The Jeff Gerstman should not review action or retro games thread....
This topic is locked from further discussion.
At the outset, with what I have seen so far in mind, I would say that he is not very good at action games in general, and does not like Sega as a company. Whenever Gerstmann reviews a Sega title, the score is automatically 2 points lower than literally anybody else thinks the game should be rated at. He also typically finds "flaws" in the gameplay, but is unsuccessful at describing these flaws and offering another similar game as an example of "good" gameplay in the same style. This bias of Gerstmann's has not gone unnoticed. However, nobody has been successful at proving that he is a biased reviewer, partly because his poor reviews span all systems.
With the criteria that I will use defined, I will begin with the earliest reviews, and move on to the more recent ones.
5.4 "Mediocre" for Virtual On - Sega Saturn
January 21, 1997
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/virtualon/review.html
"In the end, Virtual On is a mindless chunk of fun. There isn't much to it, but it's the type of game that can be picked up and put down at the drop of a dime. Have five minutes to spare? Play a round or two of Virtual On, then move on with your life. Maybe that's why it did so well in the arcades; one could blow up a couple of robots, and then go play a real game."
Anybody who as actually played Virtual On should know that the strategy required by both players far exceeds Gerstmann's "review." What Gerstmann means by "go play a real game" is go home and play a console game and forget about arcades altogether.
4.7 "poor" for Amok -Sega Saturn
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/amok/review.html
"If you're looking for yet another mech game and don't care if the game is any good or not, Amok might be right up your alley. The only new twist Amok provides is a couple of underwater levels, which play exactly like the walking levels, except that you're forced to shoot sharks. Going down...."
"Despite its pluses, however, Amok doesn't meet the daily recommended dosage of mechanical fun. Save your money until MechWarrior 2 hits the consoles."
Or, you know, you might just like to get MechWarrior 2 when it comes out six months down the road, along with GunGriffon and Amok, because they're all solid titles. Gestmann clearly states that there are no significant flaws in the gameplay, but rates Amok as "poor" basically for no reason at all.
7.3 "good" for Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter - Sega Saturn
November 30, 1998
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/marvelsuperheroesvssf/review.html
"If you're still interested in the Saturn, then this game is definitely one to import."
In this review, Gerstmann admits that the game is a perfect arcade port, that will "easily smoke" the PS1 game, but rates the game down well below what the sum of its parts imply. The reviewer doesn't give a reason, but one can assume from his tone that it would be merely because the game is on the Saturn, and because he presumes that the Saturn probably is not "interesting" to his readers. I will offer that another motivation for Gerstmann's 7.3 for Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter is that it was an Arcade game in the first place.
7.4 "good" for X-Men vs. Street Fighter
December 12, 1997
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/xmenvsstreetfighter/review.html
This:
"There is no better looking 2D fighter on any console system."
is negated in Gerstmann's mind by:
"X-Men vs. Street Fighter is yet another Capcom cookie-cutter fighting game."
"Cookie-cutter" goes on to be undefined by Gestmann however. How convenient.
4.7 "Poor" for Bug Too!
January 7, 1997
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/bugtoo/review.html
"Bug Too! is a game for the few people out there that enjoyed the first Bug!"
Gerstmann reasons here that the "forced path" gameplay of Bug "grows tiresome extremely quickly".
Nevermind that he fails to expose any reason why the game is actually "poor", just trust Gerstmann, because that is all his review calls for. Understand also, that this game was rated lower than Batman Forever: The Arcade game, which got a "mediocre" 5.6 rating. Glenn Rubenstein describes Batman Forever fairly accurately as a mediocre game, Gerstmann fails to demonstrate how Bug Too! is worse.
6.8 "fair" for Dead or Alive - Sega Saturn
March 4, 1998
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/deadoralive/review.html
"In the end, Dead or Alive is an above-average fighting game." Gerstmann ends his review with "if you're PlayStation-less, import away." Again the reader has to presume that by merit of the game being on the Saturn rather than the Playstation (totally different game) it should be marked down even though it is "above average."
6.4 "fair" for Legend of Oasis - Sega Saturn
January 23, 1997
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/rpg/legendofoasis/review.html
"The Legend of Oasis is a solid title and contains a lot of good gameplay. However it's not different enough from the original Genesis title to justify its upgrade to the Saturn." So, it's a great game not a "fair" game, but some gamers might already have the prequel so it is no longer a great game. It doesn't make sense.
Speaking of games which are not significantly different from their Genesis counterparts:
7.0 "good" for Sonic 3D Blast - Sega Saturn
December 12, 1996
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/sonic3dblast/review.html
This one is a Genesis game, the main game is identical to the Genesis game. "Sonic 3D Blast is an entertaining game. The music is great and the graphics are very colorful". Interesting considering his thoughts on Legend of Oasis, which is actually a sequel to Beyond Oasis.
5.4 "Mediocre" for Powerslave - Sega Saturn
December 1, 1996
http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/powerslave/review.html
"For those who've scorched through the bowels of Doom and Final Doom and burn for more, Power Slave might just quench that fire. " Nevermind that Powerslave runs at over twice the framerate of the PS1 versions of Final Doom, is fully polygonal and features real time full scene lighting. The controls are great, the graphics were well ahead of their time, and the game is "mediocre".
That should be good to get things started. As I have the time, I will add more of Gerstmann's action game reviews to this list. I think that it should be blatantly obvious that his view of action games is skewed in light of these reviews and his more recent reviews of action games on the Xbox, 360 and PS3.
I have to say that I've found a number of Jeff Gerstmann's reviews misleading, seemingly based upon an inherent dislike of action games, or markedly more critical than rival reviews. I have even contacted Jeff regarding this, but he has never replied. Since I've questioned his reviews, I doubt that he even reads this forum any more. He certainly hasn't made his presence felt in the CCU in a very long time.
I don't want to gang up on Jeff, but I would love it if he would try to address any of the issues that you've touched upon or some of the questions that I've asked him. I would like to think that the staff reviews posted on this site are even-handed, but from what you've shown here: cases of what seem like poorly-masked, poorly-defined dislike of action titles and scores that don't follow from the review text, I no longer do. Really, I haven't since the review for Spikeout: Battlestreet. His depiction of the gameplay was so shockingly off, that I really started taking notice of his reviews and stopped putting much faith in them.
When I was looking through these earlier reviews, I did find one other reviewer who was even worse at covering his tracks. Ryan Mac Donald seems to hate action games even more than Gerstmann does, and also doesn't even attempt to explain why he gave a game a poor score after a relatively positive review. Burning Rangers for the Saturn is a great example of this.
The folks in Rec.Games.Video.Sega have dismissed Gamespot as a viable news and review source so long ago, that as I stumbled upon these reviewers I found a complete lack of care. As I attempted to call other action gamer's attention to them, everybody simply replied to me in the same way as they did when I mentioned Gamepro being biased. "Well yeah, it's *gamespot/gamepro", seems to be the common dismissal. I am a little bit more foolish than this, and would like to see some people who actually care about where this Industry is headed stand up and says something. Those in power should not be allowed to voice their opinions as fact, or "poison the well" as gmsnpr so aptly put several months ago.
