Lair gets pwnd by EGM [Archive]

Sky Blue

Aug 1, 2007, 12:23 PM

Blue Dragon didn't do too well either, but I don't think too many people rely on EGM scores.

lair: 6.0, 5.5, 5.0
crispin says the combat system is confusing, and the sixaxis controls don't always work the way they should. lock-on system is also jacked.
greg ford says the camera is frustrating in ground combat. the wide open levels hold a lot of potential but ultimately don't deliver
garnett says it's a "frustrating disappointment" with a few bright spots

blue dragon: 6.5, 7.5, 6.5
it has neither strong characters nor gripping storytelling, the battle system is "stellar" but unaccompanied by any sort of interesting plot to hang your hat on. bryan is a bit easier on the story than andrew fitch (who had the lead review), and ray called it "safe."

e²Studios

Aug 1, 2007, 12:24 PM

To quote a wise person

I lost all respect for EGM in 2001 when they gave Halo perfect 10s and put it above MGS2, and then they lost even that shred of credibility they had left when they gave Metroid Prime perfect 10s. BLECH!!

The sad part is that this is what happens with corrupt journalism/Inept journalists.

Wonder if the other reviews will follow the lemming herd or if they will actually give a valid review.

Ed

gloss

Aug 1, 2007, 12:29 PM

The sad part is that this is what happens with corrupt journalism/Inept journalists.

Yeah, opinions suck.

Nothing I've seen for Lair so far has made me think it looks anything other than average, frankly, so I have no trouble believing these reviews. If they're wrong, then good, maybe I'll pick it up. To instantly dismiss their reviews because 'They liked this game more than I did, and they thought that game X was better than game Y (when clearly it isn't, because I don't agree!)' is just ridiculous.

e²Studios

Aug 1, 2007, 12:38 PM

Yeah, opinions suck.

Nothing I've seen for Lair so far has made me think it looks anything other than average, frankly, so I have no trouble believing these reviews. If they're wrong, then good, maybe I'll pick it up. To instantly dismiss their reviews because 'They liked this game more than I did, and they thought that game X was better than game Y (when clearly it isn't, because I don't agree!)' is just ridiculous.

It could be worthy of the 6 they gave it, but i just have little to no faith in EGM's review abilities based on their past reviews. So my dismissing their review is based on their past behavior, which is fair to do considering how ridiculous they have been.

Ed

steamboat26

Aug 1, 2007, 12:42 PM

gloss

Aug 1, 2007, 12:42 PM

It could be worthy of the 6 they gave it, but i just have little to no faith in EGM's review abilities based on their past reviews. So my dismissing their review is based on their past behavior, which is fair to do considering how ridiculous they have been.

Ed

Okay, I do see your point. Fair enough.

I'm also going to wait for more reviews to come in. This just isn't a good foot for them to start out on.

GFLPraxis

Aug 1, 2007, 12:46 PM

To quote a wise person

The sad part is that this is what happens with corrupt journalism/Inept journalists.

Wonder if the other reviews will follow the lemming herd or if they will actually give a valid review.

Ed

Metroid Prime is almost universally hailed as an excellent game; IGN gave it 9.8. I gave it 9.9 in my own review.

Coded-Dude

Aug 1, 2007, 12:49 PM

GamePro gave it a 3.75 out of 5
PLAY gave it a 10 ;)

gloss

Aug 1, 2007, 12:54 PM

GamePro gave it a 3.75 out of 5
PLAY gave it a 10 ;)

Play gave it a 9, if Metacritic is to be believed.

That's still a 7.3 average rating between the three publications. Hardly killer app level.

GFLPraxis

Aug 1, 2007, 12:57 PM

Average ranking of 9.6 between 195 different publications.

http://gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/447244.asp

zero2dash

Aug 1, 2007, 01:33 PM

I thought lair looked pretty good.
Dumb Question- Is heavenly sword an RPG like final fantasy, a figher like Tekken/Virtua Figher, or an adventure/action like Dynasty Warrior? From what i have seen of it, it could fall into any of these categories :confused:

God of War-ish is what I perceive. Lots of combat, some puzzles, maybe some level-up aspects.

Heavenly Sword looks great. May have to get a Ps3 earlier depending on how the final product turns out. ;)

Lair...wasn't really big on anyway.
"Rogue Squadron on dragons" is what I've heard it compared to. Which would be similar to the Panzer Dragoon series before both. Which was a good series in it's own right, but not a system seller IMO (for me at least).

I agree with the Blue Dragon low scores. I hated the demo and thought it was a piss-poor rpg. Which is sad considering this is a Sakaguchi/Uematsu collaboration - the two fathers of the genre.

MacRumorUser

Aug 1, 2007, 01:58 PM

PLAY = Official

As a AAA Sony Game anything less than a 9 from them was 'never' going to happen.

I will wait to see what Edge™ and GAMES™ magazines give it as I generally agree with all their reviews. Both are pretty spot on with their scoring.

2nyRiggz

Aug 1, 2007, 07:29 PM

I rather wait for other reviews...EGM is crap. Two other sites gave it nice nice scores but we will have to wait on this one to see whats it about.

Bless

sikkinixx

Aug 1, 2007, 07:42 PM

Dagless

Aug 1, 2007, 07:57 PM

They were the most perfect games at the time? If OoT was finished in 1998 and simply held until now, it wouldn't fare as well. At the time it was the biggest adventure game, gallons of original ideas and features now standard in the genre.

2nyRiggz

Aug 1, 2007, 09:08 PM

http://blog.us.playstation.com/

look a here...I smell that EGM review got to sony and now they are making the team tweak the game....interesting.

I smell an option to use the sticks to fly being introduced...which is a good thing for the nay sayers...I'm glad it happen....whats left to conplain about after this?

Bless

Dagless

Aug 1, 2007, 10:23 PM

whats left to conplain about after this?

Originality?

sikkinixx

Aug 2, 2007, 01:01 AM

seenew

Aug 2, 2007, 01:47 AM

To quote a wise person

"I lost all respect for EGM in 2001 when they gave Halo perfect 10s and put it above MGS2, and then they lost even that shred of credibility they had left when they gave Metroid Prime perfect 10s. BLECH!!"

The sad part is that this is what happens with corrupt journalism/Inept journalists.

Wonder if the other reviews will follow the lemming herd or if they will actually give a valid review.

Ed

Metroid Prime deserved 10's. If not 10, then something very close to it. Prime 2 is a different story, but Prime 1 was excellent.

Dagless

Aug 2, 2007, 06:44 AM

Metroid Prime deserved 10's. If not 10, then something very close to it. Prime 2 is a different story, but Prime 1 was excellent.

This much is true. But MGS2 a perfect 10? Come on. MGS1 yes, 3 maybe (I wasn't keen but it was very well made.). MGS2 was cancerous just like Prime 2.

Coded-Dude

Aug 2, 2007, 12:15 PM

Originality?
I could say the same thing about EVERY game thats out right now.

mrgreen4242

Aug 2, 2007, 12:49 PM

doesn't surprise me in the least. Lots of the media have been saying it has lots of issues as recently as E3. Flying games aren't my cup of tea any-who so I didn't pre-order, despite the hype the game has (for whatever reason... desperation?)

I think it is insane that games get scores like 9.5+ or 9.9 in the case of Praxis and Metroid. Thats saying the game is 1% away from being PERFECT. How can any game be like that? Or like when OoT got 10/10 from a lot of publications.. I mean it's a great game but by no means perfect.

Based on your qualifications, no game would get a 10 since there's always going to be something that could be improved. If that was the case, then a 9 would be the highest achievable score so why bother having the scale be 1 to 10?

Giving something top marks doesn't mean it's perfect. It simply means that up to this point and in it's genre/type/etc this game is the best there is. So even if Twilight Princess is better than OoT doesn't mean OoT couldn't have got a 10/10. Also, just because Halo gets a 10, and Wind Waker gets an 8 doesn't mean that Halo is a "better" game. It just means that Halo is, up until the time of the review, one of the best FPS games. Wind Waker, since it's being compared to other games, like OoT, is still a great game, but has bigger shoes to fill, so to speak.

zero2dash

Aug 2, 2007, 02:14 PM

This is all up to personal opinion, guys. ;)
I find it hard to believe that any game is perfect, and I think a 10 equating "perfect" is a stretch to say the least.

(Again - for instance)
Reviewers gave Tenchu Z a 4.5 (average).
I'd give it a strong 7 because I like the game and can overlook the flaws because it's still enjoyable IMO.

That being said:

Metroid Prime deserved 10's. If not 10, then something very close to it. Prime 2 is a different story, but Prime 1 was excellent.

I wouldn't give Prime 1 a 10. :p 9 is fair. I really didn't like the game myself. It wasn't terrible by any means, I just didn't like it. I love 2d Metroid, maybe that's my problem. That + the control scheme sucked IMO. If you want to make a FPS, give it FPS controls. Dual sticks - one movement, one aim. I haven't tried Prime 2, I will pick up Prime 3 though.

Dagless

Aug 2, 2007, 02:35 PM

If you want to make a FPS, give it FPS controls. Dual sticks - one movement, one aim. I haven't tried Prime 2, I will pick up Prime 3 though.

Metroid Prime isn't an FPS, in the same way Zelda II isn't Contra.

sikkinixx

Aug 2, 2007, 08:01 PM

*snip*

This is all just a matter of semantics but I've always considered 10/10, 100%, 1/1 1093903/1093903, etc to be perfect, I guess thats just me. 100% means nothing is wrong at all and that is never the case (unless its a calculus test). You are right that scoring against different genres throws the whole thing out the window though. But that doesn't mean the scale shouldn't go up to 10, a game can get a 9.6 or whatever meaning it's damn near perfect but little issues take a down a notch. A professor of mine told me you should never get 100% on a paper because you can always do something better and I believe the same with anything that is subjective. But I suppose thats up to the creator of the scale to decide what a 10 means, awesome or perfection.

*feels like Bill Clinton debating the word 'is'*

zero2dash

Aug 3, 2007, 12:29 AM

Metroid Prime isn't an FPS, in the same way Zelda II isn't Contra.

It's in first person...and you shoot. That is the definition of a first person shooter Jimmi. :D

It does have exploration, sure. So did Half-Life. Bosses? Check. Different weapons? Check. Story? Check.

Prime is an FPS. Prime 2 is an FPS, Prime 3 is an FPS. (Hell, they finally admitted it to themselves with Prime 3 by giving it FPS controls.)

FPS doesn't mean "deathmatch", if that's what you're getting at (or think I'm getting at).

Zelda II and Contra are both side scrollers, but one is an adventure game [with some rpg-ish leveling up] (Zelda II), the other is an action/shooter (Contra).

GFLPraxis

Aug 3, 2007, 02:41 AM

It's in first person...and you shoot. That is the definition of a first person shooter Jimmi. :D

It does have exploration, sure. So did Half-Life. Bosses? Check. Different weapons? Check. Story? Check.

Prime is an FPS. Prime 2 is an FPS, Prime 3 is an FPS. (Hell, they finally admitted it to themselves with Prime 3 by giving it FPS controls.)

FPS doesn't mean "deathmatch", if that's what you're getting at (or think I'm getting at).

Zelda II and Contra are both side scrollers, but one is an adventure game [with some rpg-ish leveling up] (Zelda II), the other is an action/shooter (Contra).

But that is precisely the difference. Metroid Prime is an adventure game with FPS-styled combat on the surface. You don't progress in stages, and your goal is not combat, but rather exploration.

In an FPS one of the assumptions about the genre (I'm assuming we're talking about FPS as a genre, and not FPS as a generic label for anything in the first person view with a gun) is that the goal in the game is to kill. Metroid Prime fits the Adventure genre far, far better than it fits the FPS genre, especially since the entire point in getting new weapons is actually to use them to reach new environments instead of using them to kill people.

Yes, it fits the basic definition of the term FPS, but it does not match up with any other game in the FPS genre. On the other hand, it is very similar to many Adventure games, it just as an FPS face on it.

Just like Kingdom Hearts has a combat engine actually similar to a lot of straight-up button-mashing-brawlers, but it is classified as a Adventure game, not an Action game or a brawler or button-masher.

GFLPraxis

Aug 3, 2007, 02:44 AM

This is all just a matter of semantics but I've always considered 10/10, 100%, 1/1 1093903/1093903, etc to be perfect, I guess thats just me. 100% means nothing is wrong at all and that is never the case (unless its a calculus test). You are right that scoring against different genres throws the whole thing out the window though. But that doesn't mean the scale shouldn't go up to 10, a game can get a 9.6 or whatever meaning it's damn near perfect but little issues take a down a notch. A professor of mine told me you should never get 100% on a paper because you can always do something better and I believe the same with anything that is subjective. But I suppose thats up to the creator of the scale to decide what a 10 means, awesome or perfection.

*feels like Bill Clinton debating the word 'is'*

I consider 10/10 to be when a game is so near to perfection that it is difficult (not impossible) to easily think of improvements and it achieves a classic status, clearly significantly better than any other game in its genre.

If the game is clearly superior to any prior game in its genre, it is worthy of a 10/10.

I would give Zelda: Ocarina of Time a 10/10 for example. Not Majora's Mask or Wind Waker or Twilight Princess though, as they really just built on the existing concept without any radical changes (nothing bars a very high 9 though).

Coded-Dude

Aug 3, 2007, 03:23 AM

In a complete wrong move on EGM's part, 1UP reports that the reviewers over at the magazine have had little notes posted onto their Warhawk reviews stating, in some form or another, that the review "score should be dropped a whole point if the price was announced above $30." Sure, Sony hasn't officially announced a Warhawk price for the downloadable version and that's a little odd, but I've got problem with this bit of news.

An unannounced price shouldn't affect a game's review score by such a significant margin. It's tough to grasp what the point of dropping a review score is because of a game possibly being priced above the rumored price created by the media. Does it make you enjoy it less? Does it make the graphics worse? Does it hinder the framerate? It might dissuade people from buying the downloadable version if it were, say, $50, but if that's the case, the retail version is a great deal. If the downloadable version is $30, that's a budget title and a great deal.

It's a bit difficult to explain, which is exactly why the EGM staff are concerned about how to review the game. I'd like your take on the situation, in that case! Is there a difference between buying a game due to price and buying a game due to quality? Price does affect many people's willingness to buy, but should it necessarily affect the score given to a game by reviewers getting the game for little or no cost?

EGM To Lower Warhawk Review Score Depending on Price....wtf?

Dagless

Aug 3, 2007, 06:38 AM

I must have missed the part where Metroid Prime removed FPS gameplay mechanics like you know, didn't require precise aiming (hence the lack of dual analogue movement), had locking on, no abundant selection of weapons. It's a first person adventure game, think Tomb Raider, that just happens to take place in both first and 3rd person perspectives.
Metroid Prime never relies on strict FPS mechanics... if you hadn't noticed. It's FPA, if you haven't heard of them. Or is Thief also an FPS rofl :D

MGS:Twin Snakes had the ability to jump into the first person and shoot. FPS MGS :rolleyes:
Would you call Castlevania DS games an outright "RPG" just because they have character development and levelling up?
Is Tomb Raider just a 3rd person shooter?
SotC a horse riding simulator?
Is Mario 64 DS defined by it's minigame extras?

The only Metroid game that comes close to using FPS mechanics is Metroid Prime Hunter's multiplayer.

gloss

Aug 3, 2007, 08:37 AM

EGM To Lower Warhawk Review Score Depending on Price....wtf?

Maybe I'm jaded, but that makes sense to me.

2nyRiggz

Aug 3, 2007, 09:55 AM

Maybe I'm jaded, but that makes sense to me.

No it doesn't...lowering the review of the game because of a "rumored" price which has nothing to do with the actual game...no.

If it was like that then game reviewers could start reviewing and deducting points from the game because of its box art and the way the plasic is wrap around the box.....this should not affect the game within.

MP is a first person adventure which is in the same boat as FPS.....the focus is exploration but its basically the same for me.

If a game is rated 10/10 then thats a perfect game...no flaws which is bogus because every game past and present has flaws.

Bless

Coded-Dude

Aug 3, 2007, 11:37 AM

also...if thats the case then every game that eventually drops in price that got a 9 rating is now considered a 10.
That would put a lot of games that got 8 or 9's into the nearly perfect category

(and what about game delays, may as well drop a point for that too)

Dagless

Aug 3, 2007, 11:50 AM

Maybe I'm jaded, but that makes sense to me.

I agree, unless games are free then price comes into it. If I paid less for a good game I'd rate it higher. Not as much as the important things like gameplay, but it'd certainly come into account.

gloss

Aug 3, 2007, 11:52 AM

I agree, unless games are free then price comes into it. If I paid less for a good game I'd rate it higher. Not as much as the important things like gameplay, but it'd certainly come into account.

Exactly. Super Stardust HD at $30? Not so hot. At $8? Awesome.

Price matters. More specifically, price to content matters.

Coded-Dude

Aug 3, 2007, 11:54 AM

then that would give Zelda:TP a pretty low rating, considering all those people who kept getting let down by delay after delay after delay after delay.
(to a 7 or 8)

Dagless

Aug 3, 2007, 12:03 PM

Zelda got a low rating? I thought it was the highest rated game this gen... And what has Zelda got to do with the price of Warhawk, or even for the topic? :D

Haoshiro

Aug 3, 2007, 12:09 PM

Price should not effect a games overall score!

Come on people, prices change. You might pick a game up used, or get a good deal on it.

The review of the game should be a review of the game, plain and simple. Not the marketting, pricing, packaging, support, or anything else.

I wouldn't mind them adding a special score for "Value" that was based on release price at the time, but it should not effect a games overall/total score.

---

As for the scoring a game a "10" debate, I think people will probably never agree on this. Reviews and scores will always be relative to what someone has played and the fun they have - as well as based on what is out for the time.

A game that gets a "Perfect 10" does not have to be 100% flawless, imo.

That sounds like a contradiction, which is what is getting some people frustrated - but it's all perception.

For me, the idea is that:

1) People should take extremely special notice of this game

and

2) It sets a standard for it's genre and has no major flaws

So it might have a few minor flaws or something that could have been tweaked more or slightly improved, but none of it brings the game down - nothing to make you really care if that "issue" is even there.

Besides, a lot of minor things (that aren't actual bugs) are a matter of opinion. Maybe the reviewer thought the UI was perfect in everyway, but you feel differently because you'd like "this" moved here, or "that" added there.

At that point your knock the score just because of your own nit picking tastes that 99% of consumers won't even care about.

zero2dash

Aug 3, 2007, 12:35 PM

But that is precisely the difference. Metroid Prime is an adventure game with FPS-styled combat on the surface. You don't progress in stages, and your goal is not combat, but rather exploration.

In an FPS one of the assumptions about the genre (I'm assuming we're talking about FPS as a genre, and not FPS as a generic label for anything in the first person view with a gun) is that the goal in the game is to kill.

Half-Life had exploration as well. Maybe not as deep or complex as Prime's, but exploration nonetheless. Trying to figure out what was going on at Black Mesa.

I must have missed the part where Metroid Prime removed FPS gameplay mechanics like you know, didn't require precise aiming (hence the lack of dual analogue movement), had locking on, no abundant selection of weapons. It's a first person adventure game, think Tomb Raider, that just happens to take place in both first and 3rd person perspectives.
Metroid Prime never relies on strict FPS mechanics... if you hadn't noticed. It's FPA, if you haven't heard of them.

Just because they decided to remove dual stick movement or added lock on doesn't mean the game couldn't have benefitted from them. That's absurd. It's easier to run around and freely aim with a 2nd stick than it is to move around and hold a trigger down to force-lock on to something. If they wanted to dumb down the game so n00bs and scrubs could play it, they could've had auto aiming but left it as a dual stick game.

As for 3rd person perspectives in the game, give me a break. 99% of the time it's a 1st person game. The only time it switches is when you use the Morph Ball or get into an elevator.

MGS:Twin Snakes had the ability to jump into the first person and shoot. FPS MGS :rolleyes:

Did MGS rely on 1st person or 3rd person the majority of the time? Right, 3rd person. Don't be ridiculous.

Would you call Castlevania DS games an outright "RPG" just because they have character development and levelling up?

No. Did you even bother reading my initial response before going off on your tirade [here and as follows]?

I said Zelda II had rpg-ish leveling up, I never called it an RPG. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Castlevania has always been action/adventure...all of em (even the crappy 3d ones on the N64).

Is Tomb Raider just a 3rd person shooter?
SotC a horse riding simulator?
Is Mario 64 DS defined by it's minigame extras?

No, no, and no.
Please though, feel free to assume otherwise, misread what I said and stick more words in my mouth. It is nearing lunchtime in my neck of the woods and I am quite hungry. :rolleyes:

gloss

Aug 3, 2007, 12:39 PM

Coded-Dude

Aug 3, 2007, 12:52 PM

yes, I agree that there is a difference between a $10 game and a $60 game......but we are not talking about a $50 difference in price! Warhawk is a full blown war game, and the difference in alleged price and final price is probably within $10. That deserves an entire point demerit? GTFOH! How much was Battlefield 2(got a 9 and single player SUCKS!) when first released?

takao

Aug 3, 2007, 12:58 PM

oblivion is controlled in first person most of the time and you can shoot arrows and magic spells
is it now a FPS ?

on topic: was kinda expected and i doubt it's gonna be the last bad rating for lair, after all much of the things which made rouge squadron fun was the great use of the star wars license...

that said i doubt it's gonna be the last game going down in the hype-destroying flames .. after all 360 blue dragon didn't get great scores either from EGM and Edge(6/10) simply because it's too old fashioned JPRG and too much "cliche" stock characters and story
and here some rumours are going around that some magazines are considering even straight 5s for either title

Dagless

Aug 3, 2007, 12:59 PM

Did MGS rely on 1st person or 3rd person the majority of the time? Right, 3rd person. Don't be ridiculous.

Metroid Prime never relies on strict FPS mechanics

Backtracking, no precise aiming, lock on straffing, emphasis on platforming. The gun isn't the primary cause of events in the game, it's secondary to exploration and isn't the motivation. That isn't relying on FPS mechanics. Other than it being in first person and having a gun what puts it alongside a proper FPS?

As I said - is Thief an FPS? Doom, Half Life etc are examples of FPS, Strife is an example of a FPS adventure, Metroid/Thief and friends are FPA.

99% of Prime is in 1st person? Funny - the majority of puzzles are morph ball based...

GFLPraxis

Aug 3, 2007, 01:29 PM

then that would give Zelda:TP a pretty low rating, considering all those people who kept getting let down by delay after delay after delay after delay.
(to a 7 or 8)

Nobody said delays should affect score...where are you getting that from? We said price.

I actually agree that price should be taken into account. Frankly, if I paid $50 for Wii Play and finished it in 30 minutes, I'd be extremely ticked. I really only paid $10 for it. Thus, I'll review it in the context of what I would expect out of a $10 title.

If price is to be ignored, then we should rate all VC games equally, right? So...The Legend of Zelda sucks compared to Ocarina of Time. Since we're ignoring the fact that the NES titles are budget titles while N64 cost more, we should rate them on an even playing field; thus, all NES games should get lower scores than N64 games.

Haoshiro

Aug 3, 2007, 01:30 PM

Considering that the purpose of a review is to tell the reader whether the game is worthy of time and purchase, yes, price should be taken into account. Whether something is a great game at $10 or a great game at $60 is something that I, as a consumer, want to know.

So, if Warhawk is, say, an 8 out of 10 on average, but they feel that it's overpriced at more than $30 because of dearth of content for that price point, it should be worked into the OVERALL score of the game.

But all they have to base that on is MSRP.

Point is, reviews shouldn't need rewritten or scores updated every time there is a price change.

If you roll price into the overall score, then you've made your score POINTLESS. A game could get a 5/10 because it was priced at $150 at launch, but someone could walk into a store and grab it for $5 later. The scores that factored price into overall score become worthless.

That's why, like I said, it would be good for them to use some sort of "Value" score that was separate, this could break down what they think the game is worth, and give it a value rating.

So you could have an overpriced game that scored 9/10 because it was a great game - and a Value score of something like "Poor" because the MSRP at review time was too high. A note of "This game would be excellent value at $30" or something would help anchor that rating.

GFLPraxis

Aug 3, 2007, 01:34 PM

Just because they decided to remove dual stick movement or added lock on doesn't mean the game couldn't have benefitted from them. That's absurd. It's easier to run around and freely aim with a 2nd stick than it is to move around and hold a trigger down to force-lock on to something. If they wanted to dumb down the game so n00bs and scrubs could play it, they could've had auto aiming but left it as a dual stick game.

Actually...I understand the decision. You're thinking from a shooter standpoint. How far did you get in the game?

Once you get the ability to double jump and all kinds of other tricks, you should be able to appreciate the control scheme a little more. They did a really good job of making a first-person game that is a decent platformer. You consistently have to jump around on platforms.

Let's be honest here; how many FPS do you know with good platforming segments? Platforming and FPS usually does not go well together; the platforming segments are usually tedious.

Nintendo came up with a control scheme that would allow for a first person perspective while allowing someone to perform platforming action with only a single joystick. I felt it worked very well for the purpose; that purpose not being combat, but free motion as you jumped through the air or water landing on platforms.

LethalWolfe

Aug 3, 2007, 03:44 PM

GFLPraxis

Aug 3, 2007, 03:49 PM

IMO, price of the game should be mentioned in the conclusion of the review, but it shouldn't be part of the score. Simple one-liners like "This game is a rental" or "wait until you can get it used" conveniently show that the value of the game doesn't warrant paying full price for it.

How good a game is is different then how good of a value a game is. A bad game that costs $10 is still a bad game and a great game that costs $100 is still a great game but most people would probably see the $10 game as being a better value because of the price point even though it's an inferior game.

Lethal

To be honest I don't give score much weight when I read reviews; it's all about the text. And I don't think it should be a make-or-break thing; a 10/10 game is still a 10/10 game regardless of price, and a sucky game still sucks.

But a fun game lacking in content? I can see price having a big effect on the score. If the game only takes an hour to complete, but it only costs $20, one is inclined to overlook the fact that it's short because you didn't invest much in it.

There is something to be said about dollar/hour ratios. A two-hour long game you pay $10 can be compared to a 10-hour game you paid $50 for on the same scoring scale, but if a two-hour long game cost $50 it would probably lose points.

Losing half to a full point based on price is not so unreasonable, depending on the situation. If Nintendo released an NES game on the VC for $15 where all the others are $5, I'd probably dock points if the game wasn't ridiculously good.

LethalWolfe

Aug 3, 2007, 04:22 PM

To be honest I don't give score much weight when I read reviews; it's all about the text. And I don't think it should be a make-or-break thing; a 10/10 game is still a 10/10 game regardless of price, and a sucky game still sucks.

But a fun game lacking in content? I can see price having a big effect on the score. If the game only takes an hour to complete, but it only costs $20, one is inclined to overlook the fact that it's short because you didn't invest much in it.

There is something to be said about dollar/hour ratios. A two-hour long game you pay $10 can be compared to a 10-hour game you paid $50 for on the same scoring scale, but if a two-hour long game cost $50 it would probably lose points.

Losing half to a full point based on price is not so unreasonable, depending on the situation. If Nintendo released an NES game on the VC for $15 where all the others are $5, I'd probably dock points if the game wasn't ridiculously good.

My point is that "A good value" and "A good game" aren't the same thing so a rating/score based on gameplay, graphics, sound, etc., shouldn't take into consideration how much the game costs, IMO. That is a separate consideration. For example, overall All Pro Football 2k8 is an average game and it costs $60 (not a very good value IMO). If it was being sold for $20 it would still be an average game but it would be $40 cheaper and thus a better value. The "quality" of the game stays the same, but the "value" can change based on price.

Lethal

Haoshiro

Aug 3, 2007, 05:15 PM

My point is that "A good value" and "A good game" aren't the same thing so a rating/score based on gameplay, graphics, sound, etc., shouldn't take into consideration how much the game costs, IMO. That is a separate consideration. For example, overall All Pro Football 2k8 is an average game and it costs $60 (not a very good value IMO). If it was being sold for $20 it would still be an average game but it would be $40 cheaper and thus a better value. The "quality" of the game stays the same, but the "value" can change based on price.

Exactly what I was saying.

Coded-Dude

Aug 3, 2007, 05:16 PM

Nobody said delays should affect score...where are you getting that from? We said price.

What I am saying is....if price makes THAT MUCH of an impact on the overall sdcore, then delays should as well.
(especially delays for reason other than technical setbacks)

gloss

Aug 3, 2007, 05:35 PM

Exactly what I was saying.

My point was that a review should take all those things into consideration, not just the game itself. I don't read reviews for recreation, I read reviews to figure out whether the game is a worthwhile purchase. So I have absolutely no problem with value being included in overall scoring.

Haoshiro

Aug 3, 2007, 06:13 PM

My point was that a review should take all those things into consideration, not just the game itself. I don't read reviews for recreation, I read reviews to figure out whether the game is a worthwhile purchase. So I have absolutely no problem with value being included in overall scoring.

And my point is that not everyone reads reviews only before/at the games launch. So if you factor price into a SCORE, you do a disservice to anyone reading the review after a potential price drop.

Many people skim reviews, or just glance at it and check what the verdict is by seeing what the score is. Depending on that score, they may decide not to spend the time reading the review.

I myself have read reviews and looked up scores on games because I saw them on sale somewhere, etc. Or just read them MUCH after the games release.

A good review should cover all the bases, where I can make my OWN decision on value.

LethalWolfe

Aug 3, 2007, 06:30 PM

My point was that a review should take all those things into consideration, not just the game itself. I don't read reviews for recreation, I read reviews to figure out whether the game is a worthwhile purchase. So I have absolutely no problem with value being included in overall scoring.
But can't you deduce the value on your own? If the game gets a good review and is at a price point you are comfortable with it's a good value. If a game gets a good review and it's at a price point you aren't comfortable with it's not as good a value. And unless reviewers constantly go back and revise the score as prices drop then the review of the game becomes inaccurate after only a couple of months as used copies start getting into circulation.

Is Diakatana a better game now than it was when it first came out years ago? No, it's still one of the worst games ever made it's just cheaper now. Cost of purchase has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the game so, IMO, it should not be included in a score based on the quality of the game.

Lethal

sikkinixx

Aug 3, 2007, 06:49 PM

The lead dude, I forget his name, from Factor 5 was on the Full Moon Show podcast and they asked him what he thought about the review for Lair. He said he was obviously disappointed because you always want good reviews but he reasoned that people who are expecting it to play exactly like the Rogue Star Wars games are going to be disappointed because it's quite a bit different in terms of control and gameplay.

I wonder if they will sneak in any fixes or whatever during their 3 week delay?

I'm not really into this game but the dude did add that doing melee attacks or types of moves besides just shooting fireballs over and over and over increase score multipliers which add to more/better medals or trophies in the soon-to-be here Xbox-esc virtual big dick contest. That kind of made me a teeny bit more interested because it gives some incentive to actually get into the game more than just getting through it.

2nyRiggz

Aug 3, 2007, 09:48 PM

I wonder if they will sneak in any fixes or whatever during their 3 week delay?

Of course they will....they will add movement to the stick(hopefully) and tweak the hell out of it. They only got three weeks to get it right or not at all.

and on that big d*ck note: isn't that whats it all about.....the whole online battle, points, learderboards etc...its all about the one holding the biggest virtual pee pee.

Bless

pcypert

Aug 3, 2007, 11:41 PM

There's a photo site I used to go to that covered the price thing nicely I thought. They had people's reviews AND up top had the price they paid for the lens. It fits...folks who paid 800 dollars for a lens were more forgiving than people who bought it at launch for 1200...there's a guitar forum like that.

I got Brain Age virtually for free with some great shopping skills...so I enjoy it a lot more than if I'd dropped 50 bucks on it. Same with Res4...never having to see TP sitting on my shelf and getting the game for a straight trade from Hastings made that even better than it already was :)

Paul

GFLPraxis

Aug 4, 2007, 03:17 AM

But can't you deduce the value on your own? If the game gets a good review and is at a price point you are comfortable with it's a good value. If a game gets a good review and it's at a price point you aren't comfortable with it's not as good a value. And unless reviewers constantly go back and revise the score as prices drop then the review of the game becomes inaccurate after only a couple of months as used copies start getting into circulation.

Is Diakatana a better game now than it was when it first came out years ago? No, it's still one of the worst games ever made it's just cheaper now. Cost of purchase has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the game so, IMO, it should not be included in a score based on the quality of the game.

Lethal

Except for the fact that there are different expectations as far as content and value expected for a budget title vs a premium price point. For a higher price point, you simply expect more content.

It's like comparing two restaurants, where one of the restaurants is extremely expensive compared to the other. If the food in the significantly more expensive restaurant is not noticeably better, I'd expect the far cheaper at the same quality restaurant to come in with higher recommendations.

GFLPraxis

Aug 4, 2007, 03:18 AM

I got Brain Age virtually for free with some great shopping skills...so I enjoy it a lot more than if I'd dropped 50 bucks on it.

Brain Age was actually a budget title; it was $19 from day one.

pcypert

Aug 4, 2007, 05:37 AM

Not the Wii version. Sorry, I'm not exact with the names...Big Brain Academy then.

Paul

sikkinixx

Aug 4, 2007, 01:18 PM

A little off but Warhawk, the big price-vs-score debate is going for $39.99 online and $59.99 w/ headset plus a few other goodies (vids n such).

I think it should have been $30 just so people don't whine BUT having played the beta for hours on end: its worth $40. It's an awesome big do whatever kind of multi-player game with pretty good graphics, great sounds and most importantly it's a hell of a lot of fun.

LethalWolfe

Aug 4, 2007, 05:22 PM

Except for the fact that there are different expectations as far as content and value expected for a budget title vs a premium price point. For a higher price point, you simply expect more content.

It's like comparing two restaurants, where one of the restaurants is extremely expensive compared to the other. If the food in the significantly more expensive restaurant is not noticeably better, I'd expect the far cheaper at the same quality restaurant to come in with higher recommendations.

The restaurant analogy doesn't work very well because of the differences between the two industries makes the review process different. If I want a steak from Chili's I have to go to Chili's to get it and it will cost the same today as it will two months from now. If I want a copy of Forza 2 I can shop around at a variety of stores to find the best price and it will probably cost me more today than it will two months from now. I think movie reviews would be a better analogy.

I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about the value of the game in a review (see my first post), but what I am saying is that if you want to rate/score the value you should do it separately from where you rate/score the quality of the game itself. If you rate a game partially based on it's price are you going to continue to update the rating as the game gets cheaper over time (much like how restaurant reviews are periodically updated)?

We just have a difference of opinion of what we want from reviews. I'm only concerned about the quality of the game because based on that I can determine the value for myself as I see how much buying the game will cost me.

Lethal

GFLPraxis

Aug 4, 2007, 06:30 PM

Totally agree, there are differences in what people expect out of reviews.

