Load times are around 5-10 seconds when it actually does a new level load. There are no noticable loads at checkpoints.
Gears of War - Reviews
- Thread starter Deepblue
- Start date
Load times are around 5-10 seconds when it actually does a new level load. There are no noticable loads at checkpoints.
Yes i agree with that, but seem's western developers are scared of colours, except Rare perhaps
I guess it depends on what games you have in mind. When I think of great looking PS2 games some of the first to mind are games like Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of the Colossus, Resident Evil 4, ICO, and so forth. But there are plenty of counter examples. I think it all has to do with art and direction and that depending on the game it will vary dependant on the graphical theme.
Not sure how this is supposed to work. That way they should have started with giving Pong 0/10. What matters is the relevance of a game at a certain point in time. That's all you'll ever know.
Of course a couple of years later you can go back and say all kinds of stuff about it, but it doesn't matter for a gamer now.
Ranking systems is another thing. 9.6/10?? Have you ever seen a movie or a book review with that kind of stupid maths / science crap?
Font: 5/10
Number of pages: 8/10
Story: 9/10
Overall: 7.3333333 / 10 (Not bad)
We have a long way to go. IMHO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes i agree with that, but seem's western developers are scared of colours, except Rare perhaps
Before playing this in person, I would have agreed.
after playing it I'd say the color palette is perfect (especially changing the video settings to Vibrant).
the online media does not do this game justice by a mile.
Hey it wasn't me!
Shame i'm broke. Really. My HDTV is just sitting there playing SD stuff and it's bored.
That's what worries me the most... There's no way I'm playing this on casual, but from a variety of sources, the next step might be a bigger bite than I can chew...
Ah well, there's always coop (and Rainbow Six: Vegas and THP8)...
The philosophy of game reviews and individual tastes is one of those things I think in general is not well planned out, or explained for the game market by many mags/ezines. But I think it is also human tendancy to want a really quick and easy score, which works well for stuff like a movie, especially if the reviewer has a known criteria and taste, but less well for more involved topics. But then again, it seems to go over many heads that some review sites don't consider a "10/10" or "5/5" perfect without flaw, but only emphasizing it is among the best products, if not best, available and of high quality all around and any shortcomings are absolutely overshadowed by the quality of said product.
That said, when game critics on average give a game a 90% or above it means the game is good, even if flawed. You can fool some of the reviewers all the time, all reviewers get foolwed some of the time, but fooling all reviewers all the time is not really possible. You may not agree with tastes, but looking at the 94% and above (top 29 games) on Gamerankings shows a list of really good games. Are those the 29 best games of all time? Probably not, but all of them, for their time, were great games worthy of high marks. So games may get some inflated scores here and there, but in the end only good games harvest a concensus of really good scores. Of course there are more review sites, and a wide range of tastes, in gamers these days... so many factors. Best to read the summary and see if it is for you... or better yet, just rent it.
That said, when game critics on average give a game a 90% or above it means the game is good, even if flawed. You can fool some of the reviewers all the time, all reviewers get foolwed some of the time, but fooling all reviewers all the time is not really possible. You may not agree with tastes, but looking at the 94% and above (top 29 games) on Gamerankings shows a list of really good games. Are those the 29 best games of all time? Probably not, but all of them, for their time, were great games worthy of high marks. So games may get some inflated scores here and there, but in the end only good games harvest a concensus of really good scores. Of course there are more review sites, and a wide range of tastes, in gamers these days... so many factors. Best to read the summary and see if it is for you... or better yet, just rent it.
Ranking systems is another thing. 9.6/10?? Have you ever seen a movie or a book review with that kind of stupid maths / science crap?
Font: 5/10
Number of pages: 8/10
Story: 9/10
Overall: 7.3333333 / 10 (Not bad)
We have a long way to go. IMHO.
Maybe you havent noticed but all sites except for gamespot operate with an "OVERALL Score NOT an average"
Wrong. Obviously when you say 'all sites except for one'. But that wasn't really my point anyway.
I don't think you can break up a (game) review in 'logical' pieces. It's supposed to be a complete experience.
Good post and I couldn't agree more.
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason for the breakdowns is for a quick summary of each element. e.g.
Consumer 1 -- Only wants final score
Consumer 2 -- Wants quick summary of what they should expect, pro and con, from the basic elements of the game (sound, graphics, longevity, presentation, etc)
Consumer 3 -- Wants long, detailed review covering each element of the game, and the game as a whole, in lengthy detail
Also, some gamers are more interested and/or inclined to different elements of a game. e.g. I could care less about graphics, but I want to know how well the game compares/relates to other games in Longevity and Story. An overall score may only represent the reviewers leanings towards graphics = better, whereas personally longevity = better. (Of course I am a graphics pig, so this is falacious!)
The difficulty is finding a good balanced of "what matters" and putting it into a form that is appealing and usable to a wide range of consumers. Of course ultimately "is it a good experience" is the ultimate question, but that will widely vary not only no the weight placed upon each element of a game by individuals, but by individual taste--which know no bounds in respect to reviewer score. Heck, the bloodlust anti-Sony/MS hate here clearly trickles down to game tastes on these forums at times... there is no reasoning or explaining taste, and not even a final score can convey the "experience" of a title universally. So a final score, expressing an opinion of a person or staff, with individual less(er) subjective scores based on individual elements can be useful. But in the end: Read a couple reviews, and if in doubt, rent.
Thanks
Every time I try to buy a game locally I get more and more annoyed with game retailers. Or, I suppose I should say I get more and more annoyed with the EB Games/Gamestop conglomerate since they're about the only place you can buy a game on launch day in the US. Unless of course you're trying to buy Neverwinter Nights 2 or Gears of War on launch day.
Nowhere in this good city are there any copies of the biggest Xbox 360 game ever. And yeah, last I checked it is launch day (or was). Is this happening to anybody else?
Nowhere in this good city are there any copies of the biggest Xbox 360 game ever. And yeah, last I checked it is launch day (or was). Is this happening to anybody else?
its sold out everywere.
Microsoft did report that the number of pre-orders was allmost as many as Halo 2 had.
Microsoft did report that the number of pre-orders was allmost as many as Halo 2 had.
Well being sold out would be one thing, I would understand that. But the discs haven't even gotten here. They had been expecting them last night but they did not arrive. So pre-purchasers and early risers alike are Gears of Warless in this city of 315k people.
Unless there we're more than 6 million Halo 2 preorders, no.
Of course, but I still don't agree on that.
Anyway, I do like numbers for scores a bit as it makes things like Metacritic possible for quick scans, it's just that I think we have a long way to go in general.
/rant
It has it's uses, but those uses don't extend to the numbers being used as scientific measurements, which is how they're often bandied about. If FIFA scores 43% on Metacritic/GameRankings, and PES scores 92%, it's safe to say PES is a better choice when wanting a footy game. But when FIFA scores 74% and PES scores 85%, you can't fairly say 'PES is the better game so buy that'. That then comes down to preferences. That's the bit people seem to miss. A rating gives a general idea of good<>bad, and then you need to read the review to understand what that reviewer liked/disliked. In some cases a game that scores 90+% might disappoint you (as has happened to me) and a game that's scored a more moderate figure like 70% manages to fit comfortably into your gaming tastes and habits and makes for a rewarding purchase (as has happened to me).
Basically, numerical ratings are to games what FLOPS are to hardware. Some people will say 'platform X has 13 10/10 games, and platform Y has only 7, so clearly platform X is the better console and one you should buy.' Everyone else needs to learn to ignore them and pick the console that has the games they like no matter what the scores are - you shouldn't be ashamed of who you are and what your tastes are! If you enjoy a 34% rated Barbie's Fantasy Malibu Kitchen Creator, you go play it!
Oh, and regards Eurogamer giving 8/10, I don't see that's a bad score. The guy explained his take, and I can see why for him, having played lots of FPSes, he couldn't give GeoW more. If 'more of the same but with top-level production values and the best graphics ever' is something you like, you can take that 8/10 and adjust it for personal preference, knowing you would appreciate the game more. At the end of the day, if a reviewer reviews a game and just doesn't enjoy it, which is a matter of personal preference, they can't give it a higher score. As long as they give a good, insightful review, they're communicating their idea to the public to help them formulate a purchasing decision which is what these reviews are supposed to be about (though it seems most want reviews as ammunition to beat about other console FB's heads - 'Our console's FPS got 9.8/10, and your console's FPS only got 8.7/10, so IN YOUR FACE, MUMMA's BOY!!!!!')
THIS GAME IS FORKING AWESOME. BEST. GRAPHICS. EVER. Here, to prove it I snapped a shot straight off my LCD, me standing over a downed seeder:
http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf0225xp5.jpg
I had truly seen so much media of this game that I didn't really think it possible that it could stun me graphically. Well I was wrong. The seeders alone are mindboggling. It's really basically like playing CG.
Okay it doesn't really prove anything but I just wanted to post it. CliffyB is a games genious. All his talk about basing this game on Band of Brothers, Resident Evil, and Kill Switch rings true now. It is even a bit of a horror game at times. I have never laughed out loud at a quip (Cole: haha, cute how they fall) and the exclaimed wow at the incredible graphics in a game before I bet, let alone in the same five minutes.
HAIL CLIFFYB. And a note from the master contained in the instruction booklet:
http://www.joystiq.com/media/2006/11/gears_cliffyb_note.jpg
________
Web Shows
http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf0225xp5.jpg
I had truly seen so much media of this game that I didn't really think it possible that it could stun me graphically. Well I was wrong. The seeders alone are mindboggling. It's really basically like playing CG.
Okay it doesn't really prove anything but I just wanted to post it. CliffyB is a games genious. All his talk about basing this game on Band of Brothers, Resident Evil, and Kill Switch rings true now. It is even a bit of a horror game at times. I have never laughed out loud at a quip (Cole: haha, cute how they fall) and the exclaimed wow at the incredible graphics in a game before I bet, let alone in the same five minutes.
HAIL CLIFFYB. And a note from the master contained in the instruction booklet:
http://www.joystiq.com/media/2006/11/gears_cliffyb_note.jpg
________
Web Shows
Last edited by a moderator:
How would it be possible to be more groundbreaking in this genre? You cover, sight, shoot... That is what war is...
How you advance (speed, team/armed force size, stealth); where you advance to (location, territory covered, firing advantages like height, cover, range, obstacles); weaponry and sensors (vision type, satellite, radar, laser, sonic, elemental); camera (virtua racer first gave us our four modern day camera types); and Tactical cover (air support, mechanized units, drones) all add up to virtually every combination and type of warfare that can and does exist in the real world or is even logically possible in a fictional setting.
Unless you do a god/general mode (RTS or turnbased "Risk" type) how else can you play a 3D game were the goal is to either clear and area of foes and/or overtake territory?
How you advance (speed, team/armed force size, stealth); where you advance to (location, territory covered, firing advantages like height, cover, range, obstacles); weaponry and sensors (vision type, satellite, radar, laser, sonic, elemental); camera (virtua racer first gave us our four modern day camera types); and Tactical cover (air support, mechanized units, drones) all add up to virtually every combination and type of warfare that can and does exist in the real world or is even logically possible in a fictional setting.
Unless you do a god/general mode (RTS or turnbased "Risk" type) how else can you play a 3D game were the goal is to either clear and area of foes and/or overtake territory?
scooby_dooby
Legend
IMO there's only 3 types of games to care about, there's the 95+, 90+ and 80+. Anything that warranta a 95-100 is basically a classic, 90-95 is extremely good, and anything below that is good but not great.
I like they way games are reviewed, the average ranking almost always matches my own experience, for me anyways. It works well...
Similar threads
