Man, I wasn't going to post about this...
Like a lot of other people, I was kind of surprised to see the 8.5, especially given IGN's review and the seeming consensus that this is a top-notch game, and probably Wii's finest thus far. But, hey -- I respect a diversity of opinion, and anyways, most people are right: no sense in whining about the score a game gets when we haven't even played it yet. Right?
But then I read the review and... boy, it submarines this game! I'm sure you've heard the expression "damned by faint praise." The idea being that if you call something "fairly good," "decent," or "passable" it has the same negative effect (and sometimes stronger) than calling it "bad." Well the idea of "faint praise" is too strong for this review. It reads almost as though the reviewer wants the game to fail. Conspiracy-theory much? Yeah, I don't want to go down that road, but let's take a look:
The game is an 8.5, right? That's a high score. Should mean that this is a very good game, right? It is, after all, "a high-quality continuation of the series" with "terrific and intuitive" controls. Now... if this is a high-quality continuation of a series that has thus far scored 9.7 and 9.1, it should be pretty darned good. Yet the remainder of the opening paragraph -- more than half -- starts to run negative, saying that the game "does exactly what you expect it to do, no more and no less." Hmm...
The second paragraph digs in hard, comparing this game to its lauded progenitor: "{w}hile Metroid Prime spectacularly ushered Metroid gameplay into a 3D vision, Corruption is content to be a solid successor." "Content" makes the designers sound lazy, and "solid" isn't a very enthusiastic description. Are 8.5s "solid"? Then, the reviewer assures us that "{we} shouldn't let some spurts of predictability dissuade you from checking it out"... well, I should hope not if it's an 8.5... I mean, that's really good, right? "Terrific and intuitive" controls, right? I mean, why does the reviewer start to sense that his review of this 8.5 game might dissuade us from even checking it out? But he can't even let it rest there... not just anyone should check this out, but "particularly if you are a Metroid enthusiast." Here the review starts to insinuate that the game is good, not just for people who enjoy games like Prime, but for those who are specifically Metroid-people. "Enthusiasts," which is a not-too-subtle euphemism for Fanboys.
The reviewer seemingly cannot compliment the game without immediately following up with some sort of an insult or criticism. Check out this from the fourth paragraph: "The obvious change here is in the controls, and Corruption leaves behind the methodical maneuvering of its GameCube brethren with an intuitive and configurable scheme that sets the standard for first-person shooting controls on the Wii, despite Corruption's battles not being all that challenging." Good God, what a sentence. First, he cheapshots the GameCube with its "methodical maneuvering"... which... I guess... would be roughly equivalent to the methodical maneuvering currently found on all the other consoles, right? Then, he states that this control set-up "sets the standard...on the Wii"! Excuse me, but... why the modifier? Consensus seems to be that this control set-up "sets the standard" period. For the 360. For the PS3. For all of them. Then, and despite the fact that it doesn't strictly relate to the quality of the controls, he ends the sentence by slighting the game's challenge. I won't count them all out to you, but I dare you to comb through the article and take a look at the "compliments" -- they almostalways go hand-in-hand with a slight.
Not that the reviewer needs the excuse of balancing a compliment to slam the game. In the third paragraph, in referencing the idea that the reviewer doesn't plan on spoiling us, he takes a gratuitous pot shot: "(Not that the Prime games have ever strived to set standards for gaming fiction.) " Well, great. What does that mean? That the story's weak? No -- the reviewer wouldn't go so far; his goal is, apparently, to make his review seem positive while infusing it with insults and complaints.
All in all, we learn that the control scheme "{has} been done before, of course," that the game is "without a sense of challenge," and that it is too much a FPS (apparently due to the smooth controls) which "keep{s} it from being as special as the other Prime titles." Indeed, that "Corruption loses some of its sense of wonder and strangeness on the Wii. Rather than being a true action adventure, it's hard to lose the sense that it's merely an FPS with trimmings."
Wow. Now... how do we reconcile the idea that it's lost its "sense of wonder" when the game "features superb art direction, so every level is even more incredible to explore than the last"? Or that it's no longer a "true action adventure" when "you'll need to use your wits as much as you use weapons that turn alien scum into goo" and "{e}nvironmental puzzles are generally as good in Corruption as they've ever been"? Furthermore, how do we reconcile any of these serious criticisms with such a high score?
I guess it doesn't matter, that we don't have to worry ourselves about it, because "any fan ought to enjoy this outing in spite of those quibbles" {read "fan" as Metroid enthusiast}, "[t]he exotic worlds of Corruption will excite series fans" and "{i}f you're a Metroid fan, there's no need to convince you to play Metroid Prime 3: Corruption." In other words, the reviewer is saying that Metroid Fanboys will like this game no matter what...
...but the true point of this review is: if you're not already a "series fan," then despite the 8.5, you don't really need to bother with it.
The review is muddled, self-contradictory, and worse: against my better judgment, I walk away thinking that it sets out to intentionally sabotage the game that it purports to praise (remember: 8.5 is "high"). I don't know why; I can't fathom motive; but it's in the review, if you read it carefully.
I know it's been said before, but, do we even have to speculate that, when Halo 3 comes out, its reviewer will talk about how the game "feels familiar"? Or how Halo's controls don't match up to the industry leader (Metroid Prime 3, for the Wii), as Wii reviews nearly always mention how the graphics just can't compare to those of other systems? Will we be told that it's been "done before"?Of course not. We know Halo 3's review won't have any of that. Maybe this isn't a double standard. But, if it's not a double standard, then I guess I just don't know what "double standard" means.
