Who's getting Godfather Blackhand?

Discussion in 'Games' started by ddrueckhammer, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. ddrueckhammer macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #1
    I thought Godfather Blackhand edition would be just another PS2 port with tacked on Wii controls but IGN just gave it an 8.0 and generally had good things to say about it. That makes it the 5th highest Wii game they've rated behind Zelda, SSX, Elebits, and WarioWare.

    I'll probably rent it first but this is surprising news to me. EA is doing a good job even if it is just ports. Hopefully, they will have a few new IPs on the Wii in the next year or so...

    http://wii.ign.com/articles/773/773509p1.html
     
  2. e²Studios macrumors 68020

    e²Studios

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    #2
    IGN is very biased, its just another port with gimmicky motion add-ons. Plus its EA, which should tell you enough already.

    Ed
     
  3. sam10685 macrumors 68000

    sam10685

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #3
    i thought the exact same thing. just another ps2 port... the graphics in the previews looked like ****... worse than quite a few GC games. i think i'll need to rent this. (btw... i thought SSX Blur would be really really good and it's ok but not that great at all.)
     
  4. Tehy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    Finland
  5. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #5
    Yeah me too. The small video previews on the net make it look better than it does when its full size on your tv screen, and it plays like ..... meh ......

    It's not awful, just utterly utterly average in every regard. 6/10 kind of game.




    Oh and I always thought the godfather games just looked crap on all formats.
     
  6. ddrueckhammer thread starter macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #6
    Really? I find IGN very balanced compared to say Gamespot who way under rates everything that comes to the Wii. IGN also gives good explanations as to why they rate things the way they do.

    Zelda TP 8.9, OoT VC 8.9, SMW VC 8.5, AlttP VC 8.5, SMB VC 8.3 WTF? These classics shouldn't score any lower than they originally did considering they are exactly the same games. He did way over rate Wario Ware though. It is not a 9.1 game no matter what he says.

    IGN has only given a few Wii games decent scores so I don't see how they are biased but whatever...I don't really rely on critics to form an opinion on a game but it is helpful to figure out which ones to rent first.

    In any case, have you played it? How do you know its gimicky? I don't really care that its a ports since like many, I never played the original anyway. And the fact that its EA gives me hope as it could be a really decent game like Madden '07 or SSX Blur. The only gimicky tacked on EA game I have played so far is NFS Carbon.
     
  7. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #7
    I might....it looks decent. From my understanding, its a GTA styled games, which seems like it could be funs on the Wii...we'll see
     
  8. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #8
    You should read GameSpot's reviewing system, a 10 today is worth more than a 10 8 years ago, that means that while OoT was a 10 game by 1998 standards, its an 8.9 game today (according to GameSpot), keep in mind as well that its a re-release.
     
  9. ddrueckhammer thread starter macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #9
    I know but it is still retarded. Basically, they are saying that todays games are better than the classics and confusing the public in the process. Many would argue that God of War 2 is not any better than A Link to the Past but different strokes I guess.

    They kept the VC games on the same scale as modern games. What is wrong with this picture? Wario Ware isn't as good as any of the games I mentioned above and yet it scored higher.
     
  10. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #10
    You have to keep in mind games are reviewed on a basis of what they are supposed to achieve, like a reviewer could give a sudoku game a 8.5 because it is a damn fine sudoku game but another game could score 8.5 but be much better. Another example, a 20$ game can be forgiven for a few of its flaws and still get a high score whereas the same game costing 60$ would not be forgiven and take a hit in its score.

    Scores are relative.

    There is nothing wrong with re-reviewing VC games on a modern-games scale and that is why OoT gets an 8.9, because if I was to play OoT and say other game (say an adventure game like Okami or GoW) for the first time, I'd play and score GoW better EVEN though I might have had more fun with OoT 8 years ago than I had with GoW in 2005 (and I did, GoW wasn't even that great).

    See what I mean?
     
  11. ddrueckhammer thread starter macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #11
    I see what you mean but I don't agree. Classics are classics and they break their own rating system when they score games like Wario Ware that high. For instance they rated World Soccer Winning Eleven 8 International (PS2) higher than OoT on their own system. WTF?

    GoW is a shooter with a facelift and cover system. OoT was revolutionary for its time. Granted, M$ is doing a good job innovating with their online system.

    Basically, it seems that we shouldn't rely on Gamespot for guidance on games at all. Sites like metacritic and gamerankings are by far the most balanced because they try to boil the reviews from all of the critics down. Still it is best to play a game before passing judgement but many don't do this, they just buy the games that get the best scores. Excite Truck was much better than any of the scores reviewer gave it.

    In any case, we could argue this point all day. My original intention for making this post was to point out that Godfather got a much better score from a reputable review source than I would have expected. It could be a biased reviewer, or a fluke but from the text of the review, it sounds like EA surprised them by adding much more playability and content to the game. As I said before, I think EA is doing a good job with the Wii. Ports are fine if they do a good job with them. An original game would be appreciated too but this early in the console's life, that might be a little much to ask. So far, their games have been (for the most part) good quality and that is what is most important.
     
  12. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #12
    But now you are just corroborating what I said, OoT was revolutionary for its time but NOT for THIS time. I agree classics are classics but by today standards, ignoring how much fun they were, how happy they made us and how revolutionary they were to the industry (or even the world), newer games are better and deserve a better score if they are all judged on the same basis.

    Your last statement also brings up another point, game reviewers play all the games released, they are obviously going to be more picky about games than us that we only play like 50 games or so per generation (and thats on a good generation) so playing a game you are interested in before dismissing it just because it got a bad score (or an ok score) is a very wise thing to do.
     
  13. ddrueckhammer thread starter macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #13
    I disagree. Newer games consistently get good scores based on how good their eye candy is, and that is all. God of War is a great game with great eye candy but it essentially is a button masher. (To the GoW fans out there, I really like this game but it is a good example for my point, sorry to single it out). It shouldn't be rated higher than Zelda, Mario, most of the Final Fantasies or many other classic fanchises. Yet it is because it looks prettier. Fire Emblem Path of Radiance on the other hand, was way under rated because it didn't have the presentation or beautiful graphics of other RPGs. Reviewers failed notice that there are very few turn-based strategy RPGs out there that are this good.

    This has already been discussed to death. There is an ever widening rift between new school "hardcore" gamers who value graphics above all else and old school gamers who prefer solid gameplay, stories, etc. Graphics are great but lots of us don't really place much value on them. If I value realism above all else, I can go get a gun and go to the shooting range or play laser tag etc. There is no way IMO that most of the games that Gamespot gave scores better than OoT and Lttp should be rated that high. Irregardless of the system. They are saying that the new games are better. There are a few exception but for the most part they are wrong. This comes from someone with over 20 years of gaming experience.

    Basically, I agree with the IGN rating scheme of rating all the games on the same scale no matter how old they are. If this leads to lower scores for newer games, maybe the developers should be making a new generation of classics instead of pushing out the same garbage with higher resolutions. Anything the PS3 or Xbox 360 can do graphically will be surpassed by a PC anyway.
     
  14. sb58 macrumors 6502a

    sb58

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Location:
    Hades
    #14
    same here. and this one does seem like a port, nothing else.
     
  15. Chone macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #15
    Now you are discussing something completely different, Fire Emblem Path of Radiance is NOT an old game, neither are the new Final Fantasy games nor the new Mario games, if a reviewer favors a game based on its graphical presentation values then thats their problem, that is NOT what I was talking about, I was talking about how the good games of this generation are better than the good games of old, EVEN if the games of old had us having more fun at THAT time than the games of today do now. I know it sounds a little crazy but try to understand me.

    Just because Ocarina of Time entertained you more than Twilight Princess when you first played both games doesn't mean OoT is better because TP is in fact the better game.

    The classics you speak of are that good to you because they have a nostalgic and emotional value, I mean, I still think Vice City is the best GTA simply because it entertained me so much and I had such good moments with that game but I knowfor a fact that technically, San Andreas is a better game.

    If you are familiar with the concept of a "fan" and why a fan becomes a fan (for example: why someone would choose to be the fan of his/her city's team rather than the absolute best) you should understand what I'm trying to say a little better, the human mind is still driven by emotions rather than pure logical thinking. Reviewers try to push away the emotional side almost completely and use logical thinking (ok try to use is a better term), thats why VC games have the scores they have.
     
