Topic: lol, Gamepro (Conduit Review)

I just wish I could get my hands on the game already. Hurry up!

Oh dear,another PS3/Xbox 360 fanboy who hates The Conduit is reviewing the game. Maybe,I need to review Halo and give it a zero.

He says nothing to make himself sound like a Halo fanboy... Nor did he say he hates it; in fact, the score shows that he liked it well enough despite some faults.

I really want this game, because I just can't justify buying an Xbox or PS3 just for a couple FPS's (not my favorite genre, but nice to have one or two to play, plus I'm better at point-and-shoot than dual analog). Sure, maybe it's not the best out there, but it looks pretty good, and for me the price is right.

Wish it had local multiplayer though, so I could bring it to a friend's house to play or play with my brother. I don't really care so much about online for this. I mainly only do online games when I have one friend to play with already locally, and we'd like to play with people rather than the cpu.

Back on topic: If you're going to review a game, you should make some attempt to get a good look at what it has to offer. I understand reviewers do have deadlines and have to rush somewhat, but you can tell IGN really spent some time exploring the game, and this reviewer didn't.

to me it was a biased review.
I can't say much more until I play the game, and if I don't like it, then whatever.
No biggie.

Was a poorly written review but what would you expect from gramepro. If you're reviewing something for a publication you should try out all aspects of it. If it was a preview it would be ok to skip multiplayer but saying "some other people on the site covered it in a preview" doesn't excuse forgetting it in an actual review. Its like reviewing little big planet and not looking at any of the creation aspects. The graphics are obviously much better than goldeneye thought that is somewhat opinion. As others mentioned the controls he complained about are customizable. I haven't played it but the review is obviously missing a lot.

I don't really see what the big deal is about. He doesn't really say anything incredibly brutal and what he does say seems to hold some truth to it. Comparing it to Goldeneye isn't an entirely bad thing, but considering the context it's not a great thing either. And from the looks of it, it just sounds like the concept for the game held a lot more promise than the actual finished product does. To be honest I won't be incredibly surprised if the review he gave turns out to be fairly accurate, since I haven't really understood what all the hype is about with this game in the first place. If I want to play a good FPS I have a PC for that. I just can't get excited over many products of that genre on any other platform since the large majority of them just don't feel right on consoles.

And I find all the ranting and raving about the reviewer being a huge fanboy more than a little ironic. That's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

While people shouldn't get all offended and overreact I don't see a problem with critiquing someone's review. If a reviewer writes a bad review they should be called out on it just like the reviewer has the right to call out video game makers for making bad games.

And if readers write a bad review of a review, they have a right to be called on it. Or course if that bad review of a bad review of a review is bad, I guess that person has a right to be called out as well. But then again if a bad review of a bad...erm...you get the idea.

One thing about this review and reviews in general currently is the constant comparisons graphically with the PS3/360. Hey guys, the people reading your review are gamers, they KNOW the Wii hardware isn't as powerful as the 360/PS3, and since they're still playing it obviously means they don't bloody care. Making comparisons with the 360/PS3 is a useless gesture and sparks of fanboyism/bias. If the Wii had the same graphic power capability and the graphics were still bad then it'd be a useful thing to mention, but since the Wii is less powerful and all gamers know this it's a stupid point to make.

NOM said the story was generic as well, it probably is and High Voltage are hoping the game sells well so they can make a sequel where it'll all make sense...or maybe they just forgot to put in a story and botched one together at the last second. Hell, people said Tales of Symphonia's story was horribly generic and I loved it, so let's just give it a chance and see.

Blame HVS. They were the first to compare it to a 360 game. They also said it was the best looking Wii game (not one of the best, the best), despite it looking vastly inferior to Corruption and Galaxy. I would never compare a third-party Wii game to a first-party game or 360 game out of fairness, but they kept hyping their silly engine, and while it looks decent, it doesn't look anything special either.

I personally don't have much of a problem with the game and look forward to renting it, but I don't think any of the criticisms of it are unwarranted given the developer's rather obnoxious approach to hyping the game. It seems odd to me that people are so upset about a slightly negative (but overall positive) review. It's like no one reads the whole thing.

@Adam: I too look forward to renting/buying it 2nd hand cheap, and yeah HVS did compare it to a 360 game played in Standard Def so it is partially their fault. I agree too that it's got nothing on Galaxy (which admittedly has simply textures) and especially Corruption which is one of the best looking shooters around full stop in my opinion. I feel the review reads like it was rushed or not proof read and doesn't give the impression of time spent with the game, that said the review was still generally positive and made some points which are valid (generic story, bad motion grenade throwing - why do people still get that wrong after 3 years?! etc.) however I'm just annoyed by the constant comparisons made with the 360/PS3 in the graphics dept, not just in this review, but in Wii reviews generally.

Yea, I completely agree. It's annoying to see this in most Wii reviews. Honestly, I'm satisfied with how Conduit looks. It reminds me of Perfect Dark, and who doesn't want to be reminded of Perfect Dark? If graphics mattered to me, I wouldn't own a Wii.

But for this game / review particularly, I think it's fitting because HVS asked for it. They ought to be called out on it since they've been hyping the game beyond what it's worth. I would bet it's a decent game, which is enough for me, but they acted like it was the end-all of the FPS genre. Baloney.

If someone complains about Muramasa's graphics for not being 360-quality, however, I will join in laughing at that review.

So should HVS have said "our graphics are ok and the game isn't anything special but we hope people like it". They put a lot of work into the game and engine for the game so obviously they are going to hype it up. Without that hype they may have not gotten sega to publish it.

The engine is pretty nice. The water effects are beautiful. I don't like how it blurs when you're reloading, that hurts my eyes. Put in 3 hours so far and it's alright. Not very impressed with the online though. Gotta take a break for now.

From what I've heard so far, that might not have been such a bad thing, haha.

But no, there are other, honest means to advertise your game. One would be to let the video footage speak for itself. Another way would be not to make unsupportable claims. Comparing the graphics to a 360 game was just over the top nonsense. Most people were excited about the game for the controls anyway, not the graphics.

Seriously, did Nintendo hype Wii Sports by saying what awesome graphics it had? No, it focused on what it actually had. HVS should learn to do the same.

Could you provide links for those? And I hope you're not just going to turn up links of one guy from HVS saying that "we want to make something that's on par with a 360 game" or "I feel that it looks the best", because I can equally turn up links of another guy from HVS saying "well, Corruption does look better".

It's not my fault if the company is inconsistent. They shouldn't make those claims if they are just going to say, "Whoops, we were wrong, Metroid is better" later on.

But it is your fault when you selectively hear things and paint the entire company by the statements of one of its members, and then conclude that the whole company is arrogant and braggy once you've ignored all statements by all other people in which they aren't arrogant and braggy. And before you say it, yes, I know braggy is not a word.

There's a word for people who take the actions and statements of one person as representative of an entire group, and then talk about the group in a way that's based on their negative experience with one person, while ignoring any positive things said or done by members of that group. And that word is not a flattering one.

I call your bluff.

LINK

It says WE feel it looks the best.