understand what it takes to make a game, hell even a crappy game is difficult.

You aren't the first reviewer I have called out. You won't be the last. You are certainly better than many but it still amounts to the same thing: No one builds statues to critics. You base your life on critiquing something you actually know very little about: creating a game, getting funding, marketing, coding that game, testing that game, debugging, getting that game to release, getting that game sold, and many other facets of game making that are too many to mention here.

I mean think about it: You take my review of your review as an attack? But you don't think your review in the first place is an attack on the hard work and dedication of the makers of Limbo? You don't think that OPINION doesn't influence how people perceive and play/ buy the game?

You use criticism as a way of life? Really? So instead of doing, you sit on the sidelines and critique. No. The only critical praise/ damnation I want to hear are from developers. If Naughty Dog employees claim to have a favorite game (that they didn't make) I am more willing to check it out than if some anonymous internet critic writes about it.

And what are your credentials that make you such an expert? Have you graduated from a Communications School like Newhouse? Have you been part of the industry in such a way that you inherently understand what it takes to work those long days creating a game with an atmosphere that is completely unmatched?

I don't think so. So when some person comes along and critiques your critique you get all mad and grumble and get defensive. That isn't my problem. I criticized what basically took you half an hour to write. You blow up. Limbo took a long time to make and you go after it as if you were a starving beggar and it stole your last meal. You can't take the very criticism you dish out? Grow a backbone.

Like I said before, the review of your review is a generic review given to generic reviewers. I have read your other reviews and have left no comments whatsoever. I just forget them as "been there done that" type of reviews. This time you were hoping for a little more of a bite from your trolling review. It didn't happen and you jump on the first person that goes after your abilities and you defend what you do by claiming that I lied when I said it was satire. Yet I provide proof that it is satire by linking my blog where I wrote that paragraph almost half a year ago.

[thorstein]

Oh. And they send you review material as a way of marketing their game. That isn't hard to figure out. Ever read POTM, Nintendo Power, etc?

[DMLFury]

LOL. I'm starting to believe this guy works for Playdead games. If you really believe what you just stated, there are a few things to be considered.

1. If you don't like what reviewers have to say about games because they have never been in the business, and that you only want to hear the opinions of game developers, you should really stop reading video game reviews.

2. You have just labeled yourself as a Limbo fanboy by calling it a masterpiece. So you have just shown the world that you didn't like the opinion of another person, got angry and wanted to tell the whole wide world that "Me no likey what he said."

3. You ask have any of us ever worked in the development business? No, we haven't, but neither have you. So how do you know what it's like to work the long hours and put your heart and soul into a game?

4. Our job as game reviewers is to give our opinions on games to the public and let the public decide what they want to spend their hard earned money that THEY worked long hours for on what they want, but according to your standards, if the development team worked really hard on the game, we should give them a good score. Charlie's Angels on the PS2 was complete garbage, but Neko Entertainment worked SO hard on it...9.5 out of 10. I'm sorry, but that is just stupid. If you think Limbo deserves a 10 out of 10, by all means, start up a website, get some readers, and review the damn game yourself.

5. By linking your blog that you posted over a year ago, you show that you get your kicks out of doing this. You read a review that you don't like and say "Hehe. Copy and paste. See how he likes that." and then just sit back and watch the fireworks. That, my friends is called "trolling."

6. Finally, because of what I stated in my previous post, I am now a retard for replying to you, and you are a retard for replying back. That's fine by me we'll both be retards together. See ya on the short bus, troll.

[PaladinXII]

Given that we're both out of bubbles, I imagine that this will end here, thankfully.

You've accused my review of being trolling. It isn't. It's honest opinion.

Instead of legitimately criticizing my review, you've resorted to your blog, which is little more than pre-trolling things you disagree with. It isn't satire.

I imagine when it was written, it was quite possible to take it as legitimate criticism of the gaming press. However, using it as a crutch and simply regurgitating it whenever you disagree with something cheapens what was, otherwise, solid writing.

I've invited you to engage in legitimate discourse about the game and my review. You have declined through your childish antics.

I certainly hope you derive as much pleasure from insulting people on the internet as you do actually playing games.

As for me, I love my job. I get to play games, interview industry professionals, have open and honest discourse about what I liked and disliked about their games and then write about the games and the industry as a whole. I can assure you that no one in the industry takes our (meaning the game media) criticism as personally as you seem to.

I do feel bad for you, though, that you can't seem to put into words the specific concerns you had with my review. I imagine we might have been able to have a good conversation about the game, otherwise.

PS I did go to school for Communications and Marketing (with an MBA). Thanks for asking.

[Cmpunk]

ouch!

[johndubya]

Well said Drew. You are on top form :)

[rinelk]

Meh--people are snippy on the internet, and attempts at humor we expect to be hilarious go so wrong they're not even recognized. Happens. I'm actually more surprised by the substance of the accusation--Thorstein seems to greatly value the creative process. That's marvelous, and deserves support. I think he's absolutely correct that most reviews are not especially creatively written. I was a bit surprised to see that complaint on this review, given that the principle concern cited is an idiosyncratic personal reaction to an uncommon trait, rather than a boilerplate criticism which would apply to many games. But leave that aside--suppose the review accurately described a position a reasonable person could take on the game using language which addresses the concerns gamers tend to have in language they'd find familiar from many other reviews. Why would that be bad?

I concede the possibility that the act of critique could itself be raised to an art form in principle, and probably has, but generally I read a review to know the sorts of things which tend to be in reviews. The problem with using hackneyed phrases is that they tend to be used in situations which suit them poorly, such that the meaning diffuses due to misuse, not merely frequent use. If, instead, there are a small number of traits which recur so frequently that reviewers often wish to let readers know of their presence in a particular game, we would expect stock phrases to emerge as a shorthand for accurately and narrowly describing them.

Consider "tacked on". That's a great phrase--very useful! Take Resident Evil 4's Mercenaries mode: would that be reasonable to describe as "tacked on"? My intuition is that it's a fair accusation narratively, but it's so polished and adds so much value that I would never use that phrase. Assuming others have similar intuitions, that tells us a lot about what we mean by "tacked on"--a generally less polished, lower value feature which fits poorly with the rest of the game.

[coolfool]

Your exposition on the review is little convoluted for my taste. I am not sure whether you are commenting on this review, commenting on Thostien's "critique" of the review or just commenting on the review process in general.

Either way, I agree with your point that care should be given when applying clichéd phrases to games.