Over G Fighters Related content
Over G Fighters game info
Over G Fighters Review
Xbox 360 Review by Tom Bramwell
Sneaking onto UK store shelves with the sort of stealth that ought to bode well for a fighter simulation, Over G Fighters - the latest in Taito's Japanese Energy Airforce series - is a mid-air collision of budget-game development and next-gen price point.
Apart from being a very lazy translation (you know, dull macho dialogue married to Engrish geography - the intro cut-scene zooms over Manhattan as we're informed that this is "North America - East Coast Area"), Over G is also a fairly tedious flight combat game.
The campaign and challenge modes, which form the bulk of the offline game, feature largely dull missions that take place in the skies above a lot of awfully boring places, leaving your wingmen to provide the detail - pointing out that they'd rather go and look at the lions and giraffes since we're above the savanna. Looks like Europe/Asia/all the other levels to me!
The objective, generally, is to point your sights at the horizon, wait for a few MiGs or tanks to rumble into view and then engage them. Except the other planes and targets rarely do rumble into view or even come close; you'll catch a few glimpses here and there, but generally you're just flicking between weapon-sets appropriate to the target (is it in the air? I'd better press Y again) and then waiting for the word "SHOOT" to appear above a green box in the distance. Sometimes the box is orange - on those days we celebrated. Most of the early missions involve throttling forward a bit, pressing Y and then pressing A and receiving 25 gamerpoints thanksverymuch.
The cockpit view looks intimidating, but it isn't in practice. In fact, you'll probably just turn it off.
And it's just as well the points are there to lure you in, because once the game starts asking you to manoeuvre it becomes rather more boring. The screen darkens whenever you go "over G!" as you turn, but you'll need to if you're going to stand a chance of wrestling the little plane icon on your radar into the firing line. So it doesn't help that the controls are really sluggish and the most complicated thing you have to do is make sure you've picked the right gun.
General flying is a piece of piss then, and taking off and landing isn't much harder - you just point your plane in the right direction, obey the prompts to pull up or drop your landing gear and coast your way in before braking sharply. That's if you're landing, obviously - you'd look a bit stupid taking off like that.
That's not to say the game isn't difficult. After you've vacuumed up about half of the available achievements points (helpfully dotted around the single-player game; unhelpfully easy to render unattainable by picking the wrong mission out of the handful available to you and closing off paths until you start the game again), there tend to be a lot more enemies in the sky, they tend to have worked out how to fire their own weapons (cue lots more darkening of the screen and the occasional explosion), and you tend to have to string it all together with the taking off and landing and managing of weapons, which sometimes take a bit of time to reload.
I forgot to mention you can control your wingmen. Except, since they're rubbish, it's easier to ignore them.
So it's not to say it's overly easy, but it is to say that where Over G Fighters is actually challenging, it's rarely interesting or exciting. Sense of speed is hard to do in jet-fighter sims when you're flying high above sprawling but unspectacular landscapes, and it's even harder when your only visible targets are items on your HUD. There are a few moments of fun to be had holding the fast-forward button during the replays for a Benny Hill effect, or piping Berlin off your iPod to replace the rubbish elevators-for-planes music, but very little you do in the game is remotely memorable.
The plane models are quite detailed, as you'd expect on the 360, but they're nothing to write home about ("Dear Mum, today I flew in a plane that was brown instead of grey!"), and they're a bit irrelevant since you can only really see them in the replays, which you won't spend much time watching. Multiplay is available for up to eight people, but this merely demonstrates how much more challenging things are when your enemies can dodge missiles too - and doesn't do anything about the problems with controls, graphics, sound and all the rest.
If you're in the market for a proper jet-fighter game, I'd recommend hunting down a proper PC simulation. I remember EF-2000 from about 1998 being about 1998 times better than this. And if you want an arcadey dogfighter, try Crimson Skies for Xbox 1 instead. It's even compatible with the 360. Perhaps they knew.
Are you excited about Over G Fighters on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Related Games
Over G Fighters
Latest Features
No features found.
Latest Videos
Over G Fighters [2] 3 July, 2006
Over G Fighters [21] 5 June, 2006
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
|
Carpathian
19/07/06 @ 12:07
0
Best. Fighter. Game. Ever.
Not this, obviously - I was thinking of FA-18 Interceptor on my ooooold Amiga ;o) |
|
JediMasterMalik
19/07/06 @ 12:24
0
Everywhere I've read really does seem that this is laughably bad.
|
|
PearOfAnguish
19/07/06 @ 12:33
0
TFX was bad-ass. Although I only used to like flying upside down then ejecting into the ground. Splat!
Maybe that's why I never discovered what the 'lizard' was. The screen darkens whenever you go "over G!" as you turn Didn't G-Loc do this about a million years ago? That was a shitty game too. |
|
0
To my eternal shame I bought this, my excuse being that I had an overabundance of disposable income and was looking for something, ANYTHING, decent on the 360.
The review seems pretty spot on, the game is just deathly dull. I kept waiting for it to kick in and get exciting. It never does. The really criminal thing is the total lack of a sense of speed. You can be flying meters over the ocean at mach 1 yet never feel like you doing anything faster than your dad's old Ford Mondeo could do. It's neither arcade exciting nor sim deep - it's a terrible fusion of the worst of both. There's the usual japanese-style geography and plot mangling nonsense as the review states, but that sort of thing is forgiveable if the game is decent. Which it isn't. |
|
reality_cheque
19/07/06 @ 12:37
0
I miss Chuck Yaeger and his customisable mission.
My F16 vs 45 B52 bombers FTW \o/ |
|
0
Perhaps a fan or someone with experience in flight sims could write the review? And tell the reviewer to turn off simple flight controls.Do not believe the hype-this is a solid title for a console. Here is my take from the xbox forums:
The reviews posted earlier helped me decide with regards to this game. So here is mine, and I'll keep it brief. By way of background, I've been siming on the PC for approximately 20 years. At present, I have a home-made cockpit-type setup (Cougar, TIR, MPs etc.) and enjoy FS2004 with many gigs worth of add-ons for civilian aviation, and LOMAC Flaming Cliffs on the military side. As of late, I've been siming less. I recently purchased the 360, and consider that one of the best decisions I have made in a long time. Here is my two-word review for similarly situated individuals: Get This. If you are a flightsim fan and own an XBox, then this is on you list regardless. Notwithstanding, I will say I was pleasantly surprised with this effort on a console. Graphics are good, fps are fluid, fm is adequate, cockpits and sounds are close to authentic (big surprise), landings requires focus, controls are decent (there are even joystick curves for the little sticks), missions are fun. Think of this as your quick fix in the sitting room. The cheese anime and priceless voice acting (throwing "bloody" and "Crikey" into a sentence makes the speaker British ) is just the cream on top. Note to Taiko: Crikey is an Australian adage. You can read the responses here: http://forums.xbox.com/5210098/ShowPost....
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 19/07/06 @ 14:10
|
|
0
@jamesphilp
Agreed... I meant other reviewers actually when I said vast majority, from other game sites... Just that the argument 'xbox forums say it's good so EG is wrong' doesn't hold water... And there will always be people who judge a game without having played it...It's the law or something... |
|
0
I got it a wee while ago.
It's growing on me ... I'm really just playing the single player campaign just now. It's very gentle at the start to the point that you might feel as though the whole game has nowt much to offer in terms of challenge, but 10 or so missions in and it's getting much more interesting and much more challenging. For the first time, I'm having to redo certain missions a few times to complete them. Really enjoying the flight model, the last flight "sim" I played was Stealth Fighter on an amber monitor many years ago. It's really quite a surprise to see a sim model on the 360, but it's certainly a welcome one. Graphically, it's odd. The planes are very detailed and a joy to look at in the excellent replays. But the terrain etc. Well it's a bit like flying around a slightly lower res Google Earth. Most of the time at low-ish altitude it feels like you're flying over a jpeg with some carboard box buildings which are also covered in jpegs. Which is of course, fairly close to the truth. Strange though, the more you play, the less that seems to matter. ------- personally speaking, it's not a 4 but it ain't a 9 either. And Chromies (another "4") has totally drawn me away in the last week. If you hanker after a proper flight sim on your 360 and are part of the console demographic that doesn't necessarily think that a quick fix is essential then it *might* be for you. |
|
0
In reply to the edit:
I'm not taking any review for granted...I'll form my own opinion... However by reading these reviews I know more or less what games might interest me... This game doesn't in the slightest interest me... Besides... Going to an official xbox site it's harder to find criticising reviews...not to say that there aren't any mind you...just less... |
|
0
Seems like it's only something you'll like if you like that sort of thing, then. Much like the first two Energy Airforce games (the second of which, Energy Airforce aimStrike, can be had for about £15 - might be worth a look if you're on the fence)
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 19/07/06 @ 14:51
|
|
0
"The review reflects the opinion of the reviewer..."
Yes, but as with the CH review its significantly lower than the average mark and a hell of a lot lower than the ratings given by the people who actually play the game. As with Chromehounds, a lot of the criticisms don't make sense: 'Looks like Europe/Asia/all the other levels to me!' - Some levels take place over massive forests, overs over city-scapes. One even has you flying down a bloody canyon. They aren't 'all the same' by any stretch of the imagination. 'The objective, generally, is to point your sights at the horizon, wait for a few MiGs or tanks to rumble into view and then engage them. Except the other planes and targets rarely do rumble into view or even come close; you'll catch a few glimpses here and there, but generally you're just flicking between weapon-sets appropriate to the target (is it in the air? I'd better press Y again) and then waiting for the word "SHOOT" to appear above a green box in the distance. Sometimes the box is orange - on those days we celebrated. Most of the early missions involve throttling forward a bit, pressing Y and then pressing A and receiving 25 gamerpoints thanksverymuch.' This criticism could be made of any game which attempts to simulate modern warfare. It's also not particuarly warrented in the case of Over G, as there's fair incentive to get in close. Aside from the fact that you can improve your rankings with gun kills, the surest way to shoot down the enemy planes is to get in close. The enemy ai will dodge missiles which are launched from too far out. Now, for all the things the review misses out. Firstly, it misses the fact that each area (8 in total) presents you with at least 2 more difficult/complicated missions. It also misses out the fact that, even with the shorter missions, there's a fair amount of variety. Aside from just air/ground attack missions, there are some missions which will have you escorting friendly transport planes, others which have you weaving in a canyon in order to avoid concentrated AA batteries above and some normal missions which have special conditions such as destroying enemy shipping without being detected by their fighter protection. You can always tell the interesting missions from the less interesting in the briefings, so if you always opt to fly the 'shoot down the enemy fighters' misisons it is essentially your own fault. You're also graded for each misison, so there's normally incentive to not simply charge in and destroy the 2/3 targets you need to fulfill the mission. The review also ignores the fact all of the planes have been lovingly recreated (MIGs even have a russian-language Hud) and all have different flight charteristics. Flying an a10 certainly isn't as much of a 'piece of piss' as flying the F22 (plus, the VTOL craft are also good fun to muck around with). Worse still, the review fails to discuss whole game modes. THe game has a mission editor, so if modern combat offends you to the extent that it obviously does the reviewer, you can fix it so that your facing off against enemy fighters at a couple of thousand feet armed above a city armed only with cannons. the arena mode is an intereesting addition, as it has you flying around against swarms of enemy fighters, with no time limit and the ability to infinitley land and rearm yourself. The Multiplayer is also a good laugh, and has two interesting and distinct game modes. Aside from simple dogfighting (which is good fun), the online arena mode adds a strategic element with 4 teams of 2 attempting to destroy each other's aircraft and bases. Its all well the reviewer giving his opinion, but from a professional review i expect something more - This review is the standard i would expect from a review over at Gamefaqs, as it simply tells us why the game 'sucks' without telling us much about the game itself. The main problem the reviewer seems to have with the game is that its boring. In my mind, this is a poor review, because the reasons why he thinks it is boring are quite obviously ones aren't ones which will bother the kind of people who wat a jet sim-like game on their 360. Anyone can give their opinion, but if you're righting a professional review surely your ideally supposed to give people the information they need in order to reach their own opinion about the game. Edit: Oh, even as a joke ""Dear Mum, today I flew in a plane that was brown instead of grey!"" seems a very silly thing to say in the circumstances. The appeal of these kind of games is to the kind of people who are excited by the differences between the F-14A and the F-14B. Its a perfect sim-lite - its not silly Crimson Skies stuff and i don't need to remember what 5000 buttons do in order to get my plane from the taxi way onto the runway. Its well-suited to the needs of a sim fan and a console owner.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 19/07/06 @ 14:58
|
|
0
Having not played the game I cannot comment on how closely the game is portrayed correctly by the reviewer...
And like I said I base my opinion on what I think about a game, not some reviewer... But if his general opinion is bad than surely he won't bother telling you there are more game modes which are the same...(I gather...talking about the more difficult missions etc) |
|
stoopidgreg
19/07/06 @ 14:01
0
falcon 4 was the successor to EF2000, and is generally better in all aspects. so if you're looking for a real fighter jet sim get that.
|
|
0
"Having not played the game I cannot comment on how closely the game is portrayed correctly by the reviewer..."
But surely anyone can see that moaning that its boring, and that you generally kill things before they get into visual range, is a bit counter productive? Would it not be rediculous to complain that, in a FPS, you view everything from a first person perspective and have to shoot stuff?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 19/07/06 @ 15:07
|
|
0
"Would it not be rediculous to complain that, in a FPS, you view everything from a first person perspective and have to shoot stuff?"
It would be ridiculous, but the analogy is wrong... An FPS is defined by its first person view... It's defined by shooting stuff... A flight sim/actioner is not defined by having to take out enemies without even having them in visual range...There are enough flight games out there that let you see the enemy before you blow them up... And the moaning about it being boring...well the reviewer must see it as very very boring... edit: Grammar issues...heh...
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 19/07/06 @ 15:19
|
|
bloodflowers
19/07/06 @ 14:26
0
I got this when it came out. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you're going for the good mission completion grades - there's a pretty big challenge (like having to nail an attacker with the machinegun for more bonus). Only play it in expert mode, as the handling in easy is broken, and make sure you adjust your analogue sticks to compensate for the circular range of motion.
Yes, the scenery is incredibly bland, on the other hand it moves at a solid 60fps, which matters more. Respect to anyone who can land on a carrier on their first attempt, that's -hard-. |
|
JediMasterMalik
19/07/06 @ 14:30
0
Stop complaining about the review scores. Look at the majority of reviews: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platform...
|
|
0
"It would be ridiculous, but the analogy is wrong...
An FPS is defined by its first person view... It's defined by shooting stuff... A flight sim/actioner is not defined by having to take out enemies without even having them in visual range...There are enough flight games out there that let you see the enemy before you blow them up... And the moaning about it being boring...well the reviewer must see it as very very boring..." But its a jet sim - Its not supposed to be Afterburner. It's supposed to simulate real jets and real missiles, which is basically what it does. In that respect it isn't amazingly different from any jet sim on the pc. If it was supposed to be a WWII sim and your spitfire came equiped with heatseakers, it'd be a valid point. As it stands however its just as invalid a comment as moaning how PGR3 features an awful lot of driving, and pointing out how boring it is to simply shoot people with guns in GRAW. |
|
0
From what I've read in a lot of reviews (thank you JediMaster) the game isn't an actual sim, nor an arcade game...
But rather a hybrid of the two...and not succeeding much... "But its a jet sim - Its not supposed to be Afterburner" So it isn't an arcade game you say... "i don't need to remember what 5000 buttons do in order to get my plane from the taxi way onto the runway" Nor is it a heavy sim... You define it a sim-lite...fine...though most reviewers seem to think that they've taken the most boring parts of both arcade and sim... Again...I haven't played the game and might like it a lot... :) |
|
0
Bah, we all know the reviewers don't actually play the games anyway.
And its certainly a sim. Just not a complete sim - that would, after all, be impossible on a joypad. Its certainly much more of a sim than an arcade game though. What kind of arcade flight game features rudder controls? In what kind of arcade flight game can you damage your plane by pulling too many g's? What kind of arcade flight game only allows you to carry the amount and type of missiles which are realistic for your plane? This is certainly the closest you're going to get to a flightsim on a console, and it should be reviewed as such. "You define it a sim-lite...fine...though most reviewers seem to think that they've taken the most boring parts of both arcade and sim..." and what that basically amounts to is ignoring the fact that the mechanics are about 80% sim and reviewing it as if its 100% arcade. They then moan because it isn't crimson skies.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 19/07/06 @ 15:52
|
|
JediMasterMalik
19/07/06 @ 14:52
0
Bah, we all know the reviewers don't actually play the games anyway.
Then how the fuck can they review them? |
|
0
@Fatnick edit
"I'd recommend hunting down a proper PC simulation. I remember EF-2000 from about 1998 being about 1998 times better than this. And if you want an arcadey dogfighter, try Crimson Skies for Xbox 1 instead. It's even compatible with the 360. Perhaps they knew." That isn't moaning... it's recommending... |
|
0
And its missing the point. What if i don't want the extreme arcadiness of crimson skies or blazing angels (which don't represent real flying at all) and I don't really want something that's so detailed i have to use the F keys to position the seat correctly before take off? Thats basically where Over G excells. It puts simulation flight mechanics in an environment which works well on a console. Its a simulation for people who don't have the time to spend 45 minutes taking off and landing in order to take part in a 2 minute dogfight.
|
|
0
Online has some minor bugs, but its still fantastic fun. The biggest gripe is that, as with some other games, after the match you generally get dumped out to the lobby. It would also have been nice if Taito had included some way of limiting the planes that are available...but i digress.
Online play is divided into two modes. 'Vs' and 'arena'. Vs is a dogfight between 2 tems of four (which generally lasts anything between 30 seconds to 15 minutes). Arena mode is a 4-way battle between four teams of 2. You can win either by repeatedly shooting down the enemy's planes, or more directly by bombing their airfields and carriers. Versus mode is a good way to have a bit of a muckabout, arena mode can be enjoyably tactical. The only gripe is that, because the planes are modeled on real life, there's no guarentee that the bouts will be equal. Some planes are quite blatantly better than others. Aside from that though its genuinely good fun - its much easier to get a decent game going than it is in say, Chromehounds. "Fine...and are all the other negative reviews missing the point as well?" Yes, because most of them making similar kinds of false-criticism- look at the gamespot review: "The big problem with Over G is that it's incredibly straightforward. Fly at your target, get a missile lock, fire, move to the next target, and repeat the process until you're out of missiles." ARGh! that's real aerial combat! *sad smiley face*. Seriously, go and talk to some of the flight sim fans who have Over G. They ALL seem to rate it. Its Chromehounds all over again. I'm not saying its a perfect game, it certainly has a few problems, but its certainly up in the 7-8 region and it's certainly worth at least a rent. Edit: Oh, and as for reviewers not playing games or simpy not giving honest opinions. Driv3r anyone? how about the OXM review of Headhunter?
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 19/07/06 @ 16:19
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