  16. ddrueckhammer thread starter macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #16
    Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that reviewers rate modern games higher than classic games because they expect modern games to have certain levels of graphical presentation and higher resolutions.

    The example of Fire Emblem was given because it has more in common with classic games than modern games and was rated fairly low for what it is. Even most of the reviewers admit that if it had more FMV, voice acting, and better graphics they would have rated it much higher. I'm not saying they aren't entitled to their opinion but personally I don't think these things make a game good or not. Fire Emblem is superb but many people will never try it because it got low scores because it lacks eye candy.

    I could just as easily exchange Fire Emblem with the classsic Final Fantasy Tactics or Shining Force and they would give those low scores as well because they don't have modern video, sound, graphics etc. It is just silly to say a game isn't good because it lacks those things but they do it all the time.
     
  17. JackAxe macrumors 68000

    JackAxe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2004
    Location:
    In a cup of orange juice.
    #17
    My friend it definitely getting it, so if I like it when I play it at his place, I'll pick it up.

    Visually I really haven't liked any game that looks like this and I've notice that all of the so-called mature games oxymoron have had this kind of styling.

    <]=)
     
  18. pcypert macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Location:
    Bangkok
    #18
    You also have to look at things from the standpoint of someoone who didn't grow up with this or that game. Would the appeal still be there even if they didn't grow up or would they be better off spending time on something new? There are some great games that are revolutionary and should be played by all...but for some this will be like a history lesson as there's little things they're used to now that the old games are missing that.

    For a lot of people graphics are a part of the whole equation. So it's fair for games to get rated for having better graphics. Sound doesn't matter to me as I usually have to turn the system down, but I don't whine if sound drags a score down as I know it makes the experience for some folks. Because graphics don't matter to YOU doesn't mean that shouldn't be in the ratings...because they do matter to some folks. They're not wrong in their ratings. They might be biased towards a certain style but all reviewers are...so you learn their bias and read accordingly. I salute folks that can rate a football game as a football game and a RPG as a RPG. Winning 11 8 was a great Winning 11...if it happens to have a higher score than some Zelda game that's fine because it was a really refined game at the time it was reviewed and there are tons of folks here that still play that game non stop.

    Paul
     
  19. 2nyRiggz macrumors 603

    2nyRiggz

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Location:
    Thank you Jah...I'm so Blessed
    #19
    I'm thinking about getting the godfather for the wii...although a port it looks to be interesting.

    I think those ratings are just right most importantly Zelda TP. I thought gamespot had a soft spot for the wii because love to talk about it and give it praise.



    Bless
     
  20. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #20
    Nope.

    But playing SSX Blur has told me that EA can produce a fun game.
     
  21. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #21
    Thats opinion not fact right there.
     
  22. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #22
    No, Vice City is better because of what they didn't include. Nowhere outside of America does adding more make something better (which is funny as the console GTA's were developed in Scotland). Bigger is not related to better. The whole Virtual Pet aspect of SA really put me off, get health by eating food, but not too much! Distracted from the main game itself. Vice City didn't have needless things like that, or a world map that was simply too big.

    Unless your confusing technical achievement with better. Just take a good long look at some disasters that use modern technology, Rise of the Robots? PS3?
     
  23. paddy macrumors 6502a

    paddy

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    #23
    Agreed Vice City did rock way better than San Andreas.
     
  24. ddrueckhammer thread starter macrumors 65816

    ddrueckhammer

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Location:
    America's Wang
    #24
    8.9 is the lowest score of all the major game ratings sites. His justifications were based on no orchestral music and graphics. Basically, he's a graphics whore.

    I watched the movie 300 this weekend and it reminded me very much of many next gen games. Without all the eyecandy there was very little movie there at all. It was a nice distraction and fun to watch but not something I will go back to over and over again. The games that the graphics whores at Gamespot rate as 8s have far more substance to them than most of the popular modern AAA titles. Thats just my opinion though. You don't have to believe it.

    http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/legendofzeldatwilightprincess
     
  25. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #25
    I like IGN Wii. Matt is pretty cool and seems pretty unbiased (plus he's an Apple fan), and his team isn't so bad.

    I hate the rest of IGN. And I hate all the ads.
     

Share This Page