When I have a reviewing situation like that, I always make a point of mentioning it in the text. Like my Wii Play review.

Wii Play is a very difficult game to review. In fact, it is so hard to review, that it questions the very nature of how a review works. Do we look at the game objectively, or take into consideration the price? Wii Play costs $49.99, but it includes a Wii Remote, which costs $39.99 on its own. Does that make it a $10 game, and if so, do we give it a better score because we are holding it to a lower standard? What about the people who already have four Wii Remotes and end up buying an extra peripheral?

So, stepping back and looking at the full package once again, we have a game that is extremely short (clocking in at under an hour) and really lacking much content. It has very little replay value, as there are no unlockables or incentives to replay anything. However, the game does provide a great multiplayer experience, and part of a spectacular bundle that results in it only costing $10. It fully meets the goal of being a Wii Remote tech demo to show what it can do.

At $10, it's certainly a budget game, but you could easily get more play time out of a Virtual Console download for the same price or less. Despite the lack of content, I highly recommend this game to anyone who will be thinking of playing multiplayer games and does not have four Wii remotes. If you have no friends, then this game isn't for you; otherwise, it is definitely on my recommended list, simply due to the bundle and multiplayer content.

I think reviewers simply need to mention WHY they scored it as such, and thus, if EGM says "we took 1 point off the score for price" and a reader cares not about the price, they can add a point in their mind.

(For reference, I gave Wii Play a 6.5. I gave it very high scores in most areas like gameplay, because it was fun, but abysmal scores in replay value and graphics, because it took under an hour to finish).

mkaake

Aug 5, 2007, 02:04 AM

MacRumorUser

Aug 5, 2007, 03:00 AM

I think I've decided that the persons who actively participate in this forum have the unique ability to turn anything into a ridiculous argument.

And then go off topic for 5 pages.

Not that I'm helping at all, but it's really pretty comical, always seeing the same characters come out, and fill their normal roles in these little arguments...

:rolleyes:

Do what I do when it happens. I used to try and play amabassador, but now I just run and hide until the white flags are being waved. :o

LethalWolfe

Aug 5, 2007, 03:03 AM

I think I've decided that the persons who actively participate in this forum have the unique ability to turn anything into a ridiculous argument.

And then go off topic for 5 pages.

Not that I'm helping at all, but it's really pretty comical, always seeing the same characters come out, and fill their normal roles in these little arguments...

:rolleyes:

I would just like to say that I don't jump in here very often so I think I deserve separate recognition for making a "guest appearance" as I'm not one of the same old characters thank you very much. ;)

Lethal

GFLPraxis

Aug 5, 2007, 01:02 PM

I think I've decided that the persons who actively participate in this forum have the unique ability to turn anything into a ridiculous argument.

And then go off topic for 5 pages.

Not that I'm helping at all, but it's really pretty comical, always seeing the same characters come out, and fill their normal roles in these little arguments...

:rolleyes:

I find it funny how seriously others take it, though. Most of us enjoy the arguments, and we play games together and chat on AIM just fine (sometimes w/ridiculous arguments for fun).

No reason to play ambassador. Deep down we all love each other, even when we argue :D

sikkinixx

Aug 5, 2007, 01:14 PM

I find it funny how seriously others take it, though. Most of us enjoy the arguments, and we play games together and chat on AIM just fine (sometimes w/ridiculous arguments for fun).

No reason to play ambassador. Deep down we all love each other, even when we argue :D

**** you praxis

just kidding :-)

zero2dash

Aug 6, 2007, 12:16 AM

Do what I do when it happens. I used to try and play amabassador, but now I just run and hide until the white flags are being waved. :o

Yep...
pass me another cold one, MRU...I could use it. :D

GFLPraxis

Aug 6, 2007, 02:18 AM

**** you praxis

I love you too :D

MacRumorUser

Aug 6, 2007, 08:55 AM

Yep...
pass me another cold one, MRU...I could use it. :D

Hey' it's your round you cheap skate. Alway's tryng to get out of it :rolleyes: "But I bought the peanuts" he says ...

:D:):p

2nyRiggz

Aug 6, 2007, 10:22 AM

e²Studios

Aug 6, 2007, 10:54 AM

Ranch chips next time guys!:rolleyes:

Back on topic(I think): Lair is now 14th and HS is the 12th....two heavy hitters back to back....plus warhawk in august. I have no complaints my calendar will be filled with games...this is the suckish part when you own all the consoles..damn.

HS is going to eat away at Lair sales.

Bless

Lair got pushed again. Lair is 9/4 and HS is 9/12 :)

Unless Lair got pushed again this morning to the 14th and I haven't read about it.

Ed

sikkinixx

Aug 6, 2007, 11:53 AM

I love you too :D

some serious man love goin on around here :p;)

since this is about EGM, did ya hear Itagaki slagged Heavenly Sword for being half assed? The button pressing sequence at the beginning, where you push x or -> or whatever to run and jump on the ropes, apparently those are really lame. Never mind the fact that they are in god of war and resident evil 4, two of the most popular games out there, I suppose they are half assed too :P

zero2dash

Aug 6, 2007, 12:06 PM

since this is about EGM, did ya hear Itagaki slagged Heavenly Sword for being half assed?

F Itagaki.
He's a lame ass "I think I'm cool 'cause I act like a rock star and missed my calling" developer.
Half ass? DoA is half assed. A half brained monkey with a stiffy could've come up with a better fighting engine than the one in DoA. Wait a minute...I think a monkey did come up with the fighting engine in DoA. :rolleyes:

The only thing here half assed is the half assed attempt by this moron at ripping off VF but instead of talent and skill, he replaced it with a non-normal cleavage bounce physics engine. He's complaining about button taps? I guess he's never realized how much of a jiggle-filled no talent mash fest that his "beloved fighting game series" has been. While I'm on this kick...nice button taps you've got going on in DoA XVBL, DoA X2, and NG/NG Black also. :rolleyes:

Just because you cater to hormoning teens with your softcore porn doesn't mean you're nothing more than a ripple in the pond of the industry. Can you do any game without tits in it? Even NG has tits. Guess you run out of ideas and don't want people seeing the lack of quality throughout, so you figure "I'll throw some boobies in and people will become distracted and no one will notice my game sucks."

Man I wish this idiot would go away.
Ooh ooh look at me! I make games with titties and drink beers while doing an interview! I'm hardcore!! :rolleyes:

gkarris

Aug 6, 2007, 12:26 PM

Oh, boy, another lame PS3 game to justify your $600 console purchase. Woopdidoo...

I still see *boatloads* at the stores for $499. Sony, what happend to "the price is only good until they run out at the end of July" deal?

Sony, enjoy 3rd place. PS3 owners, enjoy your Blu-ray movies and explaining how bad HD DVD is...

(okay, sorry, have to release the tension building up waiting for tomorrow's Apple announcement)

Dagless

Aug 6, 2007, 01:06 PM

Sony, enjoy 3rd place.

Incidentally, the PS2 was advertised here with the slogan, "welcome to the third place". They probably weren't banking on it coming back to bite them in the arse for the PS3.

PS3 owners, enjoy your Blu-ray movies and explaining how bad HD DVD is...

Try as they might - HD-DVD films are apparently doing better in Europe than BlueRay. Though actual titles are slim pickings for both formats :o

zero2dash

Aug 6, 2007, 01:07 PM

I'm not too interested in Lair, but I guarantee you...Heavenly Sword will sell Ps3 systems.

Dagless

Aug 6, 2007, 01:16 PM

I'm not too interested in Lair, but I guarantee you...Heavenly Sword will sell Ps3 systems.

I can't. I can only see Halo 3, Smash Bros Brawl, Wii Fit, FF-whatever on the PS3 and MGS4 being system sellers. Maybe it's just me but nothing is exciting me with Heavenly Sword or my friends with a pulse on gaming news.

sikkinixx

Aug 6, 2007, 01:18 PM

e²Studios

Aug 6, 2007, 01:25 PM

2nyRiggz

Aug 6, 2007, 01:30 PM

More Crap

Glad to see you are making your best efforts into outting the flames of this PS3/Xbox/Wii thing...good job buddy.

As for the rock star wannabe dude....he's always making smart arse comments....I say whatever to this guy..he's always complaining. Can't he just go cut an album(will suck by the way) and give us all a brake.

As for system sellers....Yeah I see HS/WH as system pusher because from what I've seen/heard and PLAYED those games are killer.

Bless

sikkinixx

Aug 6, 2007, 01:38 PM

gkarris

Aug 6, 2007, 01:43 PM

Glad to see you are making your best efforts into outting the flames of this PS3/Xbox/Wii thing...good job buddy.

Bless

Hey, no problem. (I did apologize afterwards).

This forum's going to be a bit slow anyways after 10am PDT tomorrow.... :p

zero2dash

Aug 6, 2007, 01:50 PM

As for system sellers....Yeah I see HS/WH as system pusher because from what I've seen/heard and PLAYED those games are killer.

Bless

Absolutely.
What is a momentum/sales killer for games?
Poor looks, poor gameplay, poor story.
As far as I'm concerned...Heavenly Sword looks great, the gameplay will most certainly be there, and the story will probably be adequate enough for most people.

The only way HS would not be a system seller is if Microsoft put out a video of something in development that was similar to HS (or God of War), pronto, and showed "hey, we can do it too" but that ain't gonna happen because they don't have anything in development. Granted, I think the 360 is fully capable of running a game like HS, they just aren't and there's nothing in the pipeline for the future AFAIK (dumb move on their part).

Thus - HS = system seller
It is the first true Ps3 killer app IMO.

I'm not dissing on MotorStorm, it looks like a decent racer and I will pick it up [used] when I get a Ps3. But MS isn't a system seller because (quite frankly) racing games never are.

I think if Resistance had come out some time either before or after Gears, it would've been a system seller as well. Launching within close proximity of Gears, however, made it comparison fodder.

-my thoughts (unbiased as always ;))

2nyRiggz

Aug 6, 2007, 02:08 PM

Thus - HS = system seller
It is the first true Ps3 killer app IMO.

Not if Warhawk has anything to say about it;) I think WH will be wearing the crown until HS hit selves....not that I'm doubting the game but it is multiplayer and people will play this thing until the end of time.

HS will come and steal the rights for awhile(what a sweet ride it will be) then its back to warhawk;).....unless team ninja put some goodies in there for us.

Bless

zero2dash

Aug 6, 2007, 02:11 PM

The only problem I see with Warhawk is...isn't it now a download-only? (ie no hard copy pressed discs at retail?)

That will be an issue for some folks who live out in the boonies and don't have broadband. ;)

I also thought HS came out before WH, but thanks for posting your info 'cause now I know that's not the case. :)

2nyRiggz

Aug 6, 2007, 02:15 PM

Nope, it comes in bluray form with a jabra headset for $60 and the PSN version is $39.99.....very sweet if you ask me.

Bless

Dagless

Aug 6, 2007, 02:20 PM

I can't. I can only see Halo 3, Smash Bros Brawl, Wii Fit, FF-whatever on the PS3 and MGS4 being system sellers. Maybe it's just me but nothing is exciting me with Heavenly Sword or my friends with a pulse on gaming news.

add Mass Effect, GT5 Prologue, GT5, Rock Band, Singstar (in Europe anyway), GTA IV, maybe Killzone 2 and your have a more realistic list.

edit: and Mario and Metroid.

Bolded the important bits which you missed.
I just listed the games that have my friends and the folks at uni talking about. Halo 3 will sell an ungodly amount and push countless systems no matter how good the game will be, the rest I listed are ones people are waiting for reviews on.

Out of the folks who have systems and don't care about news (casual gamers?) Halo 3 and Wii Fit are the only ones they're bothered about. And, oddly enough, Blue Dragon!