Comments on: Wet [Review]

By: Top 5 Games You Should Have Played in 2009, But Probably Didn’t « Geekadelphia

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:49:21 +0000

[...] Wet (Xbox 360 / PS3) – I’ve never gotten more flack for a post on this blog then I did for my review of Wet, but I still stand by my statements. A2M’s amazing move into hardcore gaming (after horrific [...]

By: The Once and Future Chris

The Once and Future Chris — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:10:48 +0000

Er… what Ben said.

(cue LOST crescendo)

By: brownkidd

brownkidd — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:26:27 +0000

I beat the game and had a blast despite the repetative gameplay and clunky controls. I thought the voice acting was great and I enjoyed the story for what it was, a low-brow b-movie action plot. I’d like to see A2M make a franchise out of this. I’d love to play a sequel, but they should totally focus a bit more on tightening up the loose screws. With a bit more polish, WET could’ve easily been a triple-A title.

Gotta’ give ‘em props for re-inventing the QTE and pulling off that sick skydiving scene, though.

By: Ben Gilbert

Ben Gilbert — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:02:59 +0000

@Chris: It seems then that we have a fundamental disagreement as to what a review should be. Perhaps you are looking for a consumer evaluation — something that examines each technical piece of something and determines its worth and quality based on those criteria. These are sometimes called an “instruction manual” review and are characteristic of IGN’s style (or lack thereof).

What is above (and what most arts reviews in general are — be they movie or literature or gaming or dance or whatever) is a critique. It’s wholly subjective. This is a subject of much debate in the arts writing community and has been for some time. Should the reviewer be forcing subjectivity onto themselves and judging a piece of art solely to its dollar value? Can a person truly ever be subjective when dealing with the arts (or anything else for that matter)? Shouldn’t a reviewer really have a subjective point on what they review, allowing the reader to pick and choose their trusted reviewer of choice?

I know I personally trust people like Jeff Gerstmann from Giant Bomb or Ludwig Kietzmann from Joystiq or Shawn Elliott (when he still wrote) from EGM/1UP to tell me if a game is good or bad — they’re often right (and to my own taste in games). How about you?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:53:39 +0000

Quoting me positive reviews of the game isn’t necessary. To be fair I have played the demo and I have a couple of sites I put stock in for video game reviews – namely IGN, destructoid and g4 (the written reviews not the Morgan Webb and Adam Sessler ones). After reading the reviews, my thoughts on the demo were confirmed – I found the gameplay mechanics to be clumsy and while the grindhouse presentation seems cool (albeit unoriginal) it doesn’t mask what I perceived to be less than stellar graphics especially for a console this far along in its lifecycle. I can only imagine the fact that this project was dropped by Activision during its development contributed to that. I was at least hoping for a great story but it seems like Wet came up short in that area too. While reviews obviously can be somewhat subjective, they are primarily supposed to be objective so the reader can formulate their own opinion of whether the game warrants their 60 bucks. I personally don’t feel this review did that. Sorry if my initial post came off as harsh – didn’t mean to offend anybody.

By: Ben Gilbert

Ben Gilbert — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:15:08 +0000

@dalt wisney & Chris: Allow me to direct your attention then to some other reviews of Wet that may not agree with your stances. It currently has a 70 on Metacritic — though, truth be told, Eric’s review is subjective. It’s his *opinion* of the game. You commenting “I’ve read nothing but mediocre to bad things about Wet” is a clear indication that you haven’t actually played the game. Maybe give it a chance before you slag Eric’s review, eh?

1UP: “While it’s not the most fantastic thing ever, a couple of its components — namely the stylish presentation and the battle arenas — are brilliant.”

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3176015&p=4

Joystiq: “You have to love a game that works solely on the strength of its convictions. Deep down in the very core of its rockabilly heart, Wet knows that shooting dudes while you slow-mo dive and slide is fun. Fun enough to build an entire game around without too much ancillary garbage? Yes. A thousands times yes.”

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/09/15/review-wet/

Team Xbox: “Wet is a perfect blend of shooting and swordplay that lays on a thick layer of stylish acrobatics.”

http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1761/Wet/p1/

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:29:58 +0000

Sorry you didn’t like it guys. Try the game yourselves though. I enjoyed it, and wanted to express that.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:28:37 +0000

Agreed – I’ve read nothing but mediocre to bad things about Wet (which is sad because I was looking forward to it) – the review sounds like it was written by A2Ms marketing department. The Visuals are anything but pretty – the graphics look they are from a launch title.

By: dalt wisney

dalt wisney — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:40:39 +0000

This review is poorly written and seems so biased toward the positive marketing of Wet it makes me think there is collusion. I do not believe the oversell and am turned off by the back handed compliments to all the film makers referenced. How many games will be made ripping off the original concepts of other content and dare claim they offer something new? At least admit the influences positively.