Jump to navigation
Advertisement

Gunstar Future Heroes Review

GameBoy Advance Review by John Walker

26 November, 2005

Right, well, that's it then. It's going to be one of those times where I report the facts, tell the truth, and then the entire internet will come round my house and break my kneecaps.

You might remember playing the original Gunstar Heroes on your Megadrive. And you might well be carrying a trouser-torch for it to this very day, determined that it was the greatest moment of your entire life, and that this had nothing to do with the fact that you were thirteen. And if that's you, don't bother reading. You're going to buy the GBA version anyway, and you're going to think anyone whose eyes manage to penetrate the new robe-code of this emperor is a despicable idiot. Fine, fine, I'm an idiot. Move along.

Gunstar Future Heroes is this: less than an hour long.

Can we go now?

Apparently not.

Here's the run-through: In the original Gunstar, two heroes, Red and Blue, defeated "Destructor: the God of Ruin, also know as Golden Silver," on the Moon. The Moon, as is its wont, exploded, forming four new moons, all of which now orbit the Earth. These moons were then colonised, inexplicably in meticulously arranged floating platforms, and things were just awesome. But then, shock and horror, a fifth moon appeared, the work of a mysterious organisation called The Empire. Where do they get their ideas from?

'Gunstar Future Heroes' Screenshot 1

Despite extensive searching, no sight of Sonic was ever found.

The Empire, wouldn't you know it, isn't all about being good, and they want to resurrect naughty old God of Ruin using a relic known as the Megalith. Thank goodness for 3YE, an Earth-bound organisation, and their tribute-named Gunstar Future Heroes unit.

There are, in total, six stages of the game to play through. And where Gunstar makes its most immediate and striking, and some say only, mark is in the crazed variety of these sections. You will be side-scrolling your way through infinitely spawning baddies, and then flying a rotating spaceship, before riding on what appeared to be a tipped over bin, and then you're rolling dice to move around a challenge-creating board game. Such inventive variety is immediately welcome, and a great pleasure, no matter how poorly introduced or utterly without exposition these ludicrous shifts in style may be. Trouble is, halfway through your welcoming them, they're gone. Blip, zip, over.

So, thinking there must be more - there has to be more - you play it through again using the second character. And discover it's the exact same game in every way, but for a couple of changes in the meaningless dialogue screens introducing each section, and a different coloured gun. Weeeee.

Each character has three weapons, one unique to himself, and all four are capable of a super-mega-double-extra-triple-quanto-blast type thing when the line at the top of the screen is flashing. But there's no great choice here. The unique weapon is by far the best, and the entire game can be effortlessly completed using only this. One other produces helpfully around-corner-going blasts for convenient dispatching of awkwardly placed baddies, and the third is rubbish and not worth touching.

Much has been touted of GFH's graphics, especially with people's pants exploding all over the place at E3 about it. But, unless there's something gone horribly wrong with my eyes, this is so much hyperbole and a good part complete nonsense. Conscious that I was playing the GBA cartridge on the bottom screen of my DS, I was aware I might be making the silly mistake of expecting DS standards. But then I remembered Super Monkey Ball Jr. and how utterly wonderful it looked, and how it embarrassed every other GBA developer, revealing what they should have been capable of. GFH gets nothing especially amazing out of the GBA - it looks lovely enough, and developing for the machine at this late stage, I should hope so. But it doesn't make me want to shake an SP, trying to get the benevolent demon out of it, whose possession thereof can be the only possible explanation.

'Gunstar Future Heroes' Screenshot 2

The sliding kick attack is about as useful as an umbrella in a volcano.

So let's put a bit more effort into exploring the numerous approaches to play, as that's really what GFH offers.

Early on (which is a particularly relative term), the Cobit Village requests that you, er, save some chicks. God knows why, but that's clearly not important. The level is a large rotating disc, with platform passages in levels from the centre outward. Chicks hang about like Pac-man's dots, and invincible snake-like beasts squirm out from the walls attempting to thwart your kindly rescue. Touching a chick has it follow you, and getting touched by a snake causes all currently following chicks to abandon your safety and return to their original position. As you move, the disc rotates, keeping you at the bottom, so inventive use of bouncing off walls needs to be combined with predictions of potential gravity, all the while avoiding the slithery danger. Intriguing, huh? And indeed, as level 1 of a game based on this notion, it certainly would be. But a level 1 it is, a piece of piss to complete, and then it's gone, only continuing to exist for the numbingly pointless purpose of beating your previous best time. The level gives no sense of urgency, speed doesn't offer any imperative, use of skill doesn't cause you to accelerate. So why would you care if you did it any faster?

Then, in a second stage of a later moon, the game becomes something of a boardgame. No explanation why, no logic to this, but fine, whatever. Mad fun is why we wake up in the mornings. An oddly five-sided dice is 'rolled' (the images of dice faces are highlighted in turn, stopped by your pressing a button), and you move forward (or backward) that number of spaces. Landing on a new space opens up a mini stage, generally featuring some sort of boss. Complete it, and you can roll again. Fail, and you'll drop back a few spaces. But, and here's the big problem, there's no punishment for that. Re-landing on a space doesn't re-open the challenge. It merely asks you to roll again. And the game's so damned short that you'll deliberately aim to land on every space anyway, aided in this goal by the backward steps.

There's a section in top-down view over a city, dropping bombs on anything that moves. There's a few standing on top of a spacecraft, rotating about to shoot at the almost-3D flying enemies. And there's one peculiarly Asteroids-like section flying a very poorly controlled craft and shooting at literally everything you can find to shoot at. They're all... fine. But they were all fine as the single level in the vast, elaborate games of the 1980s they're all immediately lifted from.

There are three difficulty modes, and it could be argued that here replayability kicks in. Easy is very much so. Normal makes things a fair bit harder, but Hard presents a hefty challenge. Sadly, this challenge is generally in the form of the final boss of each section, and not anything on the route there. In fact, there's barely a single enemy that can't be dispatched by just holding the left shoulder fire button down until it's gone. Bosses require more scampering about, but without being set to Hard, all but the very last are easily defeated.

'Gunstar Future Heroes' Screenshot 3

Gravity is no match for the... GUNSTAR FUTURE HEROES! OMG!!!

Another huge dent is the loss of any form of multiplayer. The decade old Megadrive game gained a great deal of its hook from wanting to co-op with your buddies. And despite GBA's perfect potential for a two-person gripping (see Wario Ware's excellent two-player-gaming-on-one-GBA-nonsense), the whole notion is completely absent.

This doesn't live up to the hugely overrated Astro Boy, from the same development team. And indeed appears to be equally overrated across the board. Apart from on this bit of it, which will undoubtedly be hanged in the Supreme Kangaroo Court of the Internet.

IT'S LESS THAN AN HOUR LONG.

It's like getting thrown out of the tapas restaurant of gaming only a quarter of the way into your meal. A tiny morsel of each nice idea only manages to whet your appetite for that experience, and then suddenly you're sat outside in an alleyway with nothing left to play.

It really doesn't matter how well it might execute one of these micro-levels - they're so brief as to have been barely worth bothering with.

It cannot be that games are reviewed based on the nostalgia they may generate inside you. Spraying through the pages of an album of photographs may flicker wonderful memories to light, but it doesn't throw you back in time and have you relive that very moment. There's approximately eight trillion games of this nature available for arcade emulation on MAME.

5/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Gunstar Future Heroes on GameBoy Advance?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-50 of 89 in total | next 50 »

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
Eraysor
26/11/05 @ 10:02
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Meh, it could never beat the original.
disc
26/11/05 @ 10:14
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I remember Bruce Lee for the GBA also was about an hour long. It was a good hour though. This didnt sound good.
Mox
26/11/05 @ 10:19
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Treasure wrote a bad game?

MY WORLD IS SHAKEN TO ITS VERY CORE!

I really like Treasure games. Mind you, they used to say they'd not do sequels - is this why?
tengu
26/11/05 @ 10:57
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Bullshit. This game is awesome. It's quite short, but the extra difficulty settings add a lot of replay value, and while it isn't as good as the original, it's still one of my games of the year.

The anti-Gameboy sentiment on this site is sickening:)

djchump
26/11/05 @ 11:13
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
TBH - this review was a little disheartening, but I'm such a Treasure fanboy I'll probably buy it anyway.

As for it being short (only an hour long) - I really don't mind that in a blaster game, especially a GBA one. I'm massively annoyed nowadays by games that needlessly extend the playing time through mundane or boring tasks just so that they can write "30 hours of gameplay!" in the marketing blurb on the back of the box.
I'd rather pay for an hour of fun than 30 hours of "go to A to collect key B and backtrack all the way back here" drudgery.

Still, if there's no replayability, as the reviewer suggests, then this is more of an issue. For me though, I've always found that the Treasure games I've played have had lots of replayability value - not because of any alternate routes/extra secrets/high score attack/ etc., but just because the core gameplay has been so fun that I've wanted to play it again :-)

I've never liked the rewards structure of games like Resident Evil where they reward you with new stuff when you finish it, in order to get you to play through it again and again to try to unlock better guns or a block of tofu or something - that always felt like a really cheap and dull way to get people to play through the whole game multiple times, which I could never be bothered with :-(
kentmonkey
26/11/05 @ 11:13
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Hasn't this got great reviews everywhere else and won game of the show at E3 or something? I'm sure that's what the Ad claims in GamesTM this month.

Also, "this doesn't live up to the hugely overrated Astro Boy"......WHAT? Overrated? Are you kidding? "And indeed appears to be equally overrated across the board" Why? Because you didn't like it it's instantly overrated? Your review suggests that your view is "fact" and not just an opinion and that, imho, is not what I expect from a review or from a decent reviewer.

Please, please, please, please, please, never, ever let this man grace this site ever again. Might sound a bit fanboyish and ever so slightly OTT, but the reviews by some of the "new-comers" recently have left a lot to be desired and this is one of them. I understand that there are a lot of games to review and you need freelancers etc. but the Reader Reviews section has thrown up some excellently written reviews and there is a wealth of talent in there. Sorry if this hurts feelings but I'm just being honest, the last few days has seen some really dodgy reviews which is a real shame as whether I agree with scores or not, the reviews on this site are usually ace.

"Can we go now?" Seriously wish you would, yes.

Have to say, great choice as well. Give a game to somebody that didn't like Astro Boy when this is by the same company and in the same genre. What happened to this which is wrote in the EG score system:

"Eurogamer will always give a specialist level of expertise when reviewing a game. For example, there's little point giving an RTS to an FPS junkie who thinks shepherding matchstick-men armies around a map is boring, or an RPG to someone obsessed by driving games. "

Seems like a contradiction that you got this one then.
Edited 4 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 11:28
Hog-lumps
26/11/05 @ 11:16
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Noooooooooooooo! What have they done to it?!

\runs into street

Why lord, WHY?!!!

\returns

Sorry, had to get that out of my system............
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 11:17
Hog-lumps
26/11/05 @ 11:27
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I was always suspicious about this game being made for the GBA.

I thought it would be far better if made for the DS, with a bit more horsepower under the bonnet and a larger display to show all that frantic action. Also if there's one company that could make good use of the dual screens & touch input - it’s got to be Treasure!

As it is though, being a HUGE fan of the original and treasure, I'll probably still get this............
Mirkan
26/11/05 @ 11:30
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Gamerankings - Gunstar Super Heroes

That site should be renamed the "Are-EG-crazy-again-o-meter".

And the majority of scores on there say yes, they are.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 11:31
botherer
26/11/05 @ 11:31
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
kentmonkey - Write the review you think it deserves in the Reader Review section then.

I'm not sure your "whether I agree with scores or not" is particularly honest at all.

Since the score is a reflection of the words, by what criteria /do/ you judge a review to be dodgy?
kentmonkey
26/11/05 @ 11:39
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"kentmonkey - Write the review you think it deserves in the Reader Review section then. "

Send the game to me, then I will.

"I'm not sure your "whether I agree with scores or not" is particularly honest at all.

Since the score is a reflection of the words, by what criteria /do/ you judge a review to be dodgy? "

Read the comments I left in Krudsters review of FIFA Street, then you might appreciate that I am being honest. I've never played such a big pile of pap when I played FIFA Street and I couldn't possibly agree with Krudsters score of 8, however his review was fantastic, clearly labelled why he loved the game and described things so clearly that it was obvious from reading it that I probably wouldn't like it.

Yours (I assume it's your review), "overrated Astro Boy". Why? "similarly overrated Gunstar Heroes". Again why? Why is it overrated, purely because you didn't agree? That doesn't make a game overrated. If a game is generally regarded as being pap (Deus Ex Invisible War) and it gets 9/10 from magazines trying to justify the front cover artwork, then that is overrated. When the general consensus is that a game is terrific and you don't agree, then that isn't overrated, that's personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be labelled as such.

I can't see how you got the game to review, you didn't like Astro Boy, you're comparing it to Mame which for most people isn't able to played on the go (unless they have a PDA or something similar) and don't seem to get the concept of shoot-em-ups which isn't how long they last, more about the challenge and going back to unlock more or beat your score.

I'm being honest, as a reader and a longterm visitor of the site and general fan of it, I think I'm entitled to be, and I just think this week has seen some really poor quality reviews by people who just seem to be trying to meet a deadline or go on to the next paid job or have been given a game they should never have been given to review, judged on the EG scores rules.

If that's not the case then you can accept my apologies, but I'm not disagreeing with your score as I have not played the game and therefore can't pass judgement, I'm saying that I didn't like the review nor the fact that you seem to pass your opinion off as just that...."fact".
ekko
26/11/05 @ 11:41
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
John Walker reviews always seem to be the ones which gets up some peoples backs. Hehe.

I loved the Megadrive one, and I'm quite perplexed why they didn't just port it over with a few bits added on. It would've sold just as much as this one will, probably more.
tachikoma
26/11/05 @ 11:43
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Johnny there played the game on Easy difficulty. Or hasn't played GFH at all. Sounds the kind of guy that would mark Ikaruga with a 1/10.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 11:46
Celeborn
26/11/05 @ 12:13
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fanboys who don't understand people have different opinions and different tastes are fun to watch :D

As someone who loves all the games they do, you will naturally overlook the shortcomings such as how easy the non-bosses are, and how pathetically short it is. You love the routine of going through familiar areas beating the same familiar enemies who are always in the same place before blasting those same bosses over and over. Its fun for you! (and reminds me of people playing Contra III on the SNES). So really, is there any point there being a review on eurogamer by another fanboy just telling you to buy it when you're going to anyway?

However, what about people who AREN'T fanboys of that genre? Does this offer a way into it? Is this a good or bad example of the genre? THATS where this review is coming from; and considering I'm not crazy over this genre, thats where i would WANT the review to be coming from! Many times a game pops up from a genre you've never really tried, or been much of a fan of and makes you damn interested (Ico, PoP: SoT etc.)
kdsh7
26/11/05 @ 12:16
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I read this review when I woke up this morning, and nearly put the boot in myself, but the lure of scones and tea and an insistent missus got me away from the PC.

But, I agree with everything KentM has said and raise these further points:

- Is the game fun? The length of a game of this ilk can be tempered by it's enjoyability factor.

- The review compares this game unfavourably with 2 things. The game play is compared to Mame and it's technical merits are ridiculed in the glorifying of Super Monkey Ball. Mame, a piece of software that emulates hulking big arcade machines and does not run games of this quality ON ANY PORTABLE DEVICE. And Super Monkey Ball of course, being the best example of 3D done on the GBA purely because it kept it's ambitions within limits and focused. Just as well that GFH doesn't have any 3D in it then..
Markusdragon
26/11/05 @ 12:25
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You know a review has been written to give a bad judgment of the game when the tagline is "Prepare the stocks. Ready the rotting fruit." :P.

Edit: Also megadrive emulators > Mame when it comes to handhelds. First time I completed Gunstar without using a gamegenie was on the GP32.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 12:27
thebuzzard
26/11/05 @ 12:38
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Think Ill play Kingdom Grand Prix on Saturn instead then :)
Artemus
26/11/05 @ 12:39
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oh it's another controversial Walker review...
Genji
26/11/05 @ 13:03
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
""kentmonkey - Write the review you think it deserves in the Reader Review section then. "

Send the game to me, then I will."

Hang on... you haven't played it yet? How on earth can you question the validity of this guy's review if you haven't played the game yourself?

So he thinks Astro Boy was overrated - big deal. Thinking something is overrated isn't fact - it's an opinion which goes against the majority. I always thought having dissenting opinions was a good thing.
AOFanboi
26/11/05 @ 13:30
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I think the point about games being short is this: I have a bunch of retro collections on the PS2, each having 10-20+ short games. Why would anyone pay full price for ONE short game, even with improved graphics?
caligari
26/11/05 @ 13:48
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Did anyone ever get round to playing the new Rebelstar on the GBA?

I would LURVE a little feedback to see if it's anywhere near as good as the legendary X-Com games.
tengu
26/11/05 @ 14:29
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Why would anyone pay full price for ONE short game, even with improved graphics"

Because it's one of the most genuinely fun games released this year perhaps? Just a thought.

Plus, the original was one of the greatest games ever made, so this had a LOT to live up to, obviously some were going to be disappointed. I love this game personally, played through it about 5 times now and I'll definitely go back.

Sorry, but this after the hatchet job Tenchu 4 review means I'm not likely to be much of a fan of your reviews mr Walker.
technos
26/11/05 @ 14:42
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Haha. Why's this guy reviewing games?
weblaus
26/11/05 @ 14:45
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
To use the length of a game as the main negative point is all fine and well when it's something like an adventure or RPG... but completely pointless for arcade shooters.

Mr. Reviewer person, I sure hope you don't get your hands on anything resembling a vertical shoot'em-up like Ikaruga or Raiden 3, because they're EVEN SHORTEN and yet, still FUN.
bunglebonce
26/11/05 @ 14:46
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Hang on... you haven't played it yet? How on earth can you question the validity of this guy's review if you haven't played the game yourself?

So he thinks Astro Boy was overrated - big deal. Thinking something is overrated isn't fact - it's an opinion which goes against the majority. I always thought having dissenting opinions was a good thing."

Spot on, Genji.


"Might sound a bit fanboyish and ever so slightly OTT, but the reviews by some of the 'new-comers' recently have left a lot to be desired"

- Funking right it does, kentmonkey, especially since you haven't even got a copy yourself.

Personally I thought it seemed like an honest review. Only an hour of - arguable - new gameplay before having to replay the game shouldn't get a good a review as what a Treasure fan would desire. Maybe if it was breathtaking gameplay or if it challenged the player more than just having to play on hard, for an hour. But, as what I think Mr Walker was getting at, all you have to do is hold down the fire button and stroll through the level. Disputedly unoriginal play 15 years ago.

I was going to get my coat, but this got my goat as well:

"Have to say, great choice as well. Give a game to somebody that didn't like Astro Boy when this is by the same company and in the same genre."

I'll try to ignore the petulant sarcasm, but what do the factors you mention have to do with the choice of reviewer, and more importantly the quality? I don't think the reviewer would have a vendetta against Treasure, so he should have as much of a chance to review the game as the rest of the staff, particularly when his reviews are as frank as they are.

The reviewer does try to hold the game on its merits, but that's it seems that doing that is difficult when the good parts of the game are hampered by (i) the ease, and particularly (ii) the length of the game.

Good review, keep it up.

EDIT: since when has the comments section stopped doing [i] italics?
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 14:48
SirScratchalot
26/11/05 @ 14:51
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
For me this game eneded once I realised it actually boots you back to the TITLE SCREEN everytime you die.... Whoever made that happen should be beaten....
technos
26/11/05 @ 14:53
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Well, it's easy to spot the people that haven't played the game in here. What's the point?
tengu
26/11/05 @ 14:54
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Scratch, you save after every level y'know? It's not like you have to play the whole game over if you die.
SirScratchalot
26/11/05 @ 14:57
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
No, but to start at that level again I have to click past three corporate logos, chose either blue or red and then pick the stage I´d like to continue. It´s the worst solution to what to do when someone dies I´ve ever seen. Ever.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 14:57
toy_brain
26/11/05 @ 14:59
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The fact that the reviewer failed to see the parallels/homages that GSH was paying to its predecessor (like the dice maze bit) speaks volumes about his knowledge of the shooter genre.

And when you think about it, most decent shooters can be completed in an hour - from Layer Section, through to Neo Contra, and also the original Gunstar heroes on the Megadrive -once you know what you are doing (and not playing on easy).
Any longer and the experience becomes dragged-out, repetetive and dull.

I've bought GSH, played it and loved it. Its short but utterly sublime and perfectly formed for short bouts of gameplay and improving on your previous score/time.
bunglebonce
26/11/05 @ 15:03
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
But toy_brain, he states this:

"they're all... fine. But they were all fine as the single level in the vast, elaborate games of the 1980s they're all immediately lifted from."

Fozzie_bear
26/11/05 @ 15:12
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The fact that the reviewer failed to see the parallels/homages that GSH was paying to its predecessor (like the dice maze bit) speaks volumes about his knowledge of the shooter genre.

The point being?

So it pays homage to other games (isn't that called lazy re-hashing when EA do it?). Does that make it a good game? Not for the average punter it doesn't.

Another great review. Well written, funny and a red rag to the fanboy bulls :o)
technos
26/11/05 @ 15:14
#33
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yeah, when being mislead is funny. Keep on truckin'
ClansOfIntrigue
26/11/05 @ 15:31
#34
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
If reviewing games was an objective task, there'd be no need for sites like GameRankings to exist, no?
tiddles
26/11/05 @ 15:43
#35
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
My suspicion is that "John Walker" is just a nom de plume which the regular writers use when they want to slate something controversial, as they're so sick of the comments which inevitably ensue...

This game is providing great value for money for me at the moment, as I've barely scratched the surface of 2 out of its ?6 levels... possibly this has to do with the fact that I haven't been bothered to play it for more than fifteen minutes yet.

5/10 - so, shorter than Rez, then?
toy_brain
26/11/05 @ 15:48
#36
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
bunglebonce - Sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. It dosent seem to relate to anything I said in my previous comment. Umm, try again?

Fozzie_bear - the point being that his lack of shooter knowledge suggests he probably isnt a huge fan of the genre and therefore the games target audience.
Given that GSH makes several references to its predecessor, its obvious that it was made for those that enjoyed the previous game, and therefore games of its type.
So we're back to the point about not getting someone who hates footy games to review FIFA and so on........
Ryuken
26/11/05 @ 15:50
#37
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Gamerankings - Gunstar Super Heroes

That site should be renamed the "Are-EG-crazy-again-o-meter".

And the majority of scores on there say yes, they are."

In the end, Gamerankings is just a collection of opinions. Their "top10ever" alone makes them pretty laughable.
technos
26/11/05 @ 15:56
#38
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yeah, I agree. Ocarina of Time sucks. N64 is crap.
bunglebonce
26/11/05 @ 16:11
#39
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
toy_brain, umm, he does refer to what you mention. He says that they're lifted. He just doesn't say it in as profound a way as you'd care to like.
MightyPenguin
26/11/05 @ 16:27
#40
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@tiddles

http://botherer.cream.org
Edited 2 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 16:27
weblaus
26/11/05 @ 16:31
#41
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I don't particularly care about Gunstar or Treasure, but the game is certainly pretty good and not the pile of shit the "reviewer" makes it out to be.

Some thoughts about this "review":

1. I think somebody mentioned this already, but claiming Monkey Ball jr. to be the best-looking GBA game around is a joke. Sure, it shows that the machine can handle 3D fairly well in some cases, but have you looked at it? It's not exactly detailed geometry shown on the screen, and what's the point comparing a 3D game to something that's mostly 2D bitmap?

2. Repeatedly stating "only I'm intelligent enough to see the truth, and if you disagree, you're a bully/fanboy/moron/etc." in a number of variations throughout the test is neither original nor very clever.

3. Remember Ikaruga? The shooter from treasure? Which is ONLY ABOUT ONE HOUR LONG? Boy, that dumb Kristan guy from Eurogamer sure must be a raving fanboy for giving such a short game an 8. Why didn't they have that Walker guy around back then to hand out a justified 4 or 5?

I wonder how Tetris might have fared in this reviewer's opinion.. after all, the core gameplay repeates itself after about, ooh... 30 seconds? It surely can't be any good then, can it? Why bother about the idea of played for the High Score, something Gunstar clearly is set up for..
MightyPenguin
26/11/05 @ 16:35
#42
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Ikaruga is hardly a fair comparison. It's extremely hard- most people will get far, far, FAR more than an hour of gameplay out of it. Plus, there's adequate reason to replay the game.
weblaus
26/11/05 @ 16:40
#43
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I know Ikaruga is very hard, but I don't think playing more than one hour and getting constantly frustrated unless you're a l33t gaming god is that much better as an alternative. And besides that, you could always start Gunstar on the hardest difficulty level, as well.

What would the adequate reason for repleaying Ikuaruga be? Maybe I missed something, but isn't it basically a hunt for the high score (which would qualifiy for Gunstar as well then)?
toy_brain
26/11/05 @ 16:58
#44
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"toy_brain, umm, he does refer to what you mention. He says that they're lifted. He just doesn't say it in as profound a way as you'd care to like."

He says the games mini-sections are lifted from other games from the 80's.
Gunstar Heroes was made in 1994/1995 (I think) so he's obviously not referring to that, and he's referring to the fact that these mini-sections are not fleshed out like he would have liked them resulting in a short game - not that they are homages to the previous Gunstar.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 16:59
paul_haine
26/11/05 @ 16:59
#45
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Edge reviewed this in their latest issue - it got 6/10 and picked up on a lot of the points mentioned in this review. Think I'll give this game a miss.
toy_brain
26/11/05 @ 17:00
#46
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Edge reviewed this in their latest issue - it got 6/10"

Which, funnily enough is what they gave the first Gunstar game.
Wonder if they mentioned that in their review :P
botherer
26/11/05 @ 17:04
#47
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Kind, warm weblaus. Try as I might, I can't find the bit in my review where I call it "a pile of shit," and as mad as it seems, I keep thinking that 5/10 is half marks, and not no marks at all.

I'm not convinced it was a joke for me to have compared something with better graphics with something with worse graphics and then to have concluded that one had better graphics than the other. I probably should have said something like, "it looks lovely enough", but hindsight, eh?

I also feel I put a deal of effort into explain exactly /why/ the game doesn't offer a best-times-replay-imperative, analysing a particular level in detail and explaining how it lacks the elements that might make one wish to complete something more quickly.
botherer
26/11/05 @ 17:09
#48
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
toy_brain:

Do you really believe a game should be rated based on its veiled references to a decade old game on a defunct format?

I agree, it's really lovely when a game offers you an in-joke, and sly aside, or creates a sense of universe through continuity. But I cannot believe it would be good criticism to have it bear on how *this* game plays when the gap is so vast, and the references so completely irrelevant to the action.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 26/11/05 @ 17:10
kentmonkey
26/11/05 @ 17:56
#49
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Bunglebonce, your comments addressed! My initials before and after my comments so it's easier to read.

"Hang on... you haven't played it yet? How on earth can you question the validity of this guy's review if you haven't played the game yourself?

So he thinks Astro Boy was overrated - big deal. Thinking something is overrated isn't fact - it's an opinion which goes against the majority. I always thought having dissenting opinions was a good thing."

Spot on, Genji.

KM - Do I have to have played a game in order to question a review? I didn't "like" the review purely because it sounded as though he was trying to sound deliberately controversial, didn't understand what the appeal of shoot-em-ups is, couldn't for one minute believe that anything other than his opinion was fact. That's the message I got from the review. I never questioned his score of 5, if that's what he thought then fair enough, but his reasons for this suggested to me that he was completely the wrong person to ever be reviewing a shoot-em-up in the first place. KM


"Might sound a bit fanboyish and ever so slightly OTT, but the reviews by some of the 'new-comers' recently have left a lot to be desired"

- Funking right it does, kentmonkey, especially since you haven't even got a copy yourself.

KM - First things first, me, I don't generally like shoot-em-ups to the degree others do. I "like" Ikaruga, I "like" Astro Boy but that's about it. However I can appreciate why others are fans of them and why they like them and what the appeal is, I get that I can understand it and appreciate it, I don't think this guy can from the text he has written. If you bothered to read the comment as well, you'd see it wasn't just this game. Take a look at the WRC review where vital points were missed out or glossed over, I never played that game either but I want to, as I want to Gunstar at some point, but the reviews were not helpful in the slightest because they didn't tell me enough about them and seemed to have glaringly obvious ommissions. Also take a look at the Battlefield 2 review, a reviewer that makes a big thing about not comparing it to the PC version, and then in the last paragraph basically admits it would be bad for somebody to do so, but then spent the whole review doing so anyway. I think it should have been touched on, to at least let people know it was different but to "compare" it for the basis of the score and the overall impression of the game when it's so obviously a different game then it just doesn't make sense.

Put it this way, if I wanted to read a book to "learn" about Quantum Physics, would I have to understand them in the first place, no because I wanted to learn about them. The same goes for this review, I wanted to "learn" about the game and giving it to somebody who didn't seem to like the genre wasn't the best idea, how could he possibly give a fair review. It goes against the reviews policy for a start as well. I don't feel like I have to "know" about something to decide whether I thought the writing was clear, concise and a good buying decision, ie. gave me enough important information. KM

Personally I thought it seemed like an honest review. Only an hour of - arguable - new gameplay before having to replay the game shouldn't get a good a review as what a Treasure fan would desire. Maybe if it was breathtaking gameplay or if it challenged the player more than just having to play on hard, for an hour. But, as what I think Mr Walker was getting at, all you have to do is hold down the fire button and stroll through the level. Disputedly unoriginal play 15 years ago.

KM - I'm not a Treasure fan, I wouldn't no what games they'd produced other than Astro Boy, therefore argument void. I didn't want a "Treasure fan" review, however I did expect a review from somebody with an interest in the genre (which I seriously doubt Mr Walker has got from the review as I've never heard a Shoot-em-up fan say that Astro Boy was overrated, quite the opposite). KM

I was going to get my coat, but this got my goat as well:

"Have to say, great choice as well. Give a game to somebody that didn't like Astro Boy when this is by the same company and in the same genre."

I'll try to ignore the petulant sarcasm, but what do the factors you mention have to do with the choice of reviewer, and more importantly the quality? I don't think the reviewer would have a vendetta against Treasure, so he should have as much of a chance to review the game as the rest of the staff, particularly when his reviews are as frank as they are.

KM - What petulant sarcasm and as it got your goat you obviously failed anyway (that probably was petulant sarcasm there)? Again I suggest you read EG's review policy. What is the point in Mr Walker getting a game to review when he doesn't seemingly have an interest in the genre. I can't see how somebody who would have such an interest in the genre would feel that two of the most highly-rated games across the board are overrated. KM

The reviewer does try to hold the game on its merits, but that's it seems that doing that is difficult when the good parts of the game are hampered by (i) the ease, and particularly (ii) the length of the game.

KM - When did he try? At what point? I obviously missed that, it seemed like a one great big dissing session from the start to me. KM

Cyhwuhx
26/11/05 @ 18:05
#50
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
.::: Well this was fun, but it certainly wasn't any better than Astro Boy imo. I'd had given this a 6 (ooo, voting!) it's ok, but you'll need some rose-tinted spectacles to properly enjoy it.

Comments: 1-50 of 89 in total | next 50 »

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery