-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New EGM scores (April issue)
- Thread starter solarplexus
- Start date
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
truffleshuffle83 said:
MGS3 didn't get game of the month. It was reviewed alongside Halo 2 and GTA:SA that month, so it was 3rd behind those two, or second considering both Halo 2 and GTA:SA got GOTM.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
AniHawk said:
I think price had a lot to do with the score, if it were $40/50 for the base game I don't think it would have scored as well.
truffleshuffle83
Banned
oblivion does not have better graphics than GRAW, not even close. look at the detail and draw distance of the city. im just saying with only one next gen system out, the scale the judge next gen graphics on is wonky. they're like OMG it doesnt look as good as MGS4, or GOW, or some other random game that isnt out yet
Community Forum
Member
Pedigree Chum said:
This brings up an interesting question. Should a review score be based on price? Will a full price game be re-reviewed when the price drops or it hits Greatest Hits status?
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Borys said:
No not really. There is really no such contextual concept for a "perfect" in any category. Ideally high scores go to games that have great graphics at it's release and what is the achieved standard. If we didn't do that, than that's like scoring something like GT3 visuals in 2001 thinking about GT4 2005 would look like which would be unfair.
PhoenixDark
Banned
truffleshuffle83 said:
A city is nice, yes. But look at the detail and draw distance in the 16 square mile world of Oblibion.
Both games look amazing, of course. But I gotta give this to Oblivion
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Borys said:
Exactly. I don't get why people are crying bullshit about that. It sounds fair to me. Until a game comes out with a perfectly seamless and playable version of The Incredibles level graphics, this is the only way to have review retain any kind of longevity.
Killkernal
Member
solarplexus said:
Being one of the few games reviewed that I actually own, I have no clue as to how they came up with these scores. MLB 06 plays a fantastic (and fun) game of Baseball and I personally enjoy the pitching meter a lot more than I did in MVP 05. Hell, on presentation alone it should get more than a 4.0.
I'm really curious about the comments that go along with this review.
Outcast2004
Banned
Musashi Wins! said:
Ok for MLB...
Now granted my experience is fairly limited. I've played less than a dozen games at this point but we'll cover both sides of the coin.
Pros:
It's MLB, no metal bats!
Great presentation
Decent pitching, pitchers tend to get riled a bit too easy though.
Great animation
Cons:
The controls. It's not very intuitive. Basically it takes a whole mess of complicated multi-button presses to to basic things for base running.
Fielding. For whatever reason balls tend to pass right past the pitcher and infield altogether.
Looks VERY dated graphically, PS2 is capable of much more.
Batting is a BITCH!!!!!
It does some things right, but it's got a STEEP learning curve. It's almost TOO sim for it's own good.
siamesedreamer
Banned
CHE am LIAR
j/k
Anyway, who gives a shit which game gets "GoTM"? This is EGM for Gawd's sake - not exactly the bastion of fair and balanced. I know which game I'll enjoy the most, will have a stellar online community, and will still be playing 3 months from now.
Quite frankly, that's all that matters to me.
j/k
Anyway, who gives a shit which game gets "GoTM"? This is EGM for Gawd's sake - not exactly the bastion of fair and balanced. I know which game I'll enjoy the most, will have a stellar online community, and will still be playing 3 months from now.
Quite frankly, that's all that matters to me.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Outcast2004 said:
I can kind of see where you're coming from.
-The base running is a bit screwy and unintuitive. But it's really a matter of adjustment.
-I've seen a few of these questionable ground ball issues, but not as many as I suspected after hearing Wellington mention it. Almost none actually, but that's just my experience so far.
-It doesn't look great, the textures are horrendous, but I think you need to balance this with the crazy amount of animations, special presentation and just general sense of realism in the title. I don't know, PS2 games are looking pretty fugly to me in general, so this doesn't bug me much.
-Batting is hard for someone like me coming from MVP-aholics, but it's coming around for me and I like how you can make it complex or simple depending how much you want to guess at the strategy.
I guess I was very prepared to hate this game after last years bug fest and I'm just really impressed with what they produced here. It's very sim. It even maintains the pace of a real game more than any other baseball title, which is hard to deal with sometimes. I think they did something pretty special, but surely not perfect. I don't see how EGM could justify those scores so well.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Himuro said:
It was fun enough to get the score it did from EGM back then, and it should be fun enough now.
truffleshuffle83
Banned
oblivion does not look as good as GRAW.....
Outcast2004
Banned
Musashi Wins! said:
The thing of it is, I am playing on rookie until I can get afull grip of the controls and batting timing. Even still I'm having a hell of a time connecting, let alone scoring any runs.
I really thing, at least in MY case, the steep curve is a problem.
It's a good sim, but don't know..... doesn't seem as fun as I'd like it to. It's hard to translate into words, but something feels "off" to me.
i'll give it some more time, but if my opinion doesn't improve its going back and I'm using that refunded money towards GRAW.
truffleshuffle83
Banned
GeoramA said:
oh god get real.... see which one sells more
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
Musashi Wins! said:
Im probably going to pick this up this weekend, even after the poor EGM score (I need a decent baseball game and 2K never did it for me).
From the other reviews out there I had the general impression it was at the very least a competent baseball sim, with some stand out features, as well as cleaning up a lot of the issues they had last year. So I'd really like to know what warranted that giant dump of a 4 on this game, talk about a contrast in consensus. A score like that says below mediocrity, which would be a buggy, nigh unplayable piece of crap in most cases. Sometimes I wonder if these writers see a developers name before they even review a game. "989? Uh oh."
truffleshuffle83
Banned
you did read i was joking about money hats right....and to call ghost recon a lame military shooter is stupid, its one of the best tactical shooters available. the only reason i preorderd substance was for the free dvd, i cancelled it the next day
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
kenta said:
For a game that averaged a 9.5 among the three "critics". :lol
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
truffleshuffle83 said:
What? Online is Online is Online. I mean, should the game be docked for the community and the way you connect even though, in the end, the Online experience (when your actually playing the game) would be the same no matter what system its on? That comment makes no sense.
Its funny that your downplaying the Online mode for MGS:S and yet your praising the fact that Online mode for GRAW will allow it to be replayed for months and months.
*EDIT: Your right SSX, it is pointless
EmCeeGramr
Member
Since when is egm considered the epitome of gaming journalism? Their ten point scale is flawed and they need to condense it. Its hard to tell if a "5" is a good average or a bad average, and since 6.5 is considered borderline good, where does that put a game that scored a 9? Ive seen way too many inflated scores for flawed games and yearly rehashes, and it is apparent that they are scoring high profile releases thusly to sell mags, not be objective.
That... and alot of the reviewers are jaded.
That... and alot of the reviewers are jaded.
SolidSnakex
Member
BlueTsunami said:
You're arguing with a guy who expected GRAW to get a 10 based on its graphics alone.
truffleshuffle83
Banned
oh jesus keep using this as your crutch until the next metal gear solid comes out. then it will be NEXT GEN AM HERE, XBOX 1.5 BOMBA. yeah mgs3 is an awesome game, and shouldve won GOTM last year when it came out, but a rerelease adding stuff that should have been included in the original :lol :lol keep the hope alive guys
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
This is a stupid fucking argument. These are two games that have just gotten the cream of the crop scores. Please stop.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
truffleshuffle83 said:
oh ok
*edits post last post*
EmCeeGramr
Member
Mooreberg said:
Gamespot is fairly consistent with their objectivity.
Kurosaki Ichigo
Member
I hate this magazine. It sucks.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Kurosaki Ichigo said:
I give egm a 5/10
which is average by their standards : /
Community Forum
Member
Himuro said:Tales of Phantasia (GBA, Namco): 6,0 / 7,5 / 7,5
From what I remember, the EGM crew are not the biggest RPG lovers. I am actually surprised at the 7.5 scores... I mean, it's an RPG review in EGM... 7.5 is really high!
Anyhoo, I can't wait to play this game. Those that are excited for it won't be swayed by these scores, I hope.
frAntic_Frog
Member
Matix said:
The winner should be obvious..
wow thats considered "next gen" graphics?
kinda looks like ass actually, what with all the flat ass textures. the only thing lookin impressive is maybe the sunlight hittin the sides of the buildings, but still
........
frAntic_Frog
Member
truffleshuffle83 said:
you must be kidding? an award winning game such as MGS3 online vs an average squad shooter online?!