Though not the greatest game, P.N.03 does a decent job of harkening back to the days of simpler shoot-em-up style games.

User Rating: 7.3 | P.N. 03 GC
I can honesty say that, in around 9 out of every 10 reviews on Gamespot, I can agree with the rating. Certainly I may find fault with individual complaints lodged within said review, I am able to agree with most of the reviews' points of contention. But it is not so here. For the purposes of making my disagreement with GS's review of P.N.03, I'll put them in order as I find them in the review. But first, I will show where he had the good graces to recognize good gameplay.

First, he admits there is "nothing wrong with a pure shooter." He realizes it is meant to be a throwback to gaming's yesteryear. Second, he can appreciate the appropriated 'Smart Bomb'-style attacks, as well as the customization of the Aegis Suits.

1 - The section-to-section "Report Card."

Greg K. claims that it interrupts the action, which is easily arguable as you could say the same thing of any given load screen - and given that the room-to-room loads are so short, it is NOT an inconvenience. He also complains that it "cheapens the feel." How and what he means by this is a mystery, perhaps even to himself. While it is a little strange that the sections are generally as small as they are, with load times under 5 seconds between them, there is no problem with that method. Though I can agree that longer sections would indeed be better, the complaints he has made he wields as if they are heavy; when in point of fact they seem to be cursory at worst.

2 - His complaints about the quality of the graphics.

I found this fairly ammusing, especially given the fact that he gave the graphics of Resident Evil 4 (which simply has a somewhat more advanced version of THIS GAME'S GRAPHICS ENGINE) a 10, where he gives P.N.03's graphical quality score a 5. The aliasing isn't as good, no, but it isn't off by miles and miles. And complaining about the enviornments (which I will admit, are repetitive) which ARE detailed. He is confusing the quality of the graphics themselves with the admitted inherent lack of variety. But those two elements are NOT one in the same. Rating graphics isn't based upon the VARIETY of things you see: it's about the quality of the things that you DO see. 3 - He says that dodging isn't easy.

If one has only been gaming for the better part of 10 minutes in one's lifetime, I imagine that would be the case. Yes, it's unfortunate that you can't return fire while dodging, but dodging still isn't difficult. Especially you add your ability to jump from enemy fire into the mix as well. As for hitting the Z button instead of R, I hardly think the game can be blamed for a person's apparrent inability to properly work their own fingers (he speaks as if it is a commonplace occurence), as this has never happened to me.

4 - Claims of a sluggish framerate.

For godssake, WHEN? If he were to say something along the lines of "at all times," he would need to be informed of the distinct difference between the framerate and a game having a camera bob. I have noticed a SINGLE moment of slowdown in my 20-plus hours spent playing. Where he believed he found said slowdown, I can't imagine.

5 - The "'Understated' techno soundtrack."

If, by understated, you mean it is not like most techno (most tecnho = an overly repititious cacophany of wretched noise that puts into your mind the idea of puncturing both your eardrums simultaneously) then yes, Greg. I suppose that would mean that, for one shimmering moment in your review, you were right.