Support NeoGAF

[Do The Mario]

But it's not. It may not be the result expected, but it's an 8.1. A "great" game. This is what the score indicates. I'm just sayin', I don't understand why either side has to damage control this or tease. It's a good score no matter how you slice it, no matter what your expectations.

But as i said 8.1 with multiplayer being a weak link (maybe worth less then 8.1 i don't know?), thats what was going to sell lots of people on this game.

 

[Suikoguy]

But it's not. It may not be the result expected, but it's an 8.1. A "great" game. This is what the score indicates. I'm just sayin', I don't understand why either side has to damage control this or tease. It's a good score no matter how you slice it, no matter what your expectations.

Thats on gamespots scale, I think IGN rates more on a school scale, in which 8.1 would be considered slightly above average.

 

[belgurdo]

:lol :lol 8.1 is a bomb now? G

GAF rule of thumb: Anything under a 9 sucks

 

[LakeEarth]

GAF rule of thumb: Everything sucks

Fixed

 

[Khalid-S]

GAF rule of thumb: Anything under a 9 sucks

Thought that was GS's SW's rule.

 

[Gahiggidy]

GAF rule of thumb: Anything under a 9 is trollable

Fixed it for you.

 

[GaimeGuy]

But it's not. It may not be the result expected, but it's an 8.1. A "great" game. This is what the score indicates. I'm just sayin', I don't understand why either side has to damage control this or tease. It's a good score no matter how you slice it, no matter what your expectations.

I look at it as 6% better than average. *runs*

 

[Ruas]

8.1 is a good score

 

[Wafflecopter]

:lol

I am surprised you haven't come back to SW.

 

[Wafflecopter]

This was extremely hyped at Xbox fan sites. i can't wait to see GS SW explode with Xbot damage control.

 

[Kseutron]

"told u so... now u can suck those tiny yellow balls"

 

[Speevy]

This game is such eye candy that you'd be doing a disservice to yourself by not playing it. Of course, waiting for a price drop or renting it might just suffice.

 

[Timen]

the 8.1 seems good for this game, yes the graphics are stunning but the within the first ten minutes of gameplay i got annoyed by both the camera and the stupid enemies you have to hit for about 5 times before they die. the game is loaded with little jokes and some of them are actually funny (most of them just cruel). But it just doesn't is as good gameplay wise as i have hoped it to be.

 

[Ramirez]

One of my favorite platformers ever back when it was released on the 64,but I think I'll wait for this version to drop in price...

 

[Borys]

GAF rule of thumb: Anything by Rare for Xbox sucks

Fixed.

 

[etiolate]

I actually liked the mutliplayer on n64. All the War ones were great. The beach with missiles and guns and samurai swords = hott.

 

[fse]

I'll buy the game when it's ~$19. I already played the n64 version.

 

[Gorgie]

I'm probably going to just rent this for the single player. I liked the N64 version, and I'm disappointed the game to so long, with really, no worthwhile additions to explain the time taken. Also, in the demo, the Tediz did not look like Teddy Bears anymore, and did not bleed stuffing! I'm almost scared to play and find out what more of the art they screwed up.

 

[sammy]

....damn, I've been worried about the multiplayer since it was announce ---- it just didn't seem as interesting and unique as the N64 multiplayer (multiplayer normandy mission rules!!) ....

I read through the whole review.. but I'm drunk so I'm sure I've missed something...

anyways I'll be picking this up at launch.. so ... whatever that means.... I'll be online bithces ( my tag is: +1chromosome )

 

[Daigoro]

 

[Any1]

If anyone reads my past posts then they can tell that i tend to be a little bit of an Xbox fanboy. But MS is starting to make me nervous and I am starting to dislike the direction MS has been pushing the Xbox brand as of late. And that direction tends to be toward live play. Basically MS had Rare spend 3 years on multiplayer and all but ignored the single player experience aside from graphics.

Now don't get me wrong, i think MP is awesome but i just keep getting the impression that MS's ultimate goal is to have multi-player become the most important gameplay experience for the majority of 360 games. And as much as i love "live" enabled gameplay, i still get most of my gaming enjoyment from the single player experience. But since i don't want to come off like most other assholes that complain about shit, i'll admit that just because i enjoy sp the most doesn't mean that everyone else does or should. But i would like to know if i'm the only person that seems to be getting that impression from MS.

though i've never played the original, i would have preferred Rare to focus most of their energy on bringing even more single player content as well as refining and perfecting the gameplay that was already there.

And i have to add that it is kind of scary to think that after all these years with Rare focusing most of their attention to the mp and it turned out the way it did (according to ign). With as much time that was put into the mp, i really expected so much more. But then again, this is only one review, so i'm hoping that ign's review will be the exception and not the rule.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

i don't really get that impression Any1. it is true that MS is pushing Live! play (obviously), but i don't think it is at the sacrafice of the single player experience. take a look at what capcom did with resident evil remake on gamecube. it was an awesome game, not because they changed the story a lot or made tons of changes, but because the upgrade in graphics really allowed them to realize some of the scenes and situations that technology wouldn't allow when RE came out in 1996. same for conker. i think the graphics are pretty close to the top of this generation (on any system). time will tell if the MP sucks balls or not, but it should be a pretty good game either way

 

[jett]

Its sad.

I LOVED the orignal Conker 64. In the TOP 3 games I played on N64. Looked forward to a GCN sequel and when I first saw the brillantly animated "Celda" I KNEW Conker would be perfect for that engine. Only traditional animation can free up the gamemakers from the constraints of laws of physics (i.e. Reality). Some seriously whacked out fun gameplay could've been made in that style. Also, a truely cartoony looking Conker game would've taken the satiracal concept to new heights. Imagine putting Conker in the scenarios of classic cartoons like Speed Racer, the Smurfs, Transformers, Care Bears, He-Man, etc., etc. Great satire potential there.

That never happened.

Holy fucking shit, Gahiggidy plays ACTUAL GAMES!?


Anyway...

I really liked the original Conker too, loved the spoofs gimmick. And you got a great idea there, with the cartoon spoofing.

 

[Red Scarlet]

.... I don't think there's any game before this that has received a remake within its first 5 years. :lol

Chrono Trigger came out in 1995 (SFAM), and the remake for it came out in 1999.

 

[jett]

There's a huge fucking difference between a remake and a port.

 

[Red Scarlet]

Eh, they added stuff to it, not a straight port in my book.

 

[Suikoguy]

Eh, they added stuff to it, not a straight port.

The game was like 5% different + FMV

 

[Red Scarlet]

Yeah, that's not a port to me.

 

[Cold-Steel]

I'm still buying this.

I thought that Conker on 64 was the best platformer since Mario 64.

In fact, I thought it was better.

 

[fortified_concept]

GAF rule of thumb: Anything under a 9 reviewed by XboxIGN sucks

Fixed and I actually agree with this policy.

 

[demi]

I can't wait to play the Matrix scene in FULL XBOX GLORY

 

[M3wThr33]

8.1 is a good score

Not when 4 years is spent on it when the single-player content already existed.
It took them 4 years to update the graphics and add online play.

That's like 2 points a year.

 

[Mama Smurf]

Looking at some of the games they rate higher than it, it's no surprise some people see this as a bad score.

You know, it's games and reviews like these that always make me wonder: if the game had only been the single player element, would it have scored higher? Seems like it would have from what's been said, but all that would be is the same game with less content. Sure, the multiplayer may not be that good, but it doesn't detract from the singleplayer.

I don't think there really is a solution, except for reviewing both parts of the game separately.

 

[sly]

8.1 isn't a bad score at all, but most of you defending the score would probably go nuts if Halo 3 or GTA: Ruska got the same score.

 

[Shompola]

I predict a 8.6 from GS.

 

[Elios83]

Not a bad score but surely disappoiting for a game which should have been one of the lastest killer applications for the original Xbox.
If the score is confirmed by other magazines/websites I'd start to question Rare's ability to make an AAA title anymore.

 

[Shiggy]

Not when 4 years is spent on it when the single-player content already existed.
It took them 4 years to update the graphics and add online play.

That's like 2 points a year.

To be fair: They only worked 3 years on it :lol

8.0 from GS.

 

[Ryudo]

Not a bad score but surely disappoiting for a game which should have been one of the lastest killer applications for the original Xbox.
If the score is confirmed by other magazines/websites I'd start to question Rare's ability to make an AAA title anymore.

Start to question ? They definately dont have it anymore. How hard could it have been to make conker multiplayer good and add some magic to the already magic SP ?

 

[Solid]

this will hopefully be in play.com's sale out category quick after release. £15 and i'm there.

and btw 8.1 is not a good score at ign.

 

[Deg]

Yeah remember Blinx?

 

[sol5377]

this game will average about 85% on gamerankings, imo. Certainly not bad.

 

[Excelion]

to the already magic SP

i have to question nintendo fans taste in gaming. Conker is a bore to play and not funny at all. The game looks absolutly fantastic, Rare should become a production studio for Microsoft, there are a lot of talented game designers in Europe.

 

[Fowler]

Well, fine, 8.1 is a good score. But the text of the review doesn't seem to imply that, because most of it is spent bitching about the game in various ways (particularly the multiplayer). And it's disappointing when he outright says the single-player portion is inferior to the N64 original and the much-hyped multiplayer has major issues (underpowered snipers and overpowered bazookas sound like issues to me).

I really really REALLY liked the original Conker, so I'm not cancelling my order. As annoyed as I am that in the intervening years Rare didn't just fail to improve what was IMO a brilliant single-player game and in fact make it a little worse, re-playing even parts of that will be worth it for me.

That's not to say I'm a little worried, though. Games have moved on in the last five years, and judging by both the review and by the demo with Jade Empire it doesn't look like Conker has. The run-and-gun gameplay in the War demo was crap. You had the ability to aim properly with the dual analog sticks but what the hell was the point? It didn't matter where you hit the Tediz, only that you hit them. What, no headshots? No blowing off limbs? No dropping them with a knee shot? You know, GoldenEye had those in 1997. And once you hit them once, they stopped dead and couldn't be hit again for a second or two, before you had to fire again. The hell? I thought we got past that sort of gameplay years ago.

And I recognise that I am most definitely in the minority here, but I'm also disappointed to see that Conker only offers two-player splitscreen multiplayer. I had a lot of fun playing the Vault mode with three friends on the N64 and I had hoped they'd bring the old games back (Beach, Raptor etc) since it was pretty clear then they would benefit from online or LAN multiplayer (especially Beach: what the hell is the point of sneaking your way up when your Tedi opponents can SEE YOUR SCREEN?). I'm hoping they've got some way to make this work in LAN at least, though it doesn't sound like it.

 

[SantaC]

Well, fine, 8.1 is a good score. But the text of the review doesn't seem to imply that, because most of it is spent bitching about the game in various ways (particularly the multiplayer). And it's disappointing when he outright says the single-player portion is inferior to the N64 original and the much-hyped multiplayer has major issues (underpowered snipers and overpowered bazookas sound like issues to me).

I really really REALLY liked the original Conker, so I'm not cancelling my order. As annoyed as I am that in the intervening years Rare didn't just fail to improve what was IMO a brilliant single-player game and in fact make it a little worse, re-playing even parts of that will be worth it for me.

That's not to say I'm a little worried, though. Games have moved on in the last five years, and judging by both the review and by the demo with Jade Empire it doesn't look like Conker has. The run-and-gun gameplay in the War demo was crap. You had the ability to aim properly with the dual analog sticks but what the hell was the point? It didn't matter where you hit the Tediz, only that you hit them. What, no headshots? No blowing off limbs? No dropping them with a knee shot? You know, GoldenEye had those in 1997. And once you hit them once, they stopped dead and couldn't be hit again for a second or two, before you had to fire again. The hell? I thought we got past that sort of gameplay years ago.

And I recognise that I am most definitely in the minority here, but I'm also disappointed to see that Conker only offers two-player splitscreen multiplayer. I had a lot of fun playing the Vault mode with three friends on the N64 and I had hoped they'd bring the old games back (Beach, Raptor etc) since it was pretty clear then they would benefit from online or LAN multiplayer (especially Beach: what the hell is the point of sneaking your way up when your Tedi opponents can SEE YOUR SCREEN?). I'm hoping they've got some way to make this work in LAN at least, though it doesn't sound like it.

if single player is inferior to N64 - thats pretty strange.

 

[DDayton]

if single player is inferior to N64 - thats pretty strange.

This is Rare. They do the impossible!

 

[rod]

ive never played conker64 so im picking this up for sure.

 

[Alcibiades]

Castlevania: Castlevania NES (1987), Super Castlevania (1991).

Though, the original Casltevania sold well. I don't believe the original conker did so well. Risky waters.

are you sure that one was a remake?

I remember the official title being Super Castlevania IV...

it was the only Castlevania I owned growing up and an incredible game...

I recently passed the NES-edition Castlevania on Gameboy and don't remember many similarities in terms of stages and bosses, except for the traditional Medusa and Dracula...

I remember Paula Abgoul, some Bethemoth and Skeleton bad guys from part IV that don't appear in the original...

 

[Odnetnin]

I don't think its just people saying 8.1 is a bad game more like


8.1 is a bad score for a game which is
- Been in development for ages
- The Multiplayer is a let down (which was the major selling point imo)
- Highly Hyped/ Large budget port

With so many great budget games in peoples backlogs why would I pick Conker up now when I could get two other games for the same price.

sounds like Metroid Prime Echoes's review (multiplayer anyhow). but yeah, for a title this long in the oven, it's a bit (UN)surprising that it didn't score at least a 9. It also reads like a grudging 8.1, almost 7ish even.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

Threads like this deserve nerd alert warnings before entering. :lol

 

[mrklaw]

for ports/remakes, they should give a score for those that have never played the original, like me.