IGN Motostorm review:
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
RollingBalls
Newcomer
IGN gave Dead or Alive 4 a higher score than Virtua Fighter 5. It sounds par for the course.
Folks,
Stop worrying about the damn scores and read the actual review to see what you might like. Scores are inconsistent as they may reflect opinion relative to what the game was perceived to be versus other games in the genre (which were reviewed relative to what the game was perceived to be versus ...). Throw the scores out the window.
[rant]I always love if reviews quantify games by #levels or #hours you need to run straight to the end. Some games I played endlessly were plattformers you could finish in 2 hours.
Yes, 2 hours aint much, but if its a blast to play through, why dont do it again? Its certainly better than inflated 15 hour games with boring sections that have apparently no other use than to stretch the playtime, and most 10+ hour games have sections I hate - why even think about going back there...
Im sure Motorstorm could have 2 dozend so-so tracks, 80 only visually different cars. But instead they aimed for quality levels, balancing them for all those different types of vehicles and made sure they play well.
Of course it could have less tracks and suck, or could have more and all of them beeing excellent, its that general negativity of comparing numbers that pisses me off. Conversly you have that endlessly shallow and pointlessly random Oblivion getting hailed for being "big".[/rant]
Yes, 2 hours aint much, but if its a blast to play through, why dont do it again? Its certainly better than inflated 15 hour games with boring sections that have apparently no other use than to stretch the playtime, and most 10+ hour games have sections I hate - why even think about going back there...
Im sure Motorstorm could have 2 dozend so-so tracks, 80 only visually different cars. But instead they aimed for quality levels, balancing them for all those different types of vehicles and made sure they play well.
Of course it could have less tracks and suck, or could have more and all of them beeing excellent, its that general negativity of comparing numbers that pisses me off. Conversly you have that endlessly shallow and pointlessly random Oblivion getting hailed for being "big".[/rant]
Interesting about the lasting appeal.
The demo, most people played the hell out of it, and guess what it only had 1 track. So, if you are enjoying 5 of the 8 tracks and playing online. I don't see why the lasting appeal is that big of a deal.
The second thing is options, while it's nice to have more "options" most times people play 2 or 3 gameplay styles which are their favorite.
The reasons for the lower scores in other categories is negligible for me. Though others may say spot on.
Speng.
The demo, most people played the hell out of it, and guess what it only had 1 track. So, if you are enjoying 5 of the 8 tracks and playing online. I don't see why the lasting appeal is that big of a deal.
The second thing is options, while it's nice to have more "options" most times people play 2 or 3 gameplay styles which are their favorite.
The reasons for the lower scores in other categories is negligible for me. Though others may say spot on.
Speng.
It'll be interesting to see how the graphics/physics engine of Motorstorm compare to other racing/driving games.
Game may not have enough tracks or modes but it seems the biggest accomplishment, and possibly the one that they spent the most time on, was to get this engine going using this "difficult to develop for" architecture.
In interviews, the development team members seem to indicate that they believe there's a lot of room for improvement/refinement.
But the game will need to sell well to finance big improvements in sequels? Or would they seek to leverage the engine with minor enhancements and new content (tracks) in sequels?
Game may not have enough tracks or modes but it seems the biggest accomplishment, and possibly the one that they spent the most time on, was to get this engine going using this "difficult to develop for" architecture.
In interviews, the development team members seem to indicate that they believe there's a lot of room for improvement/refinement.
But the game will need to sell well to finance big improvements in sequels? Or would they seek to leverage the engine with minor enhancements and new content (tracks) in sequels?
What?! Don't tell me they're saying Bluray isn't large enough now? I kid, I kid...don't flame me.
.Melchiah.
Regular
So, about the same SSX had, and it didn't make it any less excellent than it was. Quality always overcomes quantity.
NovemberMike
Regular
DOA4 was the first next gen title out. I think all those early games got pretty inflated scores. It wasn't any bias, it was just that everyone that that was great at the time (I think FF7 got good reviews for graphics when it came out...).
It's not a question of bias, but of competance.
I know the VF fans like to bash DoA, but DoA has a faithful following and sells well (read: some people actually like it and buy it so it cannot be all bad in regards to consumer taste and appeal), and has evolved as a fighter. And what it may be lacking against a game like VF it has a big upside: Online play. How a reviewer weighs the game will depend on their sense of taste, style, skill, and how they play. The skill is a big one in that not everyone is an uber skilled/play non-stop fighting fan. They want to pick up and play, and even if they are very good they don't want to funnel hundreds of hours into the game. The difference is one of a totally absorbed fan versus someone who really likes the game. Sim junkies, for example, can rip a game apart and go for a "lesser" all around experience because certain aspects are so vitally important to them that aspects that appeal to the casuals and even more serious games who fall short of sim fanatics place more importance on other aspects.
I think with VF/DoA we are seeing a schism: Exacting gameplay mechanics versus online play. Depending where you come from as a gamer one could absolutely trump the other. And I am sure reviewers have the same issues--which is more important to them?
