E133 scores.

[northy]

Well it's £14 for Pacman World 2 and Vs. on DVDBO. Pac-man World 2 doesn't seem all that bad (not that I plan on completing it or anything).

£14 isn't too much to ask surely?

Edit: They are on different discs and have separate manuals, so you could flog it off to another Freeloader owning friend. Though, guess if you own Freeloader you aren't really likely to be wanting to play Pacman World 2.

[esar]

1080 Avalanche (GC) 8/10

This could be a thing that costs me money

I had feared it would be quite rubbish. An 8 in Edge sounds good, though. I'll buy it now, and get the Zelda disc in the process.

You won't be dissapointed, i've played it everyday for about 2 months, I can't get enough.

[emjay2kay]

Well it's £14 for Pacman World 2 and Vs. on DVDBO. Pac-man World 2 doesn't seem all that bad (not that I plan on completing it or anything).

£14 isn't too much to ask surely?

Edit: They are on different discs and have separate manuals, so you could flog it off to another Freeloader owning friend. Though, guess if you own Freeloader you aren't really likely to be wanting to play Pacman World 2.

Ahhh, I didn't know it was that cheap on DVDBO. Cheers.

What's wrong with playing this using a Freeloader by the way? (I have a US GC, but I'm curious now)

Cheers anyway.

[northy]

Well it's £14 for Pacman World 2 and Vs. on DVDBO. Pac-man World 2 doesn't seem all that bad (not that I plan on completing it or anything).

£14 isn't too much to ask surely?

Edit: They are on different discs and have separate manuals, so you could flog it off to another Freeloader owning friend. Though, guess if you own Freeloader you aren't really likely to be wanting to play Pacman World 2.

Ahhh, I didn't know it was that cheap on DVDBO. Cheers.

What's wrong with playing this using a Freeloader by the way? (I have a US GC, but I'm curious now)

Cheers anyway.

I was just suggesting that if you go to the trouble of importing games, then you might be less than likely to be a fan of games such Pacman World etc.

As far as I know it's technically fine on Freeloader, will be playing this 4-player for the first time at work at 12.30...

[squirtle]

Hmm... does anyone know how to get this

Pac Man Vs. (GC/GBA) 7/10

Without having to buy this

R: Racing Evolution (GC vers.) 4/10

?*

After reading NGC's review, I was almost tempted, but really, I just want Pacman VS for as cheap as possible, for the rare occasion when me and my friends have a multiplayer.

*Or Pacman World.

I bought the cube version of R:RE. A score of 4 is way off the mark but strangely I can see why they would give it that. It sells itself as a GT clone yet underneath it's nothing like it with powersliding galore and absolutely loads of game modes to unlock and buy and stuff. It's also very addictive - a real one more go game. People on NTSC are loving it and I can see why. It's a bit of a visual dogs dinner in places but the moment of pressurising the leader around the final corner and watching them spin out so you can nip on past to win is a great racing game moment. Namco would have been better going completely fantasy with the cars rather than using real world ones, though, but I am really enjoying this. I got it for Pacman for our multiplayer larks but have found the R:RE was worth the purchase on it's own.

Oh, and to link to the finish those games thread - I actually traded in a load of games to pick this up at my local import shop so technically I didn't buy it.

[Mr Do 71]

What did they give Mario Kart Double Dash!!?

Edge Rating: Five out of Ten

I bought the cube version of R:RE. A score of 4 is way off the mark but strangely I can see why they would give it that. It sells itself as a GT clone yet underneath it's nothing like it with powersliding galore and absolutely loads of game modes to unlock and buy and stuff. It's also very addictive - a real one more go game. People on NTSC are loving it and I can see why. It's a bit of a visual dogs dinner in places but the moment of pressurising the leader around the final corner and watching them spin out so you can nip on past to win is a great racing game moment. Namco would have been better going completely fantasy with the cars rather than using real world ones, though, but I am really enjoying this. I got it for Pacman for our multiplayer larks but have found the R:RE was worth the purchase on it's own.

I've also played this, and I really enjoyed it as well. I thought the graphics looked very arcadey, the presentation is along top notch. I also really enjoyed the rally sections of the game, and that is saying something. As I'm usually crap at rally games.

Edited January 20, 2004 by Mr Do

[squirtle]

Edge Rating: Five out of Ten

I've also played this, and I really enjoyed it as well. I thought the graphics looked very arcadey, the presentation is along top notch. I also really enjoyed the rally sections of the game, and that is saying something. As I'm usually crap at rally games.

