Worst GS review ever
This topic is locked from further discussion.
lol, In Oblivion you made you own story ? like what ...."you see this and kill this and so on." Please .. Oblivion was free roaming with extremely linear quests 99% of the time. and the the blank in oblivion was not filled by you but by the text popup that comes up[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]
There was far more role playing in Oblivion than in Deus Ex.
Deus Ex had a very linear story, where Oblivion let you fill in the blanks, and make it your own story.
Deus Ex seemed to give you a lot of choices as far as gameplay and story, but you always ended up in the exact same place.
swamprat_basic
I think you guys missed the point of what a sandbox game is.
If all you saw in Oblivion was "you see this and kill this and so on," then you must have an extremely limited imagination. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.
What made Oblivion great was how open-ended it was.
But if you need a game to spell out every single aspect of the story, and you don't want to think at all, then no, you probably wouldn't like the game.
Sorry dude, mindless killing was all that was there in the game, the quests just provided you a lame reason to complete the quest. And since it was a sandbox game there were lots of such quest. Lots of simple/linear quests --- there was nothing open ended except in the way you can just roam around and do these quests. The quests themselves were totally linear Story :lol: like what -- there is no story untold or otherwise , unless someone makes up stuff in his mind ? roleplay ... again like what -- just killing stuff ?Yes there are. The controls are the best in gaming, so I don't know how anyone could call them clunky. Absolutely amazing game.Are there really some that are over 90 minutes?
[QUOTE="Vlaphor"]
I would have to say, Metal Gear Solid 4. How does a game with five hours of gameplay, overabundance of cutscenes (a couple that actually last for over 90 minutes), clunky controls and convoluted online get a perfect score and game of the year?
topgunmv
[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"][QUOTE="naval"] lol, In Oblivion you made you own story ? like what ...."you see this and kill this and so on." Please .. Oblivion was free roaming with extremely linear quests 99% of the time. and the the blank in oblivion was not filled by you but by the text popup that comes upnaval
I think you guys missed the point of what a sandbox game is.
If all you saw in Oblivion was "you see this and kill this and so on," then you must have an extremely limited imagination. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.
What made Oblivion great was how open-ended it was.
But if you need a game to spell out every single aspect of the story, and you don't want to think at all, then no, you probably wouldn't like the game.
Sorry dude, mindless killing was all that was there in the game, the quests just provided you a lame reason to complete the quest. And since it was a sandbox game there were lots of such quest. Lots of simple/linear quests --- there was nothing open ended except in the way you can just roam around and do these quests. The quests themselves were totally linear Story :lol: like what -- there is no story untold or otherwise , unless someone makes up stuff in his mind ? roleplay ... again like what -- just killing stuff ? i found the side quests in oblivion fairly original and fulfilling[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]Sorry dude, mindless killing was all that was there in the game, the quests just provided you a lame reason to complete the quest. And since it was a sandbox game there were lots of such quest. Lots of simple/linear quests --- there was nothing open ended except in the way you can just roam around and do these quests. The quests themselves were totally linear Story :lol: like what -- there is no story untold or otherwise , unless someone makes up stuff in his mind ? roleplay ... again like what -- just killing stuff ? i found the side quests in oblivion fairly original and fulfilling actually I don't remember anything original about the quests, but anyways that was a side thing. My main points was that they were pretty linear and there was no story you create on your but what the game gives you --- so where is the role playing ?I think you guys missed the point of what a sandbox game is.
If all you saw in Oblivion was "you see this and kill this and so on," then you must have an extremely limited imagination. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.
What made Oblivion great was how open-ended it was.
But if you need a game to spell out every single aspect of the story, and you don't want to think at all, then no, you probably wouldn't like the game.
Androvinus
[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"][QUOTE="naval"] lol, In Oblivion you made you own story ? like what ...."you see this and kill this and so on." Please .. Oblivion was free roaming with extremely linear quests 99% of the time. and the the blank in oblivion was not filled by you but by the text popup that comes upnaval
I think you guys missed the point of what a sandbox game is.
If all you saw in Oblivion was "you see this and kill this and so on," then you must have an extremely limited imagination. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.
What made Oblivion great was how open-ended it was.
But if you need a game to spell out every single aspect of the story, and you don't want to think at all, then no, you probably wouldn't like the game.
Sorry dude, mindless killing was all that was there in the game, the quests just provided you a lame reason to complete the quest. And since it was a sandbox game there were lots of such quest. Lots of simple/linear quests --- there was nothing open ended except in the way you can just roam around and do these quests. The quests themselves were totally linear Story :lol: like what -- there is no story untold or otherwise , unless someone makes up stuff in his mind ? roleplay ... again like what -- just killing stuff ?Well then, before I go, I've just got to ask what you were expecting out of an Elder Scrolls game. What, did you think they were suddenly going to change their formula of giving the player a wide-open world, with little to no guidance, in which you could do whatever you want?
The Elder Scrolls games have always been as dull as the person playing the game.
Sorry dude, mindless killing was all that was there in the game, the quests just provided you a lame reason to complete the quest. And since it was a sandbox game there were lots of such quest. Lots of simple/linear quests --- there was nothing open ended except in the way you can just roam around and do these quests. The quests themselves were totally linear Story :lol: like what -- there is no story untold or otherwise , unless someone makes up stuff in his mind ? roleplay ... again like what -- just killing stuff ?[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]
I think you guys missed the point of what a sandbox game is.
If all you saw in Oblivion was "you see this and kill this and so on," then you must have an extremely limited imagination. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.
What made Oblivion great was how open-ended it was.
But if you need a game to spell out every single aspect of the story, and you don't want to think at all, then no, you probably wouldn't like the game.
swamprat_basic
Well then, before I go, I've just got to ask what you were expecting out of an Elder Scrolls game. What, did you think they were suddenly going to change their formula of giving the player a wide-open world, with little to no guidance, in which you could do whatever you want?
The Elder Scrolls games have always been as dull as the person playing the game.
little or no guidance , what do you need guidance for - - everything in oblivion was as simple as it can be ? And actually Oblivion is dull, if you don't enjoy mindless killing. -- because that's all there it is. and yeah so you didn't really ansered .. how was there any role playing in those extremely linear quests ? and how did that stupid main quest had a good story ? I guess your answer would be you can use your imagination and name the gates eenie, meenine, miny,moe etc, right ?You know I hear a lot of good thing from Legend of Dragoon. I have to admit that I'm not too convinced about the game because of the review :?The Legend of Dragoon on PS1 is a game that I loved and GS gave a low score. One of my favorites of all time, but I wouldn't say it's their worst review ever though.
Episode_Eve
Syphon Filter 2 got a 6.6 and that's way too low.
MGS3 got an 8.8 and that should have gotten a whole point higher.
Far Cry 2 got an 8.5 and I thought that the game was garbage.
[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]Sorry dude, mindless killing was all that was there in the game, the quests just provided you a lame reason to complete the quest. And since it was a sandbox game there were lots of such quest. Lots of simple/linear quests --- there was nothing open ended except in the way you can just roam around and do these quests. The quests themselves were totally linear Story :lol: like what -- there is no story untold or otherwise , unless someone makes up stuff in his mind ? roleplay ... again like what -- just killing stuff ? i found the side quests in oblivion fairly original and fulfilling You havn't played very many rpgs than.. The majority of the quests were text book mmo stuff.. The only mildly entertaining quest was the assassination line which was short to begin with.I think you guys missed the point of what a sandbox game is.
If all you saw in Oblivion was "you see this and kill this and so on," then you must have an extremely limited imagination. I'm sorry, but that is the truth.
What made Oblivion great was how open-ended it was.
But if you need a game to spell out every single aspect of the story, and you don't want to think at all, then no, you probably wouldn't like the game.
Androvinus
Reading this thread makes me think people don't know the difference between a bad review and a review they disagree with. A lot of the reviews people are stating are not bad at all, just different from what they thought. This is a bad review:
http://www.thunderboltgames.com/reviews/article/the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-to-the-past-four-swords-review-for-gba.html
He is dissing LTTP? Is that even possible? Not to mention his review was utter garbage, I remember there being a really horrible Dead Space review somewhere too that made me cringe.Reading this thread makes me think people don't know the difference between a bad review and a review they disagree with. A lot of the reviews people are stating are not bad at all, just different from what they thought. This is a bad review:
http://www.thunderboltgames.com/reviews/article/the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-to-the-past-four-swords-review-for-gba.html
ActicEdge
Found it, Dead Space OXM review
Made me cringe reading it.
He is dissing LTTP? Is that even possible? Not to mention his review was utter garbage, I remember there being a really horrible Dead Space review somewhere too that made me cringe.[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
Reading this thread makes me think people don't know the difference between a bad review and a review they disagree with. A lot of the reviews people are stating are not bad at all, just different from what they thought. This is a bad review:
http://www.thunderboltgames.com/reviews/article/the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-to-the-past-four-swords-review-for-gba.html
Im_single
Found it, Dead Space OXM review
Made me cringe reading it.
Exactly, these are bad reviews, most of the ones people are listing are just nit picky reviews they disagre with though there is nothing actually wrong with them.
[QUOTE="Communistsheep"]
Halo wars. 6.5, such a terrible review for suck a balanced console rts.
deleterguy
Haha they should give it lower then that.
You haven't even played it.[QUOTE="Communistsheep"]
Halo wars. 6.5, such a terrible review for suck a balanced console rts.
deleterguy
Haha they should give it lower then that.
Also LOLOLOL UNCHARTED SUCKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A 4,5 LIKE LAIR LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLPrince of Persia (2008). I'm surprised that they couldn't see how repetitive it was.Iraqi_Gangster100% agreed. that game is the most repetitive game this gen. such a disappointment from the series last gen, i mean he cant even control time! that was one of the key aspects of the previous, better games. that and of course the fact that you could actually die in the other games.
Oblivion nuff said.
agreed, old gamespot would of gaven it somewhere close to gamerankings, take Greg Kasaving and Jeff out your left with a bunch of reviewers that are mostlly sony fanboys.MGS4. I dunno what the reviewer was smoking but I've never seen a review so far off. 5.0 max.
CreepyBacon
Edited. I do agree of mgs4 getting game of the year. But the review of a perfect 10 is just plain bad.
It was a terible review. He basically complained because some gadgets have specific purposes, then slapped the "too much variety" and "identity crisis" lines on it because of it. The real kicker is that he says the other games in the series carved out their own identity. If you have experienced the previous titles, it becomes apparent to you that he has never played a R&C before. The only negative he got right were that it was relatively easy and the story was'nt all that great. The day variety in games becomes a bad thing is the day I stop gaming.And bah, people stop listing the R&CF review as bad. It was not bad at all, it was rather fair. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it besides people spinning it to sound more negative than it is.
ActicEdge
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]It was a terible review. He basically complained because some gadgets have specific purposes, then slapped the "too much variety" and "identity crisis" lines on it because of it. The real kicker is that he says the other games in the series carved out their own identity. If you have experienced the previous titles, it becomes apparent to you that he has never played a R&C before. The only negative he got right were that it was relatively easy and the story was'nt all that great. The day variety in games becomes a bad thing is the day I stop gaming.And bah, people stop listing the R&CF review as bad. It was not bad at all, it was rather fair. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it besides people spinning it to sound more negative than it is.
TheGrat1
This is what I'm talking about, its like people didn't even try to understand the criticism. Too much variety can be a bad thing and a game that can't decide what it wants to be can be a turn off. Just because you disagree it doesn't mean the review itself is bad. And dear god, the variety thing is overblown considering insomniac did the same thing with spyro and it got friggin annoying. Not every damn level needs to have multiple minigames and stupid off shoots to be entertaining. Let mre go and pull the quote because you are overboling the context of the review (like I knew people would).
There's a lot more to Tools of Destruction than platform jumping and shooting--perhaps too much. There are so many different gameplay mechanics that you get the sense that the developer didn't say "no" to any idea that was presented during the design process. Some of these mechanics add to the experience, but others feel as if they're here just because they could be. On a few occasions, Ratchet will roll around in a gyroball similar to the Super Monkey Ball series. To open certain doors, he'll have to dress as a pirate and do a brief dancing minigame. There are two or three times when you'll have to jump into the water and swim through mine-laden tunnels to get somewhere. Sometimes Ratchet will hop on rails and grind his way across a level while jumping gaps, and dodging trains and missiles as he goes. Every now and then, when you're flying to another planet, you'll actually have to fly your spaceship and shoot down enemies in brief, not-all-that-fun on-rails Star Fox-like sequences.
All of this, and we haven't even gotten to the Sixaxis stuff yet. Early on in the game, Clank learns he can sprout wings, so there are a few times when you'll fly around levels while tilting the controller to steer. It's kind of fun, but ultimately pointless. Ratchet can also cut through some surfaces with a laser that you control by twisting the controller, and he can even hack security systems with motion controls by rolling a ball around and conducting electricity. Lest we forget, there are a few times when Clank goes solo. These situations are more puzzle- and platforming-oriented than Ratchet's, and you'll have to use the zoni aliens to help repair items and manipulate bridges. They say variety is the spice of life, but there's such a thing as too much spice.
Although these ancillary modes break up the flow of the game, the core gameplay is so solid that you'll still have lots of fun on this 10-12 hour adventure.
Gamespot
How the hell is that not valid criticism? Just because a game can have tons of variety doesn't mean its all the same quality or it adds to the game. If the variety isn't up to the level of the core gameplay why shouldn't it be docked? Also, in platformers (especially 3D ones) mini games and different mechanics are added to break up repetitiveness, if its not repetitve then there is no need to interupt the gameplay for the sake of more variety. I'm not saying that its the case in this game, I'm saying the criticism is more than vaild. Baseless criticism would be "this game is ugly", that isn't the case here and I wish people would stop pretending it was.
i wasnt in to the online review scene until this gen majorly, id go with ratchet and clank future, theres no damn way that game is a 7.5
i found the side quests in oblivion fairly original and fulfilling You havn't played very many rpgs than.. The majority of the quests were text book mmo stuff.. The only mildly entertaining quest was the assassination line which was short to begin with. all of the sidequests(not really guild quests) had some kind of mystery to them that kept me interested to the very end. like the grave robbing merchant, or the paranoid man that stalks his neighbours, or the ghost that was haunting the peir. Even the painter that went missing and turned out to be trapped in side his painting and you had to enter a cell shaded kanvas world to get him out. the game was so much more than i was expecting. if you dont see those quests as entertaining, unique or even mildly amusing then i dont know what you would enjoy. many people who hate the game have hardly given it any time at all[QUOTE="Androvinus"][QUOTE="naval"] Sorry dude, mindless killing was all that was there in the game, the quests just provided you a lame reason to complete the quest. And since it was a sandbox game there were lots of such quest. Lots of simple/linear quests --- there was nothing open ended except in the way you can just roam around and do these quests. The quests themselves were totally linear Story :lol: like what -- there is no story untold or otherwise , unless someone makes up stuff in his mind ? roleplay ... again like what -- just killing stuff ?sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
And bah, people stop listing the R&CF review as bad. It was not bad at all, it was rather fair. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it besides people spinning it to sound more negative than it is.
It was a terible review. He basically complained because some gadgets have specific purposes, then slapped the "too much variety" and "identity crisis" lines on it because of it. The real kicker is that he says the other games in the series carved out their own identity. If you have experienced the previous titles, it becomes apparent to you that he has never played a R&C before. The only negative he got right were that it was relatively easy and the story was'nt all that great. The day variety in games becomes a bad thing is the day I stop gaming.This is what I'm talking about, its like people didn't even try to understand the criticism. Too much variety can be a bad thing and a game that can't decide what it wants to be can be a turn off. Just because you disagree it doesn't mean the review itself is bad. And dear god, the variety thing is overblown considering insomniac did the same thing with spyro and it got friggin annoying. Not every damn level needs to have multiple minigames and stupid off shoots to be entertaining. Let mre go and pull the quote because you are overboling the context of the review (like I knew people would).
