As of today, there is an update that adds support for voice chat and use of the Pro controller. Just thought I'd add that, since the review criticizes the lack of voice chat.
This is the most whiniest review I've seen on Gamespot with completely insane final score if you consider that at the same time as this review is posted there are reviews of "Little Inferno" getting 7.0 and "Kentucky Route Zero - Act I" getting 7.0.
The reviewer completely misses the point by saying that this humorous platformer is missing a deep storyline or that its puzzles are in some way wrong when this is exactly what the game is about and does nicely. And yes, the combat is a nice simple add-on that spices up brief moments and it is good that after you have killed everyone you can focus on solving the next puzzle or tricky section. This is not a Diablo for gods sake!
My opinion is backed up by owning both Trine 1 and Trine 2 Collectors editions on PC which we with great enjoyment played through together with my wife using 2 mice and 2 keyboards connected to a single PC.
Bravo Frozenbyte and I hope you will continue making as wonderful games to play together as Trine and Shadowgrounds.
Just got the game (yay for sales) and I tried it out first on XBLA, always thought that the physics were rather odd but it's something I know I'll grow accustomed to. Either way it's a good review that gives a different perspective so I'm hoping that I get much more enjoyment out of it than Carol did.
Not like my voice is that great either, but this dude sounds like a teenager on the brink of hitting puberty and with a bad case of hay fever.
Well, the PS3 version at least is a wonderful game! Sure it may not be all that sophisticated... but come on... it's a platformer!
If there is this much drama over a change in score of a game reviewed by two different people then I guess that means Gamespot now has to consider reworking how many people rate a single game or games in general.
I guess this is what is naturally going to occur as a problem when you have multiple people represent the opinion of an entire website.
This girl must really hate Nintendo as she takes any chance to emphasize whatever she doesn't like or understand. Same as in Nintendo Land review. This site reviewers are each tome worst!
Carolyn doesn't like the game as much as others. Maybe because she doesn't fall for the eye candy. More power to her.
The reviewer says the puzzles aren't the right kind of challenging and then shows footage of her getting stuck and overall sucking.
why did carolyin didnt give the same score tthan the other versions? even if the wiiu has a bit better graphics, more optional control (tablet and wiimote) and its the same awesome game with the dlc included
@Diogladius This site in general just seems to not care for what Nintendo puts out, for whatever reason. I guess it's a matter of either a) people being influenced by their peers (meaning that the distaste for Nintendo on the part of some affects others), b) when they hire people, there is an unconscious bias toward like-minded people, or c) they really did just end up with a staff full of people who prefer MS and Sony to Nintendo. Not really sure why that is, but I just take everything related to Nintendo here with a lb of salt. If they review a game as an 7, I know I'll probably think it's an 8, etc.
@the9thinning i don't think it's worse. 2 different reviewers 2 different opinions.
@Gelugon_baat The problem is that most people don't look at "Jane Douglass gave it an 8.5." They look at "GameSpot gave it an 8.5." If Jane for whatever reason couldn't review this version, they shouldn't have reviewed it at all, or had Carolyn hold her own personal opinions aside and review how well the version was compared to other platforms. People who own multiple platforms who are thinking of buying Trine are going to see the Wii U version with the lower score and instantly dismiss it. True, they should read the review, but again, Carolyn makes no mention of why the Wii U version is inferior, aside from no voice chat during co-op. If nothing significantly changed in the Wii U version, then they should have just plastered Jane Douglass's original review onto the game's gamespace like they do with every other cross-platform release.
@Cyberxion All I read was noise. Try again when you bring yourself above my level, thanks.
@JustPlainLucas I don't know where you get off calling anyone else dense, dude. Your arguments are that regardless of whether or not they're written by different people with their own unique tastes, reviews should be consistent simply for the sake of consistency, and that furthermore, critics should write reviews in service of developers rather than those of us whose hard-earned money goes to buying these games. Then you tried to write it all off by pretending to merely be curious about a discrepancy that anyone with even a semi-functioning brain should understand at a single glance. You don't just come off as dense here, you come off as a drooling idiot. In fact, the more I read of your egotistical and wholly undeserved self-congratulatory defense of your inane position, the more that I'm convinced that you are so stupid that you would die if your mommy and daddy hadn't hired someone to follow you around to remind you to breathe. What you are demanding is not at all reasonable, and you look like an ignorant neanderthal for insisting on it, let alone continuing to claim that you're right even though it would be impossible for you to be any more wrong than you are. To put it into simple terms for your simple mind, a review is and always will be an individual's wholly subjective opinion. Ponder that for a bit, and maybe it'll become clear to you why this particular individual's score doesn't match up with that of the person who reviewed the other versions.
@carolynmichelle What is bothering so many people is this:
When a game is rereleased, it usually only gets reviewed if it is different from the original. Sony's "Greatest Hits" and Nintendo's "Nintendo Selects" rereleases don't get reviewed because it's the exact same game. So when a rerelease is reviewed, many people come to the review expecting to find out what different--comparisons of graphics/difficulty, information that will help them decide which version to get, information on whether or not it's worth getting if they already have the original, etc.
Aside from saying that expansion packs are included, this review doesn't do any of that. I have no idea if you've played the original, but if you haven't, I don't think it is unfair of people to ask why you were assigned to do the review. If the reviewer can't speak to the differences between the versions, then what is the point of doing the review in the first place? It's basically a re-review of the game, rather than a review of the rerelease. Does that make sense?
Please keep in mind that we are the outsiders looking in, and don't know your job/industry as you do. We sometimes make assumptions or say things in ignorance. I hope that what I've said comes across as questioning and constructive criticism, rather than being disrespectful.
@hojonny Thank you!
@carolynmichelle This thread is hilarious. Good work Carolyn, enjoyed the review, seemed like you made a lot of valid points. Such a shame too, the game does look gorgeous.
I hope I'm not making myself look stupid here.
I too want to know why the score is much lower than the other version. But in this case, that would be impossible as it is reviewed by two different person. Obviously you know about "different opinion" (which Gelugon_baat loved so much). Carolyn can't put a comparison between her review with Jane's review, cause that would be silly.
I think Carolyn did a great job reviewing this game as she point out the things that make this game get a score 6.5. Floaty movement, exploitable physics, shallow combat, etc. If people read Carolyn review and thought that IS a bad thing, then her review can be trusted. But if people thought it won't ruin the fun, they can use Jane's review instead.
I may not add a lot with this post and I may missed things of what you''re saying in the previous post. I hope no one get offended as I never meant to.
Long post with bad English, I hope you guys can understand what I'm trying to say.
@cvanroekel @JustPlainLucas Throughout GameSpot's history, in the rare event that a version of a game is released and the person who reviewed prior versions is no longer available, the new reviewer has never been beholden to the previous reviews. They approach the assignment as they would any other. That's what happened here.
"They are two different perspectives on the same game." - Unfortunately, this is the main problem. You are reviewing a different game, the Wii U version. It comes off as biased when only one version of a game gets rated lower when there aren't any major reasons for it. It not only affects the game, it affects people's view of the system.
@carolynmichelle I'm sorry you were put into this position, Carolyn. You know I have nothing but the utmost respect for you. I just don't feel that you should have reviewed the game if your feelings weren't going to coincide with Jane's. The only time a game should have a significant point difference across multiple platforms is when there's something objectively wrong, which is what you are unable to point out, unless you guys want to start a panel of reviewers like the old EGM days (personally, I'd love to see that). I'd have been much happier if you'd have reviewed all the other versions, but what you've essentially done here is rereviewed the game, a practice that GS rarely condones.
@carolynmichelle @JustPlainLucas @Gelugon_baat Wow Lucas, you are not alone. After reading & watching the review and then reading the discussion afterwards, I am equally frustrated. I can understand if they don't agree with you but they are acting like your crazy for even wondering why it is different.
Carolyn - here is your chance - please tell us why the Wii U version is 2 points worse than the other versions. Is it just the voice chat? If you would have rated ALL versions of Trine2 as 6.5, can we get Gamespot to honor your review of those over a non existent reviewer?
@JustPlainLucas "a more ACCURATE review"? What makes the earlier review more "accurate" than my review? They are two different perspectives on the same game. You talk about "putting yourself in the developer's shoes." Our concerns at GameSpot are never (thank goodness) about what the developer will think of our reviews; we are concerned with being honest with our readers. You can feel that consistency is paramount and hold to the idea that, if nobody was available to review this game who liked it as much as Jane, then we shouldn't have reviewed it at all, but that has nothing to do with either of our reviews being more or less "accurate," and whatever that feeling comes from on your end, it shouldn't come from a concern for the feelings of developers.
@Gelugon_baat But that always happens... Unless something is extremely different between two or more versions, all versions get the same score. It didn't happen in this instance, however, because unfortunately for Trine 2's case, the original reviewer is no longer there. A 2.0 difference between versions should indicate there is something significantly inferior with the lower scoring game. That isn't the case here. As I said earlier, they should have grabbed someone who liked Trine 2 more to review it to give the game a more ACCURATE review. Sorry for the flame, but you are really in the wrong here. The fact that you can't see it just makes debating with you that much more annoying. I'm done here. Save your reply. (which you probably won't)
@Gelugon_baat You're dense, you really are. Of course I'd be okay with it. I like consistency. I'm not complaining about the low score of the Wii U version. I'm not even complaining really. I'm just airing my curiosity regarding the discrepancy.
@Gelugon_baat Yes, we'd have consistency.
@Gelugon_baat If they botched the Wii U version, I'd agree with you, but according to Carolyn's review, they didn't do anything differently. Are you incapable of understanding what is going on here?
@Gelugon_baat Put yourself in the developer's shoes. You see a giant publication give your game an 8.5. You then spend time and work to make a quality port for another system, and then see it was given to a reviewer who scored it two points lower and didn't even talk about why it was worse than the other versions. Wouldn't you be upset?
@Gelugon_baat I don't own stock in the game or in the company, true, but when something bothers me, I'll express it. I have a right to ask questions. You may have thought you were clarifying things for me, but you're not the person I want to hear it come from.
@Gelugon_baat Ok, I didn't know Jane no longer worked at GS. They should have found someone who shared her similar views on the game, though. It's like replacing the sports reviewer with someone who doesn't like football to review Madden 14 because the regular guy is out sick.
@Gelugon_baat Yes, because if Carolyn didn't point out any major reasons why the Wii U version was different, then it would be just the same as if Jane Douglas reviewed it herself.
@Gelugon_baat I'm going to assume you're smart enough to know who I'm talking about.
@Gelugon_baat I didn't say they should plaster it under Carolyn's name, did I?