Legendary Comments by Dan Whitehead

"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.

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.

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 Purely on a technical level, this is a game that's about ten years out of date.

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.

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.

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... ;)

"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...

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.

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.

@ 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.

Dan... Werewolves > Nazis.

GTFO

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.

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.

I love reading reviews of bad games :-D

LOL a score of 2.

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!

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.

Lets all buy it!

@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.

@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".

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.

Ouch.

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

@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? :?

WTF!?
I taught in 8/10.

@ 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.

Cant wait to see how low the score is for the new james bond game lol. Its got to be low considering it only takes about 4 hours to complete.

@ 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

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

...
/waits
...


Thought so.

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.......

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

@ 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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

developer shills are truly embarrassing

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

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.

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.

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.

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.