He said the previous games had their own identity, while this one had an indentity crisis. Going Commando remamns to this day the R&C with the most extra stuff to do. "it's diluted by too many uninteresting minigames and unnecessary gameplay mechanics. Although these issues prevent the game from achieving the same high level as previous entries in the series, it's still a very good game." That is a direct quote from the review. These "uninteresting minigames" like the lock picking minigame, have been there since the very beginning, yet he acts like ToD invented them. Like I said, its like he never played the previous games, but still makes comparisons. He called a mechanic that gets you from point A to point B "ultimately pointless". Is the game supposed to walk me there? He made some things sound like you would be using them all the time, when in reality they are mandatory on only 3-4 seperate occasions for the entire game. Once again, the gamed got slammed for having varied gameplay.Reading this thread makes me think people don't know the difference between a bad review and a review they disagree with. A lot of the reviews people are stating are not bad at all, just different from what they thought.ActicEdgeI'm gonna go ahead and justify why that MK64 review is ass. All the smartasses in this thread who go LOLORZ DATZ JUZT OPPIONIONZ are being morons. Yes, reviews are opinions and everybody has one but the point of a game reviewing website is to provide a review which the gaming MASSES can read and a gain a deeper insight into whether or not they wish to buy a game. Thus, writing a review from an entirely personal opinion will usually result in a bad review. Ideally the mindset should be, "Okay, I don't like this part, but how would most people think of it?" Let's get to the business then. All of you who remember the N64 days: how many people do you remember who actually disliked MK64? Yeah, I can't think of anyone. And I'd wager that all of you who played the game back then would still happily play the game with a bunch of friends who used to play it with you back in the day. It's undeniable that the 4 player was legendary. So, from how much MK64 was loved back in the day, you can only conclude that his review was severely flawed - people don't buy crappy games in droves and then keep playing the damn thing for years. "Disappointed after a week?" Pshhhh... My main problem with that review is how freaking short-sighted and opinionated it is; the dude says many times that it won't last and he keeps comparing it to Mario Kart on the SNES. It just seems to me like this douche was unable to evolve passed the 2D and preferred the old gaming mechanics (which it has to be said are absolutely poop compared to MK64. This should be an obvious fact, comparing a 2D racer to a 3D one is lulz). He asserts that the game has excellent graphics and sound. But then, his criticisms... "First off, and perhaps most importantly, single-play mode is just too easy. This is due in part to the game's extra wide tracks, and in part to the poor AI routines - which deliver opponents who seem more like they're on their way to the local convenience store than in an all-out race for the finish line." I'm no n00b, but I don't remember the single-player being all THAT easy. By today's standards, it was certainly just like any other and it did take time to master the tracks. When you completed all the tournaments in 150CC, you did get them mirrored as well, giving more replay value. Besides, the main point of MK64 is not the single player, anybody who's anybody knows that. "This same lack of play consideration also infects the super-large battle courses. The result is that players can (and do) drive around for minutes without even spotting an opponent - much less getting a chance to score a hit." Uh, okay... was he playing the same game as we were when we were 12?? Sure Big Donut was kinda lame, but the other levels had excellent level design which implement great skill elements, like placing banana peels around corners, the importance of getting to higher ground and shooting red shells, and just the balanced and optimal way of using your weapons. I don't remember moments in MK64 feeling like, "OMG can't find the other players, I'm so alone here!!!" 'cause it wasn't like that at all. You were constantly on your guard and it was competitive and fun as hell! That line is a joke. "The thing is, even with all its bells and whistles, Mario Kart 64 is very likely to disappoint you after about a week. I wouldn't feel right about not giving you that warning. That said, I'm off to Mario Kart on my SNES to reminisce about the good old days, and dream of what this cartridge could have been." Lulz. He misses his SNES. Next time get him on the freaking team. Yup that review sucks. Four measly paragraphs lacking any real depth and loaded with farce opinion. No mention of the beautifully varied maps filled with shortcuts and distinction. No mention of the game's simple yet compelling gameplay mechanics that kept everybody coming back for more. No mention of just how freaking awesome the 4 player mode was. Maybe he didn't have any friends or maybe he just rushed the review. In any event, he's just plain wrong 'cause everybody with a N64 was playing that game till the very end, not a measly little week.
out of 5.MGS4. 5.0 max.
CreepyBacon
This is abad review by gamespot people because its simply crappy none objective opinion.
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/lostwinds/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
The game is slammed for ugly environments. You be the judge:
The game hardly has ugly environments and it looks even smoother and more clean in motion. There are tons of videos that show the game.
The game is criticized for lack of energy. That isn't a fair criticism because the whole damn point of Lost Winds was to show a tranquil world slowly being infested with the cute (but dangerous) blobs. The reviewer may not like the tone of the game but it isn't a flaw. He should have addressed how the ****did nothing for the game not that the lack of energy is inherently bad.
Length. This is a fair complaint. the game is short however its also $10. How he missed mentioning that in his review is beyond me. I would dock it for length too but damn, he does a poor job of explaining how the game is poor value.
Bad music? Again, the reviewer is under the impression that a dying land can only be presented in one way. He compares it to Okami which is inappropriate because the games are going for 2 different feels. Thegame isn't suspose to feel run down. IIts suspose to feel like a sleepy region slowly being infested with creatures but not like wild beasts, the enemies are damn blobs for goodness sakes. The game is suspose to be mellow and the music pertrays that fine.
The reviewer complains about controls. I won't say he is worng, I will just say everyone I have come into contact with didn't have a clue as to what h was talking about.
