King Kong Review

By Tom Bramwell Published 5 December, 2005

Game of the monk.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Welcome to Skull Island. Well, one of you was already here.

King Kong is a game that by design ought to suffer from a lack of identity. Most of the time you're playing through the eyes of Jack Driscoll, a gallant sort of chap desperate to extricate a damsel from enormously hairy distress, while some of the time you're working from over the shoulder of the very architect of her plight, the aforementioned enormously hairy Kong.

Yet in spite of this you'll find that you actually empathise with several characters. Most notably Driscoll, largely undefined beyond the rolled-up sleeves groping for spears in front of you and his plaintive cries, whose mantle's easily assumed as your own; but thanks to largely excellent third-person camerawork you'll also come to understand both Ann and Kong.

The key is the game's biggest personality - that of Skull Island, an enormous prehistoric jungle setting home to enormous reptiles, savages natives and countless rickety perils. It even has its own food chain, which you'll use to your advantage, using grubs to bait bigger enemies out of the way, or distracting carnivores by shooting giant bats out of the sky. At times the island twists its body to reveal herds of stampeding Brontosaurs or a burning sky creeping over a mountain range; at others it throws shadows across rocks to hint at what lies beyond; and when it's most revelling in its pageantry it opens the cage and throws its worst horrors at you, never quite taking the fatal bite but always nipping at your heels with teeth each the size of your arm.

'King Kong' Screenshot reign

It never reigns.

It's the character you'll be most interested in, most obviously because its principle illusion - that you're just a tiny frail creature caught in a world of monsters, rarely in possession of anything that can actually overcome them for longer than a few seconds - is so well kept up. So much so that when one of Driscoll's companions, Hayes, instructed me to get Ann back from Kong and regroup with him later, I really wondered how I was going to do it, even though everything I'd done to that point argued that it would be simple, eloquent and largely transparent.

Driscoll's first-person combat is split between throwing spears and bones, and fighting with poorly stocked supplies of weapons dropped in crates by Englehorn, the captain of the ship that brought you to Skull Island, who circles in his seaplane. The guns rarely last long enough to nullify every threat in a given situation, and the remainder of your success is a product of frantically groping for the spears and bones with the right trigger, then aiming with the left and loosing with the right again. By clicking the right thumb-stick you can hold your finger up as a kind of crosshair, but often you won't have time. Occasionally you'll be so helpless that you'll need to rely on your surprisingly able companions - often in danger, but never stupid about it or impossible to protect - to rescue you from the jaws of whatever hunts you.

So then, you might imagine that the sensation of being hunted is juxtaposed by Kong the hunter, but actually Kong's more of a pursuer. While his enormity and brutish strength swat away the creatures that flood Driscoll's view with red and set his heart pounding, and put the player on an even, suitably vicious footing with the giant predators Driscoll can only hope to distract and evade, the real game of Kong is chasing things down; leaping from branch to pillar to wall, breaking through giant wooden gates and preventing the horrors of Skull Island keeping Ann from his padded grasp.

'King Kong' Screenshot close

But he comes pretty close.

And yet for all the surprise, the wonder, and the simple majesty with which the game's all sewn together, as I drew closer to what I knew must be the end of the journey I found myself quitting out after saving to count how many chapters were left - instead of yearning for it to continue, I was checking my watch.

It's important to note that King Kong is bristling with moments that will capture your attention and live for a while in the memory. There's your struggle to transfer fire from one end of a valley to the other - by scurrying between the legs of onrushing Brontosaurs, and having at intervals to stow the flame in stony basins just in time to loose your precious flaming spear into an attacking scavenger, before lighting another stick and continuing the journey. There are the Rex pursuits - continuous evasion among pillars and other hiding spots, the object being to keep their attention on you without getting too close, all the while your companions work to open the gates ahead, and the number of safe spots diminishes as your typically giant adversary breaks everything down in search of you. And there are moments when Skull Island meets the nascence of the kind of puzzle design that made Michel Ancel's last work, Beyond Good & Evil, feel so neat - like the fitful battle against giant millipedes and crabs in caves that frame the puzzle of how to carry fire past waterfalls.

But curiously, while errant film-maker Carl Denham contrives to paint a story within a forgotten world, ultimately fails when it overwhelms him, and has to make do with capturing a piece of it to play show-and-tell with back in the real world, the developers start off playing show-and-tell, then leave you underwhelmed through repetition and send you on your way forgettably. It does the scale very well, and you certainly feel imperilled, but all too soon you start to spot the patterns - spearing small enemies and evading larger ones, finding fire to burn your way to the next door, and finding levers to open them.

'King Kong' Screenshot catch

It's like playing catch, except you're the ball.

In Kong's case it's even more basic - just blatting things, holding the stick forward and pressing X when it's appropriate to jump. While visually impressive, these sections lack structured challenge. Swinging from branch to creeper-clad wall to pillar to wall to branch again may be satisfying in its fluency, but the fluency is the only thing you can fail to achieve - by not hitting X as you swing forward from a branch, you'll turn and swing the other way, then turn again for another chance to hit X. You can occasionally tumble to the depths below, but you'll seldom fail like this, and respawn points - as in the rest of the game - are very generous. What's more, Kong's fighting, while visceral in every sense, merely rewards mashing rather than clever positioning or technique.

As a whole, the game's entertaining but seldom overwhelmingly so. Sometimes it manages to perform its best tricks in concert, but there are virtually no Half-Life 2-style moments of sheer awe - either through inspiring sight or intricacy of design.

That said, Ubisoft's work on the Xbox 360 elevates the game slightly. The jungle is more battered and gloomy than lush and verdant, but while it can't quite do humidity and doesn't feel particularly organic or broad, it's still mightily atmospheric, and it can certainly do 'wet'. The rocky terrain often glistens convincingly with moisture - without beaming like polished marble the way so much wet architecture does elsewhere. It's probably the most 'next-generation' thing I've seen on this kit yet. Kong himself is equally well realised and in particular animated, swinging magnificently between branches. But special mention must go to the character modelling of Ann, who is far more believable and affectionate a character than any of the others (on the system, even), with gentle features and an appreciable softness of expression that colours the tacit bond between herself and Kong far more steadily than dialogue could ever have done.

'King Kong' Screenshot eaten

Sometimes it's fun to let him win. Just to see someone get eaten.

Indeed, the manner in which Ubisoft 'apes' the film - or at least what we anticipate the film being - is probably what kept me going most. Kong may be huge, but he's over 70 years old now and hardly an unexpected sight. Realistically it's Peter Jackson's Skull Island that we're more interested in exploring, and the game gets this right. But for a couple of weak or overly pointless sections, we're well serviced more or less throughout - the levity and obsessiveness of Denham's imprudently manic commentary was certainly reflected in my own eagerness to see past every ridge and uncover the next area. It doesn't feel like a whole world, but it feels like another world, certainly, and continually pokes at your curiosity and imagination, so much so that you may even find Driscoll's view slightly restrictive - you'll want to see it through as wide an angle as possible. By means of an example, I'm absolutely bursting to mention a particular skull in Kong's lair and all the things it might represent.

Overall there's a great deal to admire, including the use of screen-colouring, pad rumbling and the deadening of sound to indicate pain instead of clumsy on-screen instrumentation; and the screeching of strings to motivate you to hurry when one of your colleagues is in increasingly drastic danger. It feels very clean.

But then it is tied to an inescapable path, which we all know ends on top of the Empire State Building - in circumstances whose inevitability is saddening once you see how the game works, and whose ultimate realisation is, in a sense, fittingly empty. The reluctant adventurers' passage across Skull Island and back will initially capture your imagination and the only thing likely to shake you from Kong's pursuit is grasping its transparency before time. In fact, I should go even further to emphasise that: this is a game you almost certainly enjoy playing to the end.

But while laudable in many senses, ultimately King Kong is as Carl Denham - fascinatingly single-minded and full of wonder, but ultimately shallow, and too caught up in its initial achievement to really think the rest of it through.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (119) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • Kingsadist #1 6 years ago

    Moving stuff...

  • kebab #2 6 years ago

    Yes! I might not sell my Xbox 360 now

  • gamesb*tch #3 6 years ago

    not my cup of tea I am afraid, then again, the film looks 'a little iffy' too

  • Ceatlan #4 6 years ago

    So would Kristan, who reviewed the game on the other platforms, give this version an 8 also or a 9 like the other versions ?

    And what score would you have given the game on the other platforms Tom ?

    Not essential, but it would help it the comparison.

  • Stickman #5 6 years ago

    Can't wait to see how someone shoehorns Sony bias into this one....

  • morriss #6 6 years ago

    8/10 is BACK!!

  • krudster #7 6 years ago

    Not sure if I'd give it a 9 on 360 - not seen it yet.

  • kalel #8 6 years ago

    I agree. I got this, PGR and PD0 on launch day, and this is the best of the three imho. Definately an 8.

  • freedumb #9 6 years ago

    different reviewers though, LeDilettante. And apart from the graphics, its more or less the same game isn't it?

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #10 6 years ago

    And it's £10 more on X360...

  • kebab #11 6 years ago

    oh not LeDilettante again.... snore

  • kebab #12 6 years ago

    "And it's £10 more on X360... "

    Exactly, value for money has to come into the equation

  • gamesb*tch #13 6 years ago

    Rauper: £10 more

    Or you could get it bundled at TRUS for only £623, with Swordfish, bet the reviewer would be giving a 1 or less then ;P

  • Celeborn #14 6 years ago

    LeDilettante; you're really failing to grasp the concept that different people have different opinions. It really isn't that hard to comprehend.

  • Furbs #15 6 years ago

    If its nex-gen, but the same game other than graphics, then damn right it should be marked down a notch. I've got the 360 version, and simply because I was more impressed with what the Xbox1 achieved with it, I'd give it the extra mark.

  • gamesb*tch #16 6 years ago

    "they just don't add up."

    Kieran = 9/10 or whatever
    Tom = 8/10 or whatever
    Gamesb*tch = 3/10

    It's a 'review' not an empirical calculation of the goodness of a game... [waits for Blerk to post an equation :p]

  • Stickman #17 6 years ago

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

    \o/

    /applauds.

    Knew I could rely on you!
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 14:10

  • Shinji #18 6 years ago

    Different reviewer, different generation of hardware, different price point, different review score. How is that difficult to understand?

  • Artemus #19 6 years ago

    It's a PS2 game with prettier graphics.

  • Teeth #20 6 years ago

    Why make them coherent? It's so passé.

  • Stickman #21 6 years ago

    "In this particular case, I don't see how 'same game, better graphics' can result in a lower score. "

    The 360, being a 'next-gen' piece of kit should make up for it's more expensive game by giving you more than simply prettier graphics. This doesn't, hence is not as good a package as the XBox version.

  • Furbs #22 6 years ago

    LeDilettante, go away, make your own website. Make up your own scores and never come back.

    If they are "pro-sony" WTF is the 9/10 for the Xbox1 version doing there??

  • krudster #23 6 years ago

    Chief Editor to Chief Troll: Different reviewer = different opinions.

    There isn't an EG mind hive.

  • kebab #24 6 years ago

    "Which makes the scores almost useless in any comparison attempt"

    bingo!

  • Freek #25 6 years ago

    Because that's not how review scores are "generated", they are infact not generated at all.
    As can be seen with the Fahrenheit review, different people give different scores to the same game. Because they have different opinions about it. The score doesn't matter as much, it's what they write in the review that's important.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 14:21

  • Furbs #26 6 years ago

    /drops penny

  • gamesb*tch #27 6 years ago

    This thread is descending into a 'tallest dwarf' or 'one legged men in arse kicking competition'

    Peace.

    Out.

  • Shinji #28 6 years ago

    Same game, same content, better graphics = more immersive. Add 1 for graphics, take 1 out for higher price point = same score. How is that difficult to understand?

    Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was dealing with a professor of mathematics.

    The reviewer clearly felt that the improvement in graphics did not live up to the higher price point and the ambition which would be expected from a next-generation title - which is fair enough. Next-gen consoles costing 300 quid, with titles at a 10 pound premium, should offer something more than "the same but more high resolution", and it's entirely fair to knock off a mark if a game doesn't live up to that promise.

    Besides which, it's a different reviewer. Different reviewers score games differently, with the site's editorial oversight only serving to make sure that there's nothing completely insane going on with the scoring system. That's how any honest reviewing process works.

    /Not entirely sure why he's arguing with this guy again, but..../
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 14:22

  • Aretak #29 6 years ago

    If people stopped paying attention to LeDilettante, he'd soon get bored and go away. Stick him on ignore and don't give him the attention he craves.

  • Furbs #30 6 years ago

    LeDilettante, I'd love to know how many comments threads you've moved away from talking abou the game to worrying about some silly number when theres 2000+ words above it you could discuss. Its pointless, its been done to death and its annoying.

    Oh, just remembered I'm on ignore...someone quote my last couple of posts? :p

  • tengu #31 6 years ago

    It's still only worth a 7, pretty visuals or no.

  • kebab #32 6 years ago

    "It's still only worth a 7, pretty visuals or no. "

    OMG sony bias LOL

  • Furbs #33 6 years ago

    Not when comparing a launch title when its available on the previous gen. IMO.

  • drumbaby #34 6 years ago

    "If people stopped paying attention to LeDilettante, he'd soon get bored and go away. Stick him on ignore and don't give him the attention he craves. "

    Indeed. I'm very surprised he isn't on EVERYONE'S ignore list, tbh.

  • Stickman #35 6 years ago

    Furbs said:

    LeDilettante, you're a cockend with shit for brains. You don't even make sense, probably smell musty, and sleep in your mother's underwear, now just piss off would you?

    I may have paraphrased a leeetle.

  • yorkiebar #36 6 years ago

    I think we could start a "eurogamer is anti-Rare and pro-Ubisoft" thread off this one. Tom complains about Kameo, and gives it a six. He complains about Kong, and gives it an eight.

    Always surprising....

  • Furbs #37 6 years ago

    LOL. Talk about read between the lines! ;)

  • gaijin #38 6 years ago

    "/adds 'Avoid EG reviews, stick to Comments and Forum sections' on 'To Do List' "

    Funtastic. Now 'Dil will be able to make comments not only without having played the game, but without even having read the review! Thereby finally escaping the lingering spectre of any point or relevance.

    /puts self on ignore list to save everybody else the effort.

  • Furbs #39 6 years ago

    They're the same shots as few other sites are using...

  • Furbs #40 6 years ago

    Always a fan of the site but only signed up today huh? Oh well. Enjoy IGN. Theres a really neutral site.

  • Vinny67 #41 6 years ago

    OH LOOK - I'VE GOT A PLAYSTATION AND IT'S BETTER GRAPHICS THAN YOUR PC

    SOUND LIKE ANYONE HERE?

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #42 6 years ago

    OK, he's gone...

  • kebab #43 6 years ago

    That was the highlight of my lunch break

  • jiveguy #44 6 years ago

    What I've noticed about eg reviews lately is the worrying trend of several staff members and some of the free lance guys having to come onto the comments and defend each other. The wild accusations (justified or not) of bias are having a nasty effect on the site as a whole and how its seen in the wider gaming community. Eurogamer reviews are still respected because they are usually accurate but they are losing this when the writers themselves get caught up in petty comments arguments.

  • Artemus #45 6 years ago

    Thankyou!

  • Perry #46 6 years ago

    I actually had to un-ignore LeDill to see what he had said.

    My god, LeDill you are a complete f**king muppet.

    Edit: Clicked ignore once again
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 15:07

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #47 6 years ago

    No, you are that bad.

  • Wobble #48 6 years ago

    No body has said it yet because the thread got derailed over the score, so I will.
    Nice review. Well written etc.

    /ok you can go back to the meaningless back and forth over the number now.

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #49 6 years ago

    You don't strike me as the sharpest tool in the box, Le Dilettante

  • Putty-Man #50 6 years ago

    (Comment on PDZ review, which makes sense IMHO)
    krudster
    01-Dec-05 16:37:34 Mirkan, I'll say it again: this would score a 7 on Xbox. The platform is irrelevant here, it's not a classic game, end of chat.

    (Comment on this thread...)
    Shinji
    05-Dec-05 14:11:43 Different reviewer, different generation of hardware, different price point, different review score. How is that difficult to understand?


    Get the story straight lads, either the platform is irrelevant, or its effects the review/score. The inconsistency here is slightly confusing. This distinction is very important when deciding on which games/consoles to buy.

  • Furbs #51 6 years ago

    Or - its irrelevent in the PD0 review because thats how the reviewer addressed it, but not here?
    Different people, different review approaches, hell, sometimes the same reviewer can take a different stance.

    Reviews are SUBJECTIVE. Not OBJECTIVE, which is the problem with scores. Maybe some of you whiners shoud look them up on Wiki?

  • Pike #52 6 years ago

    Nice use of an out of context quote there Putty Man. Is it supposed to prove anything at all?

  • Putty-Man #53 6 years ago

    "Different people, different review approaches, hell, sometimes the same reviewer can take a different stance."

    = inconistent.

    I can see this and Im not even saying its a bad thing, but it makes relative comparisons of games reviews pointless.

    So my point was that the reviews have an inconsistent approach Pike. Sorry I had to spell it out, again.

    Edit: typo.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 15:29

  • Furbs #54 6 years ago

    Ok, heres an example....Race Game A gets 8/10. FPS Game B gets 7/10.
    Which is the best game?

  • Pike #55 6 years ago

    But your quote doesn't prove that, since it's ripped out of context. It is not in any way obvious why the quote of Krudsters comment has any relevance to the discussion at hand.

    Not saying that I disagree with the conclusion that comparisons of game reviews can be pretty pointless though.

    Edit: The FPS of course, Furbs. Shooting people is more fun than driving, obviously.:p
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 15:36

  • Ceatlan #56 6 years ago

    Shinji,

    'Next-gen consoles costing 300 quid, with titles at a 10 pound premium, should offer something more than "the same but more high resolution", and it's entirely fair to knock off a mark if a game doesn't live up to that promise.'

    Thats funny that, because I slightly disagree with you there. I don't think its the job of the game to justify the machine in any way, which is kind of what you are saying. So the fact the host machine is new and costs £300 should in no way affect the review of a game on that machine. The extra price of the game could come into the equation, but at present the only truly valid comparisons to make are how the game compares to what else is available, if a game is marked 10/10 on one platform and the exact same game is released on another platform with just better graphics then I feel it should also get a 10. Just because we have expectations of what we should be able to expect from a platform, doesn't mean we should necessarily mark things down just because they don't meet those expectations. Until such point as something is released that demonstrates that our expectations can be realised we should not shoot down something in flames. Obviously if something already exists, or something new comes along, that demonstrates that something is possible then we should feel free to start knocking. Surely that is exactly why a game that scored 10/10 a few years ago could sensibly have been devalued quite considerably by now, the passage of time would have shown what else we can legitimately expect, but it doesn't mean the score was not worth it at the time.

    I'm not knocking your opinion Shinji, just pointing out that, like reviews of games, opinions differ on lots of things.

    Ceatlan

  • Stickman #57 6 years ago

    Racing Game A! 8 is higher than 7! I WIN, I WIN, I WIN!!!!

    edit: I really am quite stupid sometimes.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 15:37

  • gaijin #58 6 years ago

    ok, my last comment on this topic in the world, ever (world breathes sigh of relief)

    Reviews are not there to tell you what to buy. So the 'I didn't know whether to get this after I read the review' argument is irrelevant. On that basis there'd only be two reviews - "Yes. Buy this." or "Don't buy this". Reviews don't give you an "answer" to anything - they simply give you one more person's opinion to take into account when making your own decision - and yes, you *can* be expected to take responsibility for your own decisions. I know it's nasty, and hard, and involves time and thought and yes, just maybe there'll be nobody else to blame if you turn out to have made a mistake. But complaining that one reviewer liked andrex and another has a stated preference for a bidet, so now you don't know whether to wipe your own arse or not is not, at the end of the day, anybody's problem but your own.

    /'has the nasty man gone now?'
    /'yes, I think so, my dear'
    /Eurogamer readers emerge back into the sunlight. There are butterflies, and soft music

  • Putty-Man #59 6 years ago

    The discussion at hand was about a game recieving different reviews/scores on different platforms, to which those comments were quite relevant I thought.

    Its always good to know where a reviewer is coming from so that you can take the article on context, and thats why I like EG reviews because even if I dont agree, I can still draw my own conclusions relative to what has be written.

    PS - All else being equal, race game A of course ...

  • Totoriko #60 6 years ago

    .. goes back to Monkey Ball

  • mash the x button #61 6 years ago

    I see that LeDilettante hasn't written any reviews...
    Come on LeDilettante, write a review (completely neutral) and offer it to EG for publishing :p

  • Shinji #62 6 years ago

    Sure, and I see your point, Ceatlan - it's just that I don't subscribe to the same school of thought. I reckon if I'd bought a DS game that only used one screen and no touch-sensitivity, I'd be a bit miffed unless there was something absolutely astonishing about it. If I bought a PSP game that was the same as a GBA game but with higher resolution graphics, I'd be disappointed. I don't see why the third console to be released in the past 12 months should be any different to the last two in that respect.

    I agree completely with the idea of reviewing next-gen games /as games/, but where you're talking about titles essentially ported from current-gen systems to next-gen ones, I think it's fair to expect a little bit more than "slap it across and change the resolution switch", even if it's a really good game. I'm not saying it needs major gameplay changes or anything like that - simply that on hardware five years more recent and three times more expensive than anything else out there, I think it's fair to approach a review with higher expectations than you would elsewhere. Reviewing with the same level of expectation across next- and current-gen platforms is like letting Tiger Woods compete in a local Under 14 pitch n' putt tournament and then congratulating him for doing so well.

  • Tweakmonkey #63 6 years ago

    So has anyone actually played the game?

  • bivith #64 6 years ago

    Different reviewers may have different opinions, but a website or a magazine needs to have a consistent "stance" on a title, from an editorial point of view.

  • ImGameCube #65 6 years ago

    Played the demo of this game in the shop (Kong V T Rex) and had the same critisism as when I played the Pc demo.

    Too much button mashing. Boring, boring boring.

    A.

  • kangarootoo #66 6 years ago

    @ Furbs

    "Ok, heres an example....Race Game A gets 8/10. FPS Game B gets 7/10.
    Which is the best game?"

    Thats a loaded example. The answer depends on who reviewed the games. If two different reviewers were involved, then the answer can't be known for sure.

    As for your earlier post, suggesting that the reviews on here are useless, BECAUSE the staff of EG don't share a hive mind.... Jesus, can you really only deal in absolutes?! Reviews are either a blessed window into the future or a stain on your life?

    Reviews are a guide. And in this case there was one bloody point difference in the score between two different reviewers! Use the review as an aid to building your own opinion. Its not gospel, its simply information. Why can't people treat it as such instead of whining about a single bloody point.

  • gaijin #67 6 years ago

    /hi-fives kanga, who is clearly drinking coffee again

  • krudster #68 6 years ago

    Bivith: says who? So you think I should artificially doctor Tom's opinion to make it read more like mine? I doubt the writers would appreciate that, and as the reader you need to realise that taking a 'stance' does nothing but harm.

  • Stickman #69 6 years ago

    kangarootoo, check your posters.

  • Teeth #70 6 years ago

    Posted by Putty Man

    (Comment on PDZ review, which makes sense IMHO)
    krudster
    01-Dec-05 16:37:34 Mirkan, I'll say it again: this would score a 7 on Xbox. The platform is irrelevant here, it's not a classic game, end of chat.

    (Comment on this thread...)
    Shinji
    05-Dec-05 14:11:43 Different reviewer, different generation of hardware, different price point, different review score. How is that difficult to understand?


    Get the story straight lads, either the platform is irrelevant, or its effects the review/score. The inconsistency here is slightly confusing. This distinction is very important when deciding on which games/consoles to buy.


    Different staff member's comments; different game, one of which is available cross-platform, the other of which is not; different context: whereas PD0 comment is in relation to whether or not it's a great game, the latter comment is in relation to the review itself.

    The distinction between on the one hand reading and understand things and on the other trying to find something to criticise and immediately labelling it "inconsistency" is very important when deciding whether or not you are a muppet.

  • kangarootoo #71 6 years ago

    LOL.

    Actually I'm having a coffee free day, except for the one I had on the train.

    But I'm pretty busy ATM and so when I found a moment to have a quick browse oif the threads I was much disappointed to find this one had turned into a "review of review" argument AGAIN. Only this time it was about about a single point difference, between the opinion of two different reviewers, on slightly different versions, of the same game.

    The super grumpy git of a month ago is gone for good, but I still reserve the right to flip out every so often :)

  • kangarootoo #72 6 years ago

    @Stickman

    "kangarootoo, check your posters"

    I don't get it? Did I quote the wrong person or something? No comprende...

  • Putty-Man #73 6 years ago

    Yip Krudster I have no problem with reviews coming at a game review from a different angle/stance, in fact its good as it gives the reader an alternative view.

    As long as this stance is conveyed, then it makes for an informative read.

  • gaijin #74 6 years ago

    @ Tweakmonkey

    "So has anyone actually played the game? "

    Oh come on, what do you think, this is a Eurogamer forum, after all!

    Of course not.

    :-)

  • abacabb #75 6 years ago

    Someone said it in another theard (there are so many surprisingly similar to this) that there is a reason reviewers put their names on the reviews... no-one's going to listen to this but it pretty much sums it up.

  • ralphwolfenstein #76 6 years ago

    so Shinji, is Radiant Silvergun worse than its many plaudits suggest because of its inflated price on eBay?

    isn't it down to the conusmer to make the final value judgement? do you knock points of steel battalion 'cos it costs £130, or knock points off because it's actually a bit pants?

    I have no issue with two different reviewers from the same publication giving the same game a different score, but don't you think a publication ought to display consistency in review policy at least?



  • Stickman #77 6 years ago

    I think so.

    "As for your earlier post, suggesting that the reviews on here are useless, BECAUSE the staff of EG don't share a hive mind.... Jesus, can you really only deal in absolutes?!"

    Not actually sure anyone said that to be honest!

  • Furbs #78 6 years ago

    kanga - "Thats a loaded example. The answer depends on who reviewed the games. If two different reviewers were involved, then the answer can't be known for sure. "

    Thats kinda my point. :)

    ralph, how can you have consistency when review something, especially when EG has an individual doing the review? Its impossible. Its too subjective. The only way around it is a Zzap style review where all the team members make a comment. The difference is, being a print mag, Zzap had a month at a time to put reviews together.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 16:09

  • ralphwolfenstein #79 6 years ago

    Different reviewers may have different opinions, but a website or a magazine needs to have a consistent "stance" on a title, from an editorial point of view

    I disagree with this though - Edge tries to maintain it, and it's one of its more pretentious foibles

  • bivith #80 6 years ago

    Krudster,
    It's my understanding that many reviews are peer reviewed, and put through an editorial process, in order that the score fits the general opinion of the publication in question. This avoids a reviewer slating a game simply because he doesn't like platformers or whatever.

    Perhaps it's just a print publication thing.

    When magazines slap a score on a box they don't put the reviewers name. They put the publication name. The reviewer is the voice of the publication, is he/she not?

  • Teeth #81 6 years ago

    ZOMG EG IS JSUT A BLOG LOL

  • Glitch #82 6 years ago

    Top 10 games this year

    #1 - New NFS
    #2 - king kong
    #3 - New NFS
    #4 - king kong
    #5 - New NFS
    #6 - king kong
    #7 - New NFS
    #8 - king kong
    #9 - New NFS
    #10 - king kong

  • gaijin #83 6 years ago

    but wait, that's not consistent, you've given the same game two different sc....

    /is killed

  • Furbs #84 6 years ago

    Loads.

  • LOLLERS #85 6 years ago

    What do you think would happen if reviews didn't have scores any more, just the writers opinon? Would people just stop buying games because nobody told them in a clear and simple way which games are better than others?
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 16:57

  • Teeth #86 6 years ago

    I was gonna say, why not just put the score at the top, it's all anyone fucking reads anyway.

  • kangarootoo #87 6 years ago

    @Stickman

    Krudster wrote
    " Chief Editor to Chief Troll: Different reviewer = different opinions. There isn't an EG mind hive."

    frod then wrote (not furbs, my mistake, sorry furbs)
    " Which makes the scores almost useless in any comparison attempt."
    " Which makes their existence pointless."

    Sure, I being a little facetious taking the comments literally, but there you go.

    EDIT: Actually, reading that back. I totally agree with frod's first point that making direct comparisons is pointless. I simply don't agree with the following assumption that the existance of review scores is therefore pointless. I think review scores are a guide, just like the words of the review really.
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 17:06

  • ImGameCube #88 6 years ago

    No, but seriously, does anybody else find this game WaaaaaaaY over-rated?

    A.

    P.S. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP ABOUT THE F$%KING REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • AaronTurner #89 6 years ago

    Good Christ, what a bunch of whining saps.

  • Teeth #90 6 years ago

    It's "hive mind", not "mind hive". A mind hive doesn't bear thinking about.

    /shudders

  • ralphwolfenstein #91 6 years ago

    Animal Crossing DS sold 330,000 in its first week, and helped shift 130,000 units of hardware, outselling PSP nearly 3:1

  • doug #92 6 years ago

    For crying out loud, if you don't want intelligent, thoughtful and entertaining reviews then piss off to ign. No-one is making you come here. This site has some of the best games writing going, and I for one am grateful above all for the honesty that all the reviews display.

    Its pretty depressing that we have two more console launches and two more sets of fanboys to go through before things settle down :|

    Ladilletante congratulations. Welcome to my ignore list, population: you.


  • urban #93 6 years ago

    a 10 ..no game can get a 10 but this is bloody close!

  • Martin #94 6 years ago

    So far (about 2 hours into it) I enjoy it (the game, not this thread) a lot.

    I'm playing it on the Xbox 1 so that would explain it though. If I had been playing it on the 360 I would have enjoyed it exactly one point less. ;)

  • tengu #95 6 years ago

    "a 10 ..no game can get a 10 but this is bloody close!"

    Shadow of the Colossus got a 10.

  • funkyd #96 6 years ago

    Played a demo of this, one word. AMAZING.

    King Kong and Condemned should be the first games you get on the xbox 360

  • funkyd #97 6 years ago

    SuperGamerMatt wrote
    Has anyone seen the film, should be brilliant, especially as PJ did the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

    He's also co-producing the Halo film
    :)
    Edited by 1 at 05/12/05 @ 18:27

  • morriss #98 6 years ago

    So...what have I missed? :)

  • Furbs #99 6 years ago

    You missed LeDilettante saying something inspired that wasnt bullshit. Although I think we all did.

  • tengu #100 6 years ago

    lol

  • morriss #101 6 years ago

    right then. This is the game I should buy? Or should I go the LIVE route and chose PGR3 or f1f4!1!!?

  • Furbs #102 6 years ago

    PGR easily. It'll last you longer, which at £50 a pop (or whatever it is you continentals get to pay) is kind of important. Plus its a short game so it'll no doubt turn up in the 2nd hand shelves quickly. Oh and if you dont have PGR3 the unofficial EG racing club will laugh at you. Probably.

  • Pho-Zoon #103 6 years ago

    I have been playing this (shock horror) and I understand why it's an 8. These are the reasons why:

    -Despite better hardware (which should have been utilised), enemies do not remain where they die. They disintergrate. Unrealistically.

    -They could have added some bonus content.

    -The graphics could have been even better.

    Mainly the first point however, which really 'gets my goat'

  • Pho-Zoon #104 6 years ago

    BTW: PGR3 truly is teh roxx0rz.

  • Teeth #105 6 years ago

    I'll get your goat.

    (o/

  • GuiltySpark #106 6 years ago

    "They disintergrate. Unrealistically. "

    dude..the game is about a frickin 50 foot gorilla and dinosaurs

    you really think that fact that the bodys dont stay there is gonna change the realism? : )

  • Mirkan #107 6 years ago

    "I'm playing it on the Xbox 1 so that would explain it though. If I had been playing it on the 360 I would have enjoyed it exactly one point less. ;)"

    Probably the best thing I've read in these comment threads since the whole next gen/current gen scoring thing came up.

    I refuse to understand how a game is less good because it's on a different platform.

    It does explain why SSX for GBA got good scores though. It was utter fucking rubbish, but 3d-like and therefore "good for a GBA game".. Doesn't change the fact that it was utter fucking rubbish though.

  • rock27gr #108 6 years ago

    Actually, I do believe that scores should be consistent, especially for multiplatform games. I mean, if I had an XBOX 360 (which I don't), as well as any of the other consoles, by looking at the score I would assume that this version is worse than the others, and hence go for them. I know I should read the review, but the point is that after a while the only reference you have in your memory about the game is that it scored 8 on 360 and 9 on XBOX1.
    I believe the score should reflect not the price, but the result; is the game more playable because of the beter graphics, does it have a better frame rate, perhaps it controls better because of the different controller etc, these are the thinks that should affect the final score, not the price difference, that should be left to the reader/payer to decide.
    The above would aply for all platforms, not just 1st and 2nd generation XBOX.
    All those said, I can't imagine anyone who paid to buy an XBOX 360 going for the cheaper XBOX version just because its cheaper......

  • ico #109 6 years ago

    I do think that reviews should help the reader to decide whether to buy a game or not, especially considering the price tag of the 360 games. And I do agree that recently the reviews here reflect more the need of the site or writers to attract attention and seem special than thw quality of the game. Maybe I will piss of to IGN or Gamepro because at least their reviews are about the game not the reviewer. Eurogamer has not gained in quality recently and just being different for the sake of it, is neither courageous, nor intelligent.

  • morriss #110 6 years ago

    /wishes for CoD2

  • Stickman #111 6 years ago

    /wishes for death to end the torment.

  • Tweakmonkey #112 6 years ago

    A dairylee triangle for the first person to buy all 7 King Kong games and review them in this thread.

  • admir #113 6 years ago

    this game should sell for 20 us dollars , its too short. rent it but dont buy it its a good game

  • ImGameCube #114 6 years ago

    I'm starting to get very bored with what used to be interesting comments sections.

    Please make it better, daddy...

  • sajtion #115 6 years ago

    games should just be rated bad - good - best and get rid of this misleading number nonesense

  • Genji #116 6 years ago

    "I'm starting to get very bored with what used to be interesting comments sections."

    Oh, but they ARE interesting! Funny, too! I've spent the last 10 minutes chuckling quietly over some of these posts.

    LeDillante - whether you're being serious or not - never, ever change. You bring life to an otherwise-boring thread.

    I *would* tell everyone to "chill" or "lighten up, it's only 1 point difference, trying to compare different reviewers' opinions is like apples and oranges", etc. But this doesn't work, AND it's no fun!

  • wizbob #117 6 years ago

    I've been playing the Cube version and I'm very impressed, the combination of fire and re-usable spears really freshen up the FPS mechanics and the rain-swept island location is just enough to distinguish it from the fire/ice/lava cliches.

    It's sad to see Ancel forced back into linear gameplay and film licences, I think the game will probably stick in my mind longer than the ropey-looking CG film.

  • SomethingWicked #118 6 years ago

    I read the 360 review first, thought it was a great review, then became aware of the xbox review from this thread. The situation is ironic, from an editorial perspective, as there is a disconnect between the higher score on the lower-performance system, as Dil pointed out. That said, the reviews on this site are generally much better than those available just about anywhere else, and in this case I got twice the review of essentially the same game. Plus, writers need all the work they can get.
    Stepping back (and I'm new to consoles, makes sense this always happens during generation transitions), maybe we should get used to the ratings descrepancies for cross-console games (I'm used to this for PC/consoles). People will expect more from - and be reluctant to give high scores to - first gen x360 games, but more willing to rate final-gen xbox/ps2 games higher that represent the culmination of what those systems are capable of (not just graphics, also AI, etc).

  • tomato #119 6 years ago

    Heh

  • mat@theflat #120 6 years ago

    "I'm absolutely bursting to mention a particular skull in Kong's lair and all the things it might represent."

    what skull?