Conker: Live & Reloaded Review

By Kristan Reed Published 27 July, 2005

Rarely has a game been so disappointing.

Version tested: Xbox

One of the great mysteries of our time is why on Earth Microsoft gave the green light to a remake of an N64 game that Nintendo saw fit to wash its hands of four years ago. Although Conker's Bad Fur Day was well-received at the time, its demented price tag or £60 or more meant precious few people ever got to play it. Just 25,000 hardy souls took the plunge in the UK. But, if you ask us, the fact that it got talked about at all had more to do with the game's profanity-laden novelty value and Rare's then-lofty status than anything to do with the game's genuine quality.

Frankly, if you'd just written the cheque for $375 million to buy Rare on that heady day in the summer of 2002, you'd have expected - nay, demanded - that three years later Microsoft would be striding confidently down the gold-paved streets of Hitsville. The reality, of course, is somewhat more demoralising than that. Not content with failing so spectacularly with Grabbed By The Ghoulies, we're now forced to squelch through the mire of this distinctly average platformer all over again but Now With Added Live Content. These are real tears we're crying here.

Command and Conker

For the benefit of the majority of readers who won't have picked up the original from 2001, the main meat of the game concerns a drunken squirrel by the name of Conker. Having been on the lash down the local watering hole, he finds himself somewhat sidetracked on his way back home to his keep-fit fanatic girlfriend Berry. A whiff away from violently chundering, you take 'control' of the inebriated hairball for a series of badly-signposted tasks. Hereafter it's apparent that the 'story' makes as little sense as possible. It's there to shoehorn our furry fiend (that's "fiend") into a series of increasingly surreal set-pieces, and to ensure you cross paths with possibly the biggest bunch of oddballs ever to grace a videogame.

Faced with becoming the replacement table leg for overlord Panther King, Conker finds himself performing a series of small (and often menial) tasks for this crazy populace. To kick off you'll find yourself foraging around looking for the missing hive of a neurotic bee, and before long you'll be trudging around doing a bunch of fetch-and-carry tasks, like grabbing cheese for a demanding mouse, or pollinating a demanding flower. It's that sort of game.

But right from the start it's unclear what the task in hand actually is, and over the course of the 10-hour game you'll waste a significant amount of time trudging around wondering what to do next. With so many examples to choose from, it's blindingly obvious that the game itself is flawed on a fundamental level, and when you consistently reach these seemingly dead ends the game soon loses any appeal it was starting to gain.

Over my head

'Conker: Live & Reloaded' Screenshot writer

No, you just needed a comedy writer, pal.

Only by dogged persistence and the knowledge that The Solution Must Be Here Somewhere do you seem to inch your way through what must be one of the most horrifically and consistently oblique experiences we've had in videogaming for years. The head-slapping truth is that none of the puzzles are exactly hard (some of them are downright obvious once you know what to do), but unlike other games, where figuring them out is part of the fun, here you're just left cursing the designers for being so sodding unhelpful even when you've succeeded.

On top of that, the core of the game is saddled with a plethora of rank, outdated mechanics that should have been kicked into touch by now. Chief of these is the appallingly one-dimensional combat system that dictates that Conker can only swing his baseball bat while he's walking and not, say, while jumping. Not only does this make the combat a sludgy, frustrating experience, but soon leads to the realisation that the only way to dispatch most enemies is the "hit, back-off, hit, back-off" technique. With an almost complete absence of AI, you're left wading through a world full of idiotic automatons and checking your calendar to find out if the year really is 2005.

If that doesn't sound bad enough already, then the pile of misery grows apace once you factor in the terrifyingly appalling jump mechanic and its chief accomplice the useless camera. Okay, so it's not that bad, and you can live with it in a kind of Super Mario 64 kind of way, but - again - the game's consistent inability to make you feel like you're in control of your viewpoint or where you can jump is staggering for a game in this era. Time after time you'll attempt seemingly routine leaps, double jumps and tail spins and slither off the edge of a precipice, only to suffer a health penalty for the most pathetically small tumbles. It is a quite tedious experience.

Hilariously bad

'Conker: Live & Reloaded' Screenshot cog

Conker carrying a Cog for no Cocking good reason.

And this unending tedium is given an extra injection of Valium in the form of the game's ham-fisted attempts at humour. Quite how Conker's Bad Fur Day ever got the reputation for somehow being hilarious is quite beyond us. It's like videogaming's worst example of a giant in-joke gone wrong. It's as if a particularly self-indulgent team at Rare were let off the leash and allowed to write and voice the whole thing by themselves without any actual bona-fide comedy input.

At best the story mode of the game is tittersome, with some patently ludicrous and surreal scenarios thrown at you from the word go, but stand it next to, say, Psychonauts or Ratchet & Clank and it's a total embarrassment. At no stage does Conker Live & Reloaded even attempt to be sophisticated, and for that we could forgive it. For gawd's sake, any game where you're rolling giant lumps of poo around can't be taken at all seriously, right? But time and again, the game's voiceovers are borderline pathetic, with characters slipping in and out of various attempts at regional accents almost in the same sentence. Add to that the hopelessly outmoded, embarrassingly not-shocking-at-all gratuitous use of expletives at all times and you'll just shake your head at the injustice that several people earned vast amounts of money making this pile of absolute rubbish. How this game has been picking up some seriously good scores we will never know, and it calls into question the credibility of everyone that can claim with a straight face that this is somehow the pinnacle of Xbox entertainment right now.

Well, to answer that question ourselves, it seems some reviews elsewhere have been prepared to accept that the single-player game is rubbish and still give it 9/10 on the basis that the Xbox Live multiplayer shenanigans are the game's saving grace. That's a ludicrous argument given that over 90 per cent of Xbox owners aren't even hooked up to Live (even more so in Europe, the latest figures suggest, where it's thought that only just over 200,000 have subscribed) and so cannot even take advantage of this mode. But, for the sake of discussion, let's assume everyone who buys the game is connected.

That's Z with a Zee

'Conker: Live & Reloaded' Screenshot poo

Ahhh, it's our lovely friend the poo monster. If only we were 11 years old and still found this sort of thing funny.

For a start, the multiplayer portion of the game is literally nothing like the story mode. To all intents and purposes it's a completely separate game simply bundled alongside the main dish. It doesn't even use the same maps or environments. The weapons and character classes are all brand new, and even the game engine appears to be very different from the story mode. The only real connection is that it stars Conker and 'friends' against the evil Nazi-style Tediz that make an appearance briefly towards the end of the single-player campaign.

But despite all the time Rare took to bolt on an all-singing all-dancing action-packed 16-player mode, the result is a tad underwhelming following on from the hysterical launch reviews that talked about it as an event to rival the second coming of Christ himself. Slight exaggeration there, but - as if you couldn't predict this - it's a good old-fashioned run of deathmatch (in team or standard form), Capture The Flag and Assault-style matches across nine tailor-made maps.

As ever, you simply choose which side you want to play on and then choose a weapons class to specialise in. In this case, you can choose from the all-rounder Grunt, the Sabre-wielding and cloaked Sneeker, the Bazooka-equipped slow-coach Demolisher, the snipe-tastic Long Ranger, the pilot specialist Sky Jockey, and the flame-throwing Thermophile. Each comes with their own specific pros and cons - fast but not that powerful, slow and deadly, etc - and most come with an upgrade weapon and various default abilities, such as Self Heal, Berserk or Infra-Red vision.

Live for-never

'Conker: Live & Reloaded' Screenshot credibility

Along with Rare's credibility.

In this sense at least Rare deserves credit for attempting to balance the proceedings with a decent array of contrasting characters, which allow players to get involved with the kind of multiplayer experience they want (and that also applies to offline gamers, with split-screen, LAN and full-sized bot matches supported). That's the theory, anyway - a large amount of the enjoyment of any multiplayer game depends on the quality of your team mates and opponents, and with the right players alongside you there's a good deal of potential here.

Finding those players, however, is another matter altogether. During our protracted Live experiences over the past month we rarely found more than about a dozen matches happening across the entire world, and even then getting a match started was a hopelessly drawn out experience with few players seemingly willing to even confirm their participation on numerous occasions. And those that were going on appeared to be largely private matches that refused connection, or specific matches that might not necessarily appeal. For example, the ability to tailor matches just so is great in theory, but you might not really fancy a match that only allows you to play a Long Ranger.

Like we said, Conker's Live experience has a decent amount to offer, but only if you can somehow round up a skilled posse to make the most of it. Getting skilled, though, isn't something that will come very easily to many people, no matter how long they've been playing online multiplayer games. Each class and mode takes a lot longer than usual to get to grips with than you might initially anticipate, with each character's alternate weapons to get used to, not to mention the five different vehicle types on offer (Toad Mk II Jeep, R-Hog Quad, Tankus, er, Tank, Steed chopper and Mule troop carrier/Gunship - the latter two of which are exclusive to the Sky Jockey). The vehicles, in particular, take a while to get used to, with slightly counter-intuitive controls hampering proceedings initially. But give it time and the rewards are there, and mastering the vehicle side of the game is possibly the most satisfying aspect of the multiplayer game.

In terms of the mechanics, though, the feeling of déjà vu creeps in quickly, with the usual flag-capturing or checkpoint-securing shenanigans alongside the regular need to kill anything not on your side. Sadly, even though the maps are tailor-made, they're nothing you haven't seen a dozen times before, and, after a few hours, that sense of underwhelming familiarity creeps in. You'll also start to spot the cracks in the balancing, with certain classes way too powerful (step forward the Demolishers) and most of the remaining classes suffering from a frustrating inability to score a direct hit on enemies (or at least that's how it feels, with twitchy controls and wavering reticules), or in the case of the Grunts or Long Rangers are just too feeble and too inaccurate with their default weaponry to be useful. Frustration reigns.

Big ask

'Conker: Live & Reloaded' Screenshot crushed

Crushed. How we felt after 15 hours of this.

Realistically, even with the presence of the offline modes this is a game you're going to want to play online with 16 players populating the maps, and players with a decent amount of experience - and that's a big ask for a game that's not proving too popular right now (hardly a surprise given the release of the Halo 2 map pack).

So what are we left with? A stunningly below-par platform game with borked controls, oblique objectives, crass humour, and a slightly above average online multiplayer component that's not proving too popular. That's not the most glowing recommendation in the world is it?

About the best thing you could say about Conker Live & Reloaded is the astonishingly lifelike graphical detail on Conker himself (the fur! Look at the fur!), but even then he looks completely at odds with the somewhat less impressive gameworld that he swears his way around. As a whole package it's something Microsoft should have put out at a budget price from the beginning, because the single-player story mode is without question one of the worst platform games we've had the misfortune of playing in years, while the multiplayer is merely adequate next to the best in online console gaming. Our heartfelt apologies go out to those of you who've bought it already (we're sorry this review is late - blame holidays, blame Killer 7), but for those of you who were wavering on whether to get it cheap in the sales, don't.

4 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

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

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

You may also like...

Comments (149) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Gatwick Parrot #1 7 years ago

    4/10 Hahahahahah. :)

  • Mickyg #2 7 years ago

    But what about the Conker Review?






    Oh.

  • OldWormsFan #3 7 years ago

    haha! Rare fanboys commeth!

    "What a waste of money"

  • tengu #4 7 years ago

    Xbox game in 'overhyped load of crap' shocker! :)

  • Mint #5 7 years ago

    I'm going to retreat to a safe distance, this thread will be a warzone in a couple of hours.

  • mcmonkeyplc #6 7 years ago

    Christ!

    /runs to nuclear bunker

  • Dizzy #7 7 years ago

    True... Live is pretty weak IMHO. The screen layout is so messy I never came abck after a few games. Single player I like a lot since I never played the original.

    A lot of people seem to be playing this... so I wonder if those "dozen or so" matches are really all the matches available on Live, maybe the game just picks the ones with good ping?

    >Not content with failing so spectacularly with Grabbed By The Ghoulies

    BTW you guys gave GbtG an 8 remember?? Just FYI
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 14:40

  • Xerx3s #8 7 years ago

    sony zomby fanboy: "Fire in the hull!!!"
    xbx fanboy: "Duck & cover!"

    And so the fanboy wars continue...

    Anyway, never liked this from rare. Gimme KI, GE or PD anyday.

    /runs off to evade the crossfire and hopes they slaughter eachother.

  • sleepless #9 7 years ago

    Psychonauts vs Conker: Live and Reloaded

    And the overall winner is...Psychonauts (except for sales obviously which is very sad)

    Do you still believe Perfect Dark Zero will be any good? I'v lost all my faith.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 14:34

  • Beano #10 7 years ago

    4/10 is a "bit" harsh IMO... Ok, it may not be new og original, but fun to play if you haven't played the original !

  • kururin #11 7 years ago

    Heh

  • Blerk #12 7 years ago

    Where Rare get their 'comedy masters' label from, I have no idea. We did better jokes at primary school.

  • ParticleMan #13 7 years ago

    Oh dear.

  • therev #14 7 years ago

    I bought the N64 version when it came out and traded it in. Wish I hadn't, given the lookrareness of it now, but I really didn't enjoy it.

  • Wash #15 7 years ago

    Granted its not 10/10 - but worse than batman begins, big muther truckers 2 and fantastic four.... i'm not sure.

  • BravoGolf #16 7 years ago

    Excellent review...that's that then!

  • Teeth #17 7 years ago

    I was expecting, after reading that really rather strong review, a much lower score than a four! All those italics!

    It's a great pleasure to finally read the review. Thanks! The game sounds absolutely awful.

  • tpfkanep #18 7 years ago

    /Granted its not 10/10 - but worse than batman begins, big muther truckers 2 and fantastic four.... i'm not sure./

    The Theory of Mediocrity apply here, lad.

  • Wash #19 7 years ago

    "The Theory of Mediocrity apply here, lad."

    which is? ... I own the game... the online mode is complete run and gun destruction fest... offline is a decent platformer. I hadnt played the original.

    Do i think psychonauts is better, well probably - it certainly holds your hand more along the way.

  • Xerx3s #20 7 years ago

    PS: Not that i like this game or anything, but i had a look around the net and the press avarage is about 8.6 and gamer avarage 9.0. Is the rest of the press/gamingcommunity blind or is there another reason for this score? (1) Yes, read the review, but still. 2) Played the demo and i found it quite "not to my taste" myself, but it just raises an eyebrow)

    http://www.gamestats.com/objects/490/490304/articles.ht ml

  • MieZ™ #21 7 years ago

    "hardly a surprise given the release of the Halo 2 map pack"

    Another example of too much hype. Halo2 has been collecting dust in my room from two days after release. No map-pack can make me play that horrible game once more.

    Concerning Conker: Hardly a surprise, no innovation in sp and xbox live is a joke...

  • Mr_Brown #22 7 years ago

    Way too harsh. Mark it down for being a remake of an old game, that would be fair. Because thats what it is and it doesn't hide the fact thats its a remake of an old game. So obviously alot of stuff is going to be outdated. Personally I think 4/10 is way too harsh. Though I wouldn't say its the best game ever he surely deserves a 7 or at mimimum 6 out of 10.

    I thought the whole PS3 fiasco was just a one off...but as this review shows...the quality of Eurogamer site is going down the toilet.

    Bad review.

  • Wash #23 7 years ago

    "avarage is about 8.6 and gamer avarage 9.0."

    All personal preference aint it... the further you look across the board for reviews the lower the average will drop. Exactly why games like Zelda Ocarina of time and nfl 2000 or wotever for the dreamcast are so untouchable over at gamerankings because of there 30 or so reviews and then newer games recieving 80 plus reviews.

    Conker is better than 4/10 imho - thats all that is, and this is EG's.

    Least its on a par with Restricted Area tho :)
    Edited by 3 at 27/07/05 @ 14:56

  • #24 7 years ago

    Mint said " I'm going to retreat to a safe distance, this thread will be a warzone in a couple of hours."

    TBH, I think the xobxers knew this was a stinker too... I know I F**king did!

    /quick 'Conker impression of profanity' Limited.

  • Diabeu #25 7 years ago

    fuck single mode, it's not the main dish, online is, and I like it

  • elvenearth #26 7 years ago

    I have a message to pass on from Conker:

    #%*%# you all...

  • Mint #27 7 years ago

    I hear a lot that this game is actually toned down (naughtiness-wise) compared to the ninty version.

  • Kingsadist #28 7 years ago

    The main game was actually one of my fave games on the N64.
    I think the whole reason I loved it was because of that immortal character, Gregg the Grim Reaper. Lovely...

  • Abscido #29 7 years ago

    >Not content with failing so spectacularly with Grabbed By The Ghoulies

    BTW you guys gave GbtG an 8 remember?? Just FYI

    I presume Kris was referring to sales figures there. At least I hope so, cause I stand by that review - I really enjoyed GBTG! They did fail spectacularly in the sense that a game like Ghoulies was never going to sell well, even had it been perfectly implemented. Might have been better off (commercially speaking) playing it safe.

    As for Conker. I agree with Kris completely regarding the gameplay mechanics. Horrid. But the world itself is great fun, really thought it had surreal charm. Not enough charm to spend money on, mind you.

  • Wrobel #30 7 years ago

    Besides for the dodgy camera, I think it is a cool little platformer. Agree more with Edges 8/10 review than eurogamers. Also the graphics whore in me loves the graphics, probably the best on the Xbox

  • Shrimp #31 7 years ago

    Spot on review.

    Flatmate bought this a while back and it went back to Game within a week. What's amazing is that the character actually says (effectively) "now, player, we have to guess what the designer was thinking at this point". i.e. Admitting its badly designed... weird.

    Also the humor really hasn't aged well: South Park has just done the whole kiddie sick/toilet humour a million times better since the first Conker.

    (admittedly I've only seen the the SP game)

  • tpfkanep #32 7 years ago

    /"The Theory of Mediocrity apply here, lad."

    which is? ... I own the game... the online mode is complete run and gun destruction fest... offline is a decent platformer. I hadnt played the original.

    Do i think psychonauts is better, well probably - it certainly holds your hand more along the way./

    It's all relative, actually.
    But that's beside the point. This is only a review. The work of one person. Subjective. Why must the words of a scribe carry so much weight? If you played the game and like it, to hell with the rest. That's all that counts in the end.

    /This is not an attack on the reviewer/

  • peterfll #33 7 years ago

    Bought this at the weekend and am already wanting to give up on the single player mode (never had the N64 game)....... got to go collect bees to go tickle a flower and ......... oh f8ck it, can't be bothered given the flaws in the control system noted in the review. Tried to run it offline with the bots switched on and found it to be ok......... didn't get very far but then I need to read-up on the whole 'capture the flag' scenarios as its not normally my bag. Went on-line and found lots of other people playing - unfortunately it seems to be attracting the worst of the X-box Live crowd - you know - the 12 year old American kid "all you guys are g8y I'm going to whip your ass" etc etc. Pretty similar to what you find on Halo 2 to be honest i.e. if you’re not playing these games 24/7 you’re just not going to feel comfortable with the crowd and you WILL get your ass whipped.

    The graphics look nice albeit the frame rate's a little low! Grasping at straws now...... at least I bought it 2nd hand from CEX!

  • ralphwolfenstein #34 7 years ago

    Interesting to see how some reviewers have focused on the re-make, and treated the multiplayer as little more than a bonus. From my experience, Conker is a pretty comprehensive multiplayer effort which is enjoyable both on and offline, whilst the Bad Fur Day single player game is little more than an added curio. The fairly hefty manual devotes just two apologetic pages to the re-make, and it’s not the default option from the main in-game menu –you’re invited to pitch into the multiplayer right from the start

    Whilst unlikely to dislodge Halo 2 from most Live enabled Xboxen, I thought the multiplayer was competent and offered a decent take on the Star Wars Battlefront genre. Reviewed in its own right, I’d expect a score nearer the 6/7 mark. Bad Fur Day on its own might be a 3 or 4/10, but as a free ‘bonus’ I’m not complaining about its inclusion. I’m surprised Kristan even bothered playing it TBH…

  • UncleLou #35 7 years ago

    Seeing a single screenshot of the apallingly designed main character makes me wonder how anyone could expect anything from this game?

  • Wash #36 7 years ago

    "Seeing a single screenshot of the apallingly designed main character"

    http://www.microsoft.com/spain/prensa/images/ Conker-Body_grande.jpg

    who couldnt love that ;) Graphically and art wise the games quite good... plays on the mature overtones over such a "kiddy" world.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 15:07

  • kalel #37 7 years ago

    I do feel I need to stick up a bit for Conker here, as I have done on the forum before. The game has not aged that well, and I completely agree that it was not a suitable choice for a re-release.

    However, it is quite a unique game in that it has a lot of clever parody going on in it, both in the films and games it sends up, but also in some of the game mechanics itself, something this review fails to recognise. It notes that the mechanics are archaic, but I feel has slightly missed the point of this a little, in that it plays upon these mechanics and draws reference from them.

    Also, the humour may be toilet based, and a bit tired, but I think it is snobbish to dismiss it completely. I have read the novels of Camus, the poetry of Ginsberg and the plays of Pinter and Beckett. I have studied post-modern literature in two different languages. I consider myself to be fairly intellectual, but I was still able to see the humour in Conker’s, and the truth be told, I thought the poo song was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen in a game, and remains my strongest memory of a moment in any N64 game..



    (…apart from ‘that bit’ in OoT but shhhh).
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 15:07

  • indotoonster #38 7 years ago

    /not realizing the fanboy warzone

    BAN THIS SICK FILTH!

  • prettyboytim #39 7 years ago

    So Half as good as Halo, then?

  • RedboX #40 7 years ago

    its demented price tag or £60 or more meant precious few people ever got to play it.

    I've heard this mentioned several times of late, I paid £39.99 for my copy in EB. I never saw it for sale any higher, and I'm sure I saw it for lower prices later.

  • simiankid #41 7 years ago

    Kalel said:
    "It notes that the mechanics are archaic, but I feel has slightly missed the point of this a little, in that it plays upon these mechanics and draws reference from them. "

    And how does it play on these 'archaic' mechanics? By reproducing them in all their shonky, pad-splitting, teeth-grinding, damn-it-all-to-heck-awfulness. It added precisely nothing, no parody, no real comment. Where's the sense in taking the piss out of something you then proceed to copy in every way?

    I played (all the way) through Conker on the 64 when it first appeared, and aside from a few sparse chuckles, it was utter tosh. I'm sorry if you don't agree.
    Edited by 2 at 27/07/05 @ 15:33

  • drumbaby #42 7 years ago

    Sounds great!

  • mattigan #43 7 years ago

    Wasp

    Are you an XBOX Fanboi?

  • kalel #44 7 years ago

    @simiankid

    No no, no need to apologise, I'm quite happy for you to disagree with me :)

    The point I'm trying to make is simply that there was some level of referencing in the game mechanics, and I thought it was a bit unfair of the review to point out their age, without noting the fact that they were references. If you still don't like them then fair enough, but to not even acknowlege that this is what Rare were trying to do is a liottle harsh imo. It's a bit like reviewing Scream and accusing it of having generic horror movie bits. See what I mean?

  • Mr_Brown #45 7 years ago

    "Chief of these is the appallingly one-dimensional combat system that dictates that Conker can only swing his baseball bat while he's walking and not, say, while jumping. Not only does this make the combat a sludgy, frustrating experience, but soon leads to the realisation that the only way to dispatch most enemies is the "hit, back-off, hit, back-off" technique. With an almost complete absence of AI, you're left wading through a world full of idiotic automatons and checking your calendar to find out if the year really is 2005. "

    --------------------------------------------------------

    Come off it, the single player is a remake. Rare was clear that the single player was Bad Fur day but with updated graphics. The way your criticising the game, your making it out that the developers have designed this game badily and used 'out of date techniques' which is true...to a point. Its a remake and thus its out dated features should be taken with a grain of salt. In its day it was great but just because it hasen't aged well doesn't mean Rares done a bad job on the game. If they had deseived us and made us belive the single player was anything more than a pretty remake, I would agree. But because it is a remake, these statements are wrong.

    ------------------------------------------

    "Quite how Conker's Bad Fur Day ever got the reputation for somehow being hilarious is quite beyond us. It's like videogaming's worst example of a giant in-joke gone wrong. It's as if a particularly self-indulgent team at Rare were let off the leash and allowed to write and voice the whole thing by themselves without any actual bona-fide comedy input."

    --------------------------------------------

    Ok, everyone has a different sense of humour and I will admit it didn't have me rolling on the floor but I found moments of the game made me smile and chuckle as well. But to say that Rare has no sense of humour just because it doesn't match yours is just wrong. Again your allowing your own opinion, which is allowed to effect the review, but remember your not writing this review for yourself. Other people's sense of humour may be different to yours.

    -----------------------------------

    "How this game has been picking up some seriously good scores we will never know, and it calls into question the credibility of everyone that can claim with a straight face that this is somehow the pinnacle of Xbox entertainment right now."

    ----------------------------------------

    And saving the best till last...this is an unbelivable comment. So your telling me that just because your review score was rediculously lower than GameTM's, Edge, Gamespot and IGN, your questioning their credibility!?
    Could it possibly be that perhaps its your credability as a review that should be brought into question. Now don't get me wrong, i do feel most of your reviews are fair...but, questioning every credible reviewers out there over their credibility because they're reviews where better than yours is just plain stupid. You my friend should read some of these pther reviews and take some notes and then re-write this review acordingly. But thats up to you.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 15:38

  • Dr_Actually #46 7 years ago

    Did somebody say Fur Fighters?

  • ali-uk #47 7 years ago

    It's a damn fun game.

    There I said it, and I'm in no way a fanboy. I simply liked the game a lot, especially the multiplayer. Except you can whore out spawns with the launcher.

  • Realtime #48 7 years ago

    To right Ralphwolfenstein, If the game was called Conker: Bad Fur Day then maybe you could agree with your comments without Live & Reloaded but AS the game is called Conkers: Live & Releaded an online game just like Unreal Championship 2 you should have took your review there. Conkers: Bad Fur Day is just a bonus game on the same disk for free.

    In my opinion 8/10 would have been my score if I had to review the game the way you should have reviewed it

  • terminalterror #49 7 years ago

    "Also, the humour may be toilet based, and a bit tired, but I think it is snobbish to dismiss it completely. I have read the novels of Camus, the poetry of Ginsberg and the plays of Pinter and Beckett. I have studied post-modern literature in two different languages. I consider myself to be fairly intellectual, but I was still able to see the humour in Conker’s, and the truth be told, I thought the poo song was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen in a game, and remains my strongest memory of a moment in any N64 game.."

    +1 ;)

    I suppose at the time I was a (not that immature) teenager but I still found the game very amusing, particularly that song.

  • rinoaMW #50 7 years ago

    will this finally stop ppl asking about in other forums?

    /sigh

  • simiankid #51 7 years ago

    @kalel

    Good point, but I'm still convinced that if you are going to parody/hark back/whatever something, for chrissakes do it well : )

    Maybe I'm still just sore about having to redo the Teddies level with the laser corridor EIGHT MILLION TIMES!

    Ahem.

  • ProfessorLesser #52 7 years ago

    HA HA HA frickin' HA!

    Beautiful, blissful irony!

    Rare have been exposed as the delinquent filchers I always suspected them to be!

    Rowling, you're next...

  • espadachin #53 7 years ago

    bought it, hated it, took it back.
    good review.

  • ProfessorLesser #54 7 years ago

    /hugs Rare fanboys who refuse to admit they're going downhill

    @Kalel, exactly which bit in OoT? I can't think of a part that isn't memorable!

    ^_^

  • RedboX #55 7 years ago

    only way to dispatch most enemies is the "hit, back-off, hit, back-off" technique.

    Actually if you do a hit-hit, hit they die very quickly, no backing off required, its a pain, but once you get the timing right the enemies are not an issue..

    Tho it is totaly stupid adition to game, they were not in the orignal, and part of me thinks they were just added to up the dificulty level, which has been reduced from the orignal. I found the Xbox version stupidly easy compaired to the orignal.

  • Markusdragon #56 7 years ago

    This is what happens when fanboys beg for a review of a game, eh?

    Best non-PC graphics evar.

  • smelly #57 7 years ago

    Not played the new xbox version, but i liked the n64 version.

    I'd have given the n64 version 7/10, maybe 8/10. Sounds like it'd be better getting that instead.


  • tomacwhite #58 7 years ago

    4/10 - pwn3d

  • RandolphScott #59 7 years ago

    Been looking forward to this for literally years. Bought it. Played 2 hours, took it back in disgust. Single player is 4/10 tops.

    Review nails it. It's a game of guess what the designer's thinking.

    Frustrating, puerile nonsense. Play Sly Raccoon instead. It's loads more fun and loads funnier.

    Edited by 2 at 27/07/05 @ 16:23

  • oceanmotion #60 7 years ago

    Hehe finally the review. I agree in most points. If they ever make a sequel do not use any of the old voices. They are so bad. the hud in mulitplayer is beyond a joke too.

  • Tweakmonkey #61 7 years ago

    Hands up who asked for a Conker review? Are you pleased with the score?

  • Huntcjna #62 7 years ago

    Kristan lost the plot with this review Im sure he did judt to piss off everyone that moaned about the wait. I personally thing the live game is beautifully balanced and is second to only top spin in the time spent online and that includes halo 2. I agree the single player hasn't aged well but I still loved it since I played only a little of of the original. 4/10 takes the piss really.

  • mad_caddy #63 7 years ago

    /puts hand up

    yes i asked for a review,
    yes i own the game,
    yes i enjoyed the single player,
    yes i enjoyed the xbox live stuff
    yes i've read the review, thought the review was ok, bit harsh in places

    I enjoyed the n64 version and was pleased when i got this, didnt take the game seriosuly, it's just not worth the full asking price, £20 yes.

    It's an N64 at it's heart.

  • Les #64 7 years ago

    Rare have totally lost it. Are they aiming for 0/10 with the next PD?

  • silke #65 7 years ago

    No kidding?

    And tell me, when were Rare supposed to become "good" again?

    Oh. Should we hold our breath for PDZ? That will surley become an amazing game - like a Halo:CE of 2005, right?

    Oh sure it will.

    I've said it once before and I'll say it again, Nintendo selling rare was a stroke of genious. Rare has *not* made a single worthwhile game since their Nintendo 64 days. And frankly, am I the only one who's wondering just how big an input Nintendo actually had on "Rare's" games back then?

    Sure, they've lost a lot of good people, but still. Is this the best they can do? And how many years have they been working on this one again? Two, Three years, or even longer?

    Oh. Well maybe that will at least warrant Kameo a 6/10 score since that game has been in works for the past four, five years. Great work guys.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 16:55

  • smelly #66 7 years ago

    IMHO its worth getting this game for the ending alone! *lol*

  • mad_caddy #67 7 years ago

    /agrees (if that wasnt being sarcastic!)
    The ending is very enjoyable (and also sad)

  • kalel #68 7 years ago

    "@Kalel, exactly which bit in OoT? I can't think of a part that isn't memorable!"

    True. The bit I was thinking about came about halfway through when everything changed. Don't want to spoil it for the madmen that still haven't played it, so yuo should know which bit I mean now.

    Thinking about this, I never did get past the laser/teddy bears bit in conkers. Might be time to revisit.

  • smelly #69 7 years ago

    I liked the matrix bit first time thru.. but that's now been done to death.

  • ProfessorLesser #70 7 years ago

    Ah... that bit ;-)

    Yeah, I don't think ever a game has evoked such a genuine emotion from me as then, or indeed that game. But that bit I remember particularly.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 17:18

  • evak #71 7 years ago

    After all the hype about this rare and this being one of their most famous games, I gave it a whirl. Must say, I think I agree with the review. It's a crap game with pretty graphics and limited humour.

    I often wonder at MS decisions with games and sometimes get a feeling they havent a clue what their demographic is. I love my Xbox and got if so I could play more PC like games with a fewgood console games for a bonus. THere's a ton oif fantastic titles out there.

    Really, just think how many good titles could have been developed with the 350,000,000 spent on rare. Very few cost more than 12,000,000 and most less than half that. Crazy!!!!!

    Oh well.

  • Kiigan #72 7 years ago

    Good review. The game bites.

    So did Grabbed by the Ghoulies and It's Mister Pants though.

  • O-Fox #73 7 years ago

    X3rx3s - other (mainly american) sites have given it a high score because they find british accents absolutely hilarious, whereas to us a southerner trying to put on a liverpool accent or an american accent is just painful to the ears.

    Mr. Brown - that's a silly argument. The game played like it did back then because of limitation already set in place, and the newer techniques and ideas we have today were not around then. However, that was then and this is now. And, as the review said, such dated gameplay mechanics do not warrant being sold at full price. Would you buy an ancient VW Golf for the same price as a brand new Jaguar right off of the assembley line? Of course you wouldn't.

  • kangarootoo #74 7 years ago

    Finally, the incessant requests can stop.

    A very quick scan of the comments above seems to suggest that all the people who were crying out for this review are going to buy the game anyway (or even already own it).

    I've now invested 40 seconds of my life on this thread, and thats about 35 seconds too much. Goodbye Conker.

  • phAge #75 7 years ago

    Don't know the game, don't care about the game - only thing I care about is the lamers who have such boring lives that they need to get their kicks from typing "Hahah! Told ya!" on internet forums. Get over yourselves.

  • freedumb #76 7 years ago

    Oh come on. That's way too harsh, Kristan you seem more keen to sticking the boot into Rare (and encouraging others to do so) than giving a balanced review.

    Why are you judging the single player by today's standards? It ws released in 2001, and at the time I reckoned it was one of the best platformers out there. They've only included it as a bonus with an updated graphical engine.

    You haven't mentioned how much variety the game has, and how Rare have streamlined the experience to do away with collect-a-thons, and more on objectives, which is indeed 'rare' a platformer, especially one originally released in 2001.

    I must admit, I don't really like the multiplayer, but I thought the single player was so much fun in 2001, and I must admit still is now. You may have a different sense of humour to me, but this is one of the funniest games ever.

    4/10 is OTT, and I know its only opinion, but a lot of other websites have given it decent reviews (8's and 9's), and not for nothing. even EDGE Magazine can say this about Conker:

    'As a complete game package Conker: Live & Reloaded is tremendously good value. Significantly, it also shows a company finally back on form'


    Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
    Edited by 6 at 27/07/05 @ 18:42

  • krudster #77 7 years ago

    I'm actually a long term Rare fan, back to the dawn of time when games like Cookie, Pssst, Jetpac and Atic Atac were hogging my gaming time and convincing me to buy a Kempston joystick and interface.

    Even recently; check my reviews for the GBA titles of theirs: It's Mr Pants and Sabre Wulf - both classy titles that I personally really got a lot out of. Grabbed By The Ghoulies was a commercial disaster but I appreciated it for what it was. But this? This? This is just a travesty.

    And for the apologists that keep harping on that the single player game is just a "bonus" - are you nuts? Both elements get equal billing, and Microsoft knows only too well that about 99% of its audience aren't even using their Live service in Europe. It won't publicise that fact, but their figures don't lie. The single player is probaby worth a 2/10 on its own, the multiplayer about a 6/10. That's where the 4 comes from.

    People claiming the single player is being deliberately obtuse; that's the funniest thing I've read in ages!
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 18:40

  • Roamer #78 7 years ago

    I love Eurogamer!

    I've read a few reviews of this around the web and I couldn't quite understand why they praised the humour aspect of Conker, when it was quite clear that the voice acting and writing was pathetic once I saw some cut-scenes. Eurogamer is a bastion of honesty in a corrupt part of the media.

  • freedumb #79 7 years ago

    So every reviewer (and I asuume every gamer) who likes the game and the humour is corrupt?

    I think we should let this one rest. This thread is getting crazier and crazier!

  • OldWormsFan #80 7 years ago

    This just, once again, shows how much input Nintendo had in rare games.

    Nintendo was holding their hand all along...

  • Gareth.de #81 7 years ago

    Comparing an old Golf to a new Jag is hardly fair, seeing as both games are virtually the same (bar graphics). More like an old Golf and a new one.

  • tengu #82 7 years ago

    As someone said, Rare don't know how to make good games without Nintendo holding their hand, THAT'S what took three years.

    Microsoft is welcome to them I say, they sure know how to back a loser... as usual.

  • nightsparkle #83 7 years ago

    despite the single-player campain being slow and tedious most of the times, there are some good points that go overlooked in this review. the whole point of the game is to get the player stunned about what to do next: often there's a good solution which at first doesn't seem logical at all. the effect it creates is a first in gaming, it's genius like in a good thriller, and very rewarding, when first feeling amazed and stunned and then solving it. there's a whole new gameplay style in this game. but very often you just don't get enough information; you see multiple solutions and they all don't work because the game first wants you to do something like find an object or something. so in the end, the gameplaystyle has very few but very high highs among a whole whole lot of lows

    and about the battlesystem, it is very simplistic, but it does offer enough challenge and is fair. getting on the right distance of the enemy is pretty hard and hitting him is to, because you need a certain rythem. in contrast there are a whole lot of action games that let you do all kinds of cool moves, but just don't offer a challenge or are just too unhandy because you have to use too many buttons. the battlesystem isn't great though

  • Vin #84 7 years ago

    "I love Eurogamer!

    Eurogamer is a bastion of honesty in a corrupt part of the media."

    Steady on there, bronco.

  • TimN #85 7 years ago

    Finally a review of this game that I can relate to.

    So, anybody want to buy an as good as new version of Conker for Xbox? :p

  • phAge #86 7 years ago

    @ Tengu: Just... drop it. Only thing you're doing is making a fool of yourself.

  • smelly #87 7 years ago

    *Meh!* KIDS GAME!!!! :-)

    Another kids game for the xbox.. go figure :-)
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 20:32

  • ProfessorLesser #88 7 years ago

    phAge, man, lighten up a little.

    Since when can't people comment in a Comments thread?

  • toy_brain #89 7 years ago

    Well, I really enjoyed the N64 game.
    Back in the day it was one of the best, most polished platformers out there - the ammount of dialogue they crammed into that cart was pretty darned impressive, and there were some really funny moments, like the first time you die, the poo song, and the Liverpudlian dung-beetles.
    Never had any issues with the controls, never got hopelessly lost or stuck, never had a problem with the fetch-carry quests.

    Since then, I've played the Sly, Jak and Ratchet games, so I dunno how Conker would compare nowardays.....

  • freedumb #90 7 years ago

    'The game is being sold today, at today's (full) prices - thus it's only fair that it be judged by today's standards. If the singleplayer is only a bonus then the game should've been priced accordingly - i.e. as a (limited) multiplayer game. So I think Kristan's point that it should've been released on budget was spot on.'

    I don't see why though. Rare themselves have always stated it was a bonus with redone graphics, they actually didn't have to include it if they wanted to. Unreal Championship 2, Battlefield 2 and others are sold at full price despite being primarily multiplayer, why can't the same apply for Conker?

    Unlike the Driv3r fiasco, its still refreshing to see that many people in this thread are sticking up for conker and like it no matter what anyone says. At least it polarises opinion, so dismissing it easily, isn't as easy, or something.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 20:52

  • phAge #91 7 years ago

    @ Prf. Lesser: He can comment all he like - I just wish he'd post something that isn't blatant MS-hating shite. There's enough tards doing that, without regulards joining the fray too. But, like you say, this is a comments section, so I spose I should accept the inevitable.

  • tengu #92 7 years ago

    Actually, I have played the game, so I'm perfectly justified in saying it's bollocks if I want to, which I do, because it is... so THERE!

    As for you Phage... you visit the forum, so I'd think you'd know what I'm like by now, so do lighten up a touch, eh?

  • IronGiant #93 7 years ago

    He he.. Fur Fighters is great, Conker isn't. Stroll on Kameo and PD, surely they're both better than this mess.

  • Killerbee #94 7 years ago

    For gawd's sake, any game where you're rolling giant lumps of poo around can't be taken at all seriously, right?

    Can't wait till the Black&White 2 review then. ;)

    This sounds utterly awful, especially compared to the fine efforts of Naughty Dog and Insomniac on the Jak and Ratchet trilogies, plus Sly Racoon natch.

    And it's no excuse to say "it's a remake". When Nintendo did a Gamecube remake of Metal Gear Solid, at least they had the good sense (1) to pick a top class game to start with, and (2) to actually put a bit of effort into the update and add something to the game. Yes, I know there's the Live content, but none of it sounds all that innovative considering every game that's been released since Conker first appeared on the N64.
    Edited by 1 at 27/07/05 @ 21:41

  • BartonFink #95 7 years ago

    Blimie wasn't expecting a score that low.

    Anyhew played the demo and hated every last minute of the damn thing so wasn't really expecting much. Definately one not to own.

    Have MS bought a turkey ... certainly looks like it doesn't it.
    Pity really they used to be great.

    Oh well ....

  • lemonfist #96 7 years ago

    So not as good as Halo, then.

  • AHiFi #97 7 years ago

    Hi there all. Long time Eurogamer visitor, first time registered. I'm really surprised by this review. I was never a big N64 player, but I do remember playing Bad Fur Day a few years back and finding it funny. Maybe because since then other games have tried to copy the style it isn't as appealing to some? It sure as heck kept me interested (C:L&R) despite some frustration in finding my way around.

    The multiplayer isn't bad for a couple of hours every week either. My problem with it though is the majority of the company I'm in when I play this game. It seems to be those who have great anger seeing their backsides handed to them on a plate when they are beat at Halo 2 (For the record, Halo 2 is a great and under-rated rather than over-hyped game IMO. Bet you'd never heard that before :D). So that really sours it.

    Overall, I'd give it an 8/10. The parodies kept me happy during the Bad Fur Day remake, and the online features have a bit of meat on them.

  • Dizzy #98 7 years ago

    >As someone said, Rare don't know how to make good games without Nintendo holding their hand, THAT'S what took three years.

    Actually their best games are from before Nintendo got involved.

  • phAge #99 7 years ago

    Tengu: I have a hard time with names, so forgive me if this was simply a light-hearted go at MS - but without "..." or ";)" I couldn't tell... Mea culpa.

  • O-Fox #100 7 years ago

    Oh, and something not mentioned in the review: the stupidity of the badly timed speech bubbles, which ruin any possible jokes and punchlines - you're sitting there already knowing what the joke is going to be whilst the character is speaking, as it gives you all the text. Completely ruins any hope of comedic timing.

  • kentmonkey #101 7 years ago

    I know you won't probably get to read this Krudster now that this is over 100 posts but the following part of your review dissappointed me:

    "How this game has been picking up some seriously good scores we will never know, and it calls into question the credibility of everyone that can claim with a straight face that this is somehow the pinnacle of Xbox entertainment right now."

    Now, for somebody that gets very (& rightfully) upset when somebody questions your integrity and comment on your reviews, that type of comment just seems really cheap and a touch hypocritical. I have always, among many others on this site, defended EG's and it's reviews reviews before when people have attacked them by purely pointing out that it is an opinion, nothing more and it's there to disagree with, but just because you don't agree with somebody on a score doesn't make them wrong or make them a rubbish reviewer.

    Stating that you couldn't understand how this was getting such high reviews elsewhere is one thing, but questioning other reviewers (& even gamers) credibility because they liked something you didn't, seems more than a little childish & I think I expected more than that from EG, especially when they get so upset when others do the same to them.

    Can't comment on the rest of the review as I have not played nor do I have any intention to play the game.

  • phAge #102 7 years ago

    Thats actually a pretty good point...

    /recalls with horror "E3 2005"-incident

  • Foxxlet #103 7 years ago

    i think rare are still working for nintendo... sinking the good ship microsoft one game at a time...

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #104 7 years ago

    Schtop, schtop. If anyone else posts "But the single player game is just a bonus" I'll kill 'em.

    The game is called Conker: Live and Reloaded. It's not called Conker: Live, they are selling the game on BOTH parts. If Bad Fur Day was just a bonus then, yes, this reviews focus is wrong. But it's not. The remake gets equal billing to the multiplayer and should be given at the very least equal consideration in the review as Eurogamer has done.

    Now as for multiplayer. As pointed out in the review only 10% of the Xbox owning population have Live so therefore I lot of potential owners will only be able to play the single player game, therefore (you could argue) it makes sense to weight the review and following score to the majority Xbox-owning audience.

    So, to cut a long ramble short, the score is a fair one.

    Oh, and remember IT'S JUST SOMEONE'S OPINION - THERE'S NO RIGHT OR WRONG ABOUT IT. ithanyou.

  • UK NINJA #105 7 years ago

    This is bullshit. The single player is excellent fun, especially if you never played the original on N64, multiplayer takes time to get used to but after a while is fun, although not the best live game ever. Its atleast a 8 out of 10 game, but hey I don't usually agree with Eurogamer reviews so there you go.

  • Carrybagma #106 7 years ago

    kentmonkey, I think you're being a little harsh on EG there - after all, it's just more opinion. EG reviews have always been 'personality' led and for me that's part of the site appeal - if you find yourself agreeing a lot with a reviewer's take on games, then you value their reviews a lot more. You might find *yourself* wondering why every other site raves over something you consider crap. Are they really touchy about criticism of reviews? Or do you mean news coverage? phAge mentioned E3 (Sony?), which was a good example of brown-nosing and hype masquerading as reportage. They certainly got the hump over that.

  • tenma #107 7 years ago

    I don't agree with Kristan's opinion so I'm going to be the 354th person to call his subjective opinion shit and try to justify why it's shit all the while saying why I think it deserves an 8 out of 10 and trying not to pass off my own opinion as shit! >:|


    :\
    Give it a break, guys? If you're enjoying it, why try to defend it?

  • squaylor #108 7 years ago

    So it's about as good as the Matrix Reloaded then...

  • dk_rare #109 7 years ago

    Conker is still a very good game to rent, and to buy if it was about 20 quid cheaper. It is a shame about the multiplayer, I loved the n64 versions multiplayer, but the xbox one feels generic and dull.

    Still, it is worth 17 quid. If only I hadnt of paid 36 quid for mine

  • Lothar Hex #110 7 years ago

    I gave it a 6/10 for gamestyle. 80% of the game isn't worth a second play through, but I really enjoy the last 2 hours of it. I found the online mode decent, just that there are far better games Xbox Live games out there out there.

    If it was just a remake of BFD it would have gotten a 5.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/05 @ 08:42

  • RandolphScott #111 7 years ago

    Conkers is not a good game to rent IMHO. I hated the first 2 hours. If there is some good quality gameplay later on then fine but to have to wade through the early crap is not worth it.

    Has everyone who's defending this actually played the new XBox version? And had you played the N64 one before? If you have it may well make it a better game i.e. you don't have to work out how to do the wanky puzzles - which tbh is by far the worst thing about it.

    Fur's nice.

  • smelly #112 7 years ago

    Do I get the impression some of the people who are defending it are devout xbox fanboys who wont have anything said against the machine? Or do they really enjoy it?

    Find that quite strange considering its a KIDS GAME!!!!!! And we all know how BAD they are!

    KIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSS GAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMEEE!

  • Xerx3s #113 7 years ago

    Hmm, well it seems that the 12 year old yankee screamer/cussing kids all swarm to this game, so playing the uberl33t h2 in matchmaking should actually be nice again.

    "Wasp

    Are you an XBOX Fanboi?"

    Mattigan

    Are you a ps2 fanboy then? [....]



    Anyway. Seeing this game get an avarage reader score of 90% and you giving madagascar (i played that 2 and its a piece of sh**e) a 6 instead of the 2 that it deserves makes me wonder.

    /The wonder, the wonder! Nooooooooo! ;p

  • ralphwolfenstein #114 7 years ago

    Krudster said:

    And for the apologists that keep harping on that the single player game is just a "bonus" - are you nuts? Both elements get equal billing

    But... that's not true is it? The box art reflects the sqaud-based game only. 90% of the manual is dedicated to this. There are just five condensed pages tucked away at the back that refer to BFD. When you boot up the game, the multiplayer is the main option. There's a story mode linking all the missions together if you're playing solo... Check out the game's website and there's virtually no mention of BFD, other than that it's 'included.'

    The game is basically Conker: Battlefront done to an average standard, with a bonus slice of gaming nostalgia thrown in for free. I really don't fathom why you would even bother factoring it in to a review score, let alone focus on as the main attraction?

    For the people tring to defend BFD, you must be raving bonkers. It was crap 5 years ago and it's aged badly... I think 4/10 is about right for it. But the new squad based game, which is still enjoyable even without xbox live is a good 6 or 7. It has its flaws and some balaning issues, but it has layers and layers of depth and presents some fantastic opportunites for good team-based play on xbox live. The argument that only 10% of xbox owners play on live might affect the approach a third party publisher would take, but MS clearly believe the best way to encourage Live uptake is to create dedicated games that take advantage of it. Anyway, I didn't see you drag your Battlefield 2 score down because of its poor platform-based single player mode...

    It seems top me that the disproportionate amount of time reviewers have dedicated to the BFD re-make is another strain of the gamesTM review style syndrome (ie spend half the review talking about a game's history, its influences, its company's history etc. in an attempt to pass trivia off as insight). It's just not particularly relevant...

  • joey #115 7 years ago

    What a fuss, it's only a game!

    I've just sold my Xbox and got a N64, much better!

    And this is not a kiddy game, as we well know all 'kiddes' want to play is GTA and Doom because of the 18 rating.

  • smelly #116 7 years ago

    "GTA and Doom because of the 18 rating. "

    Try telling that to the fanboys who keep posting in nintendo articles.

  • captain-future #117 7 years ago

    I wonder what score the original N64 version got from EG?

  • Teeth #118 7 years ago

    smelly FFS dude you gotta get rid of that massive chip on your shoulder about the kids game thing, seriously - it's getting pretty dull now. Seriously.

  • smelly #119 7 years ago

    "it's getting pretty dull now."

    I'll remind you of that the next time someone pumps in about it.

  • Dr_Actually #120 7 years ago

    "looked like a good PS2 game"

    Lies make baby Jesus cry

    Ah well Rare, at least we can look forward to the hotly-anticipated guaranteed AAA Kameo, eh?
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/05 @ 15:31

  • krudster #121 7 years ago

    Ralph, I think 4 would be *kind* for the single player - it's a 2/10 in my 'book'

    /searches for book

    As I said earlier, multiplayer is a 6. 4 is my considered in-between verdict.

    Glad to see so many people agree - people who've actually bought it and played it. Makes me wonder even harder how this game scored so well in the main.

  • Markusdragon #122 7 years ago

    It's official. This is the lowest score that this game has been awarded (if i compare it to the Gamerankings sites), giving this game a score anywhere between 100% and 40%.
    It's at times like this that I once again realise that reviews are pointless; just play the game for yourself and enjoy it, or not. After all, it's not difficult to take a game back and claim that you're just getting constant DDEs, is it? >_>

  • Carrybagma #123 7 years ago

    Oh well done smelly - I can play Bingo again:

    'Smelly moaning about Nintendo/kiddiestuff etc' - TICK.
    'Balor boasting about XBOX and slagging Sony' - ... (A dead cert, shurely?)
    'Gareth.de hanging on at the last, being rude' - ...

  • ralphwolfenstein #124 7 years ago

    Ralph, I think 4 would be *kind* for the single player - it's a 2/10 in my 'book'


    Now I can certainly agree with that... BFD is truly awful...

  • AHiFi #125 7 years ago

    Well, I'm not a fanboy and I liked this game. And I did play parts of the original but I never had an N64. Gonna persecute me for not having enough money to buy one at the time and not being able to fully play the game first time around? This is for anyone who missed it first time round for either issues like mine or maybe they didn't like gaming at the time etcetera.

  • Bezzy #126 7 years ago

    Calling games "childish" is all to often an act of overcompensation for the critic's insecurity. Kids/teenagers want to be grown ups, and shun "childish" games as a result.

    When the humour alludes to adult sensibilities while completely missing the mark (i.e. Poop jokes), you know you're playing a kiddy game.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/05 @ 13:08

  • Teeth #127 7 years ago

    /breaks wind

    /giggles

  • bloke #128 7 years ago

    Looks like its initial sell through in the USA is OK-ish

    "(From Game Daily) In just less than two weeks of availability Conker became the second bestselling Xbox SKU (fifth overall), according to June NPD data. With 150,000 copies sold during that period............."

  • kentmonkey #129 7 years ago

    Hi carrybagma, welcome to the site (never seen the name before, apologies if you're not new to posting).
    Just wanted to pick up on a couple of your comments:

    "kentmonkey, I think you're being a little harsh on EG there - after all, it's just more opinion."

    Oh I agree with that and have no problem reading things such as "we can't believe this has reviewed so highly elsewhere", it's good to point things out like that, but it was the whole "calling into question" other mags/gamers credibility that got me. As you said it's all about opinion and I don't think others (perhaps arguably the majority) disagreeing with your opinion on a game warrants their credibility being questioned.

    "Are they really touchy about criticism of reviews? Or do you mean news coverage? phAge mentioned E3 (Sony?), which was a good example of brown-nosing and hype masquerading as reportage. They certainly got the hump over that."

    Indeed they are, very touchy, and most of the time quite rightly. They do get a lot of flak such as "omfg, an 8, how much did THQ pay you for that banner then!!!!!!" and they don't respond well to it. It has to be said though, when others have questioned comments made in reviews in the past and in a polite way, some of the writers (usually one in particular) has a bit of a hissy fit from time to time & takes it too personally. Kieron Gillen seems good at discussing his reviews & happy to engage in a little banter & doesn't take anything to heart, others perhaps could learn from this. IIRC Krudster got a little touchy over his FIFA Street review, I think it was that one, where people (the majority it has to be said by about 99/1) thought it was a big pile of steaming cack and Krudster disagreed. It's instances like that that just made me think that comment about questioning credibility was out of line as they don't like it if their credibility gets questioned, so why stoop that low and do it to others?

  • Darren #130 7 years ago

    Controversial score and one which like EG's FIFA Street review fortunately doesn't reflect the opinions of most of the media and people who bought the game... thank goodness! The review was far too harsh in my opinion. It's not a classic but it IS a good game.

    Oh and isn't the review too little, too late? Most people who wanted it will have bought and finished it ages ago and are probably playing it online. Seems a bit pointless to print the review now...

  • kentmonkey #131 7 years ago

    Agree in part Darren, but people don't always purchase it on day of release and also there have been so many people asking for the review that I think Krudster would have had a hate mob outside his flat if he didn't post it soon. It did take too long though.

  • Stoatboy #132 7 years ago

    I'd call into credibility anyone who claimed black was white, and since this clearly isn't the pinnacle of Xbox gaming right now, I reckon it was a fair comment.

    Sure, that's only an opinion, but it's a fairly compelling one. Playing the demo made me want to gnaw my own hands off.

  • Nexus6000 #133 7 years ago

    Nah, i'm think the www.gamerankings.com gives a more representative score of 80%. htt p://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914940.asp

  • freedumb #134 7 years ago

    Stoatboy I'd call into credibility anyone whos willing to judge a whole game on the basis of a one-level demo.

  • Stoatboy #135 7 years ago

    Freedumb - Demos are put out specifically to try to tempt people to buy the game (and therefore companies tend to put out the bits of the game they consider to be the best as demos where possible). I think it's fair to assume that if a game demo is less fun than punching a wall then I'm not going to find the full game to be the pinnacle of Xbox gaming.

    You're also assuming that the demo is all I've seen of it, which isn't the case anyway.


  • Mirkan #136 7 years ago

    "Freedumb - Demos are put out specifically to try to tempt people to buy the game (and therefore companies tend to put out the bits of the game they consider to be the best as demos where possible)."

    Yep, that was true once. Like 10 years ago.

  • darkmistx #137 7 years ago

    "Yep, that was true once. Like 10 years ago. "

    Yeah, because of course these days demos are put out with the intention of putting you off buying the game, for some odd reason.

  • freedumb #138 7 years ago

    But Stoatboy the demo was still just one level, like it or not it doesn't represent how the whole game will play. Conker is quite a varied game with a lot of different things to do, so I don't even think the demo comes into the final argument. Or something.

    And what was so bad about the Conker demo anyway?
    Edited by 1 at 30/07/05 @ 11:48

  • siro #139 7 years ago

    Without having played / being very interested in this game, this is obviously the worst review at EG ever. First of all reasons as stated earlier, Kristan basically names ALL other game reviewers corrupt or incompetent. And this on a page which often puts emphasis on the fact that a review doesn't have to be objective but reflect the opinion of the reviewer. This is just bad.

    Then, as this game is intended to market on XBOX live, the main part is obviously the multiplayer, which hasn't got much reviewing at all. If you say there's not many people playing on live, it's still marketed to them. This is like reviewing Halo, UT, Quake and the likes on the single player (double-meh).

    EVEN IF you'd consider it as two games bundled (which you did by writing that it's like a complete different game) and review both parts seperately, giving one a 6 and the other a 2, it's still a 6. Kinda selfspeaking I'd say. Since even if you'd give both games a score, it's two full games you bought and you got one that is 6, the other one's becoming an extra more or less automatically.

    Maybe compare this to Dead or Alive Ultimate. It comes on two discs, one containing the DOA1 remake without any changes, the other one the nice remake of DOA2. To quote the DOA1 summary: "I would strongly suggest that you take the remake of the game which is packaged with Dead or Alive Ultimate, and throw it in the bin. Not because it is a travesty, but rather because it is a perfectly faithful remake of the original game - and, as such, is a reminder of how slow, ugly and generally bad it was." - so maybe a 1/10, prolly even less. If you read that review http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=57933 though, you'll notice a score of 8, so either DOA1 has been completely neglected - or, the DOA2 remake just got a just above average 15/10. That's definitely better than Halo.

    I guess Kristan wanted to dislike the game, to be once again sophisticated and oh so distinguished (as in better) from the rest of the reviewing lemming crowd. A Failure.

  • darkmistx #140 7 years ago

    "Without having played / being very interested in this game, this is obviously the worst review at EG ever."

    Ok, so the rest of the post is just opiniated drivel then? Good.

  • darkmistx #141 7 years ago

    They're only valid points if your loyal to a particular brand of console and you can't handle the fact that a particular overhyped game for siad system turned out to be rubbish (?). I can't comment on the game itself because I haven't played this or the original, but the reviewer is only giving their opinion on it, it's entirely up to you whether you want to believe it or not.

  • Moggo #142 7 years ago

    This is one of the most alarmingly woeful reviews I have read in months. Not only did Kris launch an outrageous attack on the credibility of, let's face it, the vast majority of the industry's reviewers (the average ranking of the original, Conker's Bad Fur Day, is a acceptable 89%) over their original scoring of the game, he clearly did not give the game a chance, at any stage. He wanted to HATE this game, disregarding any of its positive aspects.

    At times I genuinely thought Kris was taking the mick. He was so unbelievably scathing and unrelentless in his attack on the game that it seriously pulls into question the credibility and objectivity of Eurogamer. Think I'm being silly in judging EG on one review alone? Kris actually said "we" at crucial points in the review. If no-one wants EG to be judged on this appalling review, then these people need to look squarely at Kris.

    Coupled with the entire E3 PS3 fiasco, it has been a poor few months for Euro Gamer and my allegience to this once unfallible website is seriously in question.

  • siro #143 7 years ago

    darkmistx: You didn't read my post or just don't want to read it properly, else you wouldn't write such stuff. I don't say that Kristan's opinion is wrong, because it isn't (can't be; it's his opinion, not mine), but that the way the game got reviewed (completely different thing) is . I also criticized him for telling of a whole industry, which is an outrage.

    Oh, and I'm quite sure that I'm less a xbox/ps/ninty fanboy than you. Since I don't own any system of their makers. You'll prolly say my opinion is redundant then. But it isn't because, again - I didn't write about the game but the review. And you'll also think that I've got too much time, because I'm reading reviews of games I couldn't even play. I could tell you my (reasonable) reasons, but you won't read them anyway, hence...

  • Lothar Hex #144 7 years ago

    I played the multiplayer again the other day, urgh.

    *Knocks his gamestyle review to 5/10*

  • Darren #145 7 years ago

    Taken from an interview with Microsoft's Peter Moore...

    "Although there was a very weird review on Eurogamer last week which made me wonder if they had played the same game as I had. It was a four out of ten and I was going, 'Hmm, that's just not right.' They were the only one. Everything else was in the eights and nines... "

    He's obviously a big fan of Eurogamer... lol

  • Vin #146 7 years ago

    Haha.

    Linky please.

  • #147 7 years ago

    *snip*
    Edited by 1 at 17/08/05 @ 14:30

  • Furbs #148 7 years ago

    \o/ Good spot tengu!!

  • #149 7 years ago

    *snip*

    HEY BITCH!
    Don't edit my comment!
    The Submit button says "State you mind"

    That's all I'm doing.










    Just trying to protectyour homosexual site? That's OK, I'm saving these pages for posterity, so I can laugh later. I still have what's been deleted so BOOYAH!!!!!!!!!1
    Edited by 3 at 17/08/05 @ 14:53

  • #150 7 years ago

    !gnimoc peek stih eht dnA

    DX

  • Furbs #151 7 years ago

    Eurogamer_Sucks, you are thegreatstpokemon and I claim my ten pounds.

  • #152 7 years ago

    HAY GUYZ LIFE DAMANDS LYSOL THATS I FACT!

    I DID NOT KNOW THIS!

    DETAILS AT 11!!!!


    And who the fuck is thegreatest pokemon? Your homosexual lover? Don't forget the lysol while you're masturbating to PBS!!!!!!1

  • #153 7 years ago

    LOREAL KIDS NEW STRAWBERRY SMOOTHIE SHAMPOO!
    NO TEARS!
    NO KNOTS!
    AND SPLITENDS? NO WAY!
    JUST SUPER SMOOTH HAIR!
    LOREAL KIDS!
    BECAUSE WE'RE WORTH IT, TOO!!

  • #154 7 years ago

    on behalf of "rare EXTREME" i bid you all farewell.



    for the next couple of miniutes, anyway.

    by the way, my posts? THEY WERE MEANT ASS AN ATTACK ON THE REVIEWER!!!! HOORAY I ATTACK!

  • #155 7 years ago

    Chao sex xxx sonic fuck amy rouge scat free sex stories sorority girls ebony free porn fre porn free pron free pon free prawn sex with a dog i want to see my neighbor naked strongbad sex marzipan homestar and cheese sex marzipan CGNU girls nude barenaked ladies donkey kong fuck candy candy nude qwerty knownvortex hentai hntai entai hetai hentia henta henti hent hot xx porn please stickman porn happy birthday free childrens clown schitzo the clown and doggy girl HBo real sex please please one piece hentai movie movie piece on hentai please p-lease hothot one pieve nami nude fzero misty pokemon nude misty fuck pikachu pikachu fuck ash gay mp3s warez infect my friend with a trojan please help me fuck my girlfriend thanks much googlesucks blogger a series of unfortunate events porn underage illegal kiddy my first sex teacher

  • #156 7 years ago

    password my friends hot mom password roms games free games sonic adventure xd sonic cult give me sonic porn search sonic nude gender bender in action sex machine banjokazooie sex hot hot hot please plase violence sex clap clap whip it They Might Be Giants - Experimental Film.mp3 whip it austinpowers dr evil wallpaper star wars wallpaper exipit a exipit b swiffer sex with swiffer flash porn homestar homestar homestar free xxx prostitutes doyouthinkyoulove e hellno bitch chao chao chao pinecones strong bad fuck pompom tandy 400 and compy 386 fuck lappy 486 porn free sex thanks hentaikey pass xxxpasses go to hell hello marzipan strong bad emails mirror hello my name is trojan crmost dude die die die violence hentai dead or alive nude girls dead or alive sex dead or alive hot dead or alive action im done in five four three two one sexhotplease strong bad email 118 marzipan translation i cant spell you drop a train on em Everybody! Everybody! toons games characters downloads store e-mail homestar runner mirror homestarrunner mirror homestar wooddavers how to make wooddavers what is a wooddavers caffine strong sad effects of gasoline on fire the periodic table of the elements fucking the quadratic forumla HARD in the oxygen science test answers how to cheat on a science test cheat without getting caught kill my principal make binladen eat doodoo

  • #157 7 years ago

    [ crack serial gratis ] Click on image to enlarge. CliffsNotes The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit [Secure Adobe Reader 6.0.1] eBook by Gene B. Hardy, Regular, Club. ... www.fictionwise.programa/ebooks/eBook11674.htm - 29k - En bajar - descargar windows xp [ M?s resultados de www.fictionwise.programa ] quand m?me: concerning the hobbit - [ crack serial gratis ] ... and to encourage me even more I found them online in ebook format, readable on ... Anyway, I started with The Hobbit, as I reckon anyone should...and it was just ... quandmeme.freeware/blog/000009.html - 20k - En bajar - descargar windows xp the other change of hobbit science fiction & fantasy bookstore ... - [ crack serial gratis ] The Other Change of Hobbit. April 2003 Releases. New Books received April 2003. New Books received 19 - 25 Apr 2003. ... 2003 The Other Change of Hobbit. www.otherchangeofhobbit.programa/0304.html - 92k - En bajar - descargar windows xp hop.clickbank.freeware/?fcg01.hartworks descargar windows xp Hobbit Or There & Back Again by JRR Tolkien - Collectible Books - [ crack serial gratis ] Collectible Books, Welprogramae to Collectible Books, Friday, June 25 2004 The color of infinity Inside an empty glass. I'm squinting my eye And turning off and on and on and off the light. It's for this experimental film, Which nobody knows about, and which I'm still figuring out what's going to go In my experimental film. Yeah, you're all gonna be in this experimental film, And even though I can't explain it, I already know how

  • #158 7 years ago

    Viagra sales online viagra other use pay pal buy viagra discount generic viagra good morning viagra commercial song cheap price viagra viagra buy viagra now online canada herbal order viagra viagra in store canada cheap viagra discount vs generic viagra pharmaceutical manufacturer comparison viagra levitra cheap generic pharmacy viagra find information on viagra discount drug viagra buy viagra canada busine viagra in women buy best blog line order viagra viagra for woman study viagra buy document buy prescription viagra experience viagra toll free compare buy viagra now online prescription free viagra generic levitrahealth man natural viagra viagra info the web site please us viagra prescription price why order cialis where can i buy viagra online viagra without perscription cheap viagra order online viagra cost viagra chewable womens viagra viagra free consultation cialis pill cialis new viagra prescription viagra tadalis tadalafi nurofen plus lily icos viagra online anti cialis impotence medication online viagra buy cheap viagra on line physician blend hgh are where to buy hgh will hgh testosterone hgh plus you websity programs pharmacy of busing for online pharmacy prescription viagra female ingestion of viagra very cheap viagra pfizer viagra viagra price comparison effects of viagra cheap viagra uk how to use viagra for man buy viagra online uk generic viagra on line prescriptions online viagra online shop online approval free sample herbal viagra cheapest viagra anywhere taking viagra with cialis who use viagra viagra almond tablet viagra actress generic viagra on line ordering viagra online without a prescription where to buy viagra

  • tengu #159 7 years ago

    Ha ha! He keeps trying to post, oblivious to the fact he's on global ignore :)

  • #160 7 years ago

    personally, I don't care. AS long ass I'm havng fun, global ignore doesn't matter.


    lick balls! LICK BALLS!

  • #161 7 years ago

    So.........
    this review STILL sucks. Why is that?
    Oh, yes. The reviewer sucks at life. kthxbai.

  • Quickstick4 #162 2 years ago

    4/10 - WTF? Eurogamers hatred of Rare is deeper than one thinks. 4 years on its still normally the 5th most played xbox 1 game!