I am a big online gamer myself and while I understand why VF isn't online I have a hard time dismissing the lost gameplay/longevity gains lost by ignoring online play. Ideally a game would design an exacting fighting model that played well with online limitations.
GameSpot has weighed in:
As much as I like longevity, a great racing/looking game with online play is worth a look. The 7.9 is a low score, but putting aside its flaws the good points do offer hours of high quality fun. A couple extra features, like split screen MP, seem to be the difference in the reviews. Always room for a sequal That no one is complaining about the core experience indicates that a sequal could easily resolve these issues. A great foundation for a new franchise.
As much as I like longevity, a great racing/looking game with online play is worth a look. The 7.9 is a low score, but putting aside its flaws the good points do offer hours of high quality fun. A couple extra features, like split screen MP, seem to be the difference in the reviews. Always room for a sequal
That no one is complaining about the core experience indicates that a sequal could easily resolve these issues. A great foundation for a new franchise.The core experience/gameplay is indeed brilliant. I had the Japanese import and it was even more limited, but I had a tonne of fun with what was there. But when you're reviewing a game, things like game modes and options need to be accounted for.
Not that I think "7.9" is low per se. Somewhere in the 8 range sounds right to me, and that's pretty much there.
There's a couple of other reviews out there now too (GameDaily - 8), GameRankings has a roundup of some others as usual too.
Not that I think "7.9" is low per se. Somewhere in the 8 range sounds right to me, and that's pretty much there.
There's a couple of other reviews out there now too (GameDaily - 8), GameRankings has a roundup of some others as usual too.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I've only played the demo briefly, but it seems like a blast. I'm one of those gamers without a lot of time, so I'm probably going to like this game quite a bit when I get my PS3 in 2009.
well 7.9 (and the 7.5 score by 1up) are low only by the expectations that people had for this game since E3 05. In reality (and by all accounts it does seem to be feature-short) it is a good score.
For example Lost Planet got knocked down a few pegs from my expected (based on screens and demos) 8.8 - 9.2 range due to a crappy SP methodology, but for me the MP alone makes LP a 9 in my book.
so... to each his own and just enjoy MS on its own merits (the graphics and online play alone would do that for me as they do in Lost Planet)
For example Lost Planet got knocked down a few pegs from my expected (based on screens and demos) 8.8 - 9.2 range due to a crappy SP methodology, but for me the MP alone makes LP a 9 in my book.
so... to each his own and just enjoy MS on its own merits (the graphics and online play alone would do that for me
as they do in Lost Planet)Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
Its great that from the current reviews that i've read about the game, that no ones knockin it graphically for not being able to hit the E3 traget render, rather praising it for its amazing visuals :smile:
As to whether KZ will get the same treatment, thats something that remains to be seen
As to whether KZ will get the same treatment, thats something that remains to be seen
Its great that from the current reviews that i've read about the game, that no ones knockin it graphically for not being able to hit the E3 traget render, rather praising it for its amazing visuals :smile:
As to whether KZ will get the same treatment, thats something that remains to be seen
I agree. I'm glad to see a beautiful game get the props it deserves without mad marketing punishing it. Sony brought the problem on themselves and so did anyone who believed either of the two famous pre-PS3 target renders.
The game looks pretty good, but the lack of AA and AF hurt as does the banding in the skies, and some of the ground textures are rather low resolution, especially the mud. Also, the loading is idiotic, the game doesn't seem to be predicting what to load at all, rather just waiting for user input before loading up any vehicles or tracks and then making us users wait for it to slowly load them in. Thankfully, the gameplay rocks, and after a little practice, I dig the Sixaxis steering far more than I've ever expected steering with an analog stick in any game.
Also, I figured sound quality for the music in the demo sucked because they were trying to keep the download small, but it sucks just as bad off the disk. I suppose It might sound better over PCM if the game supports it, but I'm using optical so I'm stuck with Dolby for surroundsound, and at least with that, the music sounded so bad I had to turn it off even though I dig the track selection.
I'm really disappointed with the online setup though. The host can pick the map, the vehicle class selection and the time of day, but can't change any options between races. There is no booting or even muting idiots options either, and no friends list or way to reserve slots of any kind. That said, I am still having blast online just searching for random games and staying a race or three before moving on to find another game.
Also, I figured sound quality for the music in the demo sucked because they were trying to keep the download small, but it sucks just as bad off the disk. I suppose It might sound better over PCM if the game supports it, but I'm using optical so I'm stuck with Dolby for surroundsound, and at least with that, the music sounded so bad I had to turn it off even though I dig the track selection.
I'm really disappointed with the online setup though. The host can pick the map, the vehicle class selection and the time of day, but can't change any options between races. There is no booting or even muting idiots options either, and no friends list or way to reserve slots of any kind. That said, I am still having blast online just searching for random games and staying a race or three before moving on to find another game.
Last edited by a moderator: