Seeing as the end of the year (and decade, come to think of it) is approaching, everybody and their mother are putting out Best of the [Insert Time Period] and Worst of the [Insert Time Period] lists in an effort to put their stamp on the blogosphere's collective analysis of the world's video game titles. A short time ago,
CNET.com published their list of ten "games" they reasoned to be the worst of the year. While they certainly felt these games were underwhelming, so too could their list (which was not even ranked) be considered. The CliffsNotes version, for you lazy readers-and-clickers:
MLB 2K9: Supposedly "failed in almost every aspect," ridden with bugs
Bionic Commando: Falls short of the legacy of fun set forth by the NES original
Wheelman: Bad melee and gunplay
PSP Go: Too expensive, game downloads and transfers are tedious
Brutal Legend: Supposedly "wasn't fun", in spite of Jack Black
The Godfather II: Unfinished feel, repetitive, bad AI
Rogue Warrior: REALLY short campaign, excessive foul language (yes, such a thing exists)
Sonic and the Black Knight: Um, Sonic has a sword
Tony Hawk RIDE: Too expensive, inconsistent function of skateboard peripheral
The Delays: No, that's not a title; it's merely a gripe about how some high profile releases like BioShock 2 haven't come out yet
You'll notice how the word "games" is put in quotes above. While CNET never professes to be offering a Top 10 list, the stickler can't help but be annoyed that two of their choices are not even games. Of course, this is a ticky-tack argument, and there are more serious flaws than those of taking liberties with the concept of a game. For one, some games seem unfairly singled out because they are too expensive. Regarding Tony Hawk, for example, its heavy price tag should not reflect on its quality. By the same logic, we could just as well add DJ Hero to the list. RIDE seems like it would be better situated in a list of games with the worst overall value.
Another problem to take with the list is that certain games seem to be unduly penalized for falling short of high expectations. Granted, it can be argued that a series' reputation (e.g. Bionic Commando) or hype (e.g. Brutal Legend) is a perfectly viable reason to downgrade it when it comes time for a review. But are Bionic Commando and Brutal Legend really worthy of Worst Game of the Year status? Regarding the latter, some would even put the Jack Black vehicle on their BEST of the Year countdown. And then there's the Sonic game. Without playing it, one can only really conjecture about its lack of quality, but seriously, aren't 3-D Sonic games pretty easy targets nowadays?
Certainly, there is a business side of things: CNET's list is meant to garner interest and spur debate, and big profile names are a surefire way of achieving this. Nevertheless, if we are to be purists about the idea of a list of worsts, it would've been entertaining just the same to see a handful of games that didn't just fall short of expectations, but were rather so atrocious that the authors would've had no choice but to poke fun at them, games deservedly under the radar. CNET, you could've done a lot better...er, worse.
Do you take issue with any of the items on CNET's list? Why?
Comments (1)
Meh. :|
It's not really all that surprising that some reviewers might strategically ignore things, or unnecessarily nitpick in an attempt to stir up controversy just so their articles might get a bit more attention.