I know this is not a discussion of reviews as buyers guides, but I have to say that I do not read the reviews on this or any website (unless they are written by 'people' I 'know' like Jollyroger).  For game buying advice I depend entirely on my gut and most predominantly on the game acquisition thread and buried treasure thread on CCU. I do read reviews in EGM, Play and Game Informer, but that is mostly from my need to take a break from heavier things I read.
As for Jeff, as a reviewer I have not read enough of his stuff to judge one way or another, but I will from now on just so I can see what everyone is talking about.
If Jeff does hold some bias he should be punished by being forced to forfeit his collection to us. Dibs on his Gizmondo stuff...
I find that reviews written in commercial magazines or websites are often made biased by advertisers' threats/promises/deals..."If you give our game a decent score, well spend X dollars advertising in your magazine."Â Therefore, if I do read reviews, they are generally written by people, like myself (thanks Aspro, glad you enjoy them!), who aren't influenced by game companies and don't overtly show signs of fanboyism.Â
That said, I've never really read any of Gerstman's reviews, and therefore can't really form an educated opinion. I just regard anyone who happens to be corporately (is that a word?) affiliated with an entire salt shaker when they express their opinion. Maybe it's just my natural cynicism, but I can't help but wonder who paid them to say nice things about their game (or bad things about someone else's).
[QUOTE="falconclan"]Those are some relativly old reviews, but ill still keep an eye out. I feel most of his points on games are valid these days, but ill still watch.gmsnprThat's exactly the point. There's a demonstrated history, not just one or two objectionable ones.
but why not use some newer ones too, just to prove he hasnt changed.
[QUOTE="gmsnpr"][QUOTE="falconclan"]Those are some relativly old reviews, but ill still keep an eye out. I feel most of his points on games are valid these days, but ill still watch.falconclanThat's exactly the point. There's a demonstrated history, not just one or two objectionable ones.
but why not use some newer ones too, just to prove he hasnt changed.
Time constraints. I intend to link these older reviews with his more recent ones. I have things to do in this thing called life, and taking journalists down a notch (in the minds of what few genuine gamers bother to listen) is not my first priority. Check out Shenmue, Spikeout Battlestreet, Sonic The Hedgehog (360) and Full Auto 2 (PS3) in the meantime. See for yourself that his "style" hasn't changed. I am only offering an out, that action games aren't his forte' and he should move on to only review games he is better suited for. Lord knows I wouldn't do well with a Square title or an RTS...
[QUOTE="falconclan"][QUOTE="gmsnpr"][QUOTE="falconclan"]Those are some relativly old reviews, but ill still keep an eye out. I feel most of his points on games are valid these days, but ill still watch.SHEATH013That's exactly the point. There's a demonstrated history, not just one or two objectionable ones.
but why not use some newer ones too, just to prove he hasnt changed.
Time constraints. I intend to link these older reviews with his more recent ones. I have things to do in this thing called life, and taking journalists down a notch (in the minds of what few genuine gamers bother to listen) is not my first priority. Check out Shenmue, Spikeout Battlestreet, Sonic The Hedgehog (360) and Full Auto 2 (PS3) in the meantime. See for yourself that his "style" hasn't changed. I am only offering an out, that action games aren't his forte' and he should move on to only review games he is better suited for. Lord knows I wouldn't do well with a Square title or an RTS...
hey hey, I wasnt saying you werent right, i was just simply saying that maybe posting some more recent examples would be nice -_-"
With that on indefinite hold, I will move on to the Dreamcast library, where I know there is another wealth of review material. Thank Gamespot that Gerstmann didn't get a hold on DOA 2, Soul Calibur or Sonic Adventure 1+2. Whoever it was who reviewed Shenmue sure did a number on it (recall also that the original score was even lower), but none of this is on topic. Â
7.4 "Good" for Street Fighter III 3rd Strike
Posted July 11, 2000
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/streetfighter3thirdstrike/review.html
This review features contradictory statements:
"If you skipped out on Double Impact - or if you're fanatical about your SFIII - 3rd Strike is a good, refined 2D fighter that won't disappoint."
"While the two releases are roughly the same, 3rd Strike delivers new characters and enough new options to make it a worthwhile product, even if you already own Double Impact."
So the game features new characters and options, enough to make it a worthwhile product, but if you owned Double Impact it's worth less? It doesn't make sense.
5.0 - 1/10th of a point above "bad" - for Mortal Kombat Gold
Posted September 3, 1999
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/mortalkombatgold/review.html
"It's not that MK Gold is a bad game or anything. It's an outstandingly accurate translation of Mortal Kombat 4, with a few new characters thrown in for good measure. But the new characters don't really bring anything stellar to the lineup, and you're left with a game that you were finished playing around with back when it came out on the N64 and the PlayStation more than a year ago."
Nevermind the higher framerate and resolution, which does in fact affect gameplay positively. What did Mortal Kombat 4 get on the PS1 and N64? 8.6 and 8.9, "great" respectively. Regardless of whether we "were finished playing" Mortal Kombat 4, 5.0 for the much improved Gold, a Dreamcast launch title, makes no sense.
MK Gold and SFIII 3rd Strike exemplify one of Gerstmann's reviews common illogical leaps. A good or great game removed a year or two does not become 'Mediocre" unless it was mediocre from the beginning.
9.0 "superb" for Marvel vs. Capcom
Posted Apr, 2, 1999
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/marvelvscapcom/review.html
" While I wouldn't call Marvel vs. Capcom the most balanced fighting game in the world, it makes up for its shortcomings by simply being a whole lot of fun."
"OK, let's bypass the intro to this review and make one thing perfectly clear. The gameplay score in this review is based on playing the game with Sega's arcade-style joystick, which is sold by Agetec here in the States. If this joystick didn't exist, and the only option was the standard Dreamcast controller, it's likely the gameplay would have gotten a lower score."
Read between the lines here, the Dreamcast controller would have crippled the gameplay, according to Gerstmann. What is more interesting than that is his description of why MvC is better than its predicessors that he personally rated down to 7.3 and 7.4.
"This cross section of comic book heroes and video-game characters gives the game a truly new and diverse feel, even if the gameplay hasn't changed too much since the last Capcom vs. fighting game, Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter."
Here we have another one of Gerstmann's illogical leaps. No change in gameplay means that the game is the same game, regardless of whether you like the characters better. Secondarily to that, new characters automatically introduce new gameplay to a fighting game, which Gerstmann does not seem to realize. So, if the gameplay is not actually more balanced as a fighting game by merit of the character selections, either the prior games on the Saturn should have been closer to a 9.0 also, or Marvel vs. Capcom should have been closer to a 7.3. 8.0 for each of these vs. games seems more than fair considering the weight of public opinion and the quality of the products.
7.6 "good" for Powerstone
Posted on March 3, 1999
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/powerstone/review.html
"Expect to enjoy it immensely for the first week or two, but don't expect to find very much long-term fun."
"While the company has ventured into 3D in the past, nothing it's done has been even remotely like Power Stone."
"The game's sound effects and music are very good, but the announcer's voice, which you hear mainly when you are picking up or dropping a power stone, is stupidly annoying."
"All in all, Power Stone is a very fun and unconventional fighter."
Gerstmann describes how Capcom in every way managed to make an entirely new kind of fighting game, and then relegates the score to merely "good" because he didn't like certain aspects of it, and imagines that the "excitement is short lived."Â It doesn't make sense.
7.0 "good" for Air Force Delta
Posted on September 9, 1999
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/sim/airforcedelta/review.html
"During the course of your battles you'll do everything from assault convoys of battleships to escort civilian transports away from the danger zone.
Air Force Delta is eerily reminiscent of Ace Combat 2. So much so, in fact, that you could easily call AFD an Ace Combat clone."
"That's not to say that Air Force Delta is a bad game."
"The graphics, while nice and sharp, still look a bit bland at times. "
"The game controls pretty well in both the novice and expert settings, but the button configuration can be a bit awkward."
"The wide array of missions keeps the game interesting, and the briefings manage to move the story (what little there is of it) along without bogging the game down. In fact, the whole game has a real stripped-down feel to it."
At least Gamespot is consistent with rating down flight action games like Ace Combat and Air Force Delta. Ace Combat 3 was rated evel lower than Air Force Delta, a Dreamcast launch game, so there is consistency. However, the only complaint that Gerstmann offers in this review is that the fully customizable control scheme "can be a bit awkward." This descriptor completely fails to explain why the game should be a 7.0. Gerstmann also fails to mention the more unique missions, such as flying through a mountain hangar base, or shooting down a falling giant satelite before it crashes into a coastal city. He also fails to mention that the enemy plane AI is more than capable of dogfighting with you in Air Force Delta. The dogfighting in this game is something that Ace Combat 4 did not even approach. Ah well, the game is forever relegated to being merely "good," for virtually no reason at all except that it isn't a popular genre.
6.2 "fair" for Gundam Side Story
Posted on September 22, 1999
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/gundamsidestoryrisefta/review.html
The reviewer signed his name "Christian Nutt" but the fuzzy logic is the same. With that said, there are plenty of other Gamespot reviewers of the same "style" as Gerstmann, so this one really could be anybody.
"One has to wonder why we should give a crap about sub-Gundam machinery like the GM."
"They instead have GMs - the substandard mass-produced version of Gundam the federation came up with. Yes, your heroes can't even lay claim to the mecha that the game is named after."
"Be that as it may, you land and proceed to scout Zakus and Doms and pick them off. If you were expecting the action that goes with the romantic image of Mobile Suit Gundam, tough luck. This is a down-and-dirty mech simulation. It's a good one, but it's not for action fans."
"...the missions take prudence, thought, planning, and time."
"This is mostly a miss - unless you are a serious realism enthusiast. Although action-game fans will find it plodding, this game will feel just right to those who want an actual mecha simulation."
Action fans don't like details or realism?
7.0 "good" for Fur Fighters (Dreamcast)
Posted on July 18, 2000
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/furfighters/review.html
"Fur Fighters has all the trappings of a first-person shooter - it controls like an FPS, features FPS-style puzzles, and has items that you'd expect to see in an FPS. But there's only one catch: Fur Fighters isn't a first-person shooter. And unfortunately, the game's third-person perspective introduces a lot of problems that could have been easily avoided."
"Those problems aside, Fur Fighters has a fun premise and very good gameplay. "
"The sound is tolerable, with one major problem: Instead of going the extra mile and recording voice-overs, the game adheres to the Starfox method of voice work. So while you're reading text at the bottom of the screen, you're listening to meaningless jabbering. It's cute at first, but it quickly becomes way, way annoying."
Annoying is relative, unless we're all Jeff Gerstmann.
"While the control is spot on, and the game has more than enough going on in the level department, forcing the game into the third-person perspective really causes trouble, as the camera angle is marginal at best."
So, 3rd person by default makes the game's excellent gameplay somehow worse. It doesn't make sense.
6.7 "fair" for Toy Commander
Posted on October 5, 1999
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/driving/toycommander/review.html
"Toy Commander is exactly what you would imagine it to be."
That's interesting, because reading of the premise made me imagine it would be a great game.
"Everything from racecars to jets fall under your jurisdiction. Before you're through with it, this mission-based game will have you shooting pencil missiles at submarines, taking out miniature SAM sites, flying through rings, and even pushing eggs into a pot of boiling water."
"The first level is the kitchen, where you'll go through a quick training and a few other missions, in which you'll pilot tanks, trucks, and planes. After completing some of the missions in the kitchen, you can move on to the bedroom, and so on and so forth. Each room has a boss, but you'll only be able to face the boss if you can achieve the best times on most of the missions in the level."
That sounds like everything that I would imagine and more...
"Likewise, some of the levels are easy to complete, but some are just crazy. Most of the time, the difficulty doesn't really come from enemies - simply completing the tasks given is difficult enough. This is mostly caused by the game's ultra-loose control, which prevents you from ever feeling totally in control of your toys. The toylike physics of the game don't exactly help, either, though it is a nice touch. Sometimes you'll find your truck simply sliding off the side of a countertop."
"The game has an extremely frustrating learning curve, since you must get used to the control while dealing with missions that require an extremely delicate touch. Also, the game seems to flip-flop between missions that are too easy and missions that are too difficult - there's never any true middle ground. The result is a fair game that will easily frustrate you in both its single-player and multiplayer modes."
So, the game is "fair" by merit of the challenging learning curve and overall game difficulty. I wonder how Gerstmann would have rated the Street Fighter II when it first came out. It's a good thing Contra had that 99 lives thing going for it eh?
7.1 "good" for StarLancer
Posted on December 6, 2000
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/sim/starlancer/review.html
"The less than engaging storyline and the heavy focus on defensive missions holds the game back and keeps it from being as good as the classics that made the genre popular."
"Throughout the life of the space-sim genre, the level designs have stayed roughly the same. Either you're out on patrol, attacking a capital ship, or defending a capital ship. The developers of SarLancer apparently have something against the first two types, as it seems like you're spending most of your time in the game defending your fleet against fighters and torpedo bombers. This means you're going to spend a lot of time targeting and destroying torpedoes before they hit your ships and cause you to lose the mission - not exactly the definition of fun. As you progress, the defensive missions become a little less frequent, but more offense up front definitely would have made the game easier to get excited about."
Ease of excitement has what to do with whether or not the game plays well?
"StarLancer is a pretty good game. It looks nice and it has nice control. "
The man means what he says, he really knocked the score down because he didn't like the story and thought the missions should have been divied up differently. The game was fully playable online on the day of its release, that didn't factor in to the score either.
7.1 "good" for Psychic Force 2012
"Christian Nutt" struck again on:
March 16, 1999
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/psychicforce2012/review.html
"Psychic Force 2012, a victim of limited appeal, will be easily scoffed at by those who don't give it the chance it deserves. For open-minded fighting fans, it represents what a niche fighting game should strive to achieve"
"What will make or break this game for you is really the original and unintuitive gameplay. It's truly unlike any other fighting game out there. Easily dismissed, this game needs time devoted to it before its qualities begin to shine."
"The first few times you play this game, your initial reaction may be to blow it off and never try it again because of the difficulty and the bizarre game system. That said, it really is worth a second or even third look, because there is depth here to to be found."
That 7.1 rating sure won't help anything, and isn't justified considering the completely unique gameplay that the reviewer found no fault with. I wasn't aware that a major category in the rating system was "accessibility and percievable popularity".
7.0 "good" for Outtrigger
Posted on July 25, 2001
http://www.gamespot.com/dreamcast/action/outtrigger/review.html
"Outtrigger is a fast-paced shooter from Sega that works well as an online game, but it doesn't have enough to it to outlast the likes of Unreal Tournament or Quake III Arena."
"Outtrigger takes the first-person shooter genre and strips it down to its core gameplay elements. The result is a fairly simplistic game that is built for speed."
"Graphically, Outtrigger looks great. The small arenas allow for a very fast-moving game, and the frame rate doesn't suffer as a result of the game's speed. The game is colorful as well, and the models look pretty good. The sounds are your standard gunfire and explosions, but they sound pretty nice. The music, however, gets pretty annoying, especially if you're chatting for extended periods of time."
"In the end, Outtrigger earns points for being a simple, easy-to-play game, but it isn't for everyone. First-person shooter fans will still be better served by a more diverse game, such as Quake III Arena or Unreal Tournament. But if you're a broadband-adapter owner looking for something new that supports your woefully neglected device, Outtrigger fits the bill nicely."
So it's less diverse than Quake III and Unreal how, we don't know from this review. From my experience of Outtrigger and Quake III, I found very little to compare because both games focus on entirely different aspects of the FPS genre. Whether one likes one over the other will depend on whether they are open to new takes on the genre.
It's pleasing to see people like Jeff voice what they think about the game and not go along with the crowd. It may not always be correct and it may be biased sometimes, But it gives you a better insight (I think) of what the positives and negatives are and what other reviewers may have passed by.
But you have to keep in mind, it's all personal opinions.
except that what he percieves as positives and negitives are often untrue, exagurated or purely made up lies. I've been playing Spikeout Battlestreet since I got it, that game is AWESOME it's like streets of rage in 3D! the "mini guide" Jeff made is pure BS, if you only used the X button combo over and over you'd get killed. at least I know I can use his reviews to know what to buy. if he hates it it's great, iof he likes it it's rubbish.It's pleasing to see people like Jeff voice what they think about the game and not go along with the crowd. It may not always be correct and it may be biased sometimes, But it gives you a better insight (I think) of what the positives and negatives are and what other reviewers may have passed by.
But you have to keep in mind, it's all personal opinions.
-_-Nintendo-_-
[QUOTE="-_-Nintendo-_-"]except that what he percieves as positives and negitives are often untrue, exagurated or purely made up lies. I've been playing Spikeout Battlestreet since I got it, that game is AWESOME it's like streets of rage in 3D! the "mini guide" Jeff made is pure BS, if you only used the X button combo over and over you'd get killed. at least I know I can use his reviews to know what to buy. if he hates it it's great, iof he likes it it's rubbish.It's pleasing to see people like Jeff voice what they think about the game and not go along with the crowd. It may not always be correct and it may be biased sometimes, But it gives you a better insight (I think) of what the positives and negatives are and what other reviewers may have passed by.
But you have to keep in mind, it's all personal opinions.
waflerevolution
But that's what you think of it, your opinion :)
[QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="-_-Nintendo-_-"]except that what he percieves as positives and negitives are often untrue, exagurated or purely made up lies. I've been playing Spikeout Battlestreet since I got it, that game is AWESOME it's like streets of rage in 3D! the "mini guide" Jeff made is pure BS, if you only used the X button combo over and over you'd get killed. at least I know I can use his reviews to know what to buy. if he hates it it's great, iof he likes it it's rubbish.It's pleasing to see people like Jeff voice what they think about the game and not go along with the crowd. It may not always be correct and it may be biased sometimes, But it gives you a better insight (I think) of what the positives and negatives are and what other reviewers may have passed by.
But you have to keep in mind, it's all personal opinions.
-_-Nintendo-_-
But that's what you think of it, your opinion :)
Well, there is opinion and there is factual analysis. Jeff published in his review that the combo system in Spikeout: Battlestreet boils down to X-X-X-X-X-X and repeat to win the game, which is simply incorrect, which you might know if you had played the game. A mistake in the gameplay description is no different than if he had said the game had no online play (it does) or the game was published by Atlus (it wasn't). That's not expressing an opinion of the game, that is publishing errors. Wafle saying, "what he percieves as positives and negitives [sic] are often untrue" is giving a factual analysis of the review.  Wafle does go on to express the opinion that, for a number of reasons, he does not like Jeff's reviews, so I could see how you might be confused.I can understand you might be a little incredulous b/c Jeff is such a charasmatic figure and he has a big presence on Gamespot, but take off the rose-colored glasses and look at what we're (SHEATH013, mostly) showing you. Examine Jeff's reviews of action and retro games that you have played, and you'll start to find problems. If you have not played any of the games the reviews of which have been shown here, then you aren't qualified to argue about them.
If you like or dislike the games or the reviews of the games or our take on the reviews, that's fine, but let's use terms like opinion and fact correctly.
[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]I also dislike Greg K a lotinkwolf
Well, you won't have to worry about him anymore as he's leaving GameSpot. I for one am going to miss him. I like his video reviews and he is a great presence on On the Spot and other video features.Â
I don't have a problem with his presence so much as his journalistic integrity or lack there of. It's a bit more subtle than Jeff's, but Jeff sometimes outright lies, Greg plays politics,which is a bit different and, IMO, disgusting.
[QUOTE="inkwolf"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]I also dislike Greg K a lotApathetic_Prick
Well, you won't have to worry about him anymore as he's leaving GameSpot. I for one am going to miss him. I like his video reviews and he is a great presence on On the Spot and other video features.
I don't have a problem with his presence so much as his journalistic integrity or lack there of. It's a bit more subtle than Jeff's, but Jeff sometimes outright lies, Greg plays politics,which is a bit different and, IMO, disgusting.
politics often are.I wonder what would have happened if gaming mags ignored the politics. I wonder if it would reign the developers in on their generally mediocre Q.A.
I think gaming in general would be better. the other thing I'd like removed is release dates. I'm sick of companies moving dates back and STILL not releasing a finished product. plus it helps feed money hungry corperations like gamesuckI wonder what would have happened if gaming mags ignored the politics. I wonder if it would reign the developers in on their generally mediocre Q.A.
Apathetic_Prick
I wonder what would have happened if gaming mags ignored the politics. I wonder if it would reign the developers in on their generally mediocre Q.A.
Apathetic_Prick
There would be no gaming mags. They are run, first and foremost, upon advertising revenue. Subscriber numbers and newsstand sales are only a small fraction of their revenue. So, unfortunately, they're a necessary evil and not going anywhere soon.
[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]I wonder what would have happened if gaming mags ignored the politics. I wonder if it would reign the developers in on their generally mediocre Q.A.
jollyroger78
There would be no gaming mags. They are run, first and foremost, upon advertising revenue. Subscriber numbers and newsstand sales are only a small fraction of their revenue. So, unfortunately, they're a necessary evil and not going anywhere soon.
Actually, I wasn't referring to ads or even doing showboating. I was referring to what is essentially taking bribes/gratuities in exchange for delivery of a favourable review or showing preference to one piece of hardware when, in reality, it's your job to delivery quality reviews across numerous consoles.
Sometimes, I favour reading OXM or PSM (both are basically no better than toilet paper. Unfortunately the expense outweighs the absorbancy) to some of the reviews here because it's a specialised focus. But at least here, there's less propaganda. Well, slightly.
[QUOTE="jollyroger78"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]I wonder what would have happened if gaming mags ignored the politics. I wonder if it would reign the developers in on their generally mediocre Q.A.
Apathetic_Prick
There would be no gaming mags. They are run, first and foremost, upon advertising revenue. Subscriber numbers and newsstand sales are only a small fraction of their revenue. So, unfortunately, they're a necessary evil and not going anywhere soon.
Actually, I wasn't referring to ads or even doing showboating. I was referring to what is essentially taking bribes/gratuities in exchange for delivery of a favourable review or showing preference to one piece of hardware when, in reality, it's your job to delivery quality reviews across numerous consoles.
Sometimes, I favour reading OXM or PSM (both are basically no better than toilet paper. Unfortunately the expense outweighs the absorbancy) to some of the reviews here because it's a specialised focus. But at least here, there's less propaganda. Well, slightly.
Unfortunately, they're one and the same. A company will say "Give our game a good review or we'll pull our ad money," and the editors will cave instead of sticking to their journalistic guns. As opposed to bribery or gratuities, it's more like extortion. While I enjoy reading game magazines, I always take their word with a grain of salt because I can't be sure that someone wasn't paid. And, if you'll notice, there are ads for games here on GameSpot...hmmm.
The other thing I'd like removed is release dates. I'm sick of companies moving dates back and STILL not releasing a finished product.waflerevolution
I couldn't agree with you more.
There would be no gaming mags. They are run, first and foremost, upon advertising revenue.jollyroger78
Remember back when Nintendo Power didn't have ads. Well, of course you could argue the whole this was one big advertisement anyway; but still, it was nice to not have to skip past pages upon pages of patronizing advertisements.
Sometimes, I favour reading OXM or PSM (both are basically no better than toilet paper. Unfortunately the expense outweighs the absorbancy)Apathetic_Prick
ROFLMAO.
Â
[QUOTE="jollyroger78"]There would be no gaming mags. They are run, first and foremost, upon advertising revenue.inkwolf
Remember back when Nintendo Power didn't have ads. Well, of course you could argue the whole this was one big advertisement anyway; but still, it was nice to not have to skip past pages upon pages of patronizing advertisements.Â
Nintendo just advertised everywhere else..."Join the Nintendo Fun Club today, Mac!!"
Greg plays politics,which is a bit different and, IMO, disgusting.Apathetic_Prick
To kind of get back on the track of this thread, does anyone have any evidence to support this claim that Greg would "play politics", so to speak? I haven't really noticed anything, but then again, I suppose I'm just not as perceptive as others.Â
[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]Greg plays politics,which is a bit different and, IMO, disgusting.inkwolf
To kind of get back on the track of this thread, does anyone have any evidence to support this claim that Greg would "play politics", so to speak? I haven't really noticed anything, but then again, I suppose I'm just not as perceptive as others.
I will toss some things I have seen Greg Kasavan do in to the thread after I finish the "current gen" reviews of Gerstmann's. I found his Super Mario Bros. review amusing "Still totally sweet, even after $20 years." It's too bad he doesn't "feel" that way about the other games he's reviewed by companies other than Nintendo.[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]Greg plays politics,which is a bit different and, IMO, disgusting.inkwolf
To kind of get back on the track of this thread, does anyone have any evidence to support this claim that Greg would "play politics", so to speak? I haven't really noticed anything, but then again, I suppose I'm just not as perceptive as others.Â
The Halo 2 review for the XBox is the perfect example. A 9 in graphics when they aren't actually top notch and quite buggy, and a 10 in gameplay when it's just as imbalanced on the multiplayer end as Halo 1. And then a 9 in value when the single player campaign is only 6 hours long and multiplayer support has actually only been relatviely mediocre. His review vs. his rating is very unconvincing based on its heading. He greatly downplays the visual bugs as well as the campaign shortness and the story as well (which is considered to be the most important part of Halo), and that all carries with it a very fishy smell. Anyway, the review is right here: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary
Edit: Just saw Gerstman's review of the latest Capcom Arcade compilation. There's no way in hell he's played it because he claims the Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo emulation is awesome - which it isn't. It's actually a complete clusterf*ck because the sound and controls are buggered. When Chun Li fires off her lightning kick intermittently when I get with the mashing, you know something's screwed. Anyway, good thing it was the only one that was screwed. I have the Anniversary Collection (SF2 and 3), and I'd only wanted Capcom Classics for Knights of the Round, but still, that Street Fighter discrepency is extremely blatant.
[QUOTE="inkwolf"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]Greg plays politics,which is a bit different and, IMO, disgusting.Apathetic_Prick
To kind of get back on the track of this thread, does anyone have any evidence to support this claim that Greg would "play politics", so to speak? I haven't really noticed anything, but then again, I suppose I'm just not as perceptive as others.
The Halo 2 review for the XBox is the perfect example. A 9 in graphics when they aren't actually top notch and quite buggy, and a 10 in gameplay when it's just as imbalanced on the multiplayer end as Halo 1. And then a 9 in value when the single player campaign is only 6 hours long and multiplayer support has actually only been relatviely mediocre. His review vs. his rating is very unconvincing based on its heading. He greatly downplays the visual bugs as well as the campaign shortness and the story as well (which is considered to be the most important part of Halo), and that all carries with it a very fishy smell. Anyway, the review is right here: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary
Edit: Just saw Gerstman's review of the latest Capcom Arcade compilation. There's no way in hell he's played it because he claims the Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo emulation is awesome - which it isn't. It's actually a complete clusterf*ck because the sound and controls are buggered. When Chun Li fires off her lightning kick intermittently when I get with the mashing, you know something's screwed. Anyway, good thing it was the only one that was screwed. I have the Anniversary Collection (SF2 and 3), and I'd only wanted Capcom Classics for Knights of the Round, but still, that Street Fighter discrepency is extremely blatant.
I wanted to bring that review to attention but my infoundness for the Halo games is too well known and I thought I'd come off as an anti-fan. thanks again AP. I also just checked out the CAC review... no surprises there. I've been seeing that more and more recently... not just with Jeff either; the assumption that the games in a compileation are exact overpowers the writers drive to test the game resulting in inacurrate reviews. although seemingly, complileations in general take some major (and IMO un-neccissary) hits in reviews... as for NSMB; thaty's proof positive of alot of what is wrong in reviews now adays...No problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
Apathetic_Prick
[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
waflerevolution
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
[QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
Apathetic_Prick
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
uh oh... you didn't use a DoA game as an example... I didn't see it and it didn't happen...[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
waflerevolution
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
uh oh... you didn't use a DoA game as an example... I didn't see it and it didn't happen...Smack-jiggle-jiggle, baby :p Oh, I'm not going to deny that, and,  as of right now, while DOA 3 is a pretty mediocre fighter with it's mediocre combat (glitches galore and all), awesome environments (have yet to play a fighter with better environments) and insanely bouncing boobalas (droolz), but it does support 4-player tag which is a pretty heft boon in the grand scheme of things. And it still looks absolutely awesome. As do Tina's (virtual) tatas.
[QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
Apathetic_Prick
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
uh oh... you didn't use a DoA game as an example... I didn't see it and it didn't happen...Smack-jiggle-jiggle, baby :p Oh, I'm not going to deny that, and, as of right now, while DOA 3 is a pretty mediocre fighter with it's mediocre combat (glitches galore and all), awesome environments (have yet to play a fighter with better environments) and insanely bouncing boobalas (droolz), but it does support 4-player tag which is a pretty heft boon in the grand scheme of things. And it still looks absolutely awesome. As do Tina's (virtual) tatas.
the DoA games for me have always been (scuse' the pun) "all flash, no substance" as in they look great but play somewhat poorly. I've played the games extencively thanks to friends obsessed with digital b00bies and I can say with cirtainty that there are FAR better fighters out there even if some don't look anywhere near as nice.
[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
waflerevolution
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
uh oh... you didn't use a DoA game as an example... I didn't see it and it didn't happen...Smack-jiggle-jiggle, baby :p Oh, I'm not going to deny that, and, as of right now, while DOA 3 is a pretty mediocre fighter with it's mediocre combat (glitches galore and all), awesome environments (have yet to play a fighter with better environments) and insanely bouncing boobalas (droolz), but it does support 4-player tag which is a pretty heft boon in the grand scheme of things. And it still looks absolutely awesome. As do Tina's (virtual) tatas.
the DoA games for me have always been (scuse' the pun) "all flash, no substance" as in they look great but play somewhat poorly. I've played the games extencively thanks to friends obsessed with digital b00bies and I can say with cirtainty that there are FAR better fighters out there even if some don't look anywhere near as nice. I have to totally agree with you on that assessment of yours regarding DoA. Being a big fighting game fan as most of you know, I am completely open to new fighting games. But the DoA series has never been something I enjoy playing. I played the original when it came out and I have played every other one since, except the third one. I can never seem to get into them, yet for some reason they always get very high review scores and I just don't understand why. I like Street Fighter: The Movie more than any DoA game and it sucks too![QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
usagi704
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
uh oh... you didn't use a DoA game as an example... I didn't see it and it didn't happen...Smack-jiggle-jiggle, baby :p Oh, I'm not going to deny that, and, as of right now, while DOA 3 is a pretty mediocre fighter with it's mediocre combat (glitches galore and all), awesome environments (have yet to play a fighter with better environments) and insanely bouncing boobalas (droolz), but it does support 4-player tag which is a pretty heft boon in the grand scheme of things. And it still looks absolutely awesome. As do Tina's (virtual) tatas.
the DoA games for me have always been (scuse' the pun) "all flash, no substance" as in they look great but play somewhat poorly. I've played the games extencively thanks to friends obsessed with digital b00bies and I can say with cirtainty that there are FAR better fighters out there even if some don't look anywhere near as nice. I have to totally agree with you on that assessment of yours regarding DoA. Being a big fighting game fan as most of you know, I am completely open to new fighting games. But the DoA series has never been something I enjoy playing. I played the original when it came out and I have played every other one since, except the third one. I can never seem to get into them, yet for some reason they always get very high review scores and I just don't understand why. I like Street Fighter: The Movie more than any DoA game and it sucks too! SF the movie was just street fighter that looked like mortal kombat... I know th guy who owns the rights to the games for it currently. I can understand the attraction to bouncing b00bies even though I've never been all that interested in b00bies but they are digital, fake, not real, and even unrealisticly proportioned. I can see the same people who are attraced to hentai or anime in general being interested in that type of fighter and now other games but anyone past puberty looking past the poor to mediocre gameplay for the sake of pretty and/or impressive graphics and/or misc. innovatons just seems silly to me.[QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
waflerevolution
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
uh oh... you didn't use a DoA game as an example... I didn't see it and it didn't happen...Smack-jiggle-jiggle, baby :p Oh, I'm not going to deny that, and, as of right now, while DOA 3 is a pretty mediocre fighter with it's mediocre combat (glitches galore and all), awesome environments (have yet to play a fighter with better environments) and insanely bouncing boobalas (droolz), but it does support 4-player tag which is a pretty heft boon in the grand scheme of things. And it still looks absolutely awesome. As do Tina's (virtual) tatas.
the DoA games for me have always been (scuse' the pun) "all flash, no substance" as in they look great but play somewhat poorly. I've played the games extencively thanks to friends obsessed with digital b00bies and I can say with cirtainty that there are FAR better fighters out there even if some don't look anywhere near as nice.I've never played DOA 2, just DOA Ultimate 2. Ultimate 2 eliminates a lot of the issues in DOA 3, but what issues do exist in three, if they are any indication as to how the series has evolved, 3 was probably less balanced than 2 and glitchier. But I could be wrong. DoA Ultimate 2, though, is rock solid because countering is more difficult for the starting player and not quite as punishing, which is good. DOA 3 had some counters that just caused way, way too much damage.
[QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"][QUOTE="waflerevolution"][QUOTE="Apathetic_Prick"]or ground breaking newness/awesomenessNo problem. The Halo review was also a bit exaggerated, but I have to admit, I really liked Halo. It was the first game since Red Faction to scream "NEXT GEN COMING THROUGH!!". But it still didn't deserve 9.7. It's not like it had Live support :P
Apathetic_Prick
Actually, multiplayer aside, it had a staggering degree of quality; Halo was really well-made in comparison to Halo 2, let alone most games on the system. Other than Dead or Alive 3, none of the launch games have the same degree of lasting appeal.
uh oh... you didn't use a DoA game as an example... I didn't see it and it didn't happen...Smack-jiggle-jiggle, baby :p Oh, I'm not going to deny that, and, as of right now, while DOA 3 is a pretty mediocre fighter with it's mediocre combat (glitches galore and all), awesome environments (have yet to play a fighter with better environments) and insanely bouncing boobalas (droolz), but it does support 4-player tag which is a pretty heft boon in the grand scheme of things. And it still looks absolutely awesome. As do Tina's (virtual) tatas.
the DoA games for me have always been (scuse' the pun) "all flash, no substance" as in they look great but play somewhat poorly. I've played the games extencively thanks to friends obsessed with digital b00bies and I can say with cirtainty that there are FAR better fighters out there even if some don't look anywhere near as nice.I've never played DOA 2, just DOA Ultimate 2. Ultimate 2 eliminates a lot of the issues in DOA 3, but what issues do exist in three, if they are any indication as to how the series has evolved, 3 was probably less balanced than 2 and glitchier. But I could be wrong. DoA Ultimate 2, though, is rock solid because countering is more difficult for the starting player and not quite as punishing, which is good. DOA 3 had some counters that just caused way, way too much damage.
I hate to further drag the issue alone, but being a player of fighting games in general I can put some imput on the Dead or Alive series. The ultimate Series and Dead or Alive 4 really are excellent fighters, especially from my experience in Dead or alive 4 - it's really is a very well made and sound fighter. the dead or Alive series as had issues where it seemed to lack that final "umph" and Dead or Alive 3 wasn't sound at all like it should have been. The Ultimate series also is said to be very excellent in gameplay. I know a lot has been put on the graphics but trust me. Dead or alive 4 is no mediocre fighting title. (took them long enough to finally get things right, don't ya think? :P) It's one case where the game plays as sweet as it looks. There was a lot of care in how the each fighters move list was mad,e how they react, and the interaction with environments. The system got revamped right, the counter system is awesome, and yes it's very hard, but it's made me a better fighter in general just in the short amount of time. It's worth the score that it got from GS.Now is every Dead or Alive game awesome? Oh heck no, some are really average. I'll post my thoughts about the ultimate games when I play them down the road.
The Extreme volleyball series and it's emphasis on the girls and graphics is what really hurts the series - it really takes away from what the Ultimate set and Dead or Alive 4 has achieved.
Mar 31, 2005
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/spikeoutbattlestreet/review.html?sid=6121394
"This arcade-style brawler actually sounds pretty wicked on paper, but unfortunately, the game itself is lousy.
The Good: Lots of unlockable dudes; four-player online cooperative; it's only 20 bucks.
The Bad: Weak gameplay; very short; awful cutscenes."
"Spikeout: Battle Street is trying very hard to kick it old-school. It hearkens back to a simpler time, when Final Fight and Streets of Rage were king, and walking around with the sole purpose of beating the living crap out of anyone in your way was the order of the day..."
"It lets you play alone through a story mode, as well as with up to three other players. And those three other players don't need to be in the same room, since Spikeout has cooperative play over Xbox Live. Sounds cool, right? Unfortunately, this would-be renaissance is marred by a pretty serious problem. The game itself is lousy."
"The difficulty seems to scale up slightly as you add players, but not in such a way that would maintain the game's same level of challenge. Also, story mode's much more difficult because it doesn't let you continue. Here, you can enable continues and tweak a few other settings as well. All this adds up to a game that you'll finish in two hours or fewer. After that...do it again. You do want to unlock every single character, don't you?"
"Well, let us answer that question. No, you don't really want to unlock every single character, because most of them are almost identical. There are some speed differences, and some are more powerful than others, but with the exception of a few unlockable bosses, your combo strategy remains the same. The game's combo attack asks you to rise to the challenge to somehow hit the X button six times in a row. It's rough, but, thankfully, each time you execute this extreme maneuver, you'll be rewarded by hearing a deep voice that deems it to be "Cooooooool." You can mix up your attacks a bit by working in the charge-move button, but if you do that, the game won't claim that it's cool. So forget it. The charge-move button lets you pull off launchers, stun attacks, and, if you charge it up all the way, a devastating blow that will kill most normal enemies. It's not all that useful, though. More useful is the sidestep button, which is tough to master but will let you escape from some attacks once you get good at it. All kidding aside, the game quickly boils down to button mashing, and most normal enemies can't manage to put up a decent fight. The game tosses lots of bosses at you, and they're only harder because they occasionally hulk up and become immune to your attacks, giving them free shots to grab you and fling you around...unless you've gotten good with the sidesteps."
I'd say that Gerstmann must have been playing the game on the unlockable easy setting, if I didn't know that setting doesn't have the gameplay he describes either. He partially describes the gameplay fairly accurately. Yes, the game only comments on your move if you complete a six string combo. However, you're rewarded in different, yet much more meaningful, ways for discovering each character's unique moves, and becoming practiced at using those moves in the appropriate situations.
For example, you have a special attack which attacks all enemies around you, if you try to defeat a boss by saving these up and using them all you will most likely lose. Some bosses require you to grapple with them more than straight on attack them, some will counter you if you attempt to grapple but don't attack quickly enough. Within the grapple itself you have a straightforward button masher attack, the possibility to attack and throw, the option (at any time) to cycle around behind and do a throw or a jumping throw, or a special throw attack which damages other enemies. There are also a wide variety of combinations to be made by switching back and forth between the regular and charge attacks, and each character has differing moves dependant on each. Doing only the basic combo attack will not actually get you as far as it would in the Streets of Rage games. Which is to say, you might fumble your way through, but you're missing the real fun.
Yes, each character controls similarly, but each character also has enough changes to their moves to require an adjustment in strategy to avoid unnecessary damage. Yes, the basic enemy can't do all that much to you, without a large group cornering you. What were the greatest beat-em ups in the genre like? Just like that.
Spikeout is lacking, by modern standards only, in presentation and gameplay length if the player is an instant master at the game. I have not covered in detail the gameplay complexities, I've only pointed out most of what I use each time I play the game. At the time I originally wrote this description I had already played Spikeout Battle Street for more than two hours, and I have played it for many more since then and still not beaten the game's normal difficulty Story mode. Nobody that has ever actually played this game has mistaken it for a button masher or "easy".
7.0 "good" for Hunter: the Reckoning Redeemer
Nov 4, 2003
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/hunterthereckoningredeemer/review.html?sid=6087365
"Fans of four-player cooperative gaming, in the style of Gauntlet, will have fun with Redeemer, but it's still a pretty short game and is quite easy to blast through."
So long as it's not in the style of Final Fight and Streets of Rage, 4-player coop gameplay is okay?
"At the outset, you're able to choose from five different hunters. Each hunter has his or her own specialties and specific access to different "edges," which are the game's equivalent of spells. Some edges are used for healing, while others provide attack bonuses. Other edges provide advantages of this nature.
In addition to having edges at your disposal, you're also armed with a melee and a ranged weapon. With sword or axe in hand, you're able to execute some basic combo attacks. A list of combos is available on the pause screen, but most of them are fairly simple to execute. As always, mashing the attack button is a pretty effective tactic. The ranged weapon is good for keeping enemies at a distance, but it usually lacks the punch to keep a large crowd of zombies off your back. For these moments, you'll want to switch to some special weapons, which include shotguns, machine guns, and other more potent utensils for death-dealing. As you use your two types of attacks and edges, you'll gain experience points in each category. This, in turn, makes your attacks more effective and grants you access to more edges. Each character can have up to three edges in all.
The action in Redeemer hasn't changed much from any of the other games in the series. It's a basic hack-and-slash game that pits you and up to three friends against hordes of dumb enemy creatures that, for the most part, just walk up to you and take a few halfhearted swipes until you get around to cutting them up. Though some levels establish some sort of objective, this rarely amounts to anything more than following a preset path and fighting your way to the end. Most of the game is easy to the point of being boring, especially if you or one of the other players picks a hunter with the ability to heal. Boss fights get a little more difficult, but the game gives you a healthy number of continues, which makes any boss fight little more than just a matter of time. "
"Overall, Hunter: The Reckoning Redeemer is a pretty standard Gauntlet-like hack-and-slash. It lacks the depth of games like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, but it never pretends to have any real RPG component. If you're in search of a cooperative action game to play with friends, Hunter works, but it certainly isn't the most exciting game in town."
If the same standard applied to Hunter: The Reckoning Redeemer were applied to Spikeout Battle Street, Gerstmann would have found both games to be around a 7.0, good but not great. It is also worth mentioning that the story segments in the Hunter games are more serious than the cheesy cutscenes in Spikeout, they must have rubbed Gerstmann just right to get the 2 point boost. Hunter: The Reckoning though, a game Gerstmann claims is almost identical to this sequel, got an 8.0. Gerstmann fails to explain why this version should be graded a full point lower.
7.8 "good" for State of Emergency on Xbox
Mar 28, 2003
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/stateofemergency/review.html?sid=6024151
"The Xbox version's new features and bargain-minded retail price make it a good deal for anyone looking for some mindless fun."
"State of Emergency is an arcade-style action game that puts you in the shoes of a rebel fighting against an oppressive corporation that has become a sort of de facto government. While State of Emergency's arcadelike objectives and somewhat simplistic fighting system can make it feel a little shallow, the game's technical strengths, satisfying displays of comically overblown violence, and budget price make it worth a look."
"State of Emergency, like just about every game that has tried to bring the Final Fight formula into a 3D world, has its share of problems. For starters, the camera requires constant baby-sitting, forcing you to frequently hit R to swing it around behind your character or use the right stick to adjust your perspective. Even still, the camera gets hung up in tight corridors, and you'll often find yourself walking around corners blindly, only to find a large enemy force on the other side that opens fire before you even have time to reposition the camera to see them. Additionally, the basic gameplay is extremely simple, almost to the point of feeling stripped down. You have a punch and a kick at your disposal, and mashing on the buttons will execute combos. Hitting both buttons together allows you to grab opponents for throws and other holds. But the game is perhaps at its best when your character is armed. There's a wide variety of weapons in State of Emergency, starting out with simple batons and baseball bats. The game also features a nice selection of firearms, including a pistol, an Uzi, an AK-47, an M16, a shotgun, a minigun, a flamethrower, a grenade launcher, and a rocket launcher. You'll also find some blades, namely a hatchet and a sword. Finally, many objects found around the environment--park benches, for example--can be picked up and thrown. You'll need this large arsenal to keep the corporation security forces and gangs at bay. As you proceed, the enemies will rush you with larger numbers and better armaments."
"State of Emergency's storyline seems like an afterthought that attempts to provide a reason for the rioting--so much so that the game's main mode doesn't contain any story elements whatsoever."
"The game's multiplayer option lets you play with two to four players in a variety of cooperative and competitive games. Deathmatch is your basic player vs. player mode, and there are also variants on the single-player game's last clone standing and kaos games. Survivor mode is a last man standing sort of game that ends when only one player is left alive. The multiplayer modes are a good addition, though they don't feel quite as fleshed out as they could have been. It's also worth noting that the game's streets aren't as populated in the multiplayer events and that the frame rate drops down to around 30 frames per second for the split-screen modes."
"State of Emergency isn't the deepest game on the market, but with its timers and its high-score lists, the game is definitely shooting for shorter, arcadelike play sessions. While it might be a bit much to ask players to pay full price for a port of a year-old PS2 game, the Xbox version's new features and bargain-minded retail price make it a good deal for anyone looking for some mindless fun."
3.3 "Bad" For Final Fight Streetwise on Xbox
Mar 1, 2006
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/finalfightstreetwise/review.html?sid=6145222
"Final Fight: Streetwise doesn't look good, doesn't play well, and it can't even get its unlockable bonus--the original arcade game--right."
"The Good: Features Mike Haggar.
The Bad: Ugly graphics; horrible speech; lame gameplay; needless cursing makes the whole script sound hokey; camera is usually pretty bad."
"The beat-'em-up is dead. Really, it's been dead ever since gaming went polygonal. Early 3D attempts like Fighting Force set the tone for games like Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance and Spikeout: Battle Street, making bad cameras and generic, boring action the new hallmarks of a genre that used to have no fewer than three stand-out games in it: Taito's Double Dragon, Sega's Streets of Rage, and Capcom's Final Fight. Fresh for 2006, Capcom has a new take on its series, the curse-filled fist-fest Final Fight: Streetwise. But all this game manages to do is further nail the genre's coffin closed, while sullying the good name of an arcade classic along the way."
I can't help but agree here. Streetwise's premise, however, is so obviously lifted from the GTA fad that it is hardly exemplary of beat-em ups 3D or otherwise.
" You go from one spot to the next, beating people up and triggering cutscenes. The dialogue and speech are almost universally awful and don't even work on an ironic level. They're just packed full of lame, gratuitous cursing. Not even the presence of the greatest video game mayor of all time can help save the pathetic story and objectives."
"Of course, if the action were interesting, you'd probably be able to look past the busted story. But the fighting system is awfully basic, and most of your opponents will go down if you simply get in their face and slam on the weak attack button over and over again. They make up for their individual stupidity by often attacking you in quantities. In some spots you'll go up against around eight or 10 guys at once. But they don't all attack at the same time, and your attacks can (and will) hit multiple enemies in many cases, so the fighting is rarely challenging. The boss fights are a little more pattern-based, so you'll have to do some blocking and strategizing here, but not enough to pique your interest. As you play, you learn new moves and are given the opportunity to purchase more combos, but these are rarely useful, since the whole "pound one button until everyone around you is dead" tactic works even better if you spend your cash on increased attack damage."
Ah, the curse of the effective and user friendly one button combo, how did we ever play those old beat-em ups anyway?
"Adding to the insanity of this package is the original arcade game, which is available as an unlockable bonus. Despite a pretty good emulation of the arcade version appearing in Capcom's classic arcade compilation last year, the version in Streetwise isn't that version. It runs at a ridiculously choppy frame rate and doesn't play well at all. In addition to that, there's also an arcade mode that focuses more intently on the weak fighting rather than the weak story. If you're a fan of the original, get Capcom's recent arcade game compilation and avert your eyes from this disaster of a game, especially if you hold any nostalgic feelings about the original game."
As much as I don't like this GTA twist on the Beat-em up, I have to say that I don't know why this game is "bad" based on the details in this review. Just because mashing one button works, doesn't mean that the player is forced to be that linear with the gameplay. I can play a great Beat-em Up like Double Dragon Advance without using any of the new moves also, does that mean that DDA is a bad game by Gerstmann's standard? From these reviews, I would say that all a "bad" game needs to be boosted to "good" in a Gerstmann review is a story that tickles his sensibilities.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment