Games(tm) issue 64 review score thread (spoiler: SCORES)

Abooie

Abooie

Abooie

Soldato
Joined
20 Apr 2004
Posts
4,591
Location
Chepstow
After the moderate success of my last scores thread I thought we'd do it again:

Mass Effect ~ 9/10 ~ Brilliant, and this is only the beginning
COD4 ~ 8/10 ~ Fantastically exciting, but not hugely original
GHIII ~ 8/10 ~ Still rocking on
Kane & Lynch: Dead men ~ 6/10 ~ Consistently entertaining until it's final third
Crysis ~ 9/10 ~ Upgrade your PC for this one (PC but I thought I'd add it)
Need for Speed: Pro Street ~ 7/10 ~ The fun remains
The Simpsons game ~ 4/10 ~ Very funny, but not very funny
Assassin's Creed ~ 4/10 ~ Dull, contrived and disappointing
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games ~ 8/10 ~ The best sonic game in ages, Mario's seen better
Scene it ~ 6/10 ~ Solid

An amazingly bad score for Assassins Creed (which I've picked up but not really played yet) but Mass Effect is seeing the love. Sounds about right for Kane & Lynch though I would have though COD4 would have scored a 9.
 
I can't really understand the low score for Assassins Creed, I think it's excellent and it offers animation and graphics not yet seen in games as well as an interesting take on a story and delivery.
Whilst it may be repetative, it's no more so than many other games, so it's disappointing to see such a score.

I was expecting a 10/10 for Mass Effect, but I shouldn't be surprised at a 9 I guess. Can't wait to play that.

CoD4 with an 8 is surprising though, it offers the best multiplayer on the Xbox360 with unrivalled netcode and some simply stunning environments and design. Those are just in MP. I've not really touched single player yet though, but my impressions are that, that is pretty stunning looking and very well directed.
 
Abooie said:
After the moderate success of my last scores thread I thought we'd do it again:

Mass Effect ~ 9/10 ~ Brilliant, and this is only the beginning
COD4 ~ 8/10 ~ Fantastically exciting, but not hugely original
GHIII ~ 8/10 ~ Still rocking on
Kane & Lynch: Dead men ~ 6/10 ~ Consistently entertaining until it's final third
Crysis ~ 9/10 ~ Upgrade your PC for this one (PC but I thought I'd add it)
Need for Speed: Pro Street ~ 7/10 ~ The fun remains
The Simpsons game ~ 4/10 ~ Very funny, but not very funny
Assassin's Creed ~ 4/10 ~ Dull, contrived and disappointing
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games ~ 8/10 ~ The best sonic game in ages, Mario's seen better
Scene it ~ 6/10 ~ Solid

An amazingly bad score for Assassins Creed (which I've picked up but not really played yet) but Mass Effect is seeing the love. Sounds about right for Kane & Lynch though I would have though COD4 would have scored a 9.
Click to expand...

Ironically right in the middle of the review scores is a 7/10 title which will probably outsell all the others :D
Incidentally having not read games magazines for years, are any of these reviews specific to formats (for the multi-platform titles) ?

After 2 hours play I kinda agree with Assassin's Creed score (maybe it should get a 5 or 6 but no higher, graphically it looks good, but gameplay is very samey, unless I'm in for a shock later on.)


rp2000
 
rp2000 said:
Ironically right in the middle of the review scores is a 7/10 title which will probably outsell all the others :D
Incidentally having not read games magazines for years, are any of these reviews specific to formats (for the multi-platform titles) ?

After 2 hours play I kinda agree with Assassin's Creed score (maybe it should get a 5 or 6 but no higher, graphically it looks good, but gameplay is very samey, unless I'm in for a shock later on.)


rp2000
Click to expand...

They only ever review one version of the game though they do say which. It's generally the first version released; AC was the PS3 version as was COD4. They take the stance that a game is a game is a game and differences are really only cosmetic.
 
Abooie said:
They only ever review one version of the game though they do say which. It's generally the first version released; AC was the PS3 version as was COD4. They take the stance that a game is a game is a game and differences are really only cosmetic.
Click to expand...

Sensible stance, I think, (with a couple of obvious exceptions).


rp2000
 
I still think it would be better to point out any differences, cosmetic or otherwise. They are there to inform the reader after all.
 
Mass effect just doesn't grip me. I loved Kotor but I think thats because I'm a star wars nut, more than it being a great RPG. I will play mass effect but I will likely play it sometime over the next year when there is a game drought.
 
I don't understand how AC could get such a low score, I think it's amazing. The level of detail makes it enjoyable (for me) alone. I assume they just rushed through the game to get it finished rather than playing it.
 
The low score for AC is simple. The public, the PAYING public, are now wanting more for their money. Jaw-dropping graphics or not, if the game is monotonous, offers nothing new (someone said it was a souped-up Tomb Raider), then quite right it got scored low.

Proof YET AGAIN that graphics are not everything, and Mass Effect (despite my own personal views on poor graphics) is giving the gamer a hell of a lot more.
 
dannyjo22 said:
Mass effect just doesn't grip me. I loved Kotor but I think thats because I'm a star wars nut, more than it being a great RPG. I will play mass effect but I will likely play it sometime over the next year when there is a game drought.
Click to expand...

This is my one fear, I love Star Wars so the KOTOR games gripped me (played 1 on PC and 2 on xbox). But I have imported it anyway. Not a humongous RPG fan anyway, I guess the fact that KOTOR had a universe I was familiar with made that easier to play. Time will tell (when my bloody import arrives hopefully on Monday).


rp2000
 
~J~ said:
The low score for AC is simple. The public, the PAYING public, are now wanting more for their money. Jaw-dropping graphics or not, if the game is monotonous, offers nothing new (someone said it was a souped-up Tomb Raider), then quite right it got scored low.

Proof YET AGAIN that graphics are not everything, and Mass Effect (despite my own personal views on poor graphics) is giving the gamer a hell of a lot more.
Click to expand...
AC does offer something new though. The free running is revolutionary imo. I've never seen such detailed environments before where you can go anywhere and climb literally anything, and the animation whilst doing it is stunning.

Unfortunately the structure and type of missions is probably outdated by a good 7 or 8 years, which is where a lot of the lower scores are coming from and regardless of whether or not I agree with them, I can't really blame them tbh.
 
wedgie said:
AC does offer something new though. The free running is revolutionary imo. I've never seen such detailed environments before where you can go anywhere and climb literally anything, and the animation whilst doing it is stunning.
Click to expand...
I would say the free roaming is evolutionary more than revolutionary, Crackdown already did the vertical scaling.
I would describe the standard of Animation as revolutionary though as that's definitely a benchmark.

I'm a nut for finding stuff such as COG Tags in Gears of War or Lambda's in Half-Life 2, so finding the flags and viewpoints is a massive positive for me in Assassins Creed.
 
I didn't play Crackdown for more than 5 minutes, maybe I would have a slightly different view if I had given it more time. However, I was mainly talking about the implementation rather than the concept.

I've jumped a few times and though oh ****, I'm a dead, beacuse by all the video game rules I've ever known there would be nothing I would be able to hold on to. In AC, anything that looks like you should be able to grip, you can. The fact that it's all so effortless makes it even more of a joy.
 
I think we have all sufferd at some point by taking a review to heart but at the end of the day it's normally one persons opinion so i try my best not to read too much into them lol
 
I must admit it doesn't bother me in the slightest if a game I like gets lower scores than I would have thought. I'm more like wtf when a game gets considerably higher reviews than I would give it.

Either way, I only take them as a general guide and one of many factors that go into deciding whether or not I'll buy a game.
 
Z][GGY;10554738 said:
I think we have all sufferd at some point by taking a review to heart but at the end of the day it's normally one persons opinion so i try my best not to read too much into them lol
Click to expand...

A publication like Games TM should have an open mind towards a game though.

"Assassin's Creed ~ 4/10 ~ Dull, contrived and disappointing"

That's basically telling readers to not buy it. I'm surprised the editor even allowed it tbh. I haven't read the review but there is too many + points to give it a score under 5. I doubt Ubisoft is going to be happy with this because it's such an unjustified score. Dull... ok well if this is dull then so is Hitman. Contrived, well of course it is. You're not changing the past, you're carrying out a set of events. Disappointing... I guess the reviewer was hoping this was the next Halo.

Now as I write reviews my self I definitely don't write them to please the publisher. In fact one of my reviews didn't pass editing because it bashed a game too much and apparently wouldn't be good for relations. But you have to be open minded and think about a wider audience not just yourself. I don't like Hip Hop, doesn't mean I can say Def Jam is crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom