Enough with the console bias already. Remorse at an underperforming GCN title and mock sympathy for the Japanese Xbox failure is getting ridiculous. Everybody who reads this site regularly has seen it in the story comments a million times. Lets try to keep it off the front page, Simoniker.
A review of a game they gave a 7.5 and the readers gave a 9.1 to.
I will absolutely concede that the spelling mistakes shouldn't be there. Absolutely. But your comment above illustrates another point:
Reviews are subjective
Just because Tycho thinks a game is better than IGN doesn't mean I will agree. The same can be said about the readers. A large disparity in the scores doesn't mean anything.
Head to head comparions that yield the same score on every platform? Really utilizing all those resources aren't they?
You're missing my point. I wasn't referring to the reviews of multiplatform titles, I was referring to the actual head-to-head comparisons they do between those titles. They dissect the differences between GC/XBOX/PS2/PC games to help multi-console owners.
I'm quite serious. What the hell is wrong with IGN? I've paid for membership the last two years and frankly it has been money well spent. This/. topic is filled with people whining and complaining about the site without backing it up.
Forget that they review games. Forget that they have a competent writing staff that shames the competition. Forget that they've been in the game for what...6 years? Forget that they have the resources to do head to head comparisons of multiplatform titles. Forget that they produce quality video features weekly. Forget all that but remember this:
-their film site has fantastic articles, eg. primer on Dario Argento
-their sports site is still in it's infancy, and already has had interviews with Donovan McNabb & Peyton Manning
-their hardware site reviews an incredible number of products, and in my experience the reviews have been spot on.
In fact, the game reviews are also spot on. What the hell is everybody's problem with them? Is it because they cover their site in ads? Is it because they don't limit their reviews to GPL'd games featuring OGG audio compression and BSD versions? Seriously, what is your rational reason for hating on the site? Do you think they're biased? Do you think they take the old payola? I've got news for you...after owning every platform out there and playing hundreds of games, I am completely confident in their objectivity. Naive? No. I just don't see a conspiracy around every corner. Of course they get perks from various publishers...they're a huge portal. But every publisher has had games panned on the site as well.
The point is: Too many ads? Too harsh on the Cube version of your game? Who f*cking cares? Grow up and deal with it. The fact that most of the site is free is shocking, given the disparity between it and other gaming sites.
I realize I'm taking the bait here...but come on!
How in the world is the Microsoft's Xbox gaming division using violence as a crutch? Please. Explain it to me, and don't use any of the following terms: Linux, Licensing, DRM, Open Source, SCO etc. Don't post knee jerk anti-ANYBODY sentiments without backing it up.
Let's take a look at the Xbox titles Microsoft Games have been associated with (taken from their website):
Counter-Strike
NBA Inside Drive 2004
NHL Rivals 2004
Project Gotham Racing 2
Links 2004
Amped 2
Top Spin
Xbox Music Mixer
Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge
Grabbed by the Ghoulies
Voodoo Vince
NFL Fever 2004
Midtown Madness 3
Brute Force
Inside Pitch 2003
Phantasy Star Online
Tao Feng: Fist of the Lotus
Kung Fu Chaos
Shenmue II
NBA Inside Drive 2003
Halo
MechAssault
Sneakers
Whacked!
Blinx: The Time Sweeper
Blood Wake
Quantum Redshift
NFL Fever 2003
RalliSport Challenge
Nightcaster
NBA Inside Drive 2002
Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee
Project Gotham Racing
Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding
Azurik: Rise of Perathia
Fuzion Frenzy
NFL Fever 2002
Counter Strike, Brute Force, Tao Feng, Halo & Blood Wake. 5 violent titles. A whopping 14% of the titles they've released. But wait, there's more!
Blood Wake was developed by Stormfront Studios.
Brute Force was developed by Digital Anvil.
Tao Feng was developed by Studio Gigante.
Halo was developed by Bungie.
Counter Strike was developed by Valve
So where exactly are all the violent games Microsoft Game Studios developed? Really, where are they? FOOTBALL? Next.
Now, as far as the actual article goes it makes some excellent points. I personally feel that regulation of games is a necessity...but turning America into a "dry county" when it comes to particular genres is obviously not desirable.
That said, it'll probably happen. We keep hearing stories like this about theatrical cuts made to films in an effort to avoid a NC17 rating. Where is the outcry over this practice?
I'd say the addition of the "Crib" mode gimmick among others is a definite attempt at targetting EA's customers.
Good point; the previous 2K games didn't have any real rewards for successful play. I stand corrected on this. It's definitely a direct result of competition with EA.
the running game in this year's ESPN is so much more rewarding than Madden's.
I disagree with this. Up until this year I was always happier with 2K's running game. After playing both extensively, I can't stand by that anymore. Madden's running game is simply more representative of the real thing. I will however, concede that the running animations aren't nearly as fluid in Madden.
As far as your comments about the marketing budgets...you're right. EA's franchise is a juggernaut that won't be toppled anytime soon.
Sega hasn't done anything right with VC's games since the DC.
They don't market the games. There's very little advertising for some incredible products.
They don't appear to be targetting EA's customers. Why not? Let them know that the alternatives to NBA Live & Madden are often *superior*!
They're not pushing the online capabilities at all!
EA's games can't go online with X-box Live. Sega's have been able to since last year, so why don't we hear more about it? I'd be surprised to see the 2Kx series last much longer.
Since the series' inception, I've only purchased VC's football games. But they don't seem to be trying for my dollar anymore; I'm not just talking about advertising either. The new football game plays exactly like last year's, but this time your receivers actually hold on to the rock. That's not innovating or refining, that's fixing.
I hate to say it, but this was the first time in 5 years I've bought a Madden game. Even though I can't go online with it, it's still better than VC's offering.
I've held off getting a PS2 for some time now, because there just wasn't anything that I was dying to play. My Dreamcast suited me fine during the PS2's debut, and the GCN and Xbox have kept me busy since then.
Lately however, there have been a few games that really caught my attention. Namely the RPGs, like Dark Cloud and Final Fantasy X. How do these games stack up to games like Morrowind and Kotor? I know the combat systems are obviously different etc., but keep in mind I also really dug both Golden Sun games on the GBA.
So is it worth the investment in a PS2, just for these RPGs? Are there other (possibly better) PS2 RPGs I may have missed?
Why is it that since IGN is BIG, people assume it's corrupt and on the take.
"They don't give bad reviews"
Their last 3 scores from the major systems
Gamecube
Charlie's Angels - 4.0
NCAA Football 2004 - 9.0
Shrek Super Party - 3.8
Sonic Adventure DX Director's Cut - 5.0
Xbox
NCAA Football 2004 - 9.0
Star Wars: KOTOR - 9.5
Outlaw Volleyball - 8.0
Tetris Worlds Online - 4.8
PS2
K-1 World Grand Prix - 8.3
NCAA Football 2004 - 9.1
Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb - 6.6
Ape Escape 2 9.0
I think this speaks for itself. Sure, there are some highly rated games there (NCAA Football is a 9 on each system) but as you can plainly see they have NO FEAR of giving a low review score.
I've been a reader of IGN for years now, and I gladly pay the annual subscription rate. Their writing is generally top notch (compared to the competition), and the reviews impart an honesty I appreciate as a game junkie.
Upon reading this article however, I was surprised at the tone of it. I'm glad it ended up as a/. article, something about it seemed very contrived. I'm an optimist, and I'd like to think that IGN didn't take a payoff for this. If they had, I'd wager they'd have made a much better case for the platform. A more realistic view (imo) is that they're planning on starting a N-Gage channel. From day one, IGN has been extremely negative toward the system, but it's still gained support from a few well-payed-off developers. It's quite possible that IGN has identified the system as a legitimate contender worthy of daily report.
Regardless of the reason, the article is poorly written and comes off as a bit of a showcase piece. I certainly hope IGN doesn't continue this trend.
Slightly offtopic, but since there aren't any posts here...
I recently picked up an inexpensive US Saturn. The only problem is, I don't have any games for it! The local shops only carry the standard sub-par US games.
My question: What games should I be looking to get?
I'm a huge fan of RPGs & slower paced games. They're generally the ones that tend to age better. Are there any Saturn gems out there that I need to pick up?
Sega's original Phantasy Star trilogy is among the most underappreciated in the gaming world.
I played through them all when I was younger, barely defeating the final boss each time. Like others who've posted in this thread, I was completely taken by the storyline and universe presented. By the time the 4th game came around I didn't have the time to play through it, but I've heard it wasn't up to par with the first 3.
Fast forward 6 or 7 years and Sega announced that they were bringing back the franchise! I'm sure a lot of us were ecstatic when we found out that we could go back to the (Algo?) system and adventure with others. Instead, we were given a weak stat-building exercise with few ties to the original universe.
Sega needs to revisit the original design of the series and bring out a fifth game. A single player RPG, with the epic storyline of PS III. A title like that would bankroll quite a few of Smilebit's innovative (and sadly, under-performing) titles for years to come.
Unless you want people flooding Bungie with copies of your ridiculously cocky comments, smarten up.
Yes, we're all very impressed that you work there, but grow up and stop acting like a child.
For the record, several gaming sites still refer to Halo as originally being a Mac exclisive. While I don't doubt that you're correct, try to be a bit more forgiving of people next time.
From the FAQs to the Message Boards, everything you see today for no charge on the site will be free tomorrow. While we may someday introduce new features that require payment, nothing you see today is going to be turned into a premium service.
So what's the big deal? I'd be worried if he was bowing out completely, but he's not. It's a labour of love & there is no indication we'll have to go elsewhere to find our FAQs.
Does any body have data on what kind of effect a price cut this small will have on sales?
I would think that Microsoft would do well to stand their ground at $199. There's a certain appeal of seeing a system that's more expensive than the 3 year old PS2. A $20 price cut makes them look somewhat desperate. Regardless, a price cut this small seems pretty meaningless when you're dealing with something upwards of $175.
I could however, see this working if they did a pack in with an extra controller & a grade A title. Heck, even bundling under-performing titles like Orta & Muto would help out.
Am I the only one disappointed with these "Phantasy Star" games?
I remember getting Phantasy Star 1 for Christmas. I marvelled at the stylized art, became engrossed in the story & fell in love with the PS universe. Phantasy Star 2 & 3 only served to bolster that; alas I was too busy to spend much time with the fourth game.
My point is, where's the Phantasy Star in these games? I played the original on the Dreamcast and was shocked to find very little relating to the original titles. Sega needs to get on a single player Phantasy Star RPG, and quickly.
On a related note-were there ever proper sequels to Shining In The Darkness and Sword Of Vermillion?
Slashdot Mirror
Enough with the console bias already. Remorse at an underperforming GCN title and mock sympathy for the Japanese Xbox failure is getting ridiculous. Everybody who reads this site regularly has seen it in the story comments a million times. Lets try to keep it off the front page, Simoniker.
A review of a game they gave a 7.5 and the readers gave a 9.1 to.
I will absolutely concede that the spelling mistakes shouldn't be there. Absolutely. But your comment above illustrates another point:
Reviews are subjective
Just because Tycho thinks a game is better than IGN doesn't mean I will agree. The same can be said about the readers. A large disparity in the scores doesn't mean anything.
Head to head comparions that yield the same score on every platform? Really utilizing all those resources aren't they?
You're missing my point. I wasn't referring to the reviews of multiplatform titles, I was referring to the actual head-to-head comparisons they do between those titles. They dissect the differences between GC/XBOX/PS2/PC games to help multi-console owners.
I'm quite serious. What the hell is wrong with IGN? I've paid for membership the last two years and frankly it has been money well spent. This /. topic is filled with people whining and complaining about the site without backing it up.
Forget that they review games. Forget that they have a competent writing staff that shames the competition. Forget that they've been in the game for what...6 years? Forget that they have the resources to do head to head comparisons of multiplatform titles. Forget that they produce quality video features weekly. Forget all that but remember this:
-their film site has fantastic articles, eg. primer on Dario Argento
-their sports site is still in it's infancy, and already has had interviews with Donovan McNabb & Peyton Manning
-their hardware site reviews an incredible number of products, and in my experience the reviews have been spot on.
In fact, the game reviews are also spot on. What the hell is everybody's problem with them? Is it because they cover their site in ads? Is it because they don't limit their reviews to GPL'd games featuring OGG audio compression and BSD versions? Seriously, what is your rational reason for hating on the site? Do you think they're biased? Do you think they take the old payola? I've got news for you...after owning every platform out there and playing hundreds of games, I am completely confident in their objectivity. Naive? No. I just don't see a conspiracy around every corner. Of course they get perks from various publishers...they're a huge portal. But every publisher has had games panned on the site as well.
The point is: Too many ads? Too harsh on the Cube version of your game? Who f*cking cares? Grow up and deal with it. The fact that most of the site is free is shocking, given the disparity between it and other gaming sites.
How in the world is the Microsoft's Xbox gaming division using violence as a crutch? Please. Explain it to me, and don't use any of the following terms: Linux, Licensing, DRM, Open Source, SCO etc. Don't post knee jerk anti-ANYBODY sentiments without backing it up.
Let's take a look at the Xbox titles Microsoft Games have been associated with (taken from their website):
- Counter-Strike
- NBA Inside Drive 2004
- NHL Rivals 2004
- Project Gotham Racing 2
- Links 2004
- Amped 2
- Top Spin
- Xbox Music Mixer
- Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge
- Grabbed by the Ghoulies
- Voodoo Vince
- NFL Fever 2004
- Midtown Madness 3
- Brute Force
- Inside Pitch 2003
- Phantasy Star Online
- Tao Feng: Fist of the Lotus
- Kung Fu Chaos
- Shenmue II
- NBA Inside Drive 2003
- Halo
- MechAssault
- Sneakers
- Whacked!
- Blinx: The Time Sweeper
- Blood Wake
- Quantum Redshift
- NFL Fever 2003
- RalliSport Challenge
- Nightcaster
- NBA Inside Drive 2002
- Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee
- Project Gotham Racing
- Amped: Freestyle Snowboarding
- Azurik: Rise of Perathia
- Fuzion Frenzy
- NFL Fever 2002
Counter Strike, Brute Force, Tao Feng, Halo & Blood Wake. 5 violent titles. A whopping 14% of the titles they've released. But wait, there's more!- Blood Wake was developed by Stormfront Studios.
- Brute Force was developed by Digital Anvil.
- Tao Feng was developed by Studio Gigante.
- Halo was developed by Bungie.
- Counter Strike was developed by Valve
So where exactly are all the violent games Microsoft Game Studios developed? Really, where are they? FOOTBALL? Next.Now, as far as the actual article goes it makes some excellent points. I personally feel that regulation of games is a necessity...but turning America into a "dry county" when it comes to particular genres is obviously not desirable.
That said, it'll probably happen. We keep hearing stories like this about theatrical cuts made to films in an effort to avoid a NC17 rating. Where is the outcry over this practice?
Thank the leader I live in Canaduh.
On another interesting note, Jonathan Land (who runs thespamletters.com) is a onetime member of Negativland. The name is just a coincedence.
Perhaps it's for the same reason that US developed consoles aren't popular in Japan:
It's cultural
This is not a troll.
Quite seriously, how in the world is Geocaching a "blast"? Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it basically:
Person A: Hello, I have hidden something in this exact location.
Person B: Hey, Person A was right! They did put something in this exact location. Umm...WHEEEE!
I don't get it.
Are you able to comment on the combat engine?
I'm playing through KOTOR a second time, which is something I never do. The combat engine is easily the best I've ever used in an RPG.
I'd say the addition of the "Crib" mode gimmick among others is a definite attempt at targetting EA's customers.
Good point; the previous 2K games didn't have any real rewards for successful play. I stand corrected on this. It's definitely a direct result of competition with EA.
the running game in this year's ESPN is so much more rewarding than Madden's.
I disagree with this. Up until this year I was always happier with 2K's running game. After playing both extensively, I can't stand by that anymore. Madden's running game is simply more representative of the real thing. I will however, concede that the running animations aren't nearly as fluid in Madden.
As far as your comments about the marketing budgets...you're right. EA's franchise is a juggernaut that won't be toppled anytime soon.
EA's games can't go online with X-box Live. Sega's have been able to since last year, so why don't we hear more about it? I'd be surprised to see the 2Kx series last much longer.
Since the series' inception, I've only purchased VC's football games. But they don't seem to be trying for my dollar anymore; I'm not just talking about advertising either. The new football game plays exactly like last year's, but this time your receivers actually hold on to the rock. That's not innovating or refining, that's fixing.
I hate to say it, but this was the first time in 5 years I've bought a Madden game. Even though I can't go online with it, it's still better than VC's offering.
If I had mod points I'd jack the hell out of your score.
Not only did it feature Wayne from the Wonder Years, but it had the single most memorable (and poorly acted) line of the MPC Revolution:
Want some rye? COURSE YA DO!
I've held off getting a PS2 for some time now, because there just wasn't anything that I was dying to play. My Dreamcast suited me fine during the PS2's debut, and the GCN and Xbox have kept me busy since then.
Lately however, there have been a few games that really caught my attention. Namely the RPGs, like Dark Cloud and Final Fantasy X. How do these games stack up to games like Morrowind and Kotor? I know the combat systems are obviously different etc., but keep in mind I also really dug both Golden Sun games on the GBA.
So is it worth the investment in a PS2, just for these RPGs? Are there other (possibly better) PS2 RPGs I may have missed?
Any help is appreciated!
While I don't want to pay to play individual games (I like the Microsoft model), you make some great suggestions.
If pay to play is the only way, then split it in two: One for leisure play, and one for updated rosters, tourneys and extras.
Why is it that since IGN is BIG, people assume it's corrupt and on the take.
"They don't give bad reviews"
Their last 3 scores from the major systems
Gamecube
Charlie's Angels - 4.0
NCAA Football 2004 - 9.0
Shrek Super Party - 3.8
Sonic Adventure DX Director's Cut - 5.0
Xbox
NCAA Football 2004 - 9.0
Star Wars: KOTOR - 9.5
Outlaw Volleyball - 8.0
Tetris Worlds Online - 4.8
PS2
K-1 World Grand Prix - 8.3
NCAA Football 2004 - 9.1
Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb - 6.6
Ape Escape 2 9.0
I think this speaks for itself. Sure, there are some highly rated games there (NCAA Football is a 9 on each system) but as you can plainly see they have NO FEAR of giving a low review score.
I've been a reader of IGN for years now, and I gladly pay the annual subscription rate. Their writing is generally top notch (compared to the competition), and the reviews impart an honesty I appreciate as a game junkie.
/. article, something about it seemed very contrived. I'm an optimist, and I'd like to think that IGN didn't take a payoff for this. If they had, I'd wager they'd have made a much better case for the platform. A more realistic view (imo) is that they're planning on starting a N-Gage channel. From day one, IGN has been extremely negative toward the system, but it's still gained support from a few well-payed-off developers. It's quite possible that IGN has identified the system as a legitimate contender worthy of daily report.
Upon reading this article however, I was surprised at the tone of it. I'm glad it ended up as a
Regardless of the reason, the article is poorly written and comes off as a bit of a showcase piece. I certainly hope IGN doesn't continue this trend.
Slightly offtopic, but since there aren't any posts here...
I recently picked up an inexpensive US Saturn. The only problem is, I don't have any games for it! The local shops only carry the standard sub-par US games.
My question: What games should I be looking to get?
I'm a huge fan of RPGs & slower paced games. They're generally the ones that tend to age better. Are there any Saturn gems out there that I need to pick up?
Sega's original Phantasy Star trilogy is among the most underappreciated in the gaming world.
I played through them all when I was younger, barely defeating the final boss each time. Like others who've posted in this thread, I was completely taken by the storyline and universe presented. By the time the 4th game came around I didn't have the time to play through it, but I've heard it wasn't up to par with the first 3.
Fast forward 6 or 7 years and Sega announced that they were bringing back the franchise! I'm sure a lot of us were ecstatic when we found out that we could go back to the (Algo?) system and adventure with others. Instead, we were given a weak stat-building exercise with few ties to the original universe.
Sega needs to revisit the original design of the series and bring out a fifth game. A single player RPG, with the epic storyline of PS III. A title like that would bankroll quite a few of Smilebit's innovative (and sadly, under-performing) titles for years to come.
Unless you want people flooding Bungie with copies of your ridiculously cocky comments, smarten up.
Yes, we're all very impressed that you work there, but grow up and stop acting like a child.
For the record, several gaming sites still refer to Halo as originally being a Mac exclisive. While I don't doubt that you're correct, try to be a bit more forgiving of people next time.
Mod parent up!
Nobody ever seems to acknowledge this. The first two (three?) Hudson's Adventure Island games were direct Wonder Boy rip-offs.
I just found this which has a brief comparison of the two.
Does anybody know why there wasn't a lawsuit, or was there?
From the FAQs to the Message Boards, everything you see today for no charge on the site will be free tomorrow. While we may someday introduce new features that require payment, nothing you see today is going to be turned into a premium service.
So what's the big deal? I'd be worried if he was bowing out completely, but he's not. It's a labour of love & there is no indication we'll have to go elsewhere to find our FAQs.
Does any body have data on what kind of effect a price cut this small will have on sales?
I would think that Microsoft would do well to stand their ground at $199. There's a certain appeal of seeing a system that's more expensive than the 3 year old PS2. A $20 price cut makes them look somewhat desperate. Regardless, a price cut this small seems pretty meaningless when you're dealing with something upwards of $175.
I could however, see this working if they did a pack in with an extra controller & a grade A title. Heck, even bundling under-performing titles like Orta & Muto would help out.
You might want to warn people before you post links like that, ya jackass.
What's the appeal?
Granted, I only played the game for a few hours but there was little more substance than found in a hackneyed detective story.
The same can be said about Duke Nukem. Why make a movie?
Am I the only one disappointed with these "Phantasy Star" games?
I remember getting Phantasy Star 1 for Christmas. I marvelled at the stylized art, became engrossed in the story & fell in love with the PS universe. Phantasy Star 2 & 3 only served to bolster that; alas I was too busy to spend much time with the fourth game.
My point is, where's the Phantasy Star in these games? I played the original on the Dreamcast and was shocked to find very little relating to the original titles. Sega needs to get on a single player Phantasy Star RPG, and quickly.
On a related note-were there ever proper sequels to Shining In The Darkness and Sword Of Vermillion?