Conker: Live & Reloaded Comments by Kristan Reed
Rarely has a game been so disappointing.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 27/07/05 @ 14:40
|
|
0
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.html |
|
0
"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... |
|
0
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 So obviously alot of stuff is going to be outdated.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. |
|
0
"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 3 times,
most recently on 27/07/05 @ 14:56
|
|
Kingsadist
27/07/05 @ 13:55
0
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... |
|
0
>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. |
|
0
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) |
|
0
/"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/ |
|
0
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
27/07/05 @ 14:03
0
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… |
|
0
"Seeing a single screenshot of the apallingly designed main character"
http://www.microsoft.com/spain/prensa/images/Conker-Body_gra nde.jpg who couldnt love that ;) Graphically and art wise the games quite good... plays on the mature overtones over such a "kiddy" world.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 27/07/05 @ 15:07
|
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 27/07/05 @ 15:07
|
|
0
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 2 times,
most recently on 27/07/05 @ 15:33
|
|
0
@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? |
|
0
"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 1 times,
most recently on 27/07/05 @ 15:38
|
|
0
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
27/07/05 @ 14:40
0
"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. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
