EGM January 2005 (digital) - scores included! DOAU BOMB BOMB
- Thread starter tracky_dacks
- Start date
Fair enough, even though I thought the game balance was actually quite good. Personally I would give it a 8 because it's just a rehash (of the best game of the series, but still).bishoptl said:
And yes I've actually had the "honor" to play Rogue Agent for quite a bit of time (got a review copy), and it's really one of the worst FPS I've played since a long time (Turok Evolution could even be better than this). So seeing it score slightly better than DOAU is a true surprise, especially since I usually agree with EGM scores.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
ESPN college hoops 2K5 - 6.0 / 7.5 / 8.0
NCAA march madness 2005 - 8.0 / 8.5 / 8.0
This is so wrong!
NCAA march madness 2005 - 8.0 / 8.5 / 8.0
This is so wrong!
I just finished Tron not too long ago. It is a 7 game maybe bump it to an 8 because the story and the world were great. The devleopers really captured the Tron universe. If you like FPS and want to play in a universe that simulates the inside of a computer, go for it. A little meh in the beginning but as you get more sub routines and allocate them as you may ( a little Deus Ex here) I began to really enjoy it.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Personally, I was dissapointed with DOA. I have no gripe with that.
But I've also personally played the college basketball games, Call of Duty, Ghost Recon 2 and Goldeneye. And they are wrong about all of these games. I usually kind of like EGMs take on things, I look forward to reading the reviews, but...it's like we didn't play the same games.
But I've also personally played the college basketball games, Call of Duty, Ghost Recon 2 and Goldeneye. And they are wrong about all of these games. I usually kind of like EGMs take on things, I look forward to reading the reviews, but...it's like we didn't play the same games.
It's downright bizarre to have Nintendo deliberately sabotage the US DS lineup. Obviously there's no need to panic because there's a group of very solid, already finished DS games on the way, but it's kind of unprecedented in gaming for a company to not even try to have the strongest launch possible.
I guess this really proves that Nintendo is more of a software company than a hardware one. They truly play by their own rules. It probably maximizes profit for them, but it kind of makes gamers entirely dependent on them and them alone too...
That being said, there's no reason to act as if these games are representative of what we can expect of the DS in the future. The machine isn't average. We simply are getting a consistent trickle of great games instead of a giant dollop of them followed by a dry spell.
(Also, Feel the Magic is a very good game in the launch lineup... Mario isn't the only one.)
I guess this really proves that Nintendo is more of a software company than a hardware one. They truly play by their own rules. It probably maximizes profit for them, but it kind of makes gamers entirely dependent on them and them alone too...
That being said, there's no reason to act as if these games are representative of what we can expect of the DS in the future. The machine isn't average. We simply are getting a consistent trickle of great games instead of a giant dollop of them followed by a dry spell.
(Also, Feel the Magic is a very good game in the launch lineup... Mario isn't the only one.)
I'm sure a lot of it has to do with trying to give third parties a bigger piece of the pie. You'll probably see a similar situation with the Revolution.Unison said:
Look at the Japanese sales charts -- the launch was a lot better because Nintendo included more of their own titles, but the cost of that is now, only the Nintendo/Pokemon published DS titles are hanging on.
Mrbob said:
I thought the A.I. was good, the traps built in to the levels were cool, some fun weapons (especially the remote-detonating pistol...a couple other weapons suck tho, I admit), and the eye powers were a unique twist I never got tired of.
On the downside, I think the graphics are meh, enemies repetitive, and the story is silly.
edit: Good lord--you need to go back and play Turok again before you even put it in the same sentence as RA.
Demigod Mac
Member
Did they mention how DOAU randomly corrupts your saved game?
MarkMacD said:edit: Good lord--you need to go back and play Turok again before you even put it in the same sentence as RA.
Turok is hard to compare to anything modern. It's very much a product of its age (an age I'm glad we're through with at this point ^_^)
The remote-mine pistol in Rogue Agent is possibly my favorite thing about the game. No matter how many games let you do it, slapping a bomb on some poor fucker's back and blowing him over a ledge never gets old. I could write a book about all the shit I hated, but different strokes to move the world and all that.
