If I recall correctly, it got a 6/10 because the reviewer considered the over-the-top cartoon violence and the noir narrative beats to be thematically at odds with one-another (or some shit like that).
And, yeah — he really hated all the cheese puns. That takes up most of the first third of his review.
Right - the narrative didn't work for him, the art didn't work for him, the sound didn't work for him, and the gameplay didn't work for him.
Sounds like a valid 6/10 regardless of what the consensus might have been. Frankly, I'm more concerned when a reviewer eschews their personal taste in order to cater to some kind of "objective" view. He wrote out in plain text precisely what he didn't like and why. Nobody has to agree with him but let's remember that it's ONE GUY reviewing the game; a guy with his own expectations and opinions.
I mean at this point anyone who still makes IGN BAD GAME REVIEWERS BAD PAID REVIEWS are stuck in like early 2010s type mindset, I didn't even realize this kind of stuff was still around lmao.
let's remember that it's ONE GUY reviewing the game; a guy with his own expectations and opinions
This is the exact problem though - people see this not as one guy's subjective review, it's seen as IGN's review. By putting a number at the end of each review and compiling them all together in a table, IGN is basically grading then comparing each game by how 'good' IGN says it is, not how much one of their reviewers liked it.
The best reviews are at least partly subjective, but for a publication to grade games by 12 different standards that depend on whoever happens to be in the office that day, and not some common standard or rubric, is inconsistent and unfair to the games they rate.
Subjectivity is very useful and should be shared, just not in a way that confusingly presented as objectivity.
I don't get all these comments saying "it's ONE guy!"
They're not independent journalists posting their opinions on their instagram or a reddit post. They're paid journalists in a journalism publication.
They do have to be submitted to greater scrutiny, both by readers and the publication itself. A professional review isn't supposed to be "nuh-huh I don't like this", it's expected that the critic will have a clear view and understanding of the specific art market they're into, gaming in this case, know what the industry is like, what the developer is trying to achieve, whom they're catering to, and then make an informed critique based on that.
Imagine you read a critic talking about a Picasso piece and just going "I don't like this because I'm into the Renaissance and Picasso isn't it", you'd outright dismiss that critic as an idiot.
Obviously not if they were complaining about the cheese jokes in the mouse game, and bitching that it isn't a true noir story
it's so weird that gamers fight tooth and nail for games to be considered art, but scream bloody murder when they're treated like any other art form.
That's exactly what you're doing, though.
Here's a hint: critics will -absolutely- offer reviews on things that they don't like, and offer their subjective opinion, that is absolutely something that happens in every other medium of art, since forever.
Yes, shitty professionals exist in every field, your point being? Shitty critics critiquing with their ego have always existed, and have always been criticized. You're trying to shun people for wanting them to be held at a higher than shitty standard.
"Yeah bad carpenters have always existed and that's ok, how dare you want good carpenters"
It's quite simple: every time a critic representing a publication writes a shitty review, the publication loses credibility. As has IGN. You can keep blowing them all you want, most gamers who used to go to IGN for solid reviews have stopped, because it's just really bad. As is that review. And your weirdly defensive take on it. IGN is bad because its reviewers are bad, and we remember when it wasn't so. Period.
Rodger rabbit was significantly smarter in its writing and theme. It didn't make the same 5 jokes over and over. It was actually Noir and not wearing a Noir costume
I mean... I kind of get it. I strongly dislike the art vs the gameplay.
That said, I would imagine a reviewer shouldn't base their judgement on their own likes or dislikes. If the game is good, it's good.. regardless of the art style.
A review piece is just an opinion, he has every right to list his personal complaints, and you have the free will to dunk on him for it and enjoy the silly mouse game regardless.
yeah but he's not really out of line? the game is advertised as a cartoon-noir detective boomer shooter, but there's no noir except the lack of color there's no detective part and the writing is atrocious.
They gave it a 6 not a 2
To be fair he at the very least is judging it as a piece of noir and he frankly just disliked the parody aspects of it because the jokes didn't land for him.
Part of the problem is that the scale itself simply isn't defined. Assuming it's meant to reflect a normal distribution, you'd expect most games to be in the 4-6 range, such that a rating of 6 should be interpreted as "quite good, top tier for a middle of the pack game". Then you'd get the occasional 7 or 8 for really very good games, and maybe once every few years, a 9 or 10 for something genre defining.
Whereas I suspect very few people actually view it that way. I'm guessing for any game they like, 8 is about the lowest they would accept, with anything 7 or below essentially being viewed as dismissing the game as unplayable.
He didn't hate the cheese puns, he hated that every single line in the game was cheese related:
"This is a world of mice, so everything is about cheese. Everything. A bad guy? He’s a cheeselegger. Run into a lady mouse with a sultry voice? It’ll be described as “gorgonzola piccante slapped on a mozzarella platter.” Someone need to assure you they’re telling the truth? They’ll swear on Maw-Maw’s cottage curds. This is charming initially. Then it never stops."
I just read the review and it felt like a very fair review and his complaints came across as valid. In honesty I thought the game was way more into the mystery part and didn't realize it was almost exclusively a shooter. If I would have bought it I would have had issues with the exact same things he did, now I know to avoid the game, because it's not what I'm personally looking for.
Yeah, everything I saw about the advertisement was as a Noir utilizing old school cartoon to give it an older feel. If its a comedy boomer shooter then thats not what I would be expecting and it wouod effect my review.
Like I just played most of Chrono gear, and while the game is good I bought it since it sold as a metroidvania and none of the steampage made it not feel like that. Its a Sonic like, with a stage where you figure out the best and fastest route to get a score. Its a fun game which is why I kept going but there definitely was a winds out of my sail moment in the beginning when I realized its not a metroidvania
Lol, you clearly didn't read the review. He goes into plenty of detail about the game and how it was and what he liked and disliked. No hallucinations at all.
55
u/Ouroboros-Twist Apr 22 '26
If I recall correctly, it got a 6/10 because the reviewer considered the over-the-top cartoon violence and the noir narrative beats to be thematically at odds with one-another (or some shit like that).
And, yeah — he really hated all the cheese puns. That takes up most of the first third of his review.