Conker: Live & Reloaded Comments by Kristan Reed

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.

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.

Thats actually a pretty good point...

/recalls with horror "E3 2005"-incident

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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...

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.

"GTA and Doom because of the 18 rating. "

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

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

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.

"it's getting pretty dull now."

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

"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?

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.

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? >_>

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' - ...

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...

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.

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.

/breaks wind

/giggles

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............."

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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.

"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.

"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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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...

I played the multiplayer again the other day, urgh.

*Knocks his gamestyle review to 5/10*

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

Haha.

Linky please.

\o/ Good spot tengu!!

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

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