Crystal Quest Review

By Kristan Reed Published 17 February, 2006

Another Live Arcade gem?

Version tested: Xbox 360

Standing in a darkened room oscillating wildly to the electronic noises of the the future. That pretty much sums up my entry into the world of video gaming before home computers and consoles provided that elusive fix right in your own home. You'd happily burn through a stack of loose change proving your worth on some impossibly evil example of twitch gaming, and emerge blinking into the daylight poorer, but happier. Who could forget the triumph of the high score? This phase was like the punk explosion, the manic pop thrill, the sugar high of instant entertainment.

Where we are now resembles the latter days of progressive rock era of the 1970s, when pop hooks were disregarded in favour of epic soundscapes, infuriating noodling and pretentiously named bands full of pompous self-worth. Some games these days have all the appeal of a ten-minute drum solo; technically it might be amazing, and you'll nod sagely with beardy approval, but deep down what you really want is a stomping two-minute-thirty slice of hook-laden perfection. With attitude. Verse chorus verse, middle eight, key change, heart-melting 'ba-ba-ba'-laden chorus to fade, thanks. Job done.

Gamers are no different. We want to pick up the pad and be entertained now, not in two, three hours time when we've played through the sprawling tutorial and learned 28 combos. Not all of us have got time for that. Life's too short. And that's another slightly long-winded way of us getting to the point of why Xbox Live Arcade is one of the best ideas Microsoft has ever come up with.

Shattered

1

Played by sense of smell.

Crystal Quest sits snugly in the gradually expanding roster of cheap-ish retro offerings populating this intriguing new market segment, offering the kind of instant hooks that seem impossibly fresh given the utter simplicity of what's on offer here. The premise is almost embarrassingly basic - as are the visuals - but once again it grabs you by the proverbials and drags you into the kind of primal gaming that still seems faintly impossible in this often overcomplicated gaming age.

Stainless' update (of the 1987 Apple Mac 'classic') is barely any different to the original, which is to say you're tasked with guiding a ball around a series of fixed screen top-down levels, collecting all the crystals in the play field and hot-footing it out of the exit once you're done. Meanwhile, at opposing sides of the screen, enemies spawn (and re-spawn) out of their portals and begin their little dance of death around the screen, often in pursuit, sometimes firing, but mostly just getting in your way. In return, you can fire in any direction your wish, but you're armed with a pretty rubbish gun that's not the most helpful weapon in the time of a crisis. More useful are the limited stock of screen-clearing bombs that happily wipe out anything that's about to do you damage - except, that is, for the permanent spiky fixtures that will quickly kill you if you repeatedly bash into them. Fortunately, one-hit-death has been removed in the name of sanity.

Throw in the collection of super-high-scoring gems and other point-scoring pick-ups and, in a fairly neat nutshell, that's pretty much the entire point of the game. As you make progress, the number of gems you're tasked with picking up increases, but then so do the hazards, making negotiation of each screen something of an increasingly palpitating twitch fest that demands bravery, a bit of luck and no small amount of skill. Just as well, then, that the controls are super-slick, and make you feel like you're capable of threading the eye of a needle at speed.

Crystal methods

2

66 million? I doubt it!

As with other 360 Live Arcade Games, there's a 'classic' version of the game for the curious, but annoyingly your scores for the original version don't get uploaded to the Leaderboard - something you'll probably only realise after a marathon session. Bah. Elsewhere, though, the main version offers a veritable high score feast, with numerous attainable achievements to unlock, based around actually bothering to play the game on a sensible skill level (which is, curiously, based on a slider, rather than, say Easy, Medium, Hard) and having the ability to do crazy things like not touching a single obstacle, harvesting unlikely quantities of smartbombs or lives, and so on.

But as pure and addictive as it is in the beginning, it's not one of those Live Arcade games that will have you coming back endlessly like Geometry Wars or Mutant Storm. 60 levels might sound like a lot, but after just a few hours of play you'll probably feel sated with what you've seen and achieved and leave it at that. In fact, the freely available demo might well show you all you need to see, which is a shame.

If Crystal Quest was a little cheaper to start with it might be easier to recommend. The fact that Stainless has just made a bunch of entirely pointless reskin and audio downloads available for 100 credits a pop seems like a scary trend that we hope others avoid. The new Xtreme scenarios are a particularly unsavoury thing to have to pay extra for - nothing more than just upping the difficulty level for the real hardcore players. What happened to just giving people extra content as a gesture of goodwill? It's not as if any of this new stuff is remotely interesting, even for free.

Back on topic, whether Crystal Quest is worth buying is questionable. Sure, it's one of the cheaper offerings on Live Arcade, and it's certainly a fun, entertaining addition to the Live Arcade scene, but as brightly as it burns, it's an all-too-brief fix that doesn't leave you wanting more. You'll feel satisfied with what you've seen, but also keen to move on to something else. Download it and see for yourself.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (65) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • reality_cheque #1 6 years ago

    That review is pretty much smack on the money in my opinion. The only real challenge is some of the more obscure achievements like having 60 lives (if anyone actually does this I will be bloody impressed) and not touching anything for the first 20 levels.

    But still, considering it's only a few quid I'd say it's worth getting.

  • stampax #2 6 years ago

    Good review. Really enjoying seeing reviews of the live stuff - keep it up. Do you think MS will ever give points away - ie for winning online games etc?

    (why on earth do people always post a message saying first???? I don't get it. It's stupid).

  • bloke #3 6 years ago

    That cheered me up :-)

    /loves Eurogamer Forumites

  • JonFE #4 6 years ago

    @neon
    Probably, but it didn't bother to... and that's the point...

    XBLArcade is an exciting opportunity for a lot of people, developers and gamers alike. If you fail to understand it, why are you commenting?
    Edited by JonFE at 17/02/06 @ 08:43

  • trevd72 #5 6 years ago

    it is cac ca

  • morriss #6 6 years ago

    Played the demo for 5 mins, then deleted it. 'This' is a 2/10 game....

  • Kavvy #7 6 years ago

    The main problem with Live Arcade is the limitation MS have put on the developers in that all games must fit on a memory card.

    That still leaves 57MB (or something)

    // winding up

    Did I say problem? I meant "feature" cos Live is fking perfect IMO, and anyone that says otherwise is a Sony fanboy embittered because all they'll get is a 2nd rate quickly cobbled together online that poorly mimics MSs beautifully crafted work of art.

    // end of winding up

  • captainrentboy #8 6 years ago

    alithebull-first!
    Constructive as fook,bravo on that.
    Anyway I'd give this game a go if I didn't aleady have the far superior Geometry Wars,ohh and if I had any points left on xbla of course :( I waaaant Street fighter 2 dammit.
    And blizeH yeah you can come to that conclusion if the only reviews you'll acknowledge are that of Eurogamer's,and after them giving sotc such praise i'm starting to take all they write with a pinch of salt.sotc should have lost a few points for the game wrecking god awful camera,man it made me angry.
    And neon you're an idiot,and possibly very ugly.

  • OllyJ #9 6 years ago

    these irony seekers don't realise that xbox arcade is a "service" not to be confused with the real gaming part (which there a plenty of great game for).

    Pat on the back for Microsoft for doing arcade, in my opinion the best thing that's happened to gaming since PS1, it's a chance to play simple fun games in the comfort of your own living room, chilling on the sofa competing against millions.

    It's also don't forget a springboard for lots of unique fun games and for developers to take *gasp* RISKS!!!!

  • Darkedge #10 6 years ago

    review keeps on mentioing Stainless yet the developer was Pom Pom.. odd.

  • Eighthours #11 6 years ago

    Better than Kameo then. Methinks not. Crystal Quest isn't worth anything more than a 4 or a 5, IMO.

  • Zuiyo #12 6 years ago

    How much to download? And, do you keep it? In the HD?

  • space_ace #13 6 years ago

    finally the full potential of the 360 is unlocked!

  • morriss #14 6 years ago

    I don't understand why you lot can't differentiate between an XBLA game, and a fullprice one. These XBLA erviews are revewing the game for what it is, a budget £6-9 retro-rehash. So, within those parameters, it's a 6/10.

  • LetsGo #15 6 years ago

    So if a games rubbish (not saying this one is, I've never played it), but cheap, it should get a high rating?

    :D

  • krudster #16 6 years ago

    The developer *is* Stainless.

  • Eighthours #17 6 years ago

    These XBLA erviews are revewing the game for what it is, a budget £6-9 retro-rehash. So, within those parameters, it's a 6/10.

    It's not a 6/10 within those parameters either.

  • dbeamish #18 6 years ago

    this game sucks like a cheap whore on a tuesday night.

  • morriss #19 6 years ago

    "So if a games rubbish (not saying this one is, I've never played it), but cheap, it should get a high rating?

    :D"


    Blize....no

  • CyberClaw #20 6 years ago

    Score should not be influented by price. Price usually reflects content, not quality.

    Geometry Wars took 3 months of a single developer to make. Makes sense to sell it cheaper. It's still a fucking great game. Other games are more expensive because they need a ton of developers working on it, because they want to use n polygon models, and have detailed scenarios and what not... Yet the score should reflect the game itself (mostly gameplay - graphics should be serviceable - for example, MGS1 in the PSX had serviceable graphics (which were also good ones)), not the price point the game has.

    When it comes to buying the game, the consumer will then think to himself "Am I willing to pay X for a game that is like this?" (prices change - ence why the score is important to be unbiased from the price point - because in one year, we might return to read a review of a game that's selling for 20 euros now)

    I believe Eurogamer does the distinction of score and price though. They do not recomend this game for it's price point, and the ridiculous pricing of the extras, I don't think that affected the score...

  • morriss #21 6 years ago

    Fair enough. I just used price as an indictor to display that they weren't reviewing the game with the same mind-set as multi-dev games.

  • Furbs #22 6 years ago

    Ok, so if you had two almost identical games interms of gameplay, graphics, quality and content, one costs a tenner, one costs £3000, should they get the same mark then?

  • Kiigan #23 6 years ago

    It's fucking awful. Anyone who remembers the original Crystal Quest on Mac will not be happy with this.

  • LetsGo #24 6 years ago

    "Score should not be influented by price. Price usually reflects content, not quality. "

    WHAT HE SAID!

    "Ok, so if you had two almost identical games interms of gameplay, graphics, quality and content, one costs a tenner, one costs £3000, should they get the same mark then? "

    Of course. A review is based on Gameplay right? The reviewer might say 'This game is no way worth £3,000 but if you have the money, its a great game'.

  • Furbs #25 6 years ago

    Not just on gameplay imo. I want to know if a game is good value. If a review system uses a a single score, that should be a factor.

    Longevity is nothing to do with gameplay per se, a game can still be fun even if its only got 2 levels - does that mean a games length should not be a factor in a score?

  • LetsGo #26 6 years ago

    Good points well made.

    Fair play, fair play...

  • CyberClaw #27 6 years ago

    Furbs, simply put, YOU are the one that needs to decide if you get what you pay for. Why? Because YOU are the one PAYING for it. Eurogamer can't decide for you.

    What Eurogamer can, and should do, is give their opinion on a game. Mention it's features, modes, how long it lasts, etc.

    Then you go to a shop, and check the price. Ei, maybe some shop is doing a promotion in a game you'd never pay full price for, but it's half price, and you decide that you should give it a shot.

    That's why scores should not be influenced by price. I recently bought Zelda Legend of the 4 Swords, Final Fantasy Cristal Chronicles and Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes, at 10 Euros each (brand new, at a shop, new, Zelda Lotfs came with a GBA-GC adapter so I got myself two of those, since the adaptor costed 8 euros). Does this makes this 3 games a 10/10 because they were dirty cheap? Nope, they are still the same games, and diserve the same scores.
    They costed me 10 euros though, so, despite me finding FFCC a 3/10 game (for building a game arround the GBAs unecessarily IMO, despite being an ace game, I have the game and 2 GBAs, and I find that the single player control is better than the MP (the GBA dpad is not as good as the GCs controler dpad), I found it worth 10 euros.

    And that's why scores should not reflect prices. Because some games could be free, and they'd still suck, and be 1/10. If scores reflected price point, every free game would be a 10/10, and we'd have a convinient explanation on why the XBox 360 game scores in Eurogamer are well bellow average lol (they are more expensive than the average game).

  • Wobble #28 6 years ago

    I think price should definately be a factor in reviews. Look at bankshot billiards, that would be more buyable if it was teh same price as the rest (800) but at 1200 I don't think it's worth getting.

    A game that has amazing gameplay but lasts for an hour and is 'full price' should get a worse review than the same game at a price point relative to it's length.

    If you're obsessing about the number at the end, like so many seem to do, and not actually paying attention to the other 99% of the review then maybe you should read a review source that breaks down the numbers into gameplay, value for money etc.. or just learn to get over the fucking number and read the text ffs.

  • peterfll #29 6 years ago

    Downloaded the demo and promptly deleted it the following day after playing through the demo twice - with a feeling of 'is this it'? It has the play mechanics of a mobile phone game at best and is certainly not worthy of a 6/10 score.

  • CatWeazle #30 6 years ago

    Kiigan said : "It's fucking awful. Anyone who remembers the original Crystal Quest on Mac will not be happy with this."

    Really? What a shame - Crystal Quest & Crystal Crazy were superb games on the Mac.. Funny, I was just reminiscing about them with a mate the other day.. I'll definately give this a go, but I really hope they've not screwed it up.

    CW

  • Furbs #31 6 years ago

    "What Eurogamer can, and should do, is give their opinion on a game. Mention it's features, modes, how long it lasts, etc"

    So basically rehash a press release? By your example, they cant tell me what its like to play because I'm the one who will be playing it.

    My example still stands - should a game which is as good as game costing 20x get the same score? Surely its a part of evaluating the game as a whole, based around its likely price point.

    As for if it is a factor in the EG review policy, it is. I remember distinctly being bought up with some of the 360 launch game reviews where I believe Shinji (could be wrong) said that in the case of a game like King Kong, even though the game is identical, it shouldnt get as high a score as the Xbox1 version since it required you to spend an ectra £20 (and buy a new console, but thats a moot point).

    Edit: Found it;

    LeDilettante
    Please explain how this an 8/10 on Xbox 360, while being the EXACT same game than its 9/10 Xbox counterpart but with better visuals. OMG EG is so biased towards Sony!

    rauper
    And it's £10 more on X360...
    Edited by Furbs at 17/02/06 @ 11:18

  • krudster #32 6 years ago

    Of course the price of a game comes into the equation, how could it not?

    If this was a £35 release it'd be slated for not offering any value for money, but for £3 odd it's fun for a few hours, end of chat. Comparing it to scores we've given £50 games is a silly exercise; this is clearly a score based on its merits within the confines of cheap, disposable downloadable games on Live Arcade.

    Generally I find reading the review tells you basically everything, and the score gives you the sum total of all the arguments in one bite-sized chunk.

    Not a difficult concept to grasp.

  • krudster #33 6 years ago

    Also, I can't figure out how people can moan about the new version of Crystal Quest, when the old version is included as well.

  • CyberClaw #34 6 years ago

    Wobble, that's exactly why scores can't be influencied by price point. It's not worth getting at that price for you. Reviews are biased enough, without putting price into the equasion.

    Games that usually sold at half-price, are usually of less quality, and are minor efforts - that's why they are at half price. People will just get confused if scores come into equasion.
    Let's supose there was Halo 2, and a half priced FPS, but with half arsed gameplay as well. Halo 2 got a 5/5 for example, while the half arsed half priced game got a 3/5. Should the game be bumped to 4/5 because it costs half what Halo 2 costs? And when Halo 2 price dropped to half price, should the score reflect that? Would Halo 2 become a 6/5? And should Steel Batallion be a 1/5 or a 2/5, just because it costs 250 euros (effectivly costing 5 times as much as any other game)?

    Games should be rated for what they are. Expecting certain standarts in certain formats. Is it a PSX game? Longer loadings and worse graphics are more acceptable. Is it a XBox 360 game? Then better graphics and smaller loadings are expected. Is it a XBox Live Arcade game? Then 30 megs worth of graphics, music and gameplay is expected (to fit in a memory card, so a XBL Arcade game, is 64 meg tops, we can't expect a game with hi res textures, and full blown soundtrack with a 64 megs limitation).

    So, game score should take 2 things into account. The game / the platform limitations. That should be the score. A perfect 10 in a PSX, is far from being a perfect 10 in a XBox (because PSX standarts are lower).

  • BremXJones #35 6 years ago

    My take? Clearly only a freelancer, but reviews are buyer's guides. All the score says is "Is this worth buying?".

    So, yeah, price does influence that. If a developer is actively trying to rip off a gamer, yes, it's reflected in the price. And, yes, some games sit better at a fiver than fifty quid.

    (For example, an hour game for fifty quid is not going to score highly, no matter what it's quality. That's a buyer's guide part of it. And personally, for a consumer watchdog part of the job, publishers releasing a game for ten quid above the going rate is going to get a bit of a slap in the mark too.)

    KG

  • morriss #36 6 years ago

    Well Cyber, it's you vs. the reviewers!

  • krudster #37 6 years ago

    What he said: BUYER'S GUIDE! :)

  • LetsGo #38 6 years ago

    Can we change the name of the reviews then Krudster?

    Instead of Review they should be called Buyers Guide.

    :D

  • CyberClaw #39 6 years ago

    Also, it should be noted that price points usually reflect the platform limitations. Mario Kart Double Dash costed 50% more than Mario Kart DS (and now costs half the price).
    All XBox Live Arcade titles, cost 10% of a XBox 360 title. You'll never see a 60 euros XBL Arcade title. That's because the price (usually) takes into consideration the 64 megs limitation.

    Now, I'm not saying that the review should not mention "this game IS overpriced", or somethign to that extent. But I'm the kind of person who finds that games are to be enjoyed in the long term. The best games, will still be good to play 10 years from now.
    Maybe it's just me you know, I still have my old time consoles, and I still actively hunt for some pre-historic gems, and many times, read reviews that are many years old, to check out old titles I might have missed, or that I only find out about then... And if a review and it's score is price biased, it won't do me any good 3 years from now. (I've read many reviews in Eurogamer, that say that games are great, but they are over-priced, or that half priced games are only worth for their pricepoint, which I find the best aproach, since I'll be able to read them in the future, and disregard that paragraph).

    The real question is, shouldn't reviews resist the test of time? Shouldn't a review still be readable and accurate 2 or 3 years from now?
    Like I said, I just bought Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes, brand new, on a shop, for 10 euros. Is this a 10/10 game now?

  • Furbs #40 6 years ago

    In what weird dimension does review not equal buyers guide?

    Hell, even if its for film or theatre a review is a partially a guide as to whether or not its worth your time, money and effort to see the movie/play.

    CyberClaw - had the game come out at that price I'm sure it would have got 10/10.
    Edited by Furbs at 17/02/06 @ 11:49

  • BremXJones #41 6 years ago

    Cyber: "The real question is, shouldn't reviews resist the test of time? Shouldn't a review still be readable and accurate 2 or 3 years from now?"

    Well, the *review* will hopefully be. The score may not.

    Seriously - the score is what they stick on the box. To anyone here, it should barely matter as they've actually *read the words*. It's what they use to try and persuade people to buy the game who know nothing about the game. Stick it on the box, on adverts, whatever.

    So if you give a game that's 2 hours long 9/10 as they're really good two hours, and they're released at 50 quid that looks like a recommendation that it's worth fifty quid.

    Yeah, games will be sold at differnet prices. But games will be hacked, modded, patched and had their multiplayer ruined by horrible people. All of that's beyond a reviewer's control. You review what's there - that is, the price it's offered for and what's in the game.

    KG
    Edited by BremXJones at 17/02/06 @ 11:49

  • king_skins #42 6 years ago

    stampax: Good review. Really enjoying seeing reviews of the live stuff - keep it up. Do you think MS will ever give points away - ie for winning online games etc?


    I think MS wanted to do this but the laws in different countries make it quite hard to implement as everyone had different compition and prize regulations.

  • morriss #43 6 years ago

    @Furbs - LetsGo is BlizeH - make sense now?

  • Furbs #44 6 years ago

    They're similar, but check out LetsGo's reader review. blize would rate it higher.

  • Darkedge #45 6 years ago

    if you need any other proofreading I'm happy to help Krudster ;)

  • gaijin #46 6 years ago

    "The real question is, shouldn't reviews resist the test of time? "

    I'm not sure they can when the points of reference are always changing, which is almost inevitable in the technology field eg "Elite has the most advanced 3d graphics ever seen on a home computer game". Maybe true then. Not true now. "defender has a really quick load time on my 1200baud cassette player" maybe true then, but I can't see that many people would call three minutes of tooth-jarring screeching fast these days. Let alone be chuffed with frequency with which it bums out with the user friendly error message "Block?"





  • LetsGo #47 6 years ago

    So why doesn't Eurogamer Re-Review budget titles??

    As they are cheaper, they deserve a higher score than the original full price game yes?

  • bloke #48 6 years ago

    The demo isn't particularly interesting...........unless you ramp up the difficulty level from the default. Which it allow you to do.

    Bizzarely.

  • Furbs #49 6 years ago

    LetsGo - presumably because people are intelligent enough to realise that cost is a factor in review scores.

    Clearly not in your case however.

  • LetsGo #50 6 years ago

    I just wanna know if a games good or not, I'll decide how much money I spend on it.

  • Furbs #51 6 years ago

    Are you incapable of reaching that conclusion from reading the words?

  • LetsGo #52 6 years ago

    *sigh*

  • CyberClaw #53 6 years ago

    BremXJones - "the score is what they stick on the box. To anyone here, it should barely matter as they've actually *read the words*."

    You haven't been arround for long have you? Does the words "Better than Halo then" ring any bells? Everyone sees a score like a direct classification of a product quality.

    gaijin - "I'm not sure they can when the points of reference are always changing, which is almost inevitable in the technology field"

    That's exactly why the platform limitations are so important. A mediocre game should not be rated high, just because every other game released in the last 6 months is crap. Obviously the consoles suffer 3 or 4 life cycles, each expanding the limitations of a console, but a review should old true to it's time.

    Stuff like "best graphics on the system" are phrases that really don't do much for any of us. It's so relative. They should not even be used ever. But when reading a review, a person also has to put himself in the system timeslot. Reading a review of Halo, and reading about the graphics, I remind myself, it's an XBox 1, and it was on the first wave. Yet, the really important stuff, like the gameplay, and the longevity, still hold true to this day.

    Furbs, your point makes no sense. If people believed that the score was influenced by the price, would they mentally add a point or 2, for being cheaper? Should that not be done by the consumer's wallet, automatically when they face the game's price in the shop? I've had games come out full priced here in Europe, when they were released as budget in UK. The whole point is, some people will never pay 100 euros no matter how good a game is. Other people won't buy a crappy game, no matter how cheap it is. A review should leave the price decisions to the consumer, and just review the game.
    And if you find that the score is useless near the words, then do not discuss the score. People like numbers. It's an easy way to classify things.

  • marilena #54 6 years ago

    I think CyberClaw (especially) and LetsGo are going overboard to make a point that has very little merit, if any.

    In no way did anyone say that at half price the mark gets doubled, or that a free game must get a 10/10. Nor did anyone say that the price is more important than the actual quality of the game. All that was said is that it's taken into acount. Basically, I'd say that games are rated inside the category that they represent, which means that small and cheap games are not judged against the GTAs of the world. They still need to be good in order to get high marks.

    Look at the mark for Mutant Storm. Don't do maths. Just look and ask yourself, does it reflect the quality of the game? I'd say it does and I'd say that, if it would get a 6/10 on account of not being as good as Halo, the mark would make it seem a much worse game than it is.

  • gaijin #55 6 years ago

    "Reading a review of Halo, and reading about the graphics, I remind myself, it's an XBox 1, and it was on the first wave."

    good for you. So for someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of video gaming, and a good understanding of each products place within it, a review *can* be timeless. But frankly, if they know that much, why do they need a review? Won't they just go "Shadow of the Beast, late ST, released at £9.99, £7.99 three months later, shonky collision detection, watch out for the burning barrels to the left of the second checkpoint on level 4"?

    (actually, you *do* have an encyclopedic knowledge, don't you? I can tell. :-) )

  • BootLace #56 6 years ago

    As long as it's easy to find information regarding how a publication creates it's final score, I don't really see a problem.

    Personally, I'd like the score to be irrelevant of price. I feel I'm quite capable of deciding whether I want to spend £5 or £5000 on a 6/10 game, but perhaps I'm weird like that.

  • CyberClaw #57 6 years ago

    gaijin - "So for someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of video gaming, and a good understanding of each products place within it, a review *can* be timeless."
    The review specifically states that it's Halo 1 for the XBox, and it's a first wave title. It's easy to keep that in mind when you are reading it, lol.

    Personally, Geometry Wars Retroevolved is a 5/5 for me. If they sold it for 60 euros? It'd still be a 5/5. That game is a Tetris of our day and time. I play it over and over and over... I'd probably not buy it for 60 euros, because the ilusion of content is very small, compared to the other mamooths on the market. But then again, I bought full priced games like Gun, and I played Geometry Wars RE much more than those... In a rigteous world, where we pay for what we play, I'd pay 5 euros for Gun, and 50 for Geometry Wars RE. I just know, that 10 years from now, I'll be playing either GWRE, or some squel, the same way I still play tetris nowadays.
    That's why I find the scores should be deatached from price. Because we are always the ones who need to decide if the game is worth the value... It's hard to put a price on the fun we are going to have from a game. The best they can do, is review the quality of the product - and let us decide if the price is right for the quality.

  • gaijin #58 6 years ago

    @Cyberclaw

    Fair point. I suppose I was thinking in terms of a broader discussion of 'games reviews generally' rather than 'the specific case of the EG Halo review'. My bad.

  • Xerx3s #59 6 years ago

    Thought this one was pretty oke. Nothing special. A 6/7 is spoton.

  • BremXJones #60 6 years ago

    "You haven't been arround for long have you? Does the words "Better than Halo then" ring any bells? Everyone sees a score like a direct classification of a product quality. "

    And more fool them. They've got a review to read. The people who *aren't* here can *only* have the mark, and has to reflect how necessary purchase it is in the current state.

    I think you're being a little basic in your thinking about the score/mark relation being a +1 or -1 or halfing or whatever. The mark's a wholistic thing of a half-dozen different things, and not actively divisible. Marking is an art, not a science.

    You may as well say that a game's mark is improved directly by so many thousand polygons on every model. If your game has 10,000 poly characters, it's a +1 score. More than that, +2. It just doesn't work like that.

    KG

  • Furbs #61 6 years ago

    I thought the "better than Halo" thing was ironic anyway, highlighting the stupidity of comparing scores directly with other games without looking at context and similarities/differences.

    Maybe I read too much in to it.

  • marilena #62 6 years ago

    "Better than Halo" is an entire philosophy Furbs, you can never read too much into it! I'm quite sure that sometimes it has exactly the meaning that you see, although in many occasions it's just a snipe at EG and in others it's just a joke devoid of any sort of meaning (and usually even the people that make it forget what was the point it was supposed to make).

  • inpHilltr8r #63 6 years ago

    This was fairly lame ten (13?) years ago, it's not improved. Get Minter to port some of his wacky C64 stuff!

  • Kiigan #64 6 years ago

    krudster said:

    "Also, I can't figure out how people can moan about the new version of Crystal Quest, when the old version is included as well."

    Yeah, only not really. The original black and white Crystal Quest on Mac was all about skillful, gentle use of the mouse. The mouse was really critical. CQ360 is the wrong game on the wrong platform. Like Lemmings on the bloody PSP.

  • CyberClaw #65 6 years ago

    "Better than Halo" means usually one of this 2 things:
    -Originally it was a jab at Eurogamer's score on XBox's Halo, because it was suprisingly "low ranked" compared to other higher ranked games, which were of obvious lower quality. There was a big outcry in EG due to Halo's low score (you want another examples of many EG readers worrying about scores, see how many people outcry the low scores in XBox 360 games, because they weren't up to EGs expectations). Quite in fact it could be compared to a rebelion, people started saying "Better than Halo" for any and all reasons.
    Common conversation, would be 2 EGers meeting in the street:
    EG1- Better than Halo eh?
    EG2- Yea, good day to you too.

    or:

    EG1- So, how's the miss?
    EG2- Better than Halo.