The one review that stands out (not in a good way) is IGN Korea's, because the reviewer obviously has a bias towards smaller, indie, non-AAA games and that's kind of evident in their other reviews.
But the bigger problem with his review is contradiction of logic. He apparently REALLY liked GOW 2018, but somehow Ragnarok, which does everything 2018 did but bigger & better, is a disappointment? Where have I heard this argument before? Oh yeah! From some of the HFW reviewers! It didn't make a lot of sense there and it doesn't make a lot of sense here, either.
I mean, it's a sequel. They are NOT going to dramatically change the game design in-between installments that are continuing a story between the two of them. That's something you wait to do until you are on a completely new, fresh story/saga. Imagine if reviewers had this mentality wholesale when reviewing RE2 against RE1 back in the day, or even MGS2 to MGS1. MOST sequels can be boiled down to largely the same game design & game loop of the previous releases, if you want to be pedantic about it, so why only bring that to the forefront when discussing HFW or Ragnarok?
Even Elden Ring "suffers" from that; it's literally the same exact formula and game loop as the Dark Souls games when you boil things down to their essence, just now with more choice thanks to the open world format. The game being open-world is the only big difference and there is nothing inherently special to open-world game design in and of itself.
Not to mention the IGN Korea reviewer used the "it's DLC" line later in the review and also used the last part as a soapbox to voice their grievances about the AAA games industry (as if somehow GOW Ragnarok is more embodying of those issues than, say, the annual COD releases :/). Not saying the reviewer's opinions are wrong or that they aren't entitled to them. I just want reviewers to apply more consistent internal logic in why they score things the way they do, and do that for games across the board, not just selectively.
And using a single game as a soapbox to voice possibly genuine issues with AAA games, maybe just either save that for its own article or maybe just...don't review AAA games if you feel so strongly about them in such a way? Just a thought.
There's nothing wrong with bad reviews per se, just make sure as the reviewer that you are applying internal logic that actually makes sense, and that you uphold for other games you're reviewing.
And if you're specifically adverse to a certain style of game no matter what, maybe you aren't the best fit to review it. But for me it's when those things are not adhered to when the bad reviews are questionable.
Honestly though, haven't seen that happening with Ragnarok reviews outside of IGN Korea's, hence why that's the only one I zeroed in on in the above.
Also a single 85 score is nowhere near bad, if it's genuine
But the bigger problem with his review is contradiction of logic. He apparently REALLY liked GOW 2018, but somehow Ragnarok, which does everything 2018 did but bigger & better, is a disappointment? Where have I heard this argument before? Oh yeah! From some of the HFW reviewers! It didn't make a lot of sense there and it doesn't make a lot of sense here, either.
I mean, it's a sequel. They are NOT going to dramatically change the game design in-between installments that are continuing a story between the two of them. That's something you wait to do until you are on a completely new, fresh story/saga. Imagine if reviewers had this mentality wholesale when reviewing RE2 against RE1 back in the day, or even MGS2 to MGS1. MOST sequels can be boiled down to largely the same game design & game loop of the previous releases, if you want to be pedantic about it, so why only bring that to the forefront when discussing HFW or Ragnarok?
Even Elden Ring "suffers" from that; it's literally the same exact formula and game loop as the Dark Souls games when you boil things down to their essence, just now with more choice thanks to the open world format. The game being open-world is the only big difference and there is nothing inherently special to open-world game design in and of itself.
Not to mention the IGN Korea reviewer used the "it's DLC" line later in the review and also used the last part as a soapbox to voice their grievances about the AAA games industry (as if somehow GOW Ragnarok is more embodying of those issues than, say, the annual COD releases :/). Not saying the reviewer's opinions are wrong or that they aren't entitled to them. I just want reviewers to apply more consistent internal logic in why they score things the way they do, and do that for games across the board, not just selectively.
And using a single game as a soapbox to voice possibly genuine issues with AAA games, maybe just either save that for its own article or maybe just...don't review AAA games if you feel so strongly about them in such a way? Just a thought.
There's nothing wrong with bad reviews per se, just make sure as the reviewer that you are applying internal logic that actually makes sense, and that you uphold for other games you're reviewing.
And if you're specifically adverse to a certain style of game no matter what, maybe you aren't the best fit to review it. But for me it's when those things are not adhered to when the bad reviews are questionable.
Honestly though, haven't seen that happening with Ragnarok reviews outside of IGN Korea's, hence why that's the only one I zeroed in on in the above.
Also a single 85 score is nowhere near bad, if it's genuine
Last edited:
