Gunstar Future Heroes Review

By John Walker Published 26 November, 2005

Prepare the stocks. Ready the rotting fruit.

Version tested: GameBoy Advance

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 the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of John.

About John Walker

Read more articles from John by visiting the John Walker archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (86) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • Eraysor #1 6 years ago

    Meh, it could never beat the original.

  • Mox #2 6 years ago

    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 #3 6 years ago

    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 #4 6 years ago

    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 #5 6 years ago

    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 by 4 at 26/11/05 @ 11:28

  • Hog-lumps #6 6 years ago

    Noooooooooooooo! What have they done to it?!

    \runs into street

    Why lord, WHY?!!!

    \returns

    Sorry, had to get that out of my system............
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 11:17

  • Hog-lumps #7 6 years ago

    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 #8 6 years ago

    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 by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 11:31

  • botherer #9 6 years ago

    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 #10 6 years ago

    "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 #11 6 years ago

    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.

  • Celeborn #12 6 years ago

    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 #13 6 years ago

    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 #14 6 years ago

    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 by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 12:27

  • thebuzzard #15 6 years ago

    Think Ill play Kingdom Grand Prix on Saturn instead then :)

  • Artemus #16 6 years ago

    Oh it's another controversial Walker review...

  • Genji #17 6 years ago

    ""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 #18 6 years ago

    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 #19 6 years ago

    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 #20 6 years ago

    "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 #21 6 years ago

    Haha. Why's this guy reviewing games?

  • weblaus #22 6 years ago

    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 #23 6 years ago

    "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 italics?
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 14:48

  • SirScratchalot #24 6 years ago

    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 #25 6 years ago

    Well, it's easy to spot the people that haven't played the game in here. What's the point?

  • tengu #26 6 years ago

    Scratch, you save after every level y'know? It's not like you have to play the whole game over if you die.

  • SirScratchalot #27 6 years ago

    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 by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 14:57

  • toy_brain #28 6 years ago

    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 #29 6 years ago

    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 #30 6 years ago

    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 #31 6 years ago

    Yeah, when being mislead is funny. Keep on truckin'

  • ClansOfIntrigue #32 6 years ago

    If reviewing games was an objective task, there'd be no need for sites like GameRankings to exist, no?

  • tiddles #33 6 years ago

    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 #34 6 years ago

    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 #35 6 years ago

    "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 #36 6 years ago

    Yeah, I agree. Ocarina of Time sucks. N64 is crap.

  • bunglebonce #37 6 years ago

    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 #38 6 years ago

    @tiddles

    http://botherer.cream.org< /a>
    Edited by 2 at 26/11/05 @ 16:27

  • weblaus #39 6 years ago

    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 #40 6 years ago

    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 #41 6 years ago

    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 #42 6 years ago

    "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 by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 16:59

  • paul_haine #43 6 years ago

    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 #44 6 years ago

    "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 #45 6 years ago

    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 #46 6 years ago

    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 by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 17:10

  • kentmonkey #47 6 years ago

    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 #48 6 years ago

    .::: 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.

  • kentmonkey #49 6 years ago

    I also love the fact because I disagreed with something I'm also instantly a"fanboi" it seems. Had a good chuckle at that, considering this isn't anywhere near my favourite genre whatsoever. It's amazing how people on here a lot of the time resort to the "fanboi" name calling as soon as someone does the unthinkable and actually questions a review. It can be quite clicky on here sometimes, some might say especially with the EG fanbois (but that might be more petulant sarcasm so I obviously wouldn't write that).

    To confirm the situation, I've been coming here for months, have had decent conversations with Rauper, Krudster etc. both online and via email and think the place is generally a great place, but because of that I don't like to see the pap in some instances that has been written this week. This is just my opinion, do feel free to disagree as I have with Mr Walker. I'm pretty certain Rauper won't mind one little bit me disagreeing with reviews and posting a negative comment, it's good and healthy to get feedback rather than the constant arse-licking that can go on here sometimes. I'm quick to defend EG when people just post "OMFG, how did this game get a 6, it's clearly a 7" as a score means nothing in most cases, it's the words before it that count and I didn't think the words in this instance were good enough.
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 18:19

  • toy_brain #50 6 years ago

    "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? "

    Not specifically, I was just using it as an example to point out your (apparent) lack of knowledge on Gunstar Heroes, and therefore the fact that you probably wernt the best pick to review the game.

    Now, if you are in fact farmiliar with Gunstar Heroes, it might have been a good idea to demonstrate that knowledge and therefore lend your review a bit more credability..........

  • weblaus #51 6 years ago

    botherer:

    Since you prefer being pedantic, try reading my comment again and show me were I wrote that directly calleds the game a pile of shit. But when a review bascially starts with one sentence to condemn a game and uses most of the restto re-iterate that point again and again, I consider this to be a VERY strong negative. Actually a 5 doesn't reflect the contents of the text to me, since you smugly continue to rip it into threads and at various times smugly that everyone thinking different must have lost his marbles (yes, yes, you didn't write that word-for-word, I know).

    I'm convinced you intentionally don't get the problem I have with the Monkey Ball comparison: that game is mostly polygonal 3D - Gunstar ISN'T. Kind of apples and oranges. According to your warped argument there, all bitmap-based games would have to be criticised for NOT being 3D. So your point is.. what?

    I'll give you that Gunstar might not be the most intriguing hour to replay again and again, but I strongly object to your thinly-veiled hints that anyone thinking otherwise must be a raving lunatic.

  • caligari #52 6 years ago

    Okay, short and sweet this time.

    GBA Rebelstar? Any good?

  • technos #53 6 years ago

    "GBA Rebelstar? Any good?"

    Yeah, pretty good. Doesn't quite live up to what came before, due mostly to being somewhat shorter on features. More a 7/10 than 8/10, if you get what I mean.


    "ISnt like castlevania is it?"

    Not really.

  • botherer #54 6 years ago

    "Since you prefer being pedantic, try reading my comment again and show me were I wrote that directly calleds the game a pile of shit."

    Heh, ok. How about...

    "not the pile of shit the "reviewer" makes it out to be."

    "(yes, yes, you didn't write that word-for-word, I know)."

    You don't appear to understand that summarising something someone else said doesn't involve exaggeration. If you state that I said something, no matter how much you may have reworded it, and it's not what I said... that's poor behaviour.

    "According to your warped argument there, all bitmap-based games would have to be criticised for NOT being 3D. So your point is.. what?"

    My warped argument was, and remains, that it's not the best graphics ever seen on a GBA, as was stated at E3. And then I cited a game that had better graphics. By your logic, I shouldn't be allowed to say that the Empire State Building is taller than a china teacup because teacups aren't made of bricks.

    "I'll give you that Gunstar might not be the most intriguing hour to replay again and again, but I strongly object to your thinly-veiled hints that anyone thinking otherwise must be a raving lunatic."

    Ah well.
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 22:23

  • caligari #55 6 years ago

    Thanks Technos.

    So how does it rate to the original X-Com games?

  • ClansOfIntrigue #56 6 years ago

    I have to say that after reading the words I was expecting 2 or 3/10, so maybe the review doesn't quite explain the positives that lift the game up to 5 well enough (or prominently enough).

  • weblaus #57 6 years ago

    First off, English isn't my mother language. I like to believe I do fairly well with it, but I guess at times something might get lost in transtlation - though I definitely stick to my opinion on this. Your whole text is so overwhemingly stuffed full with negativity and barely anything positive at all that the 5/10 score seems way off at the end - how can a game that's less than an hour long and made up of stuff "barely worth bothering with" (and that IS quoted directly) still be average? Shouldn't that reflect in the review somewhere?

    Your condescending attitude towards my allegedly poor behaviour is pretty funny, given how poor your own repeated jabs at the cleary less-enlightened rabble that dares to actually hold Gunstar in higher regard than you do come across, oh well...

    The graphics probably aren't the best ever on a GBA, true.. but since when is anything stated at E3 something I have to take as the absolute truth? Not that it does matter if you indeed want to imply Monkey Ball holds that particular honor, which I'd say is a very big joke (try at least something like V-Rally 3 or Stuntman, both of which look decidedly more impressive in the 3D department) - and it STILL isn't a reasonable comparison at all to put a 3D game next to a bitmap game. I suppose if you were an art critic, you'd just as easily compare a graffiti to an oil painting despite both being wildy different ways to make up a picture?

    On the other hand, your pointless tea cup and building example doesn't fit at all, since height is obviously something that can be measured 100% objective and doesn't include factors like personal taste.
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 23:14

  • caligari #58 6 years ago

    Oh...My...God...

    What is this whole ' hang the reviewer' attitude that is on pretty much every comment's section at the minute.

    If you check out John Walker's past, you'll see that there is no anti-Gameboy / Anti-Nintendo / Anti-whatever conspiracy...I've put in an order for Kirby on the DS based on his review from a few weeks back.

    Sheesh.
    Edited by 1 at 26/11/05 @ 23:40

  • Stoatboy #59 6 years ago

    The review sounds fair to me. I love old-school shooters but if I finished one within an hour of first playing it I'd be very disappointed. I've played Ikaruga, Gradius V, the Metal Slug Series, the R-Types etc. to death, but only because they were a challenge. If any of them had rolled over and died the first time I'd played them I'd have never gone back. Sounds like a serious flaw to me.

    weblaus - there's not much left of the axe you're grinding. Let it go. You seem to think the review was way harsher than it actually was. For example, you're disputing the opinion on the graphics and yet the worst the review did was state that they're not the absolute best on the GBA. It says they're "lovely enough" - what more do you want? What's to argue about? (Apart from whether the argument for why the graphics aren't the best isn't the best argument that could have been made - which seems to be what you're doing for the most part.)

    To quote Caligari - "Sheesh!"

  • HunterSeeker #60 6 years ago

    Well, the only reason i bought the game is because Gamespot, IGN and Gamespy all gave somewhere around 9/10.

    And, wow, Eurogamers really stands out on the Gamerankings review chart:
    I guess they may have their reasons...

    htt p://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/927525.asp
    11 +90% 11 +80% 1 +70% "1+ 50%???!!!"

  • technos #61 6 years ago

    I want to be different. :'(

  • Mox #62 6 years ago

    I guess an hour is short, but I think the ideal play-through time for a shooter is about two hours. Remember, the point of the genre is as a skill exercise not a read-through, and it must be judged in terms of its replayability rather than its run-through duration. Technically, you can play through Jet Pac pretty quick, but if you're a fan like me you can play it for days on end :)

    The more important point in the review is the discussion of the various sub-gaming systems that are not exploited properly, which I think I would not appreciate. I can imagine why it's like that, which is that if you write a quirky subgame that you know a number of people in your desired audience aren't going to enjoy, you don't want to put too much of it in. I'd solve that by having alternate play-through paths, so that some people can play more of the chick-herding games if they want to and others can bypass most of them. I guess it could lead to arguments about 'valid' routes through the game for score comparison purposes (at least starfox was more like a collect-'em-up in that respect :) ).

  • bunglebonce #63 6 years ago

    Those digs are appreciated, KM.I take back the Treasure fan accusation, but I stand by the sarcasm.

    Fundamentally I don't disagree with you, KM, I just didn't like the way you put yourself across. The BF2:MC review certainly isn't the best I've read in the last while, but I enjoyed and took a lot from both the WRC and the above review. A matter of opinion at the end of the day.-
    I liked your own Read Dear Revolver review, by the way. It was well balanced and generally a good read. I'd go as far as saying that it, in my opinion, it was a better read than the BF2:MC review.

    But:

    "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."

    I don't think that will help your cause to be an EG freelancer.

    EDIT: bloody PDA.
    Edited by 3 at 27/11/05 @ 15:15

  • Royal Fool #64 6 years ago

    Storytime:

    An average kid/guy/lady walks into a game shop.

    Looks at the GBA shelf, since he/she owns a GBA.

    Spots Gunstar Heroes, likes the graphics on the back of the box, looks fun.

    Plonks down 25 pounds or more for the thing, and walks home to try out the game (Or, if he/she is clever, immediately puts it in the GBA in his/her pocket).

    Has tons of fun with the game for an hour or two.

    Realizes the game is over, and frantically looks through the game menu for any unlocked stuff or extras... none.

    Plays through the game again as the other character, suddenly finds himself/herself at the credits screen, again.

    Realizes the game was totally not worth the money and is fairly pissed at THQ and Treasure.

    Feels ripped off.

    The End.
    Edited by 1 at 28/11/05 @ 03:12

  • Eighthours #65 6 years ago

    Don't you think that the ire in this comments thread should be aimed at Treasure for producing a game that's only an hour long and not up to the standard (+12 years inflation) of the original, rather than aimed at the reviewer?

    Strikes me as the same kind of annoying fanboyism that defends travesties like Shadow the Hedgehog!

  • ralphwolfenstein #66 6 years ago

    Genuine WTF. This doesn't sound like the same game that's been welded into my SP for the past month...

  • ch0k0r #67 6 years ago

    the fact that you were thirteen. And if that's you,

    OMG You don't start a sentance with and!!

  • tengu #68 6 years ago

    Eighthours, the original game could be finished in an hour as well. That made it no less brilliant. Same applies to this version.

  • Eighthours #69 6 years ago

    Eighthours, the original game could be finished in an hour as well. That made it no less brilliant. Same applies to this version.

    With all due respect, what was acceptable length-wise in 1993 is not the same as what's acceptable now, particularly if there's little replay value. I've not played the game myself, but the reviewer certainly thought this was a big minus point.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #70 6 years ago

    People, if you play a game in Easy mode you shouldn't be surprised if it's easy. That's kinda the point. I take my hat off to anyone who can beat this in an hour in Normal mode - it's pasting me all over the walls, I've been going at least four times that long and I haven't even *sniffed* the Dice Palace yet.

    JW - you know I love you, guy, but I think you should admit that you messed up by reviewing this on the basis of Easy mode. You might well still think it's only worth 5, but it's really not fair to criticise a game for shortness when you've *told* it to give you an easy ride.

  • Scarbir #71 6 years ago

    Ok then, you got me interested for MAME. What titles do I have to get?

  • Teeth #72 6 years ago

    I don't think it says anywhere in the review that he played through on easy. He said that easy is easy, normal is a bit harder and hard is very hard, but most of the added difficulty is at the bosses.

  • tengu #73 6 years ago

    "With all due respect, what was acceptable length-wise in 1993 is not the same as what's acceptable now, particularly if there's little replay value. I've not played the game myself, but the reviewer certainly thought this was a big minus point."

    Bear in mind the GBA is a handheld 'early nineties' console at the end of the day, and it's not like the game is full price either, it's less than 20 quid everywhere I look.

    20 quid for a genuinely fun game most people will probably go back to is fair enough imo. Might not be for everyone sure, but it's not crap by any stretch of the imagination.

  • karlidog #74 6 years ago

    Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a blinkered fanboy or following the herd doesn't do you any favours, mister reviewer man. Apparently I'm supposed to respect your independent opinion on the game, but if I actually like the thing, having played it fairly intensively, I'm a Treasure fangirl or easily led? Bollocks. Leave the 'anyone who disagrees with me is stupid, only I know the truth!' attitude to the GameFAQs kids and David Icke, please.

    Not that I'm cheerleading for GSH - a 5/10 score seems pretty fair from a reviewer who didn't get on with the thing, and there's certainly enough to criticise about it. Comparisons to Super Monkey Ball on the GBA, though? That drew a couple of big, flattish polygons on the screen while GSH is flinging lots of sprites around - regardless of prettiness, they're completely different things. If the reviewer wants to enlighten us as to how Treasure could've done GSH better with eight or so polygons, I'm sure everyone would be fascinated.

  • BremXJones #75 6 years ago

    " I haven't even *sniffed* the Dice Palace yet. "

    Stuart, a man of your age should be embarassed at such confessions.

    KG

  • Kay #76 6 years ago

    Yes, the original could also be beaten in an hour, and that is precisely why Edge gave it a 6 way back in 1993. But, unlike GFH, the original had to be beaten in one go.

    Anyway...yes, a game this short and easy deserves to be criticised, but if the reviewer played it on easy then he's missing the point.

    Also, you have to remember that this game is unlikely to be bought by the general public, or mothers of ten-year old kids, who are more likely to buy the latest Disney or Crazy Frog game. No, this game will mostly be bought by Treasure fans and fans of horizontal shooters in general, the sort of people who like to replay games over and over again in order to better their scores. For that reason, giving the game to someone who doesn't appreciate shoot' em-ups to review doesn't make sense.

    So, as an average game GFH may be a disappointment. But it isn't an average game, and Treasure have never been your average games developer. As teletext's GameCentral said in their review (which was 8/10 and spot-on), GFH is likely to be 'another high-quality flop from the makers of high-quality flops', which pretty much sums up the game perfectly.

    K
    Edited by 2 at 28/11/05 @ 11:04

  • Genji #77 6 years ago

    @manicminer

    I only get cheesed off when people on the comments threads attack the professional integrity of the reviewer for no good reason. They're allowed to disagree with the score. Hell, I disagree with plenty of EG scores. Read: HL2. That doesn't make the reviews any less worthwhile, though, or the reviewers any less professional.

  • Zuiyo #78 6 years ago

    "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. "

    Excuse me? This is the second Eurogamer review in a very short time which feels like it has been written by someone who shows no special knowledge or interest about the title, let alone its genre. I did not know about the above policy when I read the first one (Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi), but with this second one I have to raise my voice with even more concern.

    It is impossible to know about all videogames, all genres, across time and from experience, and be able to judge any title accordingly to the moment in time and the achievements of its competitors or previous iterations. It is simply not possible due to the massive amount of games released and the necessity of having them all placed in a framework of comparison to its counterparts. This requires a certain dedication to the genre and obviously, some inclination to the mechanics of it, to its language. The comment to “Astro Boy” being overrated does not say much about the reviewer’s sympathies for the genre.

    I dislike JRPGs. Occasionally I try to play any of the new ones (Tales of Symphonia and Tales of Legendia have been the latest) just to see if I they have improved since the Super Famicom days, before I realise (usually after 10, 15 minutes) why I don’t approach them anymore: repetitive mechanics, mundane character designs, risible storylines in all of them. I never liked them and I guess I will never do, and I can write something as sarcastic as John Walker’s about the latest RPG any day of the week. And if an editor allows my opinion to be held as relevant in the category of a “review”, well then it should be a darn good one right? Wrong, because millions like what I find boring. And millions enjoy the little details and nuances which make small difference to me. And therefore, I need to believe that this guy who gives 9 out of 10 to a game such as Tales of Symphonia has played the other titles, or at least is familiar with them, and has strong arguments as why the character design fits the story, or if graphics are an actual improvement or achievement in regards to the platform or the history of the genre, the developer, the creative team. That this is a valuable review to people who play these games. In other words: a good reviewer should be one that knows what he talks about and gives a serene and balanced recount of his opinion, which should be one that is useful and productive to the reader or prospective buyer. He needs to like or at least have sympathy to the genre, otherwise he will have no inclination to be informed about it. He needs to be someone able to compare his own personal and intimate opinion of the title, be it positive or negative, with the obvious truths about it: the platform it runs, the nature of the majority of buyers, its intrinsic value when compared to others, on its own context of competitors and related titles.

    I would not be able to do such a thing with Tales of Symphonia. But I would be able to write something as John Walker’s. Something that is biased and uninformative, sarcastic, patronising, full of bitter cynicism and unnecessary controversia. The review is short and its first paragraphs confusing, where he talks more about the original Mega Drive game than the one he’s reviewing. There is not a word on the game’s visual atmosphere, the character design, the music or the quality of the animation. It is said that the game lasts an hour, but not on which difficulty level. Later, mentions to the difficulty level avoid this question completely, wasting a perfect opportunity to nail the main negative argument brought up to condemn the game. MAME is brought up as host to “trillions” of games from which this game borrows. But none is mentioned, not in a general way, not in a specific way such as saying “section A from level B is taken from X game, available in MAME”. As I said, uninformative, and also misleading as others have pointed out, since MAME is not available for portable consoles, and it’s not even 100% fair game since you need to use ROMs of old arcade boards which most of the time you don’t own for it to be fully legal.

    Where is Eurogamer’s “fair review” policy? Where is Eurogamer’s conscience that they should provide a service to its readers instead of reviewers filling up their cynicism gauge? John Walker’s distinct style is one a polemist would use to provoke instead of providing with hindsight. I never played the original Mega Drive title, and haven’t played this one, and after reading this text the only new information I have is not about these games, not about their quality or lack of it, not about sensible reasons of why I should or shouldn’t buy: the only new thing I am left with is the certainty that Eurogamer reviews are not reliable anymore.

  • Hog-lumps #79 6 years ago

    the only new thing I am left with is the certainty that Eurogamer reviews are not reliable anymore

    Well go somewhere else for reviews then! That way, everyones happy :)

    (edit smily, as was meant in jest!)
    Edited by 1 at 28/11/05 @ 14:01

  • Keldorek #80 6 years ago

    Jeez, this guy is smarmy.

  • tengu #81 6 years ago

    "I am left with is the certainty that Eurogamer reviews are not reliable anymore."

    Based on a hand full of reviews? 95% of the time their reviews are spot on as far as I'm concerned. Certainly better and more honest than the paid for adverts that places like IGN call 'reviews'.

    I don't rate this review at all, but others are pretty on the money, specifically the DBZ one you mentioned, which, speaking as a sort of DBZ fan who liked previous Budokai games, really was a load of toss which sucked the fun right out of the series imo. YMMV of course, but I loathed it.

    Don't judge the whole site based on a couple of reviews you don't like, eh?

  • Zuiyo #82 6 years ago

    I got carried away. I needed some punch to finish and it was a fake one. I still trust Eurogamer for my reviews.

    I am a fake, cynic polemist.

  • Metalfish #83 6 years ago

    Can I remind everyone here that you are not, in fact, paying for any of the reviews on Eurogamer, the only thing expended is your time (well, possibly the odd spleen), and while I'm not suggesting that your counter-arguments are groundless in any way, many of you are treating this site as something it isn't, rather than the fairly-reliable collection of informed opinions that it is. And opinions they are, and should be treated as such; just another thread to be gathered together (along with, say, gamespy, ign, whatever) to prevent you from buying crap games.

    Still, that is just my opinion, feel free to disagree with it, I'm sure many will be inclined to do so...

  • botherer #84 6 years ago

    "The review is short and its first paragraphs confusing, where he talks more about the original Mega Drive game than the one he’s reviewing."

    Well, Mr Blowhard, we meet again : )

    I'm a little thrown by your logic here. You spend about 17,000 paragraphs complaining that I don't know anything about the genre or the previous game, and then complain that I talked about the previous game in the intro.

    Now, hang me from the lampposts for not enjoying this game, but really, come on, at least /try/ with the reasoning.

    Also, "short"?! It's 1500 flipping words long. It took longer to write than play! Now, if you're comparing it to your forum posts, fair enough. But that word count would fill four pages in a magazine - not exactly "short".

    Oh, and to address some other points made, my reviews transcend opinion. I carve them into stone tablets, ordained by the Lord himself, typed up onto computer by my minions.

  • kentmonkey #85 6 years ago

    Genji, I hope this clarifies my situation.

    I have dial-up at home, I hardly use the internet for anything as I can use it for most things at work when I need to during lunchtimes and I use to use the internet for maybe an hour a week up until April this year.

    In April this year I found Eurogamer and my internet activity has risen to about an hour an evening ever since. I’d never really looked online for my games reviews or advice as I had been a subscriber of PC Zone and then Games TM and for me with dial-up, it was expensive at around 50p per night but not enough to warrant broadband.

    I got fed up with PC Zone when the once great reviews turned into pap that would be best suited to the C&VG magazine (about the same time they became part of them I think, although I may be wrong on that).

    I then went to console gaming instead of PC gaming as that suits my gaming time better and subscribed to the excellent Games TM. Well it was excellent until they started putting a lot more emphasis and effort into previews and not on their reviews. You read a Games TM preview and you’ll find out loads of information, you then go on to read its review and you’ll often see what I mean. A preview can get 4 pages, a review can get one page where a reviewer can go on to talk about it’s lengthy production process rather than anything about the game. They also write reviews that seem to be controversial for the sake of it, just to be that little bit different. This obviously is just my opinion though.

    It was in April that I got fed up with the quality and found EG and have been a “regulard” ever since. I’ve really enjoyed the place, the reviews, the excellent forum and generally the fantastic people that are on there, I’ve even become friends with a couple of them, something I never thought I would do as I hold my hand up and say that this time last year, I thought forums were geeky places. I was wrong.

    I have disagreed with many scores on this site, FIFA Streets 8 being a prime example. But in all instances I’ve been able to turn round and say that (if I had played it) I couldn’t agree with the score, give my reasons why I couldn’t agree with it but then also state that the review was so well written that I could tell why the reviewer didn’t like it/liked it so much and that I could tell that it wouldn’t be my type of thing. Again read the FIFA Street comments, I think it sums up my general posting on the comments sections nicely.

    However, over the past week especially, there has been three reviews which I simply haven’t enjoyed and they have not been written by the “regular” writers. I don’t own any of these games, but I was interested in adding all three to my Christmas list. However reading the reviews did not enlighten me one little bit as to whether these would be for me or not.

    The Battlefield review made a big thing about not comparing it to the PC version but then did so anyway. It’s actually two completely different games and only the name is the same, it shouldn’t have been an issue.

    Then we have the WRC rally review, which seemed to miss out some very important parts of the game and I learnt more about the game from the Forum thread and the comments section than I did from the review. That shouldn’t be the case.

    We then get to this one, where-by the reviewer didn’t like Astro Boy and called it over-rated. Fine, his own opinion and perfectly acceptable but if you’re going to bring it up in a review you should quantify why you didn’t like it, so the reader can then see if they share the same opinion or if they’re opinion differs, thereby helping with their purchasing decision. You also have to question the judgement of giving a game to somebody who doesn’t seem to like the genre or at least the type of game you have given him, especially when you read EG’s reviews policy.

    We then get this comment about the difficulty level. Fine you can complete it in an hour, but I do bet that is on Easy. If you cranked it up on Normal I expect it would provide more of a challenge and the same for Hard, but the level this was completed on in under an hour was never stated so the reader is left guessing what difficulty level it was completed in an hour. I’ve had conversations with people who visit this site via email about the game and they have said that it is a joke that it only lasts an hour unless you are playing it on easy. I can’t comment, not played it, but I would prefer to go with the majority of people that think this was played on easy and reviewed as such especially when a reviewer does not quantify what level he was playing it on (which is fundamental to his argument that it is too easy, unless he was playing it on hard and if so it should have been stated that it still only lasts an hour on hard).

    I’d also urge you to go back and read the review and tell me where this deserves a “5”. I won’t disagree with the score as I haven’t played it, I do disagree with it getting a 5 when the review, to me and others that have posted above, reads like a 2 or a 3 at best. It’s contradicting what he has written, almost to the fact that it looks like he wanted to be controversial but not too much.

    So it’s the quality of the review I am questioning, not the score, and I think as a customer of this site (I don’t pay but I do help with the Play links and my visits counting towards the banner ad revenue as all of our visits do) I am entitled to leave feedback. I am not one of these people that shout “omg it’s at least an 8” when a game gets a 7 or vice-versa, shout when a game gets an 8 I think should have got a 4 (FIFA Street).

    Was my initial post a tad aggressive? Possibly, but it was intended to be in a deliberate way as I have posted in the other reviews this week that I thought they were poor quality and I just wanted to make sure that this feedback got heard. The other reviews this week have had negative comments, more so than usual and not by people merely complaining about the score but the quality of the review. I’m not usually like this, I don’t normally burst out like that, but it was a way of getting the point across and it seems to have worked as we’ve had quite a large conversation about it now. The feedback above, with me being unbiased and taking a brief look at the posts, is at best 50/50, with 50% liking the review and 50% not liking the “quality” of the review. It could even be 40/60 but I haven’t the time to bother nor do I think it would prove much. That might be okay for some but if it was my review, I’d be looking at ways of improving future reviews and at the very least analysing where I might have gone wrong. What could I have done better?

    Also to bunglebonce, I wasn’t pointing to myself in the reader reviews section when I said there was a wealth of talent there, I was thinking of others (to name-drop one, Professor Lesser) just to illustrate that the quality there in some cases has been better than the main reviews this week. I wouldn’t like to comment on my own reviews, I find it difficult to praise something I have done myself as I find that a bit arrogant to tell you the truth. But I do appreciate your kind words, especially as we disagreed on this review and had had a discussion about it and you had the decency to still post those words – so thank you. IMO, that’s probably one of the worst reviews I’ve done as I bashed it out too quickly and made lots of grammatical errors and it was a bit stop start for my liking, something I’ve tried to address in the other reviews I’ve just submitted.

    Will it hurt my chances of one day getting a freelance job at EG? Well I don’t think that’s been on the radar at all and so therefore probably not, but if my reviews are good enough and they think it’s worth pursuing (hopefully with a couple of others from that section as well) then I don’t see why it should. For one at the moment I’m not an employee, I’m a customer trying to get a point across and just being honest. If I was an employee I’d still be honest, I don’t see the point in lying about something, but I wouldn’t obviously be so vocal about it in a public forum and would probably only speak out about it if asked for my opinion as you would be approaching the situation from a totally different perspective. If the opportunity came up then fantastic, but at the moment I’m happy coming here and getting the gaming info I need and when it starts to go downhill, I want to at least try and do something about it, rather than be one of the ones that either don’t say anything or just defend it to the hilt as it’s EG and you can’t possibly say something bad about it. I’m not saying it’s gone downhill just because of two or three poorly written reviews, as has been pointed out above, in the main the reviews are very good, but I don’t want to be in a position in 3 months time where I’m still reading stuff like this and potentially have to start looking around for somewhere else. Better to say something early and at least try to improve things.

    So to summarise an extremely long post, I wasn’t disagreeing with the score of “5” so please put away the “Fanboi” placards and “Treasure whore” signs for anybody that still has them out. How could I be, I haven’t played it. What I was voicing an opinion about was the quality of reviews this week (in some cases I do hasten to add), that this seemed to completely differ from every other opinion out there but came across as his was the only opinion worth listening to and that anybody else was purely a fanboi of the original not able to see past the games shortcomings and that the reviewer probably wasn’t the best choice to review it considering his snide comments about the original (which I’ve never played, does it stand the test of time?) and to Treasures other GBA game Astro Boy (as well as promoting the use of something pretty much illegal in MAME which if people were abiding by the law would probably not even own one game on). That strictly wasn’t his fault, for me he should never have got the game to review as it wasn’t fair going on EG’s review policy, but then, again IMO, I probably wouldn’t give him another game to review as I just don’t like his reviews, as it appears is the case with at least half of the people that have commented thus far as well. Also resulting to calling “customers” a blowhard isn’t exactly a great thing to do as an employee, I wouldn’t have been happy with one of my employees saying that to a customer no matter how much they had been provoked. Plus it’s rather poor for somebody who should have a much wider vocabulary than resulting to low-form personal insults like that.

    However I wouldn’t say the review was too short as has been mentioned by somebody else above, sometimes reviews on websites can go on forever and a day purely because there isn’t really a word limit as such (much like this post), at least not the sort that magazines have to contend with, and therefore the review length was spot on. See, I did manage to find something positive and it only took me just over 2000 words. :o)

    /realises nobody will have the strength to read all of this

  • djchump #86 6 years ago

    "/realises nobody will have the strength to read all of this "

    Quite.

    I don't think anyone cares any more.
    I certainly don't care enough to read that all that.

    Edge gave GFH a 6/10.

    As for John Walker's review style, I don't appreciate it but then that's my personal opinion. I think it's bad enough form to flame-bait in the forums, let alone the website's official reviews :-/ From now on I'll just be taking JW's reviews with a pinch of salt.