ESpark on 28/11/2003 at 17:13
Have to vent -
Quote:
And it's too high, yes.
With all the nonsense I've read recently, this kinda thought takes the cake.
The rating is
too high? Unless you've played the game, you don't have much of a way to say that. Will you be doing it with every review that gives the game a good score?
The hardcore DX fans really want this game to fail for some damned reason, it seems. Next you'll tell me that the thousands of times more people who actually
like the game are somehow wrong...
Renzatic on 28/11/2003 at 18:16
I think what Crion was saying, Spark, was that the score was too high in comparison to what was said in the review.
Uncia on 28/11/2003 at 18:51
Then just perhaps, there is MORE to the game than "AI don't twitch when shot" and "it runs below 60fps"? When DE1 came out, most of these could very easily have been said for it too, if in a different order [a convulted interface (which people now like only because they dislike this one. Sorry, but old one was pants, regardless of feelings about this one), horrible framerates, stupidass AI, useless skills, useless biomods, clumsy biomod handling (power conserve on, power conserve off, power conserve on, power conserve off)], and still people liked it. Well gee.
Udasai on 28/11/2003 at 19:03
*cough* Daikatana *cough*
Renzatic on 28/11/2003 at 19:05
Yeah, I remember checking out the Ion Storm forums back when the original DX was released and things wern't much for its release than they are for DX2. But back then the big bitch wasn't "ISA SOLD US OUT!" but rather "ION STORM CAN'T MAKE A GOOD GAME! DAIKATANA SUKKED N SO DOES THIS!"
So when DX3 comes out we'll probably be faced with the same thing yet again. "DX2 WAS A CLASSIC! ISA SOLD US OUT!"
D'Juhn Keep on 28/11/2003 at 19:38
Quote:
Not originally posted by Uncia <font size=2>
In my opinion.</font>
Gingerbread Man on 28/11/2003 at 20:22
Quote:
Originally posted by Generic Lamespy Reviewing Flunky:Poor combat animations, relatively uninteresting main character with "merely passable" voice acting, "somewhat disappointing" AI, serious performance problems, a handful of crash-to-desktops, long load times due to a bug, disappointingly small scope and short play time, poor immersion in the world, overall not as good as the original?
OMG 4/5!!!!!
I'm with Crion. The reviewer has his head firmly up his bottom.
If I had that many serious beefs with an otherwise good game, I'd be giving it a 3/5 tops.
Muzman on 29/11/2003 at 03:51
It's not that unusual for game reviews though
most reviews for Unreal 2 seemed to conclude with "Looks good but, it's not what we wanted or were promised, there's not much of a story, what there is happens to be contrived and cliched mishmash of quake2 and star trek, the levels are exceedingly linear, the game is very very short, the dialogue and voice acting aren't fabulous, the gameplay is repetetive, the movement controls are squishy and John runs very slow, the AI is nothing to write home about, there's no multiplayer and it has practically nothing to do with the original Unreal we all enjoyed.
8/10"
Fat Thief on 29/11/2003 at 05:02
That gamespy review screams -
I HAVE TO BE NICE TO ION STORM CAUSE THEY GAVE US AN EARLY REVIEW
ESpark on 29/11/2003 at 05:09
Quote:
Originally posted by Renzatic I think what Crion was saying, Spark, was that the score was too high in comparison to what was said in the review.
Good point - but I don't think I'm the only one who has had to review something, enjoy the product, and then find yourself writing far more about what you
didn't like than what you
did.
I hate a great many things about Fallout and Fallout 2. If you asked me to review them, they'd sound like I hated the entire game. Thing is, tho, I love those games, and definately give it a 9/10.
I still think a good portion of the bitching about the review is that it ultimately got a very good score from a game a few hardcore gamers are miffed at.
