This is a disgraceful review in my opinion. It's not so much the criticism, as what one person enjoys, another person might hate, no, it's the offensive score he slapped on the end that is not backed up by the review.

I never played the original yet I have been enjoying playing the remastered version on Steam. This is not a difficult game by anyone but his standards, even the ball puzzle, mentioned by the reviewer as frustrating, took me three attempts and two were just learning how the puzzle worked, which is part of the fun if you ask me. I have played the game for about 10 hours and loved every minute of it as a fan of platform games.

Due to not having played the original, I don't have rose-tinted memories of playing the original to fall back on but so far this is easily a solid 6 or 7/10 in my book. It is perfectly playable, it's charming and it's also enjoyable to play even to someone who has never watched SpongeBob SquarePants.

Awarding 2/10 for this game is insulting to the developers. I can accept that the game might not be to the reviewer's taste but giving it a score that is basically reserved for the most dire, broken, bug-ridden rubbish is just grossly unfair. Even IGN were more reasonable with their review, giving it a mediocre score of 5.

I almost get the impression that this reviewer set out intentionally to hate this game, perhaps because he is not a fan of the genre but was given what he deems to be a kid's game to review. Maybe he just likes games that hold his hand all the time so he doesn't have to think? Whatever, I simply cannot understand how he can justify that score.

I thought BioShock Infinite was somewhat overrated myself but I don't know that I'd agree with that 4/10 review. I'd give it 6 or 6.5 myself.

The first hour of the game was terrific and the ending was also great if a little rushed but a lot of stuff inbetween felt padded out and the combat became increasing tedious as the game went on, concluding with an awful section on a ship where you're fighting off waves and waves of enemies. The story was good, Elizabeth was an interesting character who was sadly underused despite her accompanying the character you play as through much of the game but the combat was by far the game's weakest element and, unfortunately, that made up most of the game. The combat in the first game was far more entertaining and I never felt like it overstayed its welcome except for that awful final boss fight.

Infinite was certainly memorable but only for the story, many of the setpieces were pretty forgettable IMO. I don't think it's a bad game - it's much better than the lacklustre retread that was BioShock 2 for example - but it could and should have been so much better if the combat had actually been interesting and if it had been dialled back a bit in favour of exploration and puzzle solving.

What a piss poor and completely pointless comparison feature. It positively pales compared with the features on other websites such as Eurogamer's Digital Foundry especially or even Lens of Truth who go into more detail about not other where the differences are but, also in the case of the former, why those differences occur in the first place. I'm not going to comment on which version looks better (I'm a multiplatform gamer so I know from first hand experience with the demos anyway which looks best) but I will say this: where are the comments regarding anti-aliasing, framerates and screen tearing which do tend to vary between the two platforms? How about some ACTUAL info on how smoothly the games run instead of commenting on STATIC screenshots which don't tell the full story anyway?