• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Republic Commando ign

android

Theoretical Magician
Republic Commando Review = 8.2 Not bad. Better than I thought it would be

9.0 Presentation
The game is presented beautifully. Everything from the opening cutscenes to the briefings are done with style and polish.
8.5 Graphics
This is a good looking game. I was a bit surprised the first time I saw it, but they did a really good job bringing Star Wars to life here. Textures and animation are especially impressive.
8.5 Sound
The music is terrific, voice work is very good (though a tad bit out of place), and sound effects are certainly decent.
8.0 Gameplay
This is a fun game. It's a good linear shooter. It's just too bad the squad members are more of an accessory than brilliant gameplay addition.
7.0 Lasting Appeal
This is a short game. It takes around 10 hours to complete the single player and while multiplayer can be fun, it won't replace any of the better multiplayer games you already have.
8.2 OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/588/588409p1.html
 
I played the PC demo. I wasn't that impressed by it, but it certainly wasn't bad. It had some cool ideas and it's nice to see more games using some sort of visor element.
 
That review sums up everything that is wrong with 99% of video game journalism. From misspelled words (compliment should be complement in the usage in the review, braun instead of brawn) to the overuse of italics, it's really quite sad.

How did some of these writers get out of college for God's sake?
 
shantyman said:
That review sums up everything that is wrong with 99% of video game journalism. From misspelled words (compliment should be complement in the usage in the review, braun instead of brawn) to the overuse of italics, it's really quite sad.

How did some of these writers get out of college for God's sake?

They dropped out?
 
MarkMacD said:
Wow, I'm very curious how they reviewed it when LucasArts says the review builds do not include multiplayer....
Guys were playing multiplayer PC in the LAN room a couple of days ago.
 
A lot of IGNs writers come from fansites.

This beings up the entire reason most people shouldnt want to be involved in the industry. 90% of the writers for 'professional' gaming sites NEVER grew up. They were snatched up right from their fansites and placed in a position at a place that pays them.

Not only does the illusion of a professional 'journalist' position feed their already giant egos, but they never improve their skills cuz HEY! IM UH PROFESHONAL!'
 
MarkRyan said:
Guys were playing multiplayer PC in the LAN room a couple of days ago.

Ah. Seems like the sort of thing you should mention in the review (being based on the PC version), but maybe that's just me.
 
MarkMacD said:
Ah. Seems like the sort of thing you should mention in the review (being based on the PC version), but maybe that's just me.
Probably. But I don't know that they didn't have Xbox multiplayer. Just know that they did have PC.
 
shantyman said:
That review sums up everything that is wrong with 99% of video game journalism. From misspelled words (compliment should be complement in the usage in the review, braun instead of brawn) to the overuse of italics, it's really quite sad.

How did some of these writers get out of college for God's sake?
I'm not sure I know why you think they should have written "Too Much Brown, Not Enough Brains." "Braun" is german for "brown", "brawn" means "strength."



MarkRyan (below) said:
(The article did use "Braun," but it got fixed.)
Okay. In that case, video game journalism is actually better than your general online journalism. Nowadays, it's more important to get the story up than get the story right. Typos, grammar errors, and fact checking can wait until the fifth or sixth revision.
 
JJConrad said:
I'm not sure I know why you think they should have written "Too Much Brown, Not Enough Brains." "Braun" is german for "brown", "brawn" means "strength."
(The article did use "Braun," but it got fixed.)
 
I was so hyped about it.. but then I played the PC demo, and although it was fun it felt too chaotic, weapon sounds were really bad and I didn't know what weapon I was using at any point (and I didn't seem to care either..) not to mention that tactically it offered nothing..

I was expecting Raven Shield in space, it didn't come close.. It was fun, but I'm not sure if it was fun enough to get me re-interested, you know..
 
See, that's the thing, I didn't really want an ultra tactical game here. It's a fun shooter that has very decent play mechanics and manages to capture the Star Wars feel very well.

Not only that, it looks very polished. The PC demo runs at a rock solid 60 fps, has VERY short loading, and animates very well. It just feels very solid...
 
MrAngryFace said:
A lot of IGNs writers come from fansites.

This beings up the entire reason most people shouldnt want to be involved in the industry. 90% of the writers for 'professional' gaming sites NEVER grew up. They were snatched up right from their fansites and placed in a position at a place that pays them.

Not only does the illusion of a professional 'journalist' position feed their already giant egos, but they never improve their skills cuz HEY! IM UH PROFESHONAL!'

While these may be valid points, they're still better than the "professional journalists" reviewing games at newspapers. I'd rather have illiterates who love and actually play games than some journalist grad who is slumming it till something more respectable comes along.
 
web site gaming journalists are no bettter than the newspaper game reviwers. What they lack in ignorance they make up for with petty agendas and an inability to adhere to their own scoring systems in any sort of consistent manner.
 
Top Bottom