Legendary Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 31 October, 2008

Not really.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Calling a game Legendary is either an act of supreme confidence or foolhardy hubris, especially when your last entry into the first-person shooter was the thoroughly dire Turning Point: Fall of Liberty. That's the position that developer Spark Unlimited finds itself in, and after only a few hours play you'll start to suspect that a more honest - though less marketable - title would've been Hilarious.

As in hilariously bad. Any hopes that Spark might have learned from the myriad flaws painstakingly pointed out in dozens of reviews for Turning Point is dashed almost immediately. In almost every respect, Legendary is exactly the same game but with the Nazi invasion of America replaced with an invasion of mythical beasts.

They've accidentally been released from Pandora's Box by our hero, Charles Deckard, you see. He's a blank slate of a thief, hired by a mysterious character to retrieve the fabled artefact, and in doing so he only goes and pops it open. Even the ancient Greeks understood that Pandora's Box was a metaphorical representation of mankind's capacity for evil and suffering, so the fact that the game labours under the impression that it's literally a box full of monsters, which looks like the Ark of the Covenant, should give you some idea of the level of creative innovation on display. That the monsters in question are drawn from Greek, Norse, medieval and even Jewish mythology simply confuses matters even more.

'Legendary' Screenshot 1

Oh good, the obligatory boss fight with rockets.

At least the opening of the box gives us our obligatory opening set-piece, as New York's Natural History Museum is torn asunder by the outpouring of evil monster energy in a scene crudely swiped from Ghostbusters. Just as Turning Point started with a series of staged sequences as you descended through a skyscraper construction site while German troops parachuted around you, so Deckard must scramble out of the museum as fire-spitting creatures chomp on civilians. As in Turning Point, it feels stagey and fake, and there's no sense of danger since every single moment is so obviously scripted. Try and shoot the griffins busy devouring bystanders on the street and your bullets pass right through. They're not actually there, you see. It's just scenery on a low-rent ghost train.

From there, it's a rapid slide past mediocrity into just plain bad. The aiming is better than it was in Turning Point, but that's hardly high praise. The twitchy crosshairs still fail to compete with any other current first-person shooter, while the generally unresponsive movement controls hamper your progress once again. Scenery snags are common, while the game goes out of its way to block your path with stupid and illogical obstacles. Deckard is apparently a very lethargic man, since he's completely incapable of jumping more than one foot off the ground, or pulling himself up onto waist-high objects. This means, for instance, that a simple handrail forces you to laboriously make your way around, over, out and through a protracted series of conveniently crashed subway cars simply to reach a door ten feet from where you started.

Such clumsy construction is found in abundance throughout, with Spark's fondness for lazy and linear design on shameless display. Is there a bit where you have to make your way down a train track, dodging trains? Of course. Sewer levels? You betcha. Inexplicable jets of flame that switch on and off so you can pass? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Even potentially good ideas get dragged down to the most basic level. The vast open space of Times Square, a fantastic location for a pitched FPS battle, is predictably transformed into something more manageable by some remarkably precise destruction which shapes the rubble and debris into a series of narrow, winding corridors. Interactive objects glow bright green, rendering the occasional puzzles completely redundant, while the game constantly reminds you which buttons to hold down to perform basic tasks.

The poor decisions don't end there. Your interaction with Pandora's Box has left you with a supernatural brand on your left arm. This allows you to absorb Animus Vitae, the life force of defeated creatures, which you can then use to unleash a pulse attack, top up your health or charge up essential mission objectives. So your most valuable game resource is dropped by every single monster but must serve multiple functions, often at the same time. In a better designed game, this dichotomy could lead to some interesting tactical problems.

Here, it's simply annoying. The game spams you with respawning creatures and uncannily accurate evil soldiers, but because they exhibit absolutely no evidence of AI, there's never any breathing space to fight tactically. Werewolves, for instance, can only be killed by decapitation. They scamper and claw at you, but once they're down you can switch to your axe and frantically swing away at their neck, dozens of times, until the game decides you've hit the exact spot required and the creature dies. Absorbing Animus means standing still and holding a button, and topping up your health is the same. Neither is realistically possible in the middle of a fight, since enemies just come lurching towards you constantly, taking off huge chunks of health with each hit.

'Legendary' Screenshot 2

Look at the neon sign. These are the jokes, people.

Graphically, it's every bit as bad as Turning Point, with character models that are consistently and horribly outdated. I actually made a note that the inclusion of creepy mannequins was a rip-off from Condemned, until I realised that these pale, featureless automatons were supposed to be civilians. There's a character who I assume is supposed to be your sexy female companion, but she looks like Mr Punch and sounds like Margaret Thatcher and I couldn't wait to get far away from her freakish hooked nose and flat, painted, staring eyes.

Glitches are frequent, with objects getting stuck through walls and NPCs jittering around like marionettes. Needless to say, the frame rate is nothing to write home about. Once again, Spark has managed to take Unreal engine 3 and make it look like a 1997 Half-Life mod. Try to slurp up some Animus while the game simultaneously tries to render flames and smoke, and you'll get a lovely psychedelic slideshow. What makes it all the more galling is the occasional moment where the game actually looks pretty good. There's a giant golem made from cars and rubble in the third chapter that is genuinely impressive - though the manner of its defeat is typically pedestrian - and there are enough moments of subtle lighting sprinkled throughout to suggest that there were at least some people involved who knew what they were doing.

Legendary is the gaming equivalent of cheap supermarket own-brand beans, but instead of costing eleven pence it costs the same as a prime steak cooked by a top chef. It's a bad, bad game. One of the worst I've played on this generation of consoles, in fact. In that regard, at least, the title is surprisingly accurate.

2 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (97) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Cider-X #1 3 years ago

    Yet another Atari failure...

  • 3william56 #2 3 years ago

    Pow! Ouch! 2 points just for the trash golem, huh?

    And they release this at the same time as Fable, Fallout, LBP and the rest of the 9+ joy currently screaming for my credit card's lovin?

    Bye!

  • SuperBas #3 3 years ago

    Wow, wasn't expecting this. It looked like a 9 from the first trailer, than a 6. But a 2???

  • clockworkzombie #4 3 years ago

    Damn, thought that review was written by Ellie for a moment and on that note why wasn't it? I thought it was written in her contract that she got the bad games.

  • the_dudefather #5 3 years ago

    'Howl inn'

    Genius

  • ArchiRag #6 3 years ago

    releasing bad games at this time of year is a terrrible idea

  • Scimarad #7 3 years ago

    Such a shame! It sounded like such a fun idea...

  • keyboardmonkey #8 3 years ago

    Eurogamer showing their Xbox bias again ;-)

    After the total glut of good games over the last couple of months, plus what is coming up, it's about time we had some low scores.

  • bad09 #9 3 years ago

    Now that is a shame but I did suspect it was poo after watching someone play it at the expo. I liked the sound of this one to.

  • dr_faulk #10 3 years ago

    I feel sorry for the developers and anyone who buys this.... I'm thinking of innocent kids who don't know any better, or thoughtful parents hoping to "Wow!" their kids at Christmas.

    Boy, does the world suck sometimes...

  • Gnort #11 3 years ago

    Wow, sounds awful. Which staffer wrote the preview which said that it was almost ready, and was feeling like a 7 or 8 for its fast paced, back to basics FPS fun? Clearly wasn't Dan.

    Edit: Turns out it was Rob (Shinji), who wrote the following in the comments thread: "It's probably not a 9 or 10 out of ten kind of game, unless multiplayer is really stunning, but from what I played (about two and a half hours of the game), it's one of those 7 or 8 out of ten games that you develop a real fondness for while acknowledging that it's not doing anything particularly special."
    Edited by 1 at 31/10/08 @ 08:17

  • Steroyd #12 3 years ago

    Ouch!

    That's all I can say.

    twas a joy to read.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #13 3 years ago

    You have to admit that some of the screens do look nice though. At least it's not another horde of generic aliens that you have to shoot.

  • muscleblade #14 3 years ago

    I bought Quantum of Solace special edition yesterday because of the fantastic metalbox. Hoping for a review today to decide if im going to start playing it or not.

  • siro #15 3 years ago

    A low score was coming a long way imo. Never saw this anything but a turd.

  • UncleLou #16 3 years ago

    Oh dear.

    This got a 7 over at eurogamer.de. Now I am almost curious. :-)

  • Darren #17 3 years ago

    Until I saw this review I'd never even heard of this game. And judging by that review I don't want to know about it either! LOL

  • defdaz #18 3 years ago

    Guess this publisher doesn't buy any advertising on eurogamer eh? ;)

  • Pirotic #19 3 years ago

    Didn't they only give an interview to one of the magazines (Edge or GamesTM) a month ago saying about how they had learnt from their mistakes with the last game?
    Edited by 1 at 31/10/08 @ 08:27

  • drumbaby #20 3 years ago

    So, only 6 worse than Gears then?

  • Daikon #21 3 years ago

    2/10? And here I was thinking such scores were reserved for video games starring Aerosmith...

  • magicpocket #22 3 years ago

    Dan, Dan, Dan, you really sound like an incredibly hard man to please. I've played Legendary through to all but the end and i loved it. Of course i saw the same glitches you mention, but i had fun. More fun than i had with Fallout3 tbh.

    This review stinks of someone deliberately setting out with a bad impression in mind.

  • Daikon #23 3 years ago

    Oh and I see the game is published by Gamecock Media? Hmmmm...

  • DoctorZoidberg #24 3 years ago

    Two sounds a bit harsh.

    I notice your slating things that EVERY fps since the dawn of time had... Sure repetition is bad etc, I thought Fallout 3 had levels in the sewers and "train lines"?

    I've no intention of picking this up what so ever though.

  • Quint2020 #25 3 years ago

    Jesus, 2!?

    I thought it looked like a good old fashioned dumb ass shooter.

    Oh well, Fallout 3 it is then.

  • sailesh #26 3 years ago

    lol ouch lol.

    i dunno why journos were even interested in this AT ALL. Looked shit from day one.

  • Xerx3s #27 3 years ago

    "Deckard is apparently a very lethargic man, since he's completely incapable of jumping more than one foot off the ground, or pulling himself up onto waist-high objects."

    You will find that most people are so out of shape that this applies. ¬_¬

  • Jigglybean #28 3 years ago

    After the spore review, reviews on Eurogamer mean nothing to me. However, given Sparks track record, this will be crap

  • shadaik #29 3 years ago

    You gotta admire the meta-ness of incorporating the opening of Pandora's Box as the game's beginning, though.

  • Aloominum_man #30 3 years ago

    Two paragraphs of that review would work well in the Far Cry 2 review.

  • thesombrerokid #31 3 years ago

    actually this is the best time to release a bad game, it's like when the government releases scandals and bad news when they know no one's paying any attention, this is the same slip it past the reviewers and we'll get sales based on hype!

  • SparkyDD #32 3 years ago

    Glowing green items to help the player....Fable 2 does similar things. That got a 10. Probably is a bad game, but review did smell of someone who wanted to late the game regardless.

  • SparkyDD #33 3 years ago

    Glowing green items to help the player....Fable 2 does similar things. That got a 10. Probably is a bad game, but review did smell of someone who wanted to late the game regardless.

  • burns #34 3 years ago

    Ouch But I could see this coming a mile off.

  • miiiguel #35 3 years ago

    You ppl should be ashamed to bring Fallout into this thread. And deserve a public imolation the ones who are comparing the two.

    Or... you can just keep on going and look silly.

  • BillyBrush #36 3 years ago

    He he...i recall the preview which said it was great and was going to be about 8/10 ...it looked just as ponderous and mehsome then

  • seasidebaz #37 3 years ago

    /awaits "i jus bort this an its wurth at leest a 7" comments to appear...

  • nickthegun #38 3 years ago

    Haha! See Pete, I told you this was shit!

  • Krelle #39 3 years ago

    This was obvious since I saw the GiantBomb video-playthru a while back.

  • TruWari3r #40 3 years ago

    Nice, next time give it a 1 will you?

    I especially enjoyed the gazillion developer specials, where the showed a mediocre build and tried to talk it up as being the shiznit. Nice that's it's actually worse then expected.

  • Krelle #41 3 years ago

    Shinji, the guy writing the preview, said:
    "I wouldn't say I've got an excessively sunny disposition over this one (I hauled myself across rush-hour London with a grotty head-cold to see it - sunny I was not! :) ), rather that I don't see the problem with simply taking traditional FPS play and doing it really well. It's probably not a 9 or 10 out of ten kind of game, unless multiplayer is really stunning, but from what I played (about two and a half hours of the game), it's one of those 7 or 8 out of ten games that you develop a real fondness for while acknowledging that it's not doing anything particularly special."

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article_discussion.php ?article_id=228974
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article_discuss...[/link]

    Like, wtf?

  • smoothpete #42 3 years ago

    Yes Nick you were absolutely correct (I suspected you might be...). Shame, could have been fun.

    EG you cruel people, inviting this game to the expo then slating it just a couple of days afterwards!

  • DoctorZoidberg #43 3 years ago

    You ppl should be ashamed to bring Fallout into this thread. And deserve a public immolation the ones who are comparing the two.


    Fallout 3 is Fallout only by name, lets not get that confused, and they are far more similar than one would realise.

    I'm still going to pick it up (F3), as it looks fun (in a very different way) but as soon as I'm past the title, it's a whole new franchise.


  • asphaltcowboy #44 3 years ago

    I really like the idea behind the game, but they just can't make good games!

  • Gearskin #45 3 years ago

    From FUN preview... to hate filled review?

  • Xerx3s #46 3 years ago

    "Glowing green items to help the player....Fable 2 does similar things. That got a 10. Probably is a bad game, but review did smell of someone who wanted to late the game regardless."

    Ah but in F2 it's a gameplay mechanic (did you actually read WHY the reviewer thought that it was a bad thing in this game?). In fable 2 you can soak up the experience orbs but you are defenceless against enemies when you do so. If you don't on the other hand, it might fade away.

  • Duckula #47 3 years ago

    Worst game I've played this gen.

  • Fleisch #48 3 years ago

    Played this at the eurogamer expo, it was utter utter guff, no queues all night! spot on review!

  • Eighthours #49 3 years ago

    Ouch. A cathartic piece of writing, Dan? :)

  • PlugMonkey #50 3 years ago

    "Deckard is apparently a very lethargic man, since he's completely incapable of jumping more than one foot off the ground, or pulling himself up onto waist-high objects."

    Ah, Knee High Wall Syndrome. This has been bugging me in FPSs for years. It narrowly pips Flimsy Interior Door Syndrome in the unimaginative level design annoyance stakes.

  • nedgip #51 3 years ago

    Its really crap, i played it at the expo and it looked like it was only half complete. Hitting corpses with an axe didnt budge them (no ragdoll) neither did shooting corpses or hitting computer screens. I like my corpses to move when i lay in to them. Then a giant chicken landed and started to steal the civilians i potentially could have killed. When i finally caught up with one if turned out i couldnt kill them at all. Rubbish game.

  • DanWhitehead #52 3 years ago

    I didn't even mention the doors in the review. I don't think there's a single normal door that you can open. As in, walk up to door, press action button, door swings open. All the doors in all the buildings are just flat textures, and the only ones that open are the occasional crank-turning type or involve pressing X to hotwire electronic locks. Purely on a technical level, this is a game that's about ten years out of date.

  • rhubarbandcustard #53 3 years ago

    Released on the Wii this would be heralded as the future of first peron shooters along with shite like The Conduit.

    Thank God Sony and Microsoft have the backing of top tier third party software houses.

    This title will sink like a stone never to be seen again.

  • spookyzombie #54 3 years ago

    That's a fucking ridiculous score. I played through the first three levels of this and I can promise you it isn't a 2/10 title. I'm not trying to say it's an amazing game because it isn't. But it is more of a 5/10 and middle of the road.

  • miiiguel #55 3 years ago

    While I'm not particulary a fan of that Shinji dude (he seems to pick on me every so often, and tbh he sounds a bit cocky at times - sorry I can't tell a lie...), I can't understand why the fuss regarding the "fun preview" to "awfull game" remarks...

    "Everytime someone mentions Haze from here on, he'll get this right in return "
    This is scheduled for the PS3 as well... ;)
    Edited by 1 at 31/10/08 @ 11:20

  • PlugMonkey #56 3 years ago

    "I didn't even mention the doors in the review. I don't think there's a single normal door that you can open. As in, walk up to door, press action button, door swings open. All the doors in all the buildings are just flat textures,"

    Heh heh. I don't think you needed to mention them. I could just sense it. When the impassable Knee High Walls present themselves, the impassable Flimsy Interior Doors can't be far behind.

    My favourite is when an Flimsy Interior Door will open, but only after I've gone off a-questing for the key - because according to the game the 12-gauge I'm cradling doesn't present a more immediate solution...

  • DanWhitehead #57 3 years ago

    That's a fucking ridiculous score. I played through the first three levels of this and I can promise you it isn't a 2/10 title. I'm not trying to say it's an amazing game because it isn't. But it is more of a 5/10 and middle of the road.

    Legendary is in no way representative of an average 2008 first-person shooter. Turning Point deserved its 3/10 and this is notably worse in several key gameplay areas.

  • Darren #58 3 years ago

    If it's any consolation Edge magazine gave this game 4/10 so it doesn't seem to be a very good game at all. EG are doing us all a favour and warning us it isn't worth buying. With all the other great games out now and over the next few weeks why on earth would anyone want to buy a game that is at best mediocre anyway? OK so Wii owners don't have much choice but 360 and PS3 owners have loads of great games to choose from. Buy one of those instead.

  • spookyzombie #59 3 years ago

    @ DanWhitehead - If you look around at score averages on the net you'll find that your review is clearly in the minority. It does generally get 5/10's elsewhere.

  • Gearskin #60 3 years ago

    Dan... Werewolves > Nazis.

    GTFO

  • DanWhitehead #61 3 years ago

    If you look around at score averages on the net you'll find that your review is clearly in the minority. It does generally get 5/10's elsewhere.

    I honestly, really couldn't give a toss what other reviews say. That's not me being rude, by the way, just a statement of fact. I think Legendary is a pretty terrible game. Other people may think it's merely average. Such is life. I'm certainly not about to start worrying about the mythical "metascore" when writing a review, as if there's some "correct" score that I should be aiming for.

  • nailerr #62 3 years ago

    From the previews given months ago it was clear from the artwork alone that this was doomed.

    When your game, in this day, looks that bad in terms of style - let alone graphical quality - you can usually be sure that the outcome will be dire. Polish is not everything, but it shows when people at least try.

  • suicida #63 3 years ago

    I love reading reviews of bad games :-D

  • KreyAtiv #64 3 years ago

    LOL a score of 2.

  • T4RG4 #65 3 years ago

    This *always* looked crap. Watching my brother play it for three minutes at the Expo (and not be able to jump over a tiny, tiny bit of rubble, you had to walk around it) displayed its inner filth and sub-standard graphics. It looked like an average last-gen game (graphically).

    It's bloody difficult to make games so bad. Well done Spark!

  • wonton #66 3 years ago

    If this is anything like Turning Point (really, really bad game, if you feel like wasting your life away get it in the bargain bin and find how not to make an fps in 2008) then the Spark team needs to have a long sit down and find out why their games are so fundamentally bad.

  • Gearskin #67 3 years ago

    Lets all buy it!

  • sneetch #68 3 years ago

    @DanWhitehead
    "If you look around at score averages on the net you'll find that your review is clearly in the minority. It does generally get 5/10's elsewhere.

    I honestly, really couldn't give a toss what other reviews say. That's not me being rude, by the way, just a statement of fact. I think Legendary is a pretty terrible game. Other people may think it's merely average. Such is life. I'm certainly not about to start worrying about the mythical "metascore" when writing a review, as if there's some "correct" score that I should be aiming for."

    Yes! Thanks for saying that. Glad to hear it, that's how it should be. I suggest we remember that the people reviewing games here don't "get it wrong" whenever their opinion differs from ours; it's just that different people have different expectations and opinions. Scores will vary, so read a number of reviews if you're not sure about a game but don't expect reviewers to take back their scores and opinions because others think more or less about a game than they do.

    That said, this game, in particular, sounds appalling.

  • Gnort #69 3 years ago

    @DanWhitehead
    I agree with you 100%. I love metascores, I think they're a great way to gauge critical reaction to games without actually having to browse a whole pile of sites, but the idea that they generate a "correct" score is ridiculous. If a game has a metascore of 50, it doesn't mean that the reviewers who gave it a 7 or a 2 are wrong. The reviews generate the metascores, not the other way around.

    I'm not invested in this game in any way, however I am curious as to whether Shinji still thinks the game is one that "you develop a real fondness for".

  • Aloominum_man #70 3 years ago

    I don't understand the hair-splitting over 2/10, 4/10, 5/10 and so on. Maybe I'm alone but, frankly, if a games clocks in at anything under 70% from sources that I've found to be trustworthy, then it might as well be 10% for all I care because I won't be buying it.

  • Retroid #71 3 years ago

    Ouch.

    It looked a bit arse when they featured it on 1up but I didn't think it would be a 2/10!

  • Darren #72 3 years ago

    @Aloominum_man - I agree... whether this game is a 2/10 or 5/10 one is not the point, the point is that it is obviously not very good so why would anyone in their right mind waste money on it when there's dozens of much better games out there more deserving of your cash, even in the same genre? :?

  • sanduixe #73 3 years ago

    WTF!?
    I taught in 8/10.

  • eepic #74 3 years ago

    still better than MGS4 which you cant even play because it's a movie.

    fucking sony fanboy niggers.

  • Eighthours #75 3 years ago

    @ DanWhitehead - If you look around at score averages on the net you'll find that your review is clearly in the minority. It does generally get 5/10's elsewhere.

    And this makes Dan's review "wrong", how? Jesus, I detest this line of argument, I really do. There are many reasons why the other marks could be higher - differing scoring policies being only one of them.

  • Linkified #76 3 years ago

    @ Cider-X : This was made published by GameCock and developed by those who made the WW2 shooter that was set in the US - the one tht was apprently ' too high concept' for people to judge it properly

  • SeesThroughAll #77 3 years ago

    Who didn't see this coming can raise their hands...

    ...
    /waits
    ...


    Thought so.

  • bad09 #78 3 years ago

    I've noticed poor old Dan always tends to get a right roasting on his reviews :)

    Still after seeing it I can't really see myself disagreeing it did look AWFUL at the expo.......

  • Fellblade #79 3 years ago

    Is this a 2 out of 10 in the same way that it looks like a 1997 Halflife Mod? Looking at the screenshots, it doesn't look like a 1997 Halflife mod.

    Also, one of my colleagues also pointed out that Halflife was released in 1998?

  • makeamazing #80 3 years ago

    What is increasingly worrying me about game review sites is that previews of the games they either slate it and then give it a good score (Fall out 2) or say its not bad its going to be around a 7 and then give it a 2. Now i appreciate its different reviewers etc, but more care should be taken. Of course you can say well a preview is only an idea of how a game can turn out, but how can you have someone play the game for two hours apparently and say its most likely a 7 game and then another EG staff gives it a 2. To me it just seems careless reviewing/previewing.

    I dont doubt the game is probably rubbish and the reviewer is spot on, Spark were very careless with Liberty or whatever it was called, they really didnt seem to have the skills inhouse to make a well designed game. Even though people shouldnt just make buying decisions from just reviews, but these sites give people an indication if they should buy a type of game they like.

    I recommend for previews you dont mention anything to do with scores in the future.
    Edited by 2 at 31/10/08 @ 18:57

  • dfunked #81 3 years ago

    Holy crap... I was holding a candle of hope for this one, thinking it might be worth a look, maybe getting a 7 or possibly even an 8.
    I guess even something as awesome as werewolves couldn't save this one

  • schachmatt #82 3 years ago

    I want the Dan-standard used for all further reviews!

  • spookyzombie #83 3 years ago

    I never said his review was wrong. I just said he'd scored it incredibly low compared to others. It doesn't make his opinion of the game wrong either. As for his 'mythical Metascore' line, well Metascores aren't really mythical if they actually exist based on fact.
    Edited by 1 at 31/10/08 @ 21:10

  • bobalou #84 3 years ago

    wtf? wtf?

    Dan, Dan, what's the matter? Aren't you getting any love at home? Or maybe the publisher isn't showing you any love? What happened, didn't they give you red-carpet treatment last press tour? You really have an axe to grind don't you?

    Are you looking for a new job? I should think you are. What publisher would trust you with a game review? Your caustic words will cost them money when your reviews doens't match reality.

    Hell, you review doesn't meet EG's scoring quidelines. Have you read them? I did cause I couldn't believe how way off you were from the previews. Go back and read your employer's guidelines. You are way off. Again, I would think you would be worried for your job. Your rogue pen could cost them advertising money. Or is that the case here already? Maybe Atari didn't place ads on the EG site and you were given marching orders to scuttle the review.

    In any case, your opinion can't be trusted. You don't represent the average reader of this site or player of games. I have to question anything you write. I have to question any position EG takes given they have allowed your irresponsible prose. You should rethink this over the weekend. And then give us an honet review.

  • davisorle #85 3 years ago

    I knew and could tell it's a cheap ass game but still I hoped it was a fun to waste your time once in a while for some old school FPS for no reason shooting monsters but fuck.... Didn't imagine it was this bad of a game lol

  • Redeye #86 3 years ago

    Looks like hammered arse, to borrow a turn of phrase.

  • Dogstar060763 #87 3 years ago

    I enjoyed the review - but I always enjoy particularly savage reviews. TBH, Legendary always looked like a bit of a lame duck, for me at least. I'm frankly amazed anyone could have been holding out any expectation the final game would be anything other than - at best - an also-ran, given the slew of truly impressive titles around at the moment.

    Spark Unlimited need to step away for a while and rethink their entire approach or they will be facing a very uncertain financial future (if that's not the case already). You can't produce shovelware and hope to build a viable business plan - not these days. Gamers demand much more in all areas, not least basic presentation and polish. I feel sorry for any developer having to suffer negative reviews (I can't imagine how difficult it must actually be to try and make a full-blown commercial release), but... really. All that time, money and effort and this is the best you could do?

    Ah well. I was never going to buy Legendary, but I've enjoyed the review, even if it does make me feel a little bit dirty for having done so.

  • diz93 #88 3 years ago

    @ bobalou -

    I may not represent the average reader here like you seem to think you do - your opinions certainly don't reflect my own.

    I thought Dan's review was entertaining informative journalism. To me, it's obvious that this game is a turkey and the developer should have learned from the widespread disappointment raised at their earlier FPS travesty.

    I applaud anyone who cares to speak their mind, regardless of sponsorship influences. (It worked out for Jeff Gerstmann!) I wonder if you'd like to read reviews based on fraudulent corruption than honest opinion.

    Edited by 1 at 02/11/08 @ 14:45

  • bobalou #89 3 years ago

    @diz93

    I am not saying he wasn't honest or it wasn't an entertaining read. But he definitely has a slant view. Look at the Eurogamers review scoring guidelines. It should have rate a 4 or better. When he doesn't adhere to the rules of the road, I ahve to beleive he has an alterior motive. If the review doesn't fit within the sites guidelines, then the editors should disavow the review as being rogue. Since they didn't, I have to believe they are comfortable or want an out-of-bounds review. It does generate read throughs which equals visits which equals ad revenue. In that case they sacrifice the trust of the press for the all mighty euro doing us all a disservice.

  • crackhed #90 3 years ago

    tsk tsk, Mr. Whitehead... Half-Life came out at the end of 1998.

    And it's a shame... I was looking forward to mindlessly slaughtering hordes of mythical creatures. Oh well. I wonder what they're working on next.

  • DanWhitehead #91 3 years ago

    From the Eurogamer scoring policy, regarding a score of 2/10...

    "What you're facing here is a game with appalling generic visuals built around an awful design, cursed with cretinous AI, brain-frying audio and controls that feel like they've been designed to upset people or boost sales of replacement game pads. It could just be that the game is just so hideously old fashioned that someone has released the game by mistake."

    That's Legendary in a nutshell.

  • dingo75 #92 3 years ago

    Very nice review thank you.
    Did someone really think they could come up with something decent after "Turning Point"?
    They somehow manage to find interesting settings and then completely screw it up by lousy programing. :p
    I fully approve of the 2/10 and I'm happy that someone spoke his mind regardless of all the criticism.
    I learned in the past to never trust previews after some magazine stated that they assume that found bugs while playing it will be fixed in the final version and give the developers a lot of trust that their promises will be true.
    However in reviews the gloves are off. So take previews as nothing more than a glimpse at a potentially good game.

    If you think this game has potential just wait until it will hit the bargain bins (pretty soon I guess), pick it up cheap and judge for yourself.

  • haowan #93 3 years ago

    developer shills are truly embarrassing

  • mkreku #94 3 years ago

    I really hope the developers aren't reading this thread :/

  • jawshoeuh #95 3 years ago

    this review is way harsh. the game is not that bad. mediocre maybe, but not terrible. i played through the entire game on an early build and while it didn't succeed in blowing me away, it also wasn't as painful to play as all that. the graphics are not that bad, certainly not "1997 half life mod" (half life came out in 1998 anyway).

    i'm not going to tell you this game is an 8 or 9 out of 10 because it isn't, but it's fun and if it has at all piqued your interest i would recommend at least renting it and checking it out.

    based on the fact that you get to fight werewolves and griffins it's at least a 4. lol.

  • espibara #96 3 years ago

    Well just finished Legendary 14.99 at Gamestation.

    A solid 6/10 for me enjoyable, liked the werewolves etc and quite moody/intense in places. Its very corridor driven but so is Quake IV and Doom III. Not a 2/10 but well worth a punt at its new price.

  • spillersly4 #97 3 years ago

    this game has not been given the credit it deserves yh the graphics are not the greatest that the unreal engine can produce but since when the hell did games become all about graphics look at mega man 9 great game but guess what it had 8 bit graphics the demo didnt do this game justice either. The demo is set at around stage 5 or 6 in the most boring parts of the game atari have the right idea it just needs improving exactly like mirrors edge not great but will hopefully be better in the sequels. Yes legendary is easy aswell but they tried to make hard by giving the A.I. stupidly good accuracy despite them being glitchy as shit and the kraken could have been alot harder but it was impressive no game is perfect no game will be just give legendary a chance.

  • Owens #98 3 years ago

    Ignore anyone saying this game deserves anything higher than 2. Last I saw of the game was a preview AGES ago and it looked interesting, so I picked up a pre-owned copy from GAME yesterday for £15. This is easily the worst game I've played in years, possibly ever. I can't think of a worse game at the minute but I'm sure there must be at least one. I'm pretty obsessive about completing games I own so I'm playing it through....the est weapon on the game is the axe. Seriously. I can take on the harder enemies by just manically attacking them with the axe. But try swinging the axe while stood in a doorway and you'll hit an invisible wall.
    Blah. In short, one of the worst games ever. Definitely one of the worst in this generation.