The rally sections remind me of Sega Rally 2 or whatever the latest version is. They also remind of a PS2 game. Very bitty if you know what I mean.

But still, I think it's being missold and people are expecting something it isn't and was never meant to be. And Rena is really quite sexy, but please, love, do your top up now and again or you'll catch your death.

[Project 2501]

I must admit I am very much surprised by the 1080 score, would somebody be able to sum up what Edge had to say about it for me? Cheers.

[emjay2kay]

I was just suggesting that if you go to the trouble of importing games, then you might be less than likely to be a fan of games such Pacman World etc.

Heh, you're not wrong. Platforming Pacman is every bit as wrong as adventure game Bomberman. It's just not on.

[McNeillR]

Donkey Konga (GC) 6/10

This confirms that they are officially dead inside, or are subsidising their income with some XBox shaped cheques.

[Rygal - Reader of Threads]

Donkey Konga (GC) 6/10

This confirms that they are officially dead inside, or are subsidising their income with some XBox shaped cheques.

Criterion's "Horse's" games are for XBox only.

[squirtle]

This confirms that they are officially dead inside, or are subsidising their income with some XBox shaped cheques.

Criterion's "Horse's" games are for XBox only.

Any Live functionality in them?

[emjay2kay]

I bought the cube version of R:RE. A score of 4 is way off the mark but strangely I can see why they would give it that. It sells itself as a GT clone yet underneath it's nothing like it with powersliding galore and absolutely loads of game modes to unlock and buy and stuff. It's also very addictive - a real one more go game. People on NTSC are loving it and I can see why. It's a bit of a visual dogs dinner in places but the moment of pressurising the leader around the final corner and watching them spin out so you can nip on past to win is a great racing game moment. Namco would have been better going completely fantasy with the cars rather than using real world ones, though, but I am really enjoying this. I got it for Pacman for our multiplayer larks but have found the R:RE was worth the purchase on it's own.

The pressure thing is what really intrigued me in NGC's review. It just sounds really good, a nice tough that made me wonder why it had never been implemented before.

When I start buying games again, I'll probably pick it up.

Oh, and to link to the finish those games thread - I actually traded in a load of games to pick this up at my local import shop so technically I didn't buy it.

Ahh, yes. That thread... I'll have a look and see what it is I'm supposed to be finishing. I think Zelda is on my list, which I really fancy going back to all of a sudden.

[breaksmith]

Donkey Konga (GC) 6/10

This confirms that they are officially dead inside, or are subsidising their income with some XBox shaped cheques.

Just out of interest, what do you mean by "dead inside"?

[breaksmith]

Oh and I wouldn't have given R: Racing a four. It was nowhere near as good as a four.

[McNeillR]

This confirms that they are officially dead inside, or are subsidising their income with some XBox shaped cheques.

Just out of interest, what do you mean by "dead inside"?

They just might not be 'embracing the fun'.

Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Donkey Konga...well made games, just not madly complex or with movie style plot lines. All got 6 or less.

Mind, I've not read the review yet.

[Rygal - Reader of Threads]

Any Live functionality in them?

Yes.

[squirtle]

Yes.

So can I expect a co-op fantastic voyage style game through a horse's arse? That would be the bomb! As long as I'm not Donald Pleasance.

[breaksmith]

Just out of interest, what do you mean by "dead inside"?

They just might not be 'embracing the fun'.

Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Donkey Konga...well made games, just not madly complex or with movie style plot lines. All got 6 or less.

Mind, I've not read the review yet.

But you must admit, "fun" is a hugely subjective thing. I don't have "fun" cross country running but there are folk that do. "Oh, join our church group, we have such fun!"

What place is there for "fun" in a review? Hmm?

[squirtle]

Just out of interest, what do you mean by "dead inside"?

They just might not be 'embracing the fun'.

Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Donkey Konga...well made games, just not madly complex or with movie style plot lines. All got 6 or less.

Mind, I've not read the review yet.

But you must admit, "fun" is a hugely subjective thing. I don't have "fun" cross country running but there are folk that do. "Oh, join our church group, we have such fun!"

What place is there for "fun" in a review? Hmm?

Is that a joke or an honest question?

[dam_aks]

Just out of interest, what do you mean by "dead inside"?

They just might not be 'embracing the fun'.

Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Donkey Konga...well made games, just not madly complex or with movie style plot lines. All got 6 or less.

Mind, I've not read the review yet.

But you must admit, "fun" is a hugely subjective thing. I don't have "fun" cross country running but there are folk that do. "Oh, join our church group, we have such fun!"

What place is there for "fun" in a review? Hmm?

Anything in a review is subjective though innit?

Some people think Rez is ugly as sin, others don't.

Nothing can be measured in a way that everyone enjoys it.

Though does not enjoyment = fun?

If a game isn't enjoyable, then its not going to get a high score.

[emjay2kay]

Just out of interest, what do you mean by "dead inside"?

They just might not be 'embracing the fun'.

Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Donkey Konga...well made games, just not madly complex or with movie style plot lines. All got 6 or less.

Mind, I've not read the review yet.

But you must admit, "fun" is a hugely subjective thing. I don't have "fun" cross country running but there are folk that do. "Oh, join our church group, we have such fun!"

What place is there for "fun" in a review? Hmm?

I would have thought "fun" would have been a great part of a review. Reviews are subjective anyway, so why shouldn't the amount of fun the reviewer had with the game be included? You can't state as a fact that the game is fun, but you can easily say "I," "we," or, if you have to, "Edge had great fun with this."

[breaksmith]

But you must admit, "fun" is a hugely subjective thing. I don't have "fun" cross country running but there are folk that do. "Oh, join our church group, we have such fun!"

What place is there for "fun" in a review? Hmm?

Is that a joke or an honest question?

A very honest question.

Fun, although I use it myself, is a word that surely deserves no place in a game reviewers lexicon. Certainly not for the Edge audience. It's hugely, hugely subjective.

Everyone has "shit" games they love. That they find "fun"

It doesn't stop them being shit games, it just means that they touch the right places in you, personaly to give you enjoyment. Reviews muct attempt at all times to be objective, so ar as is possible.

Thie objective argument can easily be bent out of shape - it is striving for the impossible - but "fun" as a concept is far too vague to have any definite, transferable, objective meaning.

[squirtle]

But surely a game that's primary objective is to be fun should be rated on that. Donkey Konga is not trying to do anything apart from be fun to play. And thus how much fun the game offers is what it should be rated on. It is, after all, a party game. You get what I'm saying.

[breaksmith]

But surely a game that's primary objective is to be fun should be rated on that. Donkey Konga is not trying to do anything apart from be fun to play. And thus how much fun the game offers is what it should be rated on. It is, after all, a party game. You get what I'm saying.

No.

It's as fun as you find it. A review should tell you how well the game focuses and delivers the potential to have fun but not how fun the game is per se.

[emjay2kay]

But surely a game that's primary objective is to be fun should be rated on that. Donkey Konga is not trying to do anything apart from be fun to play. And thus how much fun the game offers is what it should be rated on. It is, after all, a party game. You get what I'm saying.

Exactly.

Edge talked about how fun and entertaining Eye Toy was, and marked it according to that. If they hadn't, washing windows and doing virtual kickups with your hands would have scored quite lowly I'd have thought.

Edit: I haven't read the Donkey Konga review, like I said earlier, and I am thoroughly ashamed of myself for arguing over the scores in Edge.

[rgraves]

No.

It's as fun as you find it. A review should tell you how well the game focuses and delivers the potential to have fun but not how fun the game is per se.

Twaddle. IMO, if a reviewer has a lot of fun playing a game he should bloody well say so.

[breaksmith]

IMO, if a reviewer has a lot of fun playing a game he should bloody well say so.

Umm, no, not really.

It depends entirely on why they had that fun. A good reviewer knows that there is a difference between a game they like and a good game.

[rgraves]

Umm, no, not really.

It depends entirely on why they had that fun. A good reviewer knows that there is a difference between a game they like and a good game.

IMO, a good reviewer will give a game he likes a good score, and a game he doesn't a bad one. Simple as. If he had no fun at all playing it, but then gives it a good score as he thinks it's a "good game" I'd say he was all wrong.

[Dom B]

No.

It's as fun as you find it. A review should tell you how well the game focuses and delivers the potential to have fun but not how fun the game is per se.

Hmmm.... it's difficult though, surely, to do that without a review becoming a list of technical features, facts and stats. With pictures.

I mean, on the one hand it's easy to describe GTA3 and have the reader immediately realise that he'll enjoy it. But sometimes don't you need to say "I know this sounds crap, but it's a surprising amount of fun, give it a try." ? How else would you convince your audience that Rez was more than the sum of its parts, or Animal Crossing, or Songstar or something?