DFS.
EGM's handling of Rogue Agent looks like the the most transparent case of moneyhats since Driv3r.
Why was Rogue Agent reviewed after release, later than other November console games?
Why didn't EGM point this factoid out like they do for other games?
Why a full page, promotional, preview in the issue that coincided with the games release?
Why three 7.5s, why almost identical points in the text, why no differing of opinion?
Why does it merit a two page review spread, like LoTR last month, when many good games can't get reviewed?
Why, almost verbatim to the pr, statements about reflecting the original Goldeneye?
The Ziff Davis folk who post at GAF are very likeable chaps and I don't know the inner workings of the US mag industry. I do know enough about how things operate in the UK to say all of the above queries are telltale signs of a dodgy periodical.
A four page, fold-out of cover, Goldeneye advertisement splurge in last months EGM, another two pages this. EGM's most lucrative advertiser is EA. EA's big hope for a breakout holiday title was Goldeneye. None of this had any affect on the coverage of the game, oh no!
It stinks, anyone who believes EGM or any other games magazine you can get a freebie sub for isn't dictated to in their editorial real estate, isn't a glorified advertorial, is a gullible fool. If the magazine publisher garners more cash via advertisements from companies rather than readers paying for copy where does their loyalty lie? With the company they're meant to be critical of not the reader they're supposed to inform, that's where.
Why was Rogue Agent reviewed after release, later than other November console games?
Why didn't EGM point this factoid out like they do for other games?
Why a full page, promotional, preview in the issue that coincided with the games release?
Why three 7.5s, why almost identical points in the text, why no differing of opinion?
Why does it merit a two page review spread, like LoTR last month, when many good games can't get reviewed?
Why, almost verbatim to the pr, statements about reflecting the original Goldeneye?
The Ziff Davis folk who post at GAF are very likeable chaps and I don't know the inner workings of the US mag industry. I do know enough about how things operate in the UK to say all of the above queries are telltale signs of a dodgy periodical.
A four page, fold-out of cover, Goldeneye advertisement splurge in last months EGM, another two pages this. EGM's most lucrative advertiser is EA. EA's big hope for a breakout holiday title was Goldeneye. None of this had any affect on the coverage of the game, oh no!
It stinks, anyone who believes EGM or any other games magazine you can get a freebie sub for isn't dictated to in their editorial real estate, isn't a glorified advertorial, is a gullible fool. If the magazine publisher garners more cash via advertisements from companies rather than readers paying for copy where does their loyalty lie? With the company they're meant to be critical of not the reader they're supposed to inform, that's where.
DIE WAHRHEIT IST DARAUS
I can answer your first point, at least -- the review hit after the release because the mag schedule and EA's delivery of the review code coincided that way. EA sent out GoldenEye review code very late.
Here's a thought. If EA was paying EGM for a favorable review, why wouldn't they make sure said review hit _before_ the game was released, so as to appear ahead of other, potentially less favorable reviews?
DFS.
I can answer your first point, at least -- the review hit after the release because the mag schedule and EA's delivery of the review code coincided that way. EA sent out GoldenEye review code very late.
Here's a thought. If EA was paying EGM for a favorable review, why wouldn't they make sure said review hit _before_ the game was released, so as to appear ahead of other, potentially less favorable reviews?
DFS.
He, well both are very flawed games. I felt RA was an insult to Golden Eye name, and to Halo's gameplay where EA obviously stole a lot of ideas (recharging shield, starting with grenades in the left hand) but missed the very good maniability and of course the AI. The level design is bland at best, the graphics are average, and they even managed to have the corpse disappear. I'll admit some of eyes powers are nice, but they get old quickly.MarkMacD said:edit: Good lord--you need to go back and play Turok again before you even put it in the same sentence as RA.
I'm just kinda pissed that EA had to soil the GoldenEye name. Talk about a lame attempt at capitalizing on a legendary brand. I don't agree with the reviews, and I also don't fault the reviewers for liking the game, but, come on... EA has enough money. Aren't they above soiling a respectable series just to attract a few people who think this might be a sequel?
*Edit* - Actually, fuck that, I know they're not. I hate EA, goddamnit.
*Edit* - Actually, fuck that, I know they're not. I hate EA, goddamnit.
The Faceless Master
Member
EGM giving a DOA game a low score? no way!
what next? a moderate score for tekken!?
what next? a moderate score for tekken!?
So, EGM's highly promotional, and irregular, preview of Goldeneye was done with the full knowledge that the game would be released before a review would hit. Just proves my point, EGM put the interests of the publisher ahead of the reader.WarPig said:
It would have been a good idea, if EGM cared about its readership, to actually be critical of the game in the preview. A large proportion of game purchases happen to be at launch and in the first month of release. EGM are aware of that, it is unbelievable that the editorial staff expected readers to wait for their opinion.
EA must have been hoping that readers of all print magazines, since none carried reviews, were going to get swept away in a tidal wave of hype, that the blind eye and uncritical Goldeneye previews would help! Edge were critical of the game, an Edge reader knew the game was going to be mediocre, based on the preview code, three months before release. Funny how other print game zines do things differently. No coincidence that Edge costs a good deal of money and can't be gotten on the cheap methinks.
EA and EGM wouldn't be dumb enough to give a ridiculously favourable review before release, it'd be too obvious. EA don't really care about ridiculously high scores. NFS:U got eights and sold 7 million, as long as the game gets solid reviews and plenty of magazine space EA are happy. So EGM gave Rogue Agent solid reviews, plenty of eye ball estate and likened it to an old favourite, just what EA was looking for.
T'was obvious I was refering to the advertisers/publishers. But EA died out one hundred years agoSoul4ger said:
I don't think the DoA:U scores are out of line. I have the game, and enjoy it. Fun to play online. However lets not forget the fact that the main focus of this two pack (DoA2) is a revamped version of a game released 5 years ago with no new characters added but one from DoA3 (Hitomi). A couple new stages are nice and the revamped arenas are amazing, but DoA4 this is not.
after two years at this magazine, one of which as reviews editor, not once have I been contacted by a publisher or advertiser (or anyone from our ad sales dept., for that matter) in regards to our editorial content. that's before the mag comes out, of course - we've heard plenty from them after giving their games low scores. can't speak for the other u.s. pubs, but that's how it works at ziff.
now if you'll excuse me, mark is giving everyone rides in his new solid gold rocket car.
now if you'll excuse me, mark is giving everyone rides in his new solid gold rocket car.
Unison said:
I think that's because the fighting genre's become so niche that the only people considered 'qualified' to review them are 'veteran fighting game aficionados'. You know, the guys who think 'pick-up-and-play' are dirty words, and who believe that the bigger a game's movelist is (and the more arcane each move is to execute, in order to deter 'mashers' from accidentally doing something like, you know, hitting the other guy--so what if that also makes the game impossible to pick up arcade-style, by playing, without studying a FAQ or spending hours in some 'practice mode' first? We must be protected from those evil mashers by any means necessary!), the better the final game is. When someone releases a fighter designed to appeal to more than this dwindling core of hardcore competitive fighting game fans, it gets panned for not catering to that audience. Lame, and it's helping to choke out the genre in the long term, but what can you do? =/
skip said:
Seriously, if someone from a company would've called you, or someone in your advertising department would've said something, would you really 'fess up to it? I'm not saying you're a liar, but I don't really know how you saying it hasn't happened while you're probably sitting at your desk in ZD HQ is going to convince anyone.
PkunkFury said:
Using GoldenEye as a for-instance, I got an e-mail from EALA's PR staff after the 1UP review hit. It was rather terse, simply saying "we need to talk about your review" and offering a pair of phone numbers to call.
I replied to the message explaining that unless there were factual errors in the review, no, we do not in fact need to talk at all.
Best instance of a review raising hell for me was when I included a brief one-line knock on the first Legends of Wrestling in the conclusion of my Smackdown 3 review (this is back in the fall of 2001). Legends of Wrestling hadn't shipped yet, it was still a week or so off, so this was a minor violation of the code of etiquette that states you're not allowed to take shots at a game until it's released.
So anyway, Acclaim's top people went to IGN's top people, threatened to cancel five figures of ad contracts, and demanded that I be fired. I got off with a stern talking-to, thanks to sterling gent Peer Schneider.
Acclaim was a prime offender in this category. On at least one occasion -- Turok: Evolution -- they cancelled an ad contract worth tens of thousands of dollars to IGN after the review hit, claming that they "didn't want to draw attention" to said review. They also leveled accusations of bias and vendetta against more than one publication that panned BMX XXX.
DFS.
PkunkFury said:
just the usual stuff. complaints about who reviewed it, paranoia about whether or not we have a vendetta against them, threats to pull advertising...
most of it is usually a formality (pr people have to ask because their bosses make them) and it blows over pretty quickly.
Soul4ger said:
Oh, I'd blame the development community entirely, for sure.
The way I see it, outfits like Capcom had an option around the time of Street Fighter III or so to move inward or outward -- to appeal to the competitive fanbase they already had, or to take a chance on something different to try and hook a new audience. They picked the former option and you just have a downward spiral from there, eventually producing stuff like Capcom Vs. SNK 2 that's actively hostile to the beginning player.
Guilty Gear XX, to my mind, would have been the perfect type of game to deliver at that crossroads (a game with depth for serious players that's still fun to pick up for beginners). Too little, too late, sadly.
DFS.
Pop quiz skip:skip said:
"I was negotiating for a cover story with a big game publisher whose name won't be mentioned here. The timing was right, but guess what? The company hit me with a clause: EGM could get the exclusive review only if we guaranteed the game would receive a certain review score or higher
Who said this and when?
Shoe, October 2004 issue of EGM
You know what bothered me about the above editorial? That it was opportunistic, it came right after the summers notable shenanigans. I don't buy it, sorry, but what is there to "negotiate" for a cover story exactly? Why did EA's LoTR game get the cover and a seven page preview in the same issue that Phantom Brave gets one-sixth of a page? If you try telling me the amount of space given over to the particular game is done on merit you're havin' a laugh. On reader interest then how does this get decided and by whom, it doesn't add up for this subscriber.
Aye, the loveable flippant response that seems to be ZD policy whenever this stuff crops up! 7.5s all-round, it sure gives the impression that EA set a minimum score.
rod furlong
Member
cja said:
The amount of space given to games in EGM's reviews section (I'm the reviews editor) is based on a combination of merit and reader interest. Obviously, WE decide what is likely to be more of interest to our readers -- but maybe we'll change that policy and give you a ring instead.
the biggest point of "negotiations" for preview cover stories are always what art assets and actual information you're going to get for the story. and that's about it. review cover exclusives are even less involving than that. the fact that shoe wrote a public editorial about what happened (iirc, that was a condition that was applied to all magazines for that particular game, not just egm) should tell you where they stand on the issue of scores. even though they weren't named, the publisher in question could not have been pleased by that.
cgw just did a cover story on eq2, with a WoW ad that ripped eq2 placed right in the middle of the feature. if edit and advertising were really as mixed as some people believe...how could that have happened?
I don't work on egm, so I can't say what goes into their coverage decisions. for us, if a game is notable, it's going to get more space, regardless of potential quality. we put auto modellista on our cover and gave it a five. goldeneye is getting a two page review in our next issue because it's a big game of interest and people want to know about it. I'd like to give "smaller" games more space, but we just don't have the page count. deal.
Jumpman Jr.
Member
The same video feature on the new EA LoTR game appeared in two consective EGM promo DVDs, including shameless scenes at a convention hall where cosplay kids held up a copy of the game and said to the camera, "Don't forget to pre-order this," or to that effect. The second time it appeared, it was for the magazine that had an unfavorable review for the game.
There's no conspiracy. I'm sure the magazine's Advertising and Editorial departments work seperately. How else could it explain why an ad for "Fight Club" appeared alongside a very negative review for the game.
There's no conspiracy. I'm sure the magazine's Advertising and Editorial departments work seperately. How else could it explain why an ad for "Fight Club" appeared alongside a very negative review for the game.