Jump to content

EDGE 207


Kelthink
 Share

Recommended Posts

FWIW, I've been playing BB on the PC since its official release here, and have been having an absolute blast. AI's pish, but good for getting your head around the game, and online it shines. It's all due to the base game, rather than the implementation, but, well, it's Blood Bowl! Online! With graphics!

I thought the DS version was really good, actually. Must have plunged about ten hours into it so far... Can't see what Edge is getting at unless the PSP version is drastically different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, their review of the game was awful - I mean, it really didn't tell me what was wrong with it (other than the AI being unusually unlucky, which I'm not actually sure is a fair analysis). I haven't played the portable versions, so can't comment, but I know what few reviews there have been of them have been far from glowing (and I'm sure I remember reading awful impressions of them in the BB thread on here), so I was just extrapolating from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, their review of the game was awful - I mean, it really didn't tell me what was wrong with it (other than the AI being unusually unlucky, which I'm not actually sure is a fair analysis). I haven't played the portable versions, so can't comment, but I know what few reviews there have been of them have been far from glowing (and I'm sure I remember reading awful impressions of them in the BB thread on here), so I was just extrapolating from that.

The only problem I found was that you need to play it more like an RPG than a board game...You'll lose most early matches, unless you're lucky, but as you work through a season, you'll upgrade your team and level up individual players until it becomes more manageable. So it would be frustrating in the short term, I guess, but that soon changes as you get stuck in. Maybe they only played a couple of matches...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:(

I getting sick of being force-fed for most of my life about how great the Beatles are, I really wish Lennon had never been shot as they'd be regarded now along the same lines as The Rolling Stones. A good band, but not this mythical ultimate expression of music.

Lennon's death had nothing to do with it. He was shot years after the Beatles split up and had already released some pretty average to dreadful solo stuff (some brilliant stuff as well mind). All the rest of The Beatles solo stuff is a very mixed bag and not even as well know to the public as latter day Rolling Stones or David Bowie abominations.

The only way for them to tarnish the memory of The Beatles as a band would have been to reform and release some crappy 80's album under The Beatles name. Even then, could have been good! They're a great example of a band that worked so much better together than apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about midway through this issue and it's the worst one I've read in...ooh, a long time. The article that ties-in with the (frankly shockingly bad) cover - about WarDevil - is just terrible. The 'developer' (basically the director of a tech demo, or so it appears from the article) hardly mentions anything that could be construed as being the foundation of a proper game (AI, a physics engine, any idea what the bloody thing's about) yet Edge take a bizarre, "It could be the best thing ever, couldn't it? COULDN'T IT?!?" stance. Vapourware.

The issue kicks off with an 'exploration' of how Modern Warfare 2 is pushing back other releases to the new year. Um, yeah, thanks, I have the internet and know this. Yet Edge dedicate 3 pages to the telling. An early article on Natal which is just an expanded feature list spread over two pages. Two pages on some shit called 'Eyepet'? Then another article on the PS3 slim? Really?

The Assassin's Creed II article's passable (overlong, though) and I'm leaving Minter alone as I can't stand him, but yeah the issue's crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beatles deserves better. I'm too young to appreciate the impact the band had back in the day, but I can tell just by the amount of polish and care in...everything... that the game's a real work of love and so much more than your typical mass-produced money-spinning rhythm game.

Just because it's work of love doesn't automatically mean it should be an excellent game :(

Also, there is something wrong with me.

And what the fuck was that War Devil feature talking about?

All I read was VAPOURWARE! NO GAME HERE BUT IT'S AMAZING VAPOURWARE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the oddest thing, actually: to quote them (hopefully a single paragraph won't bring the Future lawyers down here): "The PSP game shows that the concept has potential, but the realtime mode of its PC and 360 cousins is missing and there are too many rough edges and baffling moments to recommend it to anyone who's never played it before". That's the only time they refer to the other versions, and aside from bizarrely seeming to criticise the handheld versions for the lack of the Blitz mode that nobody cares for, it seems to assume knowledge of said versions by the reader. Despite Edge not having reviewed them.

Perhaps a review will be forthcoming with the 360 release (god knows the handheld review is late in coming), but it's still a genuinely puzzling review. Even for one of Edge's half-page reviews, it's stunningly bereft of, well, useful information for readers. I'm not going to quote the rest of it here, but I'd encourage you to look at it, just to show that I'm not being mean here; it's a review which says nothing other than: the game is unfairly kind to the AI, and is too dull in multiplayer because it's turn-based. That's really it.

Edit: it does also mention that the game is unsuitable for BB non-veterans. Which is a fair point (coming from a non-vet who's enjoyed it immensely, but is willing to admit he put in more effort than most would be willing to learn how things worked), but not at all explained: they just stick it in as a closing comment, without explaining how the game, er, doesn't explain itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metroid Prime Trilogy - 8

Without reading the review I know whatever justification they have for this score will be clown-fuckingly stupid, but I'd like to know which flavour of stupid they went with. Too hard/easy? Controls worse? Aged badly? Not enough "new content"?

"The Citizen Kane of on-rails gun games"

That famously derivative, ephemeral piece of merchandise Citizen Kane. Anybody who earnestly uses sentences like this in a review isn't worth reading. Shame Edge persists with not having by-lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reading the review I know whatever justification they have for this score will be clown-fuckingly stupid, but I'd like to know which flavour of stupid they went with. Too hard/easy? Controls worse? Aged badly? Not enough "new content"?

That famously derivative, ephemeral piece of merchandise Citizen Kane. Anybody who earnestly uses sentences like this in a review isn't worth reading. Shame Edge persists with not having by-lines.

Or.............. It's not worth more than an 8?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My god. Trapped between Meh and MK 1610020010203. This is a bad place to be in.

Metroid Prime = Awesome game with shit bits. Originally. Metroid Prime Waggle Addition? = Metroid Prime with shit bits still plus waggle.

8/10 is generous. But y'know I agree. Wii controls make the games better aiming wise but the addition of waggle do seem added on and make it shitter. Standard wii port rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the three games individually got 9, 8 and 7 it's not exactly a surprise. They had the review up on their website if you want to read the justification for it.

http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/review...d-prime-trilogy

So, no justification then. Weird and badly written review too. "Shooter", LOL.

I could understand this score under a typical magazine rating system. But you can't treat your review scores as set in stone for eternity like Edge does, and then mark a game down on re-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no justification then. Weird and badly written review too. "Shooter", LOL.

I could understand this score under a typical magazine rating system. But you can't treat your review scores as set in stone for eternity like Edge does, and then mark a game down on re-issue.

That said you could ask why a re-review was needed anyway. This generation is chock o' block with re-releases of old favourites with obviously some being just virtual console stuff and others including upgrades and improvements. All the same, as an owner of GC versions of prime and echos and the wii version of corruption, the trilogy launch wasn't that appealing to me in the first place. Yes as a game prime is fantastic and yes it got 9 first time round but, really, a score of 8 what 5 or 6 years later still means its very good you know. The 8 to me still really applies solely to prime by the way - I hated echos and found corruption just quite good.

As for the Edge Demon's Souls review I'm going to do a MK-1601 and lodge a mini complaint against a game given a score of 9 :lol:. No issues with the score though - its bang on - but just the number of slick things in the game not at all mentioned in the review. Theres no mention of calling in assistance from other players, no multiplayer mentioned at all really other than the leaving of help messages, no mention of invading other peoples games and the player v player face offs that ensue, no mention of character and world tendancy and how it affects the game and opens up new and different challenges, no mention of weapon upgrades and farming the stuff to do it and no mention of replayability that comes out of all this. Its almost like Edge played through the first couple of levels solo and had their socks sufficiently blown off at that point, saw the game as niche and couldn't afford the game anymore time given that it was only a 'one pager' on the review stakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That famously derivative, ephemeral piece of merchandise Citizen Kane. Anybody who earnestly uses sentences like this in a review isn't worth reading. Shame Edge persists with not having by-lines.

I don't think they were being entirely serious there, the rest of that sentence goes

'... or at the very least the Towering Inferno.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That famously derivative, ephemeral piece of merchandise Citizen Kane. Anybody who earnestly uses sentences like this in a review isn't worth reading. Shame Edge persists with not having by-lines.

"Citizen Kane" is used as a byword for a seminal work in a particular field which defines how later works will be made, in much the same way that Citizen Kane gave film-making a narrative and technical "voice". They don't literally mean "this is as good as Citizen Kane".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't treat your review scores as set in stone for eternity like Edge does

Since when? Edge is quite merrily revisionist about scores, as anyone who actually reads the magazine could tell you. That aside it's hard to argue with giving a compendium of three games previously scoring a 9, an 8, and a 7, an 8/10 score. It's the mean and the median. Should they idly decide that the composite score to be granted a trifecta of games should be the score of the best of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That famously derivative, ephemeral piece of merchandise Citizen Kane. Anybody who earnestly uses sentences like this in a review isn't worth reading. Shame Edge persists with not having by-lines.

Robin: in context it's pretty clear the comparison is being drawn in a supremely tongue-in-cheek way. In fact, even out of context it's pretty clear it's a joke.

(And no, it's not one of mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when? Edge is quite merrily revisionist about scores, as anyone who actually reads the magazine could tell you. That aside it's hard to argue with giving a compendium of three games previously scoring a 9, an 8, and a 7, an 8/10 score. It's the mean and the median. Should they idly decide that the composite score to be granted a trifecta of games should be the score of the best of them?

But the weirdness comes from the way that if Nintendo had just rereleased Metroid Prime on the Wii (like they did in Japan), it probably would have got a 9. Adding extra games to the package brought the score down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when? Edge is quite merrily revisionist about scores, as anyone who actually reads the magazine could tell you. That aside it's hard to argue with giving a compendium of three games previously scoring a 9, an 8, and a 7, an 8/10 score. It's the mean and the median. Should they idly decide that the composite score to be granted a trifecta of games should be the score of the best of them?

What's a trifecta? A quick google suggests it a type of bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.