This is a bad review becauseit doesn't understand what the game is trying to accomplish, not because it got a 5.5.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="TheGrat1"] It was a terible review. He basically complained because some gadgets have specific purposes, then slapped the "too much variety" and "identity crisis" lines on it because of it. The real kicker is that he says the other games in the series carved out their own identity. If you have experienced the previous titles, it becomes apparent to you that he has never played a R&C before. The only negative he got right were that it was relatively easy and the story was'nt all that great. The day variety in games becomes a bad thing is the day I stop gaming.TheGrat1
This is what I'm talking about, its like people didn't even try to understand the criticism. Too much variety can be a bad thing and a game that can't decide what it wants to be can be a turn off. Just because you disagree it doesn't mean the review itself is bad. And dear god, the variety thing is overblown considering insomniac did the same thing with spyro and it got friggin annoying. Not every damn level needs to have multiple minigames and stupid off shoots to be entertaining. Let mre go and pull the quote because you are overboling the context of the review (like I knew people would).
He said the previous games had their own identity, while this one had an indentity crisis. Going Commando remamns to this day the R&C with the most extra stuff to do. "it's diluted by too many uninteresting minigames and unnecessary gameplay mechanics. Although these issues prevent the game from achieving the same high level as previous entries in the series, it's still a very good game." That is a direct quote from the review. These "uninteresting minigames" like the lock picking minigame, have been there since the very beginning, yet he acts like ToD invented them. Like I said, its like he never played the previous games, but still makes comparisons. He called a mechanic that gets you from point A to point B "ultimately pointless". Is the game supposed to walk me there? He made some things sound like you would be using them all the time, when in reality they are mandatory on only 3-4 seperate occasions for the entire game. Once again, the gamed got slammed for having varied gameplay.Read my reponse above your. You oversimplify what he is saying badly. Its the context.. not just the words. I edited in my point.
[QUOTE="Gamespot"]
There's a lot more to Tools of Destruction than platform jumping and shooting--perhaps too much. There are so many different gameplay mechanics that you get the sense that the developer didn't say "no" to any idea that was presented during the design process. Some of these mechanics add to the experience, but others feel as if they're here just because they could be. On a few occasions, Ratchet will roll around in a gyroball similar to the Super Monkey Ball series. To open certain doors, he'll have to dress as a pirate and do a brief dancing minigame. There are two or three times when you'll have to jump into the water and swim through mine-laden tunnels to get somewhere. Sometimes Ratchet will hop on rails and grind his way across a level while jumping gaps, and dodging trains and missiles as he goes. Every now and then, when you're flying to another planet, you'll actually have to fly your spaceship and shoot down enemies in brief, not-all-that-fun on-rails Star Fox-like sequences.
All of this, and we haven't even gotten to the Sixaxis stuff yet. Early on in the game, Clank learns he can sprout wings, so there are a few times when you'll fly around levels while tilting the controller to steer. It's kind of fun, but ultimately pointless. Ratchet can also cut through some surfaces with a laser that you control by twisting the controller, and he can even hack security systems with motion controls by rolling a ball around and conducting electricity. Lest we forget, there are a few times when Clank goes solo. These situations are more puzzle- and platforming-oriented than Ratchet's, and you'll have to use the zoni aliens to help repair items and manipulate bridges. They say variety is the spice of life, but there's such a thing as too much spice.
Although these ancillary modes break up the flow of the game, the core gameplay is so solid that you'll still have lots of fun on this 10-12 hour adventure.
How the hell is that not valid criticism? Just because a game can have tons of variety doesn't mean its all the same quality or it adds to the game. If the variety isn't up to the level of the core gameplay why shouldn't it be docked? Also, in platformers (especially 3D ones) mini games and different mechanics are added to break up repetitiveness, if its not repetitve then there is no need to interupt the gameplay for the sake of more variety. I'm not saying that its the case in this game, I'm saying the criticism is more than vaild. Baseless criticism would be "this game is ugly", that isn't the case here and I wish people would stop pretending it was.
Its not valid because they don't detract from the game. They are nowhere near as prevealent as the review makes them seem. Its misleading, and the purpose of a review is to give you an idea of the game. The dancing that actually adds to the game's humurous tone? Maybe 6 times. At about 15 seconds a pop. The "monkey ball"? You only have to use it twice in the game. 1 sequence lasts about 2 mintes and you get a Skill Point for beating the scond in under 50 seconds. The wings? 3 times. About 40 second sequences a piece. There was something just like this in R&C 2 as well, but it was'nt this good. He even called it fun. The laser cutter? 3 times. takes about 11 seconds a piece. The secuirity hacker? About 7. Ranging from 15 seconds (the first one) to 1:20. Clank missions that add a change of pace from Ratchet? Only 2 Clank missions in the entire game taking about 5 and 7 minutes repectively. And this is all during what he calls a 10 - 12 hour game. You'll barely notice them. They don't detract form the game's "identity" at all. All R&C games have gadgets and gameplay types you'll only use a few times. That's a defining characteristic of R&C. This is where "identity crisis" makes no sense whatsoever. It's still a combat plaformer with character growth elements like it has been since Going Commando. Question: Have you played it?[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="Gamespot"]
There's a lot more to Tools of Destruction than platform jumping and shooting--perhaps too much. There are so many different gameplay mechanics that you get the sense that the developer didn't say "no" to any idea that was presented during the design process. Some of these mechanics add to the experience, but others feel as if they're here just because they could be. On a few occasions, Ratchet will roll around in a gyroball similar to the Super Monkey Ball series. To open certain doors, he'll have to dress as a pirate and do a brief dancing minigame. There are two or three times when you'll have to jump into the water and swim through mine-laden tunnels to get somewhere. Sometimes Ratchet will hop on rails and grind his way across a level while jumping gaps, and dodging trains and missiles as he goes. Every now and then, when you're flying to another planet, you'll actually have to fly your spaceship and shoot down enemies in brief, not-all-that-fun on-rails Star Fox-like sequences.
All of this, and we haven't even gotten to the Sixaxis stuff yet. Early on in the game, Clank learns he can sprout wings, so there are a few times when you'll fly around levels while tilting the controller to steer. It's kind of fun, but ultimately pointless. Ratchet can also cut through some surfaces with a laser that you control by twisting the controller, and he can even hack security systems with motion controls by rolling a ball around and conducting electricity. Lest we forget, there are a few times when Clank goes solo. These situations are more puzzle- and platforming-oriented than Ratchet's, and you'll have to use the zoni aliens to help repair items and manipulate bridges. They say variety is the spice of life, but there's such a thing as too much spice.
Although these ancillary modes break up the flow of the game, the core gameplay is so solid that you'll still have lots of fun on this 10-12 hour adventure.
TheGrat1
How the hell is that not valid criticism? Just because a game can have tons of variety doesn't mean its all the same quality or it adds to the game. If the variety isn't up to the level of the core gameplay why shouldn't it be docked? Also, in platformers (especially 3D ones) mini games and different mechanics are added to break up repetitiveness, if its not repetitve then there is no need to interupt the gameplay for the sake of more variety. I'm not saying that its the case in this game, I'm saying the criticism is more than vaild. Baseless criticism would be "this game is ugly", that isn't the case here and I wish people would stop pretending it was.
Its not valid because they don't detract from the game. They are nowhere near as prevealent as the review makes them seem. Its misleading, and the purpose of a review is to give you an idea of the game. The dancing that actually adds to the game's humurous tone? Maybe 6 times. At about 15 seconds a pop. The "monkey ball"? You only have to use it twice in the game. 1 sequence lasts about 2 mintes and you get a Skill Point for beating the scond in under 50 seconds. The wings? 3 times. About 40 second sequences a piece. There was something just like this in R&C 2 as well, but it was'nt this good. He even called it fun. The laser cutter? 3 times. takes about 11 seconds a piece. The secuirity hacker? About 7. Ranging from 15 seconds (the first one) to 1:20. Clank missions that add a change of pace from Ratchet? Only 2 Clank missions in the entire game taking about 5 and 7 minutes repectively. And this is all during what he calls a 10 - 12 hour game. You'll barely notice them. They don't detract form the game's "identity" at all. All R&C games have gadgets and gameplay types you'll only use a few times. That's a defining characteristic of R&C. This is where "identity crisis" makes no sense whatsoever. It's still a combat plaformer with character growth elements like it has been since Going Commando. Question: Have you played it?Dear God yes I have played it and you are doing exactly what I said, being nit picky. The point is he found this stuff to be a problem. Its not how many times its done or how long, its that he didn't feel they added anything to the game or it would just be more fun to smash stuff and platform. His opinion was that it DID detract from the game, yours is it DIDN'T. You are trying to say he is wrong. That's silly. The context in which he is applying the criticism is sound like I pointed out. Not agreeing is fine but the general tone and point is not flawed like you make it out to seem. And he is apparently mentioning some of the minigames, not all to make a point. Not trying to use them as justificationas to why the game had problems. Also, with the evolution to new hardware, I am assuming that he expected more than just a reskinning of previous games.
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
How the hell is that not valid criticism? Just because a game can have tons of variety doesn't mean its all the same quality or it adds to the game. If the variety isn't up to the level of the core gameplay why shouldn't it be docked? Also, in platformers (especially 3D ones) mini games and different mechanics are added to break up repetitiveness, if its not repetitve then there is no need to interupt the gameplay for the sake of more variety. I'm not saying that its the case in this game, I'm saying the criticism is more than vaild. Baseless criticism would be "this game is ugly", that isn't the case here and I wish people would stop pretending it was.
Its not valid because they don't detract from the game. They are nowhere near as prevealent as the review makes them seem. Its misleading, and the purpose of a review is to give you an idea of the game. The dancing that actually adds to the game's humurous tone? Maybe 6 times. At about 15 seconds a pop. The "monkey ball"? You only have to use it twice in the game. 1 sequence lasts about 2 mintes and you get a Skill Point for beating the scond in under 50 seconds. The wings? 3 times. About 40 second sequences a piece. There was something just like this in R&C 2 as well, but it was'nt this good. He even called it fun. The laser cutter? 3 times. takes about 11 seconds a piece. The secuirity hacker? About 7. Ranging from 15 seconds (the first one) to 1:20. Clank missions that add a change of pace from Ratchet? Only 2 Clank missions in the entire game taking about 5 and 7 minutes repectively. And this is all during what he calls a 10 - 12 hour game. You'll barely notice them. They don't detract form the game's "identity" at all. All R&C games have gadgets and gameplay types you'll only use a few times. That's a defining characteristic of R&C. This is where "identity crisis" makes no sense whatsoever. It's still a combat plaformer with character growth elements like it has been since Going Commando. Question: Have you played it?Dear God yes I have played it and you are doing exactly what I said, being nit picky. The point is he found this stuff to be a problem. Its not how many times its done or how long, its that he didn't feel they added anything to the game or it would just be more fun to smash stuff and platform. His opinion was that it DID detract from the game, yours is it DIDN'T. You are trying to say he is wrong. That's silly. The context in which he is applying the criticism is sound like I pointed out. Not agreeing is fine but the general tone and point is not flawed like you make it out to seem. And he is apparently mentioning some of the minigames, not all to make a point. Not trying to use them as justificationas to why the game had problems. Also, with the evolution to new hardware, I am assuming that he expected more than just a reskinning of previous games.
How much and how long is his problem with it. When he says "too much" it implies an excess of something. When in realtiy the non-"jumping and shooting" actually makes up a small part of the game, the words "too much" make no sense whatsoever. He cites too much variety, when the actual variety is short-lived, few, and far between. If this is too much for him, then vehicle sections in Halo must feel like a whole other game. And if all you did was "smash stuff and platform" the game would (and should) get marked down for being repetetive. But go ahead, say its just his opinion. The "too many ugly environments" thing in Lost winds is an opinion too. Guess you don't have a right t complain there. And yes, the first 3 screens do have ugly, boring environments. The last one looks good though. The problems I have with the ToD review is'nt whether he thinks distinct series characteristics add to the game or not. Its the comment on too much variety when it, in fact, makes a up less than 1/12 of the game time in total. And claiming it has an identity crisis when it is following the series formula to a T. The same series he said in the review had "crafted its own identity".[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="TheGrat1"] Its not valid because they don't detract from the game. They are nowhere near as prevealent as the review makes them seem. Its misleading, and the purpose of a review is to give you an idea of the game. The dancing that actually adds to the game's humurous tone? Maybe 6 times. At about 15 seconds a pop. The "monkey ball"? You only have to use it twice in the game. 1 sequence lasts about 2 mintes and you get a Skill Point for beating the scond in under 50 seconds. The wings? 3 times. About 40 second sequences a piece. There was something just like this in R&C 2 as well, but it was'nt this good. He even called it fun. The laser cutter? 3 times. takes about 11 seconds a piece. The secuirity hacker? About 7. Ranging from 15 seconds (the first one) to 1:20. Clank missions that add a change of pace from Ratchet? Only 2 Clank missions in the entire game taking about 5 and 7 minutes repectively. And this is all during what he calls a 10 - 12 hour game. You'll barely notice them. They don't detract form the game's "identity" at all. All R&C games have gadgets and gameplay types you'll only use a few times. That's a defining characteristic of R&C. This is where "identity crisis" makes no sense whatsoever. It's still a combat plaformer with character growth elements like it has been since Going Commando. Question: Have you played it?TheGrat1
Dear God yes I have played it and you are doing exactly what I said, being nit picky. The point is he found this stuff to be a problem. Its not how many times its done or how long, its that he didn't feel they added anything to the game or it would just be more fun to smash stuff and platform. His opinion was that it DID detract from the game, yours is it DIDN'T. You are trying to say he is wrong. That's silly. The context in which he is applying the criticism is sound like I pointed out. Not agreeing is fine but the general tone and point is not flawed like you make it out to seem. And he is apparently mentioning some of the minigames, not all to make a point. Not trying to use them as justificationas to why the game had problems. Also, with the evolution to new hardware, I am assuming that he expected more than just a reskinning of previous games.
How much and how long is his problem with it. When he says "too much" it implies an excess of something. When in realtiy the non-"jumping and shooting" actually makes up a small part of the game, the words "too much" make no sense whatsoever. He cites too much variety, when the actual variety is short-lived, few, and far between. If this is too much for him, then vehicle sections in Halo must feel like a whole other game. And if all you did was "smash stuff and platform" the game would (and should) get marked down for being repetetive. But go ahead, say its just his opinion. The "too many ugly environments" thing in Lost winds is an opinion too. Guess you don't have a right t complain there. And yes, the first 3 screens do have ugly, boring environments. The last one looks good though. The problems I have with the ToD review is'nt whether he thinks distinct series characteristics add to the game or not. Its the comment on too much variety when it, in fact, makes a up less than 1/12 of the game time in total. And claiming it has an identity crisis when it is following the series formula to a T. The same series he said in the review had "crafted its own identity".And the problem is you are dismissing what he sats because you don't agree but that doesn't make it an invalid criticism. That just makes it controversial but you don't seem to get that so I'm done arguing with you.
As for the Lost Winds part, if you actually read the review he gives no reasons as to why its ugly. He just says it is. The games underground environmets aren't really ugly, you have to see them in motion. On top of this it makes no sense to tell us that the the underground environements areugly without context. For what Lost Windsis trying to accomplish noneof the scrrens I posted were ugly. Its silly to say that without even an explanation as to why which the reviewer never gave. This is the difference between my problem and yours, you just disagree even though the context of the reviewers problem is fair which is why the review is not bad, just controversial. In my example he fails to eleaborate on why. It doesn't help your point to point to lost winds though especially since 1) screens do the game no justice and 2) you have to give leniance considering that the underground of this game is actuallyfairly artistic and held back by space limitations and 3) I doubt you've had experience with the game. You are trying way too hard to say that I'm wrong and make it sound like I'm not letting you have an opinion which is why you delve to LW as if it held any relevance. I never gave my opinion on the ratchet review, I'm saying the complaints are valid. A bad review is factually wrong, poorly written, contradictory to eveidence and fails to understand the point of a game. the lost winds example is far better than Ratchet. Gamespot makes some ridiculous claims there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpRZuo4Uhcg&feature=related
That is hardly a bad looking environment compared to what gamespot lets games get away with.
Shenmue... a 7.5 are you freaking kidding me? you give a 10 to tony hawk 3 but dont even let shenmue break atleast an 8?!? what on earth were they thinking...
[QUOTE="CreepyBacon"]out of 5.MGS4. .5 max.
kkevguy47k
The better course.
[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]Explain :PThe worst video review is Condemned 2. Not because of the score it got, but the way the video review was presented was considered one of the worst ever.
aaronmullan
Watch the review. It is epic phail.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/adventure/condemned2bloodshot/video/6188095/condemned-2-bloodshot-video-review-1?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;watch-review
Explain :P[QUOTE="aaronmullan"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]
The worst video review is Condemned 2. Not because of the score it got, but the way the video review was presented was considered one of the worst ever.
AvIdGaMeR444
Watch the review. It is epic phail.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/adventure/condemned2bloodshot/video/6188095/condemned-2-bloodshot-video-review-1?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;watch-review
My god that was terrible. It didn't say ANYTHING useful about the game :|Ratchet & Clank: Future Tools of Destruction.
7.5 here on gamespot after the .5 system when IGN gave it 9,4 and gametrailers 9.0? Wow gamespot.
First thing I though of when I read the title, and I'm glad it was the first reply posted.The Legend of Dragoon on PS1 is a game that I loved and GS gave a low score. One of my favorites of all time, but I wouldn't say it's their worst review ever though.
Episode_Eve
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]Reading this thread makes me think people don't know the difference between a bad review and a review they disagree with. A lot of the reviews people are stating are not bad at all, just different from what they thought.mr-krinklesI'm gonna go ahead and justify why that MK64 review is ass. All the smartasses in this thread who go LOLORZ DATZ JUZT OPPIONIONZ are being morons. Yes, reviews are opinions and everybody has one but the point of a game reviewing website is to provide a review which the gaming MASSES can read and a gain a deeper insight into whether or not they wish to buy a game. Thus, writing a review from an entirely personal opinion will usually result in a bad review. Ideally the mindset should be, "Okay, I don't like this part, but how would most people think of it?" Let's get to the business then. All of you who remember the N64 days: how many people do you remember who actually disliked MK64? Yeah, I can't think of anyone. And I'd wager that all of you who played the game back then would still happily play the game with a bunch of friends who used to play it with you back in the day. It's undeniable that the 4 player was legendary. So, from how much MK64 was loved back in the day, you can only conclude that his review was severely flawed - people don't buy crappy games in droves and then keep playing the damn thing for years. "Disappointed after a week?" Pshhhh... My main problem with that review is how freaking short-sighted and opinionated it is; the dude says many times that it won't last and he keeps comparing it to Mario Kart on the SNES. It just seems to me like this douche was unable to evolve passed the 2D and preferred the old gaming mechanics (which it has to be said are absolutely poop compared to MK64. This should be an obvious fact, comparing a 2D racer to a 3D one is lulz). He asserts that the game has excellent graphics and sound. But then, his criticisms... "First off, and perhaps most importantly, single-play mode is just too easy. This is due in part to the game's extra wide tracks, and in part to the poor AI routines - which deliver opponents who seem more like they're on their way to the local convenience store than in an all-out race for the finish line." I'm no n00b, but I don't remember the single-player being all THAT easy. By today's standards, it was certainly just like any other and it did take time to master the tracks. When you completed all the tournaments in 150CC, you did get them mirrored as well, giving more replay value. Besides, the main point of MK64 is not the single player, anybody who's anybody knows that. "This same lack of play consideration also infects the super-large battle courses. The result is that players can (and do) drive around for minutes without even spotting an opponent - much less getting a chance to score a hit." Uh, okay... was he playing the same game as we were when we were 12?? Sure Big Donut was kinda lame, but the other levels had excellent level design which implement great skill elements, like placing banana peels around corners, the importance of getting to higher ground and shooting red shells, and just the balanced and optimal way of using your weapons. I don't remember moments in MK64 feeling like, "OMG can't find the other players, I'm so alone here!!!" 'cause it wasn't like that at all. You were constantly on your guard and it was competitive and fun as hell! That line is a joke. "The thing is, even with all its bells and whistles, Mario Kart 64 is very likely to disappoint you after about a week. I wouldn't feel right about not giving you that warning. That said, I'm off to Mario Kart on my SNES to reminisce about the good old days, and dream of what this cartridge could have been." Lulz. He misses his SNES. Next time get him on the freaking team. Yup that review sucks. Four measly paragraphs lacking any real depth and loaded with farce opinion. No mention of the beautifully varied maps filled with shortcuts and distinction. No mention of the game's simple yet compelling gameplay mechanics that kept everybody coming back for more. No mention of just how freaking awesome the 4 player mode was. Maybe he didn't have any friends or maybe he just rushed the review. In any event, he's just plain wrong 'cause everybody with a N64 was playing that game till the very end, not a measly little week.
If you throw away the nostalgia mario kart 64 was a very weak game. Trust me i loved it, split screen was great, but to me it just felt like a copy and paste of the snes version with a graphic fix and just not as fun. I still loved it, but they could have done much better.
mario kart 64 is overated how did diddy kong racing score lower then mario kart 64 it was the best racing game for n64
kemar7856
My point exactly, mario kart was almost the exact same as mario kart on snes, diddy kong was great because it was loaded with variaty in tracks, cars, and the whole open world type deal where you can explore the map was just great. If i had to choose diddy kong racing or mario kart 64, diddy would be my pick.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment