Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

September 16, 2011 -

Most developers would be delighted to hear that the lowest score their latest game has garnered is an 8 out of 10, but apparently not Epic's Cliff Blezinski. Speaking to VG247, Blezinski railed against the outlets that gave Gears of War 3 an appalling score of "8," referring to them as "haters." Haters is a pretty strong term to use to describe a score of 8, but Blezinski feels like the third game in the series is the best yet. Fair enough.

"Doing great, apart from a couple of haters," Cliffy told VG247, referring to the review scores coming in. When asked about who he considered haters he pointed out Eurogamer's review.

"You know, I didn’t quite gather it. I don’t want to come across as defensive," he said. "How do I phrase this properly? When people rated Gear 2 higher than Gears 3, it kind of upset me because I know Gears 3 is a better game on every level."

Is Blezinski being overly defensive and unreasonable or is he right? Argue about it in the comments, I guess. Personally if the lowest score my game was getting was an 8, I’d be pleased...

Source: Destructoid


Comments

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

8/10 means a person hates a game?  Since when?  I would personally rate Dead Island 8/10, and I'm enjoying the hell out of it.  The game does have some bugs, the story isn't overwhelmingly engaging, the characters are stuck in a purgatory between being fully realized individuals and being a blank every-man template like Gordon Freeman, and the graphics look closer to the early games this console cycle.  But despite that it is a very fun and visceral zombie beat-em-up.

8/10, and I'm loving it.

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

8/10? Quit your whining. Your not going to please everyone, and whining about such a score pleases no one.

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

He does have a point that it doesn't make sense to rate gears 2 over gears 3. They fine tuned the hell out of 3 in the little bit of beta I got to play and the story mode, beast mode, horde mode, co-op and everything else I have seen make it look like it's been turned up to 11. And as someone who has gotten together with friends on more friday nights to play gears 1 and 2 than I could count I really pay attention to the little details. 

 

Just my two cents. I like ol Cliffy. He's a character and he's passionate about games. That's gotta buy him some room to grouse, at least for me.

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

Keep your nose out of white lines. Your starting to sound like a music exec.....


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

Ok honestly Cliff, fuck you.

I can understand being disappointed that your game didn't score as well as you would have liked. I can understand that when you spend a lot of time and work on something that any negative judgments about it can feel personal. And I can certainly understand that it can be very disheartening when a work of love is critically/commercially panned.

BUT...that being said, if the lowest score is an 8/10 then you don't get to complain...at all! Especially in a case like Gears 3 where its a fucking guarantee that it will sell over a million copies on the first day, regardless of what any critics may say. So go fuck yourself Cliffy and go get some fucking perspective before you go throwing the word "haters" around just because someone didn't give your game a perfect score.

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

Cliffy B still hasn't grown up yet, has he?

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

Here's a thought for Blezinski: How about you just make the best game you can, then stand back and STFU.

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

This reminds me when James Cameron railed that one, count'em ONE critic, who gave Titanic a bad review. It seems the higher the score, the higher the ego.

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

How does someone get so far in a computer related industry without having a kindergarten-level understanding of how numbers work?

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

How can anyone who follows the game industry not know how game ratings work?

The idea of a 10 point scale system for game reviews is a misnomer. It just doesn't exist in the real world.

The lowest score I have ever seen a game get on a 10 point scale is a 6. Most bad games will get a 7. So based on this true scale of 6-10 an 8 score is average. Meaning that Gears 3 is an average game. Not a bad game, nor a good game. just average.

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

Which is completely BS and one of the major problems of our gaming society. You'd think on a scale of 1/10 a 5 would be average, since it's right there in the middle, but nope. Anything less than an 8 is a total failure, it would seem.

That's why I give individual ratings on different aspects to a game on my reviews, so instead of looking at the final score, people can look at what they look for in a game and make a judgment based on what they think makes a good game, instead of giving one single score for the game as a whole. I still give a final score using the sum of the individual parts, but even if a game scores a 10/20, which can be seen as a 5/10, it can still be a good game if the individual parts scored high enough to pique a reader's interest.

*End shameless plug*

Re: Epic's Cliff Blezinski Rails Against Gears of War 3 'Haters'

Oh, I've seen plenty of sub 5 scores but it's true that you don't often see anything less than a 6.  But I think that's because most games (at least the ones worth reviewing) honestly range from okay to excellent.

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician