Transformers: The Game Review

By Kristan Reed Published 20 July, 2007

Or: Rise of the Robots Revisited.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Three years ago, Melbourne House did something spectacular and wholly unexpected. It took the perennially abused Transformers licence and conjured an almost-wonderful game for Atari. We described it as "one of the most enjoyable games" of 2004. If you have a PS2, and have some sort of movie-related Transformers itch that you just have to scratch, you should definitely track it down. Not only will you be saving yourself the pain and misery of playing the latest botched attempt, but you'll become the proud owner of one of the most bafflingly overlooked PS2 games ever made.

No disguising mediocrity

But seeing as you're here, you may as well read what we have to say about the latest one. It's a return to form, you might say, in the sense that it's a return to the kind of hastily knocked-up licensed rubbish that we'd normally associate with a) Transformers titles and b) blockbuster games-of-the-movie. It's every bit as uninspired and insipidly generic as you might fear - and sometimes Traveller's Tales seemingly does everything it can to hammer down whatever cynicism you might harbour for this kind of by-the-numbers fodder.

At its core, Transformers is possibly the most unsophisticated mech brawler since Rise of the Robots. Although sometimes we long for a return to the pick-up-and-play sensibilities of the '80s and early '90s, Traveller's Tales has managed to come up with a combat system that makes even Golden Axe seem complicated by comparison. Requiring just one button for melee combat, you'll pull off relatively flashy, destructive manoeuvres that shatter your enemies into a gleeful shower of sparks and twisted metallic shards, but you'll do the same moves so often that you'll be suing TT for repetitive strain injuries. It all adds up to an attractive, pulse-racing spectacle, sure, but in terms of gameplay variety it's flatlining from the moment you put the disk in the tray. The folks Melbourne House must be either laughing their heads off or distraught that no-one at Traveller's Tales thought to build on their good work.

'Transformers: The Game' Screenshot 1

Riddle me this: How come their tyres never burst?

It's depressingly evident from the very beginning that this is going to be a turkey. Whether you choose the Autobot or Decepticon campaigns, the mission types follow a similar pattern: follow the green dot on the mini-map until you reach the beacon and then engage in muchos clobbering. From there, you might smash up a few obliging bots with minimal effort, transform into a car/lorry/fighter jet/chopper, high-tail it over to the next beacon within a strict time-limit, and then fail because the handling on your vehicle was so hilariously flappy that you got snagged on an item of scenery and couldn't turn around in time. Well done! Now go back to the start and do the whole section over again because we couldn't be arsed to checkpoint your progress.

Once you've gotten to grips with arguably the worst vehicle handling in two gaming generations, your attention will be focused on exactly why TT thought that a good Transformers game would involve little more than bashing brain-dead tin cans to bits with one-button combat. It gets so repetitive that you fear that it might just be some sort of deliberately simplified tutorial section. But no: it really is this simple, this uninspired, this pointless and this crap throughout.

In-between chapters you might be 'treated' to some fairly lavish cut-scenes, but the story itself is way down south of the line marked 'humdrum'. As the box says, it's 'Protect or Destroy'. Good versus Evil. However, regardless of which side of the conflict you choose, the lines are blurred to the point where it makes absolutely no difference. You smash everyone and everything to smithereens regardless of whether you prefer all those great satanic tunes or bob your head to Sir Cliff. The end result is massive destruction with minimum effort, either way.

Unbreakable

'Transformers: The Game' Screenshot 2

If your MASSIVELY POWERFUL melee attacks aren't doing any good, try walloping your foe with a piece of lightweight aluminium. That usually does the trick...

In order to shoehorn in some much-needed strategy and variety, you'll start to come across the kinds of enemies that don't just yield obligingly to your one-button master-plan. The most obvious alternative to start with is firing your guns, but beyond the initial cannon fodder this is a hugely ineffective strategy - as is loosing off a few rounds of your slower, more powerful weapon. With enemies now capable of resisting your melee attack and your projectile weapons, you'll find yourself wondering how the game can go from giving you pathetic cannon fodder to invincible death machines in one fell swoop.

And then it clicks: you have to throw things at them. Yep, that means trees, cars, buses, stairwells, fences and whatever else must be lobbed in their direction to either interrupt their attack pattern for a moment (allowing you to continue your one-button march of death) or to take a few points of health from them. Sadly, TT has managed to cock up even this elementary game mechanic in spectacular style. Firstly, picking up items right in front of you is an inordinate faff, and requires your metal death machine to be lined up just so before they can be persuaded to pick things up.

Insert variety here

And secondly, to reliably throw items at your intended target, you have to be incredibly precise. You can't just pick up and throw in one swift motion, but (fiddle fiddle) pick up (faddle faddle) lock on to your target (ngggh, I've targeted a flying bus!) and then throw it and hope that a) it doesn't get deflected off-course by another piece of random flying debris or b) it doesn't just arbitrarily miss your target even through it will appear to go right through them.

So, when you're not just mashing one single button in a flailing whirl of robotic limbs, you're waddling around cities and suburbs trying to find stray lamp-posts or trees to throw at the handful of enemies who have stupid, arbitrary blocking tactics. It's the most depressingly brain-dead use of the licence possible.

In a hapless attempt to make use of the robots' transforming abilities, we have the odd interlude where, for example, we have to perform high-speed checkpoint races, or engage in an exceptionally weak air combat section. Sometimes there's a flicker of potential when, say, you fly around Central Park in a jet fighter, or fly around a desert complex raining destruction down upon it. But in seconds you realise that despite the generally pretty game engine, the actual gameplay is so desperately undercooked that the tasks at hand are no more than sketched ideas that were never fully realised. That's the whole game in a nutshell, in fact.

'Transformers: The Game' Screenshot 3

Cars make rubbish weapons. They usually explode before/while you're throwing them Try trees. They're much better.

And because TT has spent so much time getting the art, animation and game engine up to scratch, the satisfying sense of destruction and chaos can fool you for a few seconds into believing that this is enjoyable, dumb fun. But it's not. It's just plain dumb. And even on a technical level there's plenty of cause for complaint. Sure, the robots look absolutely great, and you can't fault the animation or destructive effects used when they're smashed to pieces, but the engine used for the game is one of the most horribly unoptimised we've seen on the 360 to date.

It might add to the immersion to allow the gameworld to be absolutely torn apart by enemies and players alike, but, by God, it absolutely murders the frame-rate - to the extent that it becomes an intolerable slideshow towards the climax of both campaigns when things get extremely hectic. It's hardly surprising, either. You'll often see a dozen vehicles exploding simultaneously, while trees and miscellaneous debris gets swept up into the air by devastating attacks. It's a game that needs this degree of chaos, for sure, but not at the expense of actually being able to play it properly. I don't know about you, but playing a console game at less than ten frames a second with an extremely unhelpful (and often nauseating) camera system isn't my idea of fun - especially when I'm trying to line up the aforementioned fiddly throws.

To compound the catalogue of complaints against this truly awful game, it's full of unforgivable glitches and stupid bugs that point towards a rushed development cycle. For example, entire missions often have to be terminated because an enemy has become wedged in an item of scenery, or - in one memorable instance - two enemies were seen running continuously into the side of a building and were unable to join the battle. And these are by no means isolated incidents. Reading forums on the game highlighted a catalogue of issues. So not only is it poorly designed, it's hopelessly unoptimised and riddled with bugs and minor issues.

Nothing to see here

'Transformers: The Game' Screenshot 4

A strangely empty scene entirely unrepresentative of the game. Good work Mr screen shot taker!

So if that isn't enough to put you off, how about the fact that it only lasts about six hours, or that it doesn't have any multiplayer? You'll satisfy your obsessive compulsive urges if you're some kind of concept-art perv who enjoys traipsing around levels picking up all the glowing yellow boxes, but the rest of you can just save yourself the effort, because, trust us, absolutely nothing outside of the main missions is worth a second of your time.

Transformers: The Game had masses of potential to be a thrilling action-adventure, stitching together popular gameplay styles and delivering a varied, enjoyable experience within the framework of the licence. But instead, it's a depressing example of how videogames can be little more than cynical exploitation of a high profile product. Traveller's Tales, in particular, should be embarrassed. After years of steadily carving itself a reputation for solid, enjoyable games, this one is a major black mark on its track record. To produce a technically sloppy title is one thing, but the game is horribly flawed from conception to execution in a way we haven't seen since, ulp, Driv3r. Marred by a remarkably vacuous combat system, the pathetic driving and undercooked flying elements merely underline what a thoroughly wasted opportunity this was. Protect your reputation by Destroying games like this.

3 / 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 (93) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Paukl #1 5 years ago

    Well, that's a shame, I really enjoyed the Transformers game on the PS2.

  • Xerx3s #2 5 years ago

    Cars make rubbish weapons. They usually explode before/while you're throwing them Try trees. They're much better.

    Trees explode much slower. Everybody knows that.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #3 5 years ago

    Too bad because the clips in the ads on EG looked quite fun.

  • paul_haine #4 5 years ago

    3? Just give it a 0 and be done with it.

  • Poorandugly #5 5 years ago

    Yeah, the ps2 game was great. I wish they had improved on that one instead.

  • Azazel #6 5 years ago

    :o

    Strangely, I had my hopes up for this one. Oh well...

  • fiery_jackass #7 5 years ago

    sounds awful
    quick aside, missing "L"?
    "to the extent that it becomes an intolerable sideshow"

  • ostrasized #8 5 years ago

    So, the best movie tie-in game since Catwoman then?

  • Tomo #9 5 years ago

    Blimey. I thought after seeing the EGTV coverage, the money they slipped in Minkley's pockets was at least worth a 5/10.

  • Eighthours #10 5 years ago

    Traveller's Tales really do produce a lot of shockers. I'm starting to think that Lego Star Wars is just a fluke.

  • Eoin #11 5 years ago

    3? Just give it a 0 and be done with it.

    Exactly. I don't see where the 3 is coming from. The review paints the picture of a melee combat game with terrible, strategy-less combat, game-breaking glitches, no consideration for the player, and horrible controls. There doesn't seem to be any redeeming features to bring the score up to even a 3.

  • nickthegun #12 5 years ago

    The PSP version is literally the worst game I have ever played on the system and the worst game i can remember playing for absolutely years.

    If i were to review it, I would give it nega-points.

  • octo #13 5 years ago

    I'd like to wager a graot that it will still make it to the top of the charts.

  • Nithron #14 5 years ago

    It's true, a lot of the blame for the sheer unadulterated crappiness of licensed games can be placed on the unfair time constraints the publishers force onto the developers. But then, if you want a decent track record as a high quality dev team... Just don't take on projects that are inevitably going to turn out crap.

  • ostrasized #15 5 years ago

    (throws his own graot into the pot)

  • ccfb #16 5 years ago

    MMUK : "naah, it must just be them, they're IDIOTS clearly... "

    They made it, they can be embarrased by it.

  • w00t #17 5 years ago

    Never good having to get a film license ready on a tight deadline :(

    I miss Argonaut.

  • krudster #18 5 years ago

    I'm sure the time constraints *were* ludicrous. They almost always are with film-related games, but, as the man says, if you don't want the project because it has unfair time constraints, don't take it on.

  • LetsGo #19 5 years ago

    Do they want as long as they had on Star Wars? (30 odd years?)

    :-D

  • Dizzy #20 5 years ago

    Traveller's Tales hang your head in SHAME!

  • octo #21 5 years ago

    Bring back Ocean!

    (c'mon, SOMEONE had to say it)

    *Plays batman*

  • speedjack #22 5 years ago

    I'll make a prediction... Despite being unbelivably crap this will be one of 2007s top sellers on every format and wedged in every chavs PSP drive from now until the next Need For Speed game comes out.

    That is all.

  • FWB #23 5 years ago

    Does it have motorbikes?

  • lambtron #24 5 years ago

    Ouch!

  • CheapSheep #25 5 years ago

    "Traveller's Tales, in particular, should be embarrassed. After years of steadily carving itself a reputation for solid, enjoyable games, this one is a major black mark on its track record"


    Hmm. Apart from Lego Star Wars (which is automatically a lot less fun if you're not a SW geek), they haven't really done much else of note. Apart from Leander. Man, Leander was awesome.

  • Triggerhappytel #26 5 years ago

    Y'know, if Atari were savvy they'd produce and release a few copies of their Transformers (if they're still allowed to after selling the licence back to Hasbro) and try to fool people into buying the wrong copy.

    They'd be doing folk a favour, anyway. It's a very good game, the Melbourne House version.

  • zooms #27 5 years ago

    Most forms of media have what the literary world would describe as "pulp fiction". Don't see why games should be any different.

    This is not for the likes of us. It's for the movie-tie-in buying 11 year olds.

    Travellers Tales know what they are doing, and if that's what it takes to survive then fair enough.

  • krudster #28 5 years ago

    TT is a highly successful operation that does indeed know what it's doing. I don't buy into the argument that it operates hand to mouth and can't possibly turn down a high pressure, short-lead project.

    TT has made solid, quality games that are "not for us" for years, and respect to them for doing so. This, however, is by far its worst game in recent history - possibly this decade.
    Edited by 1 at 20/07/07 @ 13:09

  • Triggerhappytel #29 5 years ago

    Yeah, everyone should leave off TT. It might be a shit game, but as a relatively small developer, they probably couldn't afford to refuse a contract off a mega-publisher like Activision.

    I'd rather they produce a mixture of good and shit games than go down the tubes.

  • krudster #30 5 years ago

    Absolute nonsense. Go and stand in the corner.

  • zooms #31 5 years ago

    TT probably aren't living hand to mouth. They were No.5 in last years Develop100.

    However we don't know how much they were paid to make "Transformers".

    Lets imagine it wasn't enough to make a decent game? So TT can either turn it down, in which case another studio would have made it, and most likely it would turn out as bad, or take the money and do it themselves.

  • Birchy #32 5 years ago

    This isn't conclusive - Just a quick glance of Gamefaqs and then eurogamer for the reviews of TT games:

    Transformers 3
    Haven 7
    Bionicle Heros 6
    Lego SW lego 1 & 2 8
    SMB Deluxe (Port) 8
    F1 GP PSP 6 or 7 (Don't know which year they did)
    WRC PSP ?
    Narnia 7
    Crash Twinsanity 7
    Finding Nemo 6
    Crash Bandicot Wrath of Cortex ?
    Weakest Link 6

    Soild if unremarkable from the Eurogamer scores...

  • Killerbee #33 5 years ago

    Riddle me this: How come their tyres never burst?

    Run flats?

    Gutted that this is as shite as I'd feared. Melbourne House's game is one of my favourite PS2 titles. Even new levels on the same engine would've been good.

  • Schiraman #34 5 years ago

    The Melbourne House PS2 game was really excellent, it had some hefty flaws (like the final level, which it's best to just ignore completely IMO) but it was amongst the best uses of the franchise ever.

    I'd have loved to have seen a sequel to that game that built on its many strengths and ironed out the remaining problems, but instead we get this. Oh joy.

  • SBfistfun #35 5 years ago

    "Absolute nonsense. Go and stand in the corner."

    Told!

  • Lim-Dul #36 5 years ago

    Hey! Stop giving poor excuses for TT like time constraints etc. THEY decided to make the game, THEY accepted the offer because THEY wanted the money, THEY screwed up the game... If THEY thought THEY would have like 3 years to develop the game then THEY would really be idiots... No - THEY just decided that THEY will do it for the money, cause the game sells like hot cakes (as usual with crappy movie tie-ins).

    Ever after the WONDERFUL Chronicles of Riddick (I hated the movie, but loved the game - how is that?) NO game developer should be excused for making such cheap-ass movie tie-ins. If you want to make a good game, you CAN make a good game - just look at all those indie game-developers. 90% of them have good ideas, especially when it comes to the gameplay element - if you just added some professional art direction and a larger budget (larger than 0, that is =) then imagine how remarkable their games would be.

  • Bonzrat #37 5 years ago

    I can confirm the PC version is equally unbearable.
    I don't think any developer's complaint about time constraints could possibly excuse their deciding that the best use of Optimus Prime would be to make him drive to a green dot before a timer runs out. Over and over again.
    The DS game's actually a little more entertaining, as it turns out. Still best avoided, however.
    - Alec

  • nickthegun #38 5 years ago

    Well, I have actually played it.

    Verdict: Its sucks balls.

  • Hughes. #39 5 years ago

    heh, they should make a game based on those Citroën ads

  • Redeye #40 5 years ago

    Just as I expected...an utter crapfest featuring piss-poor design from the off, and badly executed to the point of unbelievability.

    And that's just the PSP version.

  • mattigan #41 5 years ago

    The Film is Awesome better than I expected it to be, the game looks to be as bad as I expected

  • Pac #42 5 years ago

    @Aiai

    Ah.. trust the view of someone who thought the excellent PS2 game was "not that good" or trust a reviewer whose views you have come to respect over hundreds of reviews. Tough decision that

    Wheres that bandwagon?

  • SomaticSense #43 5 years ago

    "Traveller's Tales really do produce a lot of shockers. I'm starting to think that Lego Star Wars is just a fluke. "

    Thing is, it wasn't a fluke. They just combined Lego and Star Wars, and everybody liked it for that reason alone.

    Coming from someone that was never into Star Wars and only mildly dabbled in Lego as a kid, I can confirm that without being subjected to the magnetic properties of those licences, it was actually just shit.

    One example of the terrible game design was one the earlier levels in the second game. You had to build a bridge using Lego pieces to get to the other side. Only problem is, is that if you get shot at it resets the whole building process. Add in the fact that there are constantly respawning enemies and that you can't attack or defend while building said bridge as it resets then as well if you were to do so, and cue the frustration........

    Traveller's Tales are just shit.
    Edited by 3 at 20/07/07 @ 15:51

  • morriss #44 5 years ago

    3lol

  • kangarootoo #45 5 years ago

    I know someone who worked on this briefly. They then got moved to a different project. Needless to say they were delighted at the time, and are probably equally so now.

  • AOFanboi #46 5 years ago

    I guess it got a 3 for the visuals, since it's the gameplay and engine that lets it down.

    It seems even lobbing around in the PS3 launch title Mobile Suit Gundam: Target in Sight is a better proposition than this game.

  • captainrentboy #47 5 years ago

    Ohhh well, it's not going to dampen my stupidly high levels of excitement over seeing the new film on Sunday though, God damn I can't wait.
    I even love the negative reviews of the film, ''There's too much action'' or ''Loud!!!'' What? I don't understand :/ It's fooking Michael Bay, making a film about 30 ft high robots smashing each other up, what the hell were these uptight assholes expecting? Citizen Kane?

  • miiiguel #48 5 years ago

    So, from the available PS3 games, it's still a good choice!

  • miiiguel #49 5 years ago

    The Achievements seem fun...

  • cawley1 #50 5 years ago

    I have to say I have played this on both Wii and PSP and it is a pile of crap on both.

    Playing as the Decepticons makes it a slightly more enjoyable experience as you get to fly and blow more stuff up.

    Still shite, mind you - and I am the kind of saddo who will spend £70 on a Masterpiece Megatron :-P

  • Freelancepolice #51 5 years ago

    lim-dul

    you sound like an absolute cretin with no idea of how the industry operates.

  • Lim-Dul #52 5 years ago

    you sound like an absolute cretin with no idea of how the industry operates.

    I know how the industry works and hence I've written that they did it for the money - the game will make a huge profit and TT will get a share of that. Wonderful for them. I just replied to all the people who said that we should cut them a slack - no, we shouldn't. There are no upsides for GAMERS when it comes to that type of crap. And making such a bad game spoils one's reputation - the decision each developer should make is: do I want to make loads of money now or do I want to make even more money in a while by steadily producing quality titles. It's obvious which way TT went - compare it to Blizzard who make money because of their brand alone - I mean, WoW isn't a particularly good or original MMORPG - it is so popular because everything with Blizzard on it means quality - and if it's a popular franchise like the *Craft line then all the better.

    I'm not sure why I'm writing this anyway if the other side of the discussion, yes, I mean YOU Freelancepolice, chooses to post only short, meaningless and offensive replies.

  • kentmonkey #53 5 years ago

    The first Transformers game was really good fun. Frustrating as hell as when you went to replay levels you'd completed to get more of the items as they then ramped up the difficulty level. But I still can't believe they got those graphics out of the PS2.

    True the platforming bits were rubbish but otherwise it was fantastic and a really good licensed product. Driving over the waterfall, transforming in mid-air into robot form and then shooting most of the robots on the other side before transforming just before I landed and drove through the rest was one of 'those' gaming moments.

  • miiiguel #54 5 years ago

    ok. I tried at a mate's place. It's as shallow as a hot blond, but it's also as flashier as. So..., I'm going to buy it.
    It's only money after all. I deserve a treat, me thinks.

  • PotajiTo #55 5 years ago

    I think it deserves the 3. Its fun destroying things and the animation when you transform is really nice. Nothing more to see here.

  • sharpfish #56 5 years ago

    The wait goes on for a perfect Transformers game (on a decent system).

  • projectmayhem #57 5 years ago

    @sharpfish

    until a "real" game designer takes hold of a franchise like transformers, we'll continue getting the same drivel that entertains for 20 minutes before making us bring the game back to the store saying the disc won't load, hoping the staff are too confused to know what to do and refund you the difference.

  • Daikon #58 5 years ago

    Who cares if it's crap? It'll sell bucketloads anyway. It's not like games like these end up buried in a landfill somewhere in the desert you know.

  • kentmonkey #59 5 years ago

    @ Metalfish

    Well spotted.

    Jesus if you're going to try and defend this shit at least hide your name (in email address) from your profile.

    Or I suspect that you already had but got caught out when the other night they reset some of the forum and the privacy settings were changed, thus everyone's email address became viewable unless you resave them.

  • Sl1pstream #60 5 years ago

    The DS version is pretty fun, if a bit unfair at times.

  • spadge #61 5 years ago

    Lim-dul,

    You weren't party to any of the discussions, publisher directionals, property holder guidance, well, actually none of it.

    Working for a AAA publisher on a AAA movie license is a totally different notion to creating something of love, for yourself, without mounting pressures of time and content-limitation.

    I don't work for TT or Acti and I don't know the detail - but I can very much imagine the detail having 20yrs experience on my back.

    L33t speak too, oh you clever, clever boy.

    Licensed games aren't going to go away and they rarely serve the hard-core gaming market, so why the fuss.

    Of course developers working on commercial projects 'do it for money' what do you expect? That's about as obvious as you can get. Have a think about it when you get into the big wide world, am sure if, when you get hired by McDonalds, you'll be doing it for the money and not the odd free apple-pie.

    They would also try to make it as good as they can, for the market that the publisher requested, in the time & budget they had to work with.

    On commercial games such as this, the royalty share is generally much less than with original titles and large scale modern developers need to earn income to keep running, they're not all lounging around chewing the cud, waiting for the next beautiful idea to drop from the heavens.

  • thisgame #62 5 years ago

    Lets face it, the game was always going to be poor. Still get to smash things up as a big robot. I might still pick this up when it becomes really cheep. No way am I paying full price for this game.

  • thisgame #63 5 years ago

    "It seems even lobbing around in the PS3 launch title Mobile Suit Gundam: Target in Sight is a better proposition than this game."

    Surely its not that bad.... nothing can be as bad as Mobile Suit Gundam!!!!

  • iamthedogs #64 5 years ago

    Oh well, we will have to wait a few more years before someone does a good game. I still thought that the one a few years back were not that good either. One day we will get a good one. Maybe EA will do one.... then we know it will be decent!!!

  • thisgame #65 5 years ago

    Naa.. we dont want EA doing a version. Then it will become standard average fair. We want an ace game :-D Personally I would want it cartoon style like the cartoon.

    Someone should make games for all the old cartoons..... dungeons and dragons... pole position etc..... how ace would that be??

  • iamthedogs #66 5 years ago

    At least we would know that it would be decent if EA did the game.... yeah.. it would not be the best game ever. But would be good and solid. tbh... I would take that right now. Instead of the poor version we are about to get.

  • neverAgainToday #67 5 years ago

    EA have messed up Harry Potter... which I was really looking forward too... so if they can mess that up then Transformers would be not better!!

    The new one is naff... we all no it., but what did we expect... its a game based on a movie... they are always a bit on the naff side.

  • thisgame #68 5 years ago

    Movie tie ins are not always naff. Just most of them :-) Easy money for the developer though. At the end of the day they are there to make money..... would transformers make more money if it was a great game??.... yeah... probally... but enough to justify a much bigger team and more resources... probally not.

    They banged out a rushed game to get it out of the way... so they could concentrate on the next star wars lego game. Which im really looking forward too.

  • iamthedogs #69 5 years ago

    they have messed up harry potter because the book is not very good. I went to see the film last night. I was bored right the way though!!!...... I would not really recomend it to anyone who is not a harry fan.... I know you all are!!!

  • markypants #70 5 years ago

    "Working for a AAA publisher on a AAA movie license is a totally different notion to creating something of love, for yourself, without mounting pressures of time and content-limitation. "

    Appreciate what you're saying, but you have to have some self respect when it comes to creating work... No? This game is dire. It's actually taking the piss out of the consumer that is paying good money for a game that is 'linked' to a summer blockbuster movie. I'd be ashamed to have my company linked to a below par game that is basically 'broken'. If licensed games are this shit, they should be given away for free as promotion for the film or at a mega budget price.

    Its the same old same old though. Until the consumer stops buying this shite it will keep getting made.

  • Lim-Dul #71 5 years ago

    L33t speak too, oh you clever, clever boy.

    Of course developers working on commercial projects 'do it for money' what do you expect? That's about as obvious as you can get. Have a think about it when you get into the big wide world, am sure if, when you get hired by McDonalds, you'll be doing it for the money and not the odd free apple-pie.

    On commercial games such as this, the royalty share is generally much less than with original titles and large scale modern developers need to earn income to keep running, they're not all lounging around chewing the cud, waiting for the next beautiful idea to drop from the heavens.

    Wonderful attempt at trying to patronize me. I'm sorry to inform you that I actually graduated from university and work both as a translator and a reporter for, guess what, two gaming magazines. I don't need to be told that publishers do it for the money because that's exactly what I've said.

    How do you explain, however, that some companies can do completely without movie tie-ins? And I'm speaking about smaller studios as well. I can just repeat what I've said before even if I got the notion that you're either too dumb to understand what I'm saying or just posting to offend me. TT made a decision - they decided to do a movie tie-in. They are professionals at what they are doing so they knew EXACTLY how much time they'd need to make a good game - it's not their first title after all. I'm sure they tried to do a good game but they KNEW that this goal couldn't be achieved under pressure from the movie industry. They decided to make money and spoil their reputation - OK, we know that software developers do it for the money but some sell themselves like cheap bitches and some don't.

    Nobody forced TT into accepting the contract so they shouldn't be excused for making a crappy game - that's all. All this bullshit with "they needed the money" and stuff is, well, just bullshit. TT isn't even that small a developer. They had at least two major hits with Lego Star Wars and there are LOADS of smaller companies that struggle to keep up in the gaming industry - yet they don't produce movie tie-ins and won't produce movie tie-ins unless they are absolutely sure that they can make a good game out of them.

    Besides - like I said before producing rushed crappy titles just spoils your reputation. It's a typical thing for short-sighted, greedy developers who want to make easy money but don't think about the future. These times, when brands are one of the most valuable commodities a company can have, one's good reputation is far more profitable than games that'll sell many copies over a short period of time even though they're crappy.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/07 @ 13:46

  • SomaticSense #72 5 years ago

    "Plenty of decent movie game tie ins have had the same thing happen to them (Van Helsing, Ghost Rider, FF:ROTSS, X Men, SM3). Heck, it was especially evident wih SM3...it was the same as SM2 which got great reviews, but improved massively, which then meant it scored lower? I still don't get that logic. "

    Sorry, but you are dead wrong about SM3. Not played the others you mentioned so will not comment on those, but SM3 was terrible.

    I actually loved SM2 and bought SM3 solely on the basis of that, and if SM3 was the exact same as SM2 -like you incorrectly said it was - then it would've been great. It wasn't.
    The swinging was essentially the same, if not better. But the main crux of the game - the combat - was one of the most broken and frustrating things I've ever experienced in modern video gaming. Not really much of a problem with the thugs (this was actually somewhere near to 'fun', but not quite), but in the clear unfair lack of balancing and apparent lack of playtesting in the majority of the bosses.
    It became something you had to endure in order to get to the point where you can access the symbiote suit. Once I'd got that suit and did a few more missions, I gave up. I couldn't take it anymore. The fights weren't hard, in fact most were easy, but were rendered artificially overlong and mostly luck based (counter system was at times hit and miss as to whether it actually does what you ask it to).

    That's not even mentioning the terrible way in which the storyline was dealt with. I'm not talking about the scenes not being the same as the film, but in that it was blatantly clear that entire scenes from within the game were cut out leading to one of the most ridiculously poorly dealt with storyline narratives since the advent of big budget video game production.
    For example, Spidey suddenly knowing exactly who Sandman was and that he killed his uncle, without ever apparently having met him or even knowing of his existence.

    In fact I think the reviews were disappointingly easy on the game, mostly citing the overly hit and miss and frustrating luck based element of the combat. Not mentioning the aforementioned pathetically lazy, and blatantly unfinished story cuts, and the apparant zero playtesting of a lot of the boss fights (New Goblin and the first Kraven come to mind....)

    But if you actually liked the game, then good for you. But don't go saying the reviews were wrong just because you have low standards when it comes to games.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/07 @ 15:53

  • spadge #73 5 years ago

    Lim, with such well balanced and informed scrutiny of the industry, your gaming press bosses must be highly delighted. Congratulations for avoiding Ronald and co.

    It's a commercial, production led industry, not an art fantasy. TT can't obviously just sit there knocking out SW Lego all day and every day. Running a sizeable dev is a very costly business.

    I can assure you that your view of indy devs is so far off the mark it's untrue. For most indies (esp. small ones with little critical mass) the real game is all about surviving and being able to hold your head high enough water to hope to make the prototype that's going to break the endless (and thankless) work-for-hire cycle - and then you have the fight for the IP rights etc etc.

    Greedy devs? Stupid, ill-informed lazy writing I say.

    Maybe you should think Greedy Publishers, they're the ones snapping up these kind of licenses.

    Incidentally, the devs who don't do licenses typically have their own IP, or are publisher owned, with a share in the IP or so. New IP is few and far between these days, chart sales typically demonstrate that the mass market isn't actually all that bothered.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/07 @ 17:12

  • Lim-Dul #74 5 years ago

    You know what? I thought about writing a long reply to your post but after reading your lame-ass intro, quote: Lim, with such well balanced and informed scrutiny of the industry, your gaming press bosses must be highly delighted. Congratulations for avoiding Ronald and co., I decided that you're just not worth replying to since you're only some guy with self-esteem problems letting his frustration out by playing smart on the internet.

    I said what I had to say and people who are REALLY smart and not just pretending to be, like you, will probably agree with me - a lame game is a lame game no matter what and the guys who made it should be held responsible for letting crap out on the market - no matter the reason.

    P.S. I haven't mentioned indie developers anywhere - I mentioned smaller developers. And smaller developers often do sign contracts with big publishers so they can't be considered "indie".

    P.P.S. TT can't obviously just sit there knocking out SW Lego all day and every day. True - they could be making some good games instead. NOT movie tie-ins.

    P.P.P.S. Greedy publishers? Sure they are, so what? We're not speaking about publishers here. Dev studios agreeing on working on projects like movie tie-ins do it for the money so they could be described as greedy as well. A respectable dev studio wouldn't accept an offer to make such a crappy game, which I've said like a thousand times before if you just read my posts instead of thinking up new ways to insult me, you dork.

    EOT on my side. Although I bet that spudge will want to have the last word, maybe with some insulting post. Good that I won't have to read it.

    -> ignore poster
    Edited by 3 at 22/07/07 @ 17:29

  • miiiguel #75 5 years ago

    I think we can all agree this is not the greatest game ever not even close (well, still a good choice among PS3 titles, but not for the beautiful machine), but one thing seems very, very wrong, this game's as bad as Bionicle Heroes plus some much nicer aesthetics - Bionicle scored 6.
    Why ?

  • Ludwig #76 5 years ago

    Lim you are a fruitcake. If you were a half decent journalist you would know that Spadge has a ton of experience running a small and independent developer for many many years.

    Still, why let reality impinge on your world view? It can be inconvenient when trying to construct grand, sweeping, idiotic diatribes.

  • Lim-Dul #77 5 years ago

    And what exactly has Spadge's running an indie studio have to do with TT producing a crappy game? 0_o

  • Ludwig #78 5 years ago

    Dear oh dear. Just accept that you don't really know what you are talking about. You are starting off in games journalism, a bit of humility might serve you well.

  • LetsGo #79 5 years ago

    whats SM2/3?

  • krudster #80 5 years ago

    Spider-Man 2 and 3 I assume.

  • Jamaicangmr #81 5 years ago

    Wow! a 3. To think my aunt almost picked this one up for me along with Motorstorm. The movie wasnt bad conciderin what it's about but come on 3!

  • The-Bodybuilder #82 5 years ago

    >"And what exactly has Spadge's running an indie studio have to do with TT producing a crappy game? 0_o"

    It means he has more knowledge in the development process than you do, therefore his comments carry more weight, knowledge, experience and truth than yours.

  • bdaggers #83 5 years ago

    Can`t believe this hasn`t been mentioned yet :

    Well done to EG for giving an honest review of the game, even though the site is plastered with advertising for the game. Would have been very easy to hand out a 6 or 7 and fobb us off with "for fans of the film / genre".

  • crazyhorse174 #84 5 years ago

    Has there ever actually been a decent movie tie-in?

    People mention Chronicles of Riddick, but its not actually tied to the movie: its a prelude to it.

    Making tie-ins is a quick buck these days and it helps that you dont have to write a storyline for the game, as you just copy the script from the film, which obviously takes away most of the scope for any original content.

    We should all just face facts though - most of (if not all) tie-ins are shite, but they'll still continue to be thrown out because they continue to sell. Until they stop making money, theres bugger all that any of us can do. Moaning on here to other people who feel the same way isnt going to help.

    And I do feel that TT should take the blame if this is as bad as its said to be. They developed it, so its their baby. If the film was bad (which I hear it isnt) then the blame would be with, primarily the director and his crew, not with whoever actually owns the licence for Transformers.

    Oh and good review. I assume the 3 was for the visuals and the fact that there may actually be a minute amount of fun to be had by this game - albeit totally mindless fun!

  • Lim-Dul #85 5 years ago

    It means he has more knowledge in the development process than you do, therefore his comments carry more weight, knowledge, experience and truth than yours.

    When it comes to the process of designing games I would agree with you. However, we're not talking about the development process. Once again I repeat that we're talking about TT having made a shitty game purely for money and the fact that they shouldn't be excused for doing so since it was solely their decision and their responsibility.

    That's all I was saying the whole time while Spadge was trying to cure his complexes by posting offensive comments which had barely anything to do with the topic at hand - more along the lines "you're a kid, you have no money, you don't know what you're talking about" - strong statements, though somewhat lacking in merit and not based on any factual knowledge.
    Edited by 2 at 23/07/07 @ 02:23

  • spadge #86 5 years ago

    Oh whatever, but if you're serious about journalism (and at least as serious as myself about running a games studio) I'd advise you to grow up fast (you're not showing any signs of maturity whatever you might think) and take a deep breath before spewing so much ill-informed emotive nonsense on a subject you CLEARLY have no actual experience other than what you think must be the case and therefore actually is. Perception is reality and all that? Well, actually, no it isn't.

    For the record, you really do not know what you're talking about with regards to the motives, reasoning and running of a games studio so just get over it and quit making the accusations.

    It's perfectly fine to not know, it's called experience and learning and you'll get it as you mosey on through life and over time - there's no simple fast track.

    There are many things I don't know the inside track on, but I'd rather find out or learn more than postulate and kick off in public and leave myself open to wanton abuse by my peers - many of whom can show some kind of decorum in these matters, or indeed may have much better experience of the subject.

    Bottom line on this, or for that matter, pretty much anything is; if it isn't for you, then move along. If it's not hurting you, or your family, then ignore it. Life's too short to get knotted up by some notion that your civil liberties and sensibilities are being raped simply because two companies did business that you, for some reason, find objectionable.

    BTW I've made no comment on the product, the review or anything as such. I'm merely outlining that things happen for certain reasons - commercial factors being the driver. I certainly wouldn't consider this as TT's Baby (I think that's unlikely in the extreme) since it's a 3rd party IP. Babies only occur (largely speaking) at Devs where you're there at the conception and you own all the love involved. I'd also imagine that this title is certainly not aimed at the hard-core, few movie tie-ins are.

    Failing all that, if it's all too obvious and you are really smart, then go set up a start-up and show everyone how it's done, once you get bored of blazing a trail in the writing world that is. I'm sure your high-ideals will be respected by everyone in the tremendously short life-span you'll enjoy that is development life without any commercial nous.

    Reputation and kudos is nice to have; we have a little bit, but most of it comes from within the industry, which is where it's best valued. Reputation of the studio generally has very little influence on the commercial mass market, its just a hard core thing, with only a few exceptions.
    Edited by 2 at 23/07/07 @ 06:42

  • Twinfalls #87 5 years ago

    Lim-Dul is right. Crap is crap, and TT make junk, Lego SW included. And it's a good thing to comment on why crap is crap, and crap-makers are crap-makers, even if 'civil liberties' are not being 'raped'.

    Spadge, if you're going to demonstrate idiocy by saying "why don't YOU make a better game" (a nonsensical argument) to Lim-Dul, or you should at least tell us who you are and what games you have made yourself, if you think it somehow supports your defense of this garbage (it doesn't).

    The rest of you sycophants who are saying 'spadge is teh game-developer therefore whatever he says is (somehow) more cogent need to look up 'argument to authority' and understand logical fallacies.
    Edited by 2 at 23/07/07 @ 14:21

  • souljacker2000 #88 5 years ago

    Twinfalls for Prime Minister

  • spadge #89 5 years ago

    Twinfalls for nob-head. What on earth is up wit da yoof?

  • Ludwig #90 5 years ago

    *sigh*

    >What on earth is up wit da yoof?

    I think this is a good example of the perils of over-specialisation in the school system. It seems they can either read or write. Write or comprehend. Comprehend or construct an argument...now if only there was some way of multitasking so that all of these things could be combined in any single hour of the day.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 18:07

  • Antwandemarco #91 5 years ago

    Rise of the Robots!!!! Man i haven't heard that name in years!

  • thisgame #92 5 years ago

    If you look at spadge's profile... you will see he has bags of experience.. and thus.. knows what he is talking about.

  • DFawkes #93 3 years ago

    My dad bought this on the cheap. It's alright I suppose, but pretty much all critisism in the review is entirely valid. The game is broken, but I can eke some fun out of blasting stuff. Not much though.