-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New EGM Scores (Halo 2 = GTA:SA > MGS3 > MP 2)
- Thread starter GashPrex
- Start date
evilromero
Member
Wrong. Sat through and beat Vice City. I have spent several hours on San Andreas doing the stupid missions over and over again and I have yet to find the fun. I normally just scream at the television and ask, "how the fucking piss this is supposed to be fun?" The targeting is still shit. In fact, it seems worse than it was before. If you're not facing the enemy, he won't target and will just shoot his fun up in the air. So I've played more than five minutes, have completed a good 20 or more missions and this isn't pure gold. More like copper, or dime.Razoric said:
Redbeard said:
Took me two cups of coffee just to get caught up on the thread.
I just think all this nonsense about "perfect" score, and technical issues is follish. The job of a reviewer is to judge the gestalt, not to nitpick individual aspects. Nitpicking is what gaming forums are for.
Redbeard said:
Someone has to get the ball rolling!
Well I just got to the countryside, and anytime I go from the country into the city the whole world just seems to massively slow down. Maybe my eyes are sensitive to fluctuating frame rates? I dunno. I've never experienced anything like it before GTASA.
fossen said:
Took me two cups of coffee just to get caught up on the thread.
I just think all this nonsense about "perfect" score, and technical issues is follish. The job of a reviewer is to judge the gestalt, not to nitpick individual aspects. Nitpicking is what gaming forums are for.
Exactly... when another game comes out that has the scope and fun of GTA:SA and has better framerate / graphics THEN they MIGHT have a point.
It should not be the bigger the scope the higher the score. Scope doesn't magically make game more fun if they have poor play mechanics to begin with. I haven't played GTA:SA yet, but the rest of the series has some very shoddy gameplay. Mix that with the stuttering framerate and you have a very mediocre experience.
I'll try SA before I judge it. This post is simply an opinion about 3/VC.
I'll try SA before I judge it. This post is simply an opinion about 3/VC.
SantaC
Member
Mrbob said:Someone has to get the ball rolling!
Well I just got to the countryside, and anytime I go from the country into the city the whole world just seems to massively slow down. Maybe my eyes are sensitive to fluctuating frame rates? I don't think so. I've never experienced anything like it before GTASA.
But it's still triple 10s because bad framerate appearently doesn't matter
Brofist
Member
evilromero said:
Do you normally buy the sequel to games you hate? I think you should have figured by VC the series isn't for you. I'm realistic, if I see something that looks interesting I'll give it a chance, but I'm not sadistic enough to keep going back if I hate it.
Just for laughs what mission are you on in SA, wondering how far in you are into the game. If you don't want to give any mission details away use spoiler tags.
For you to claim you beat Vice City would suggest it had to be a much different game than San Andreas, which supposedly has you screaming at your television because of how unfun it is. Yet, the only difference you cite is targeting. On the other hand, given the contradictions in your statement, your probably just full of shit.
olimario said:
It's not bigger the scope, higher the score... its a completely different game with tons of different goals. You cant compare a game like GTA:SA with massive cities, peditrians, moving traffic, cops flying all over the place to a FPS with closed environments with 10-12 enemies on screen and expect the same quality of framerates / graphics. The scope is completely different. Like I said, find me a game that has the same gameplay as GTA and has better graphics and framerate. You can't there isnt any. It terms of free-roaming, car stealing, sandbox-like gameplay GTA:SA is as good as it gets.
olimario said:
Frame Rate is really the only issue GTA SA has. Virtually everything else is golden. The game is much bigger (Three cities each the size of Vice City in the game!), but with SA Rockstar is starting to blur the lines between all out free roaming action by adding RPG and strategy elements. For example, your character starts out pretty low with no extra attributes. But as you use weapons your individual weapon skills go up allowing you to target better, aim more proficiently, and in some cases wield two weapons at once. You have skill sets for driving and bike riding, and the more you use them the better you get. You have a stamina skill, where the more you run the longer you can run. Heck, there is even a max life skill set which increases as well. The missions are much more refined, and some side missions have strategy elements too. In one point in Los Santos the city opens up like a RISK board game map. You have areas of the map your gang controls, and there are other areas on the map rival gangs control. You can go around taking control of these other areas, which gains your character more respect and in turn brings you in more money the more areas you control. But the rival gangs can take control of your areas too so you have to be watchful. It's cool how it all plays out. Beyond that there are parappa style dancing mini games, lowrider competitions, pimping side missions, delivery side missions, breaking and entering side missions. The game is stacked. And this is only from the 1/3 I have played so far. Sans the frame rate this game is the real deal. It smokes Vice City. Literally. I just need to get to the two last cities!
I got nearly 25 hours into this game and I just got out of Los Santos and into the countryside! This may be the longest game I have ever played! :lolCrimsonSkies
Member
"I was arguing FOR YOU, dipshit. Remind me to never do that again."
I picked up on your quote and expanded on it. I wasn't talking directly to you in my response.
I picked up on your quote and expanded on it. I wasn't talking directly to you in my response.
D'ultimate
Member
Obviously the reviewers really liked the game. So much so that they could ignore the faults and give it 10's. Many posters here can understand and so they tend to agree.
The problem arises because some people could not ignore these obvious (not just technical) faults and rate the game a 10 since they feel that these faults detract from the fun.
I tend to think that if a game has glaring faults that will cause others, not just yourself to enjoy it then, it should not be given a ten. In the case of Halo, the minor slowdown (except for the last level) would be overlooked by MOST. GT:SA, according to many, has MAJOR slowdown all over the place, on very level. This can't be overlooked by anybody, detracts from the experience of the game by everyone, and therefore should be a knock against the game, even if it's .5!
The problem arises because some people could not ignore these obvious (not just technical) faults and rate the game a 10 since they feel that these faults detract from the fun.
I tend to think that if a game has glaring faults that will cause others, not just yourself to enjoy it then, it should not be given a ten. In the case of Halo, the minor slowdown (except for the last level) would be overlooked by MOST. GT:SA, according to many, has MAJOR slowdown all over the place, on very level. This can't be overlooked by anybody, detracts from the experience of the game by everyone, and therefore should be a knock against the game, even if it's .5!
SolidSnakex
Member
". This can't be overlooked by anybody, detracts from the experience of the game by everyone, and therefore should be a knock against the game, even if it's .5!"
I've beat the game and not once did the slowdown ever effect the experience.
I've beat the game and not once did the slowdown ever effect the experience.
SolidSnakex said:
I'm 30 hours in and I never even notice the slowdown. If I look for it I can tell it's there occasionally (when I have 6 cops chasing me with helicopters over my head)... but even then it doesnt phase me. You framerates whores need to realize that to the mass public and most other gamers it doesnt really matter if the game is fun.
Obviously there are people who can and do over look it. And it does not detratct from everyone's experience.D'ultimate said:
I haven't read the review. Perhaps there's a line noting "If you're a bitchy graphics whore who rates framerate over gameplay experience, take .5 off this review."
I totally agree with Razoric. slow down and frame rates issue are always overblown especially on GA. With regard to SA you have be anal to moan about the few judders here and there. Mind you I also think the 30/60 FPS issue in racing games is anal and we know how people like to argue that one.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
I just don't think MP2 should have any points knocked off because the multiplayer isn't online. I would understand if the console had online as a big part of its selling point. Now system link not being the game, gives justification for points being knocked off. Which could be the reasons for this.
Guns N' Poops
Banned
I want to read all 4 reviews complete with spoilers, please.
My crystal ball prediction:
MP: Echoes:
Good: Atmosphere, music, production values, art direction.
Bad: Multiplayer, no online
Halo 2:
Good: Single player, online, multiplayer heaven.
Bad: It has to end.
GTASA:
Good: Most ambitious game EVAR, hours and hours and hours and hours of the ability to do everything.
Bad: Slowdown, mediocre graphics, imperfect controls, but nothing that's worthy of a .1 deduction.
MGS3:
Good: Everything you love about the series, and we love the series.
Bad: Everything you hate about the series, but you can't possibly hate the series.
MP: Echoes:
Good: Atmosphere, music, production values, art direction.
Bad: Multiplayer, no online
Halo 2:
Good: Single player, online, multiplayer heaven.
Bad: It has to end.
GTASA:
Good: Most ambitious game EVAR, hours and hours and hours and hours of the ability to do everything.
Bad: Slowdown, mediocre graphics, imperfect controls, but nothing that's worthy of a .1 deduction.
MGS3:
Good: Everything you love about the series, and we love the series.
Bad: Everything you hate about the series, but you can't possibly hate the series.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
You guys are insane, I've experienced bouts of TERRIBLE slowdown in San Andreas but the best part is I didn't care! The game's enjoyment totally squashed any of my misgivings about the graphics/framerate within 10 minutes. What the game is under 30 fps? Watch me care as I pull the coolest stunt off Mt. Chiliad in a fucking 747.
I hate to say it but I was being a bit pessimistic about MGS3 considering how the sequel turned out (of course this is IMO so I don't want any whiny children coming up with wiseass retorts). Damn I'm glad to see it score well, I hope this is a reflection about how toned down the cinema scenes are and the incredible pacing and level design (god I hope this is the case).
I hate to say it but I was being a bit pessimistic about MGS3 considering how the sequel turned out (of course this is IMO so I don't want any whiny children coming up with wiseass retorts). Damn I'm glad to see it score well, I hope this is a reflection about how toned down the cinema scenes are and the incredible pacing and level design (god I hope this is the case).