Turok Comments by Tom Bramwell

So

So.

Glad i ignored this one then, and went for The Club instead.

Sounds pretty ropey.

"Terrible Lizards"

Witty!

The biggest problem, though, is checkpointing, which is either bad or cynical depending on your point of view.

If nothing else, this kills it for me. Life's too short for so-so games with silly checkpoints.

A Turok game without the cerebral bore is rubbish.

Tom...can you explain something to me? Developers have testers right? People who test the game over and over for bugs and so on. If the game is bad, or something so simple like the aiming is bad, these people would tell the developers this right? The developers would play the game when it is finished (before they finalise it or whatever) and realise that all these bits suck they need to go back and fix it?

Right?

How do games come out like this?

So because the game is challenging its bad? Too many games has way to many checkpoints and even unlimitied saves. I prefer a challenge even towards frustrating because it feels more rewarding when you nail a hard part after the 30th try.
Ninja Gaiden and DMC got it right. I havent played this yet, but i choose a spare checkpointsystem over Vita chambers any day.

Turok 2 on the N64 also has some very, very difficult checkpoints (paticularly brown-swamp-tunnel level, 2nd checkpoint, iirc) , but they were in the wider context of a pretty good game. Having played the demo of this, the main challenge is working out how they got it so wrong.

Too lenient. More like 3/10.

@Lexx87

The game could have 100's of bugs in it but if the Project Manager (or whoever is leading it) decides they are not important enough to delay the release, it goes as is.

Testing has, in the end, very little to do with the actual release decision.

My dream FPS:
Knife from turok + bow from Call of Juarez = Never use a gun ever again

So because the game is challenging its bad? Too many games has way to many checkpoints and even unlimitied saves. I prefer a challenge

In 99,9% of all cases, checkpoints too far apart aren't a "challenge", but a waste of time. You usually spend several minutes doing the same, easy and mundane task again, only to die at the same difficult spot minutes later, and da capo. It's not making the game harder one bit, just tedious.

respawning enemies make me want to set myself on fire

People who test the game over and over for bugs and so on.

Often rather too much credit is given to testers. Given that they play the game over and over again, often with the aid of cheats or other debug aids to make reproducing bugs easier, they have as much of a problem being 'too close' to a game as the development team do.

In particular, the people testing Turok were probably really good at it by the later stages of development. So good, probably, that they may well not have noticed the (allegedly - I've never played it, and likely now never will) badly-spaced checkpoints.

Stuff like that needs a degree of focus or usability testing, which is a much less well developed art than in-house testing for bugs.

Edit: typos

I was stupid enough to buy this on the back of the Gametrailers review. I shall never, ever do that again.

It's not really the bugs, which you can come to excuse, it's the checkpointing. It's so utterly infuriating. You'll get halfway through an impossibly tough setpiece and think "Here comes the checkpoint".... but to no avail. And then you find yourself having to do the same thing again, and again... and again, until you finally luck out and just manage to survive.

Anyone who's played through this and got to the point where there's a power station you need to attend to will probably know what I'm talking about. I almost gave up entirely, and I can't remember doing that with a game in years.

What really confuses me is that the testers must surely have had to playtest these bits hundreds of times. Didn't they tell the designers "Really, this bit is just too hard, you need to do something about it," or did they just not care anymore and want to get it the hell away from them? I suspect the latter...

Call of Juarez

That game doesn't get nearly enough credit. For simply being an FPS that wasn't full of GIs or space marines, it deserves to be played by more people.

I got it free with my new graphics card, and it was unexpectedly great (I should have believed eurogamer's rview in the first place).

Seems like a fair review really. I played the demos on the PS3 and 360 and thought it was OK-to-good (after the poor cave section) but it's not a game I'd buy unless it was £20 or less. I think the novelty of killing dinosaurs instead of just soldiers makes this game seem better than it really is though. The weapons seem unbalanced though... it takes ages to bring down a raptor with a machine-gun but you can kill it in seconds with a knife? Admittedly killing with the knife (and bow) is cool and fun, especially with the third-person cinematic, but it just serves to make the actual guns feel dull and boring.

I thought the checkpoints were pretty fair to be honest. The bit with the lift that everyone moans about? I did it first time (on normal) and I'm not the most capable gamer. I think you'll screw up if you're running and gunning too much (say to get through it quickly to get the review out), but it lets you choose how you want to play it. I prefered stealthy because the tools are so agreeable - and I didn't suffer too much.

There's maybe three points in the game when the difficulty hikes up. Two boss fights and a set-piece with bugs (which is f*cking atrocious). The last boss is a fiend - until you realise that a certain gun is laying close to where you start the battle.

The QTEs are a piece of piss, and actually look pretty cool - one of the few times a game hasn't been marred by them. And the spawning enemies? Sorry, I don't agree. The dinosaurs creep out of established lairs when you disturb them. When you play it a bit, you can find them, and pre-empt them, quite easily.

I think the first page of the review really sums up how I feel about the game - but the second comes off as a little harsh. It's not an easy game (although I've finished it in three nights). And the aiming issue is resolved by turning the sensitivity all the way down. Prior to that, I agree, it's awful.

Not the mauling I feared, but still one or two points lower than I'd score it.

call of juarez is brilliant at least on the PC..........

anyhow maybe there is a chance of turok on the PC to be pretty decent, quck saves and mouse and keyboard should fix some of the issues raised in this review

Really hated the demo, just another example of first person action diatribe, throw some money at a semi decent voice cast, set it in space or in the future, make all the characters really big and meaty, whilst giving them no actual defining characteristics other than 'Bad ass' 'name taker' 'steroid infused sodomite' etc

They've just taken gears of war and violently mooshed halo into it. The art itself is shit save for the lush jungles which are ruined by the 'funnel effect' of the level design. Grey anyone? Angular bullety silly guns? Let's see, SMG - Check, Shotgun? - Check.

This is exactly the sort of moronic americanized bollocks that is transforming the Xbox 360 from capable multi-genre powerhouse with potential, to niche action shooter exclusive bellend-box.

Rant over :)

Based on my time with the demo, 6 seems generous. Aside from the voice casting, everything about the game smacked of "That'll do." Screen tearing in a darkened cave with crap textures and a single digit draw distance? The mind boggles how this got out of QA.

"If the game is bad, or something so simple like the aiming is bad, these people would tell the developers this right?"

Yes, probably. I would imagine much of the dev team would be saying its rubbish too. Testers dont have any power, there are pros and cons to this. They can raise issues, but its up to others to act on them. Problem is these kind of games (ropey ones) are made far too often. A few senior decision makers are all it takes to push stuff like this through.

Personally I think Eurogamer have been very kind with 6/10!

It might sell well enough based on the name and the fact it has dinosaurs in it to launch another title. Not everyone reads reviews of games.

Well that'll be the end of the turok francise then!

Gl3n- you know this is on PS3 too, right?

Bring back Acclaim, all is forgiven. Yes, even Armorines.

"This is exactly the sort of moronic americanized bollocks that is transforming the Xbox 360 from capable multi-genre powerhouse with potential, to niche action shooter exclusive bellend-box."

Eh?

A six? Reads like a 5...or even a 4...?

The demo didn't last long on my machine. Def a 4.

The demo put me right off. Didn't enjoy it at all. Weapons didn't feel right. I wasn't convinced that I was shooting a dinosaur (even though I've never shot one, or anything else).

Utterly forgettable, and keeping that team-kill achievement in is just dumb.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Turok. lol.

Has there ever been a good Turok game? Is anyone remotely surprised by this?

The first Turok game on the N64 was the best IMO (cost me £70 plus a £25 memory card too back in 1996!!!) but the sequel was way over overrated. It was better in terms of visuals and cutscenes, etc., but the huge, plodding maze-like levels made the game so much duller to play and it was far, far too easy to get lost. It's only impressive and noteworthy IMO for it's technical prowess, as a game it was merely OK.

@Lexx87

"How do games come out like this?"

I can answer this that question for you :)

Time and money is finite. Bad planning eats up both at an alarming rate.

its not that simple though. Internal politics can play havic with quality. Literally having people that can play something that isn't fun and know how to fix it is of course fundamental, and if such people exist, having them in a position to call shots is also crucial.

Testers don't really test stuff to see if its fun (of course many do, but that isn't their core role), their core role is to find bugs. Improving on the fun is really down to focus testing and skilled designers (and time given to both).

We can't really speculate with any accuracy. The 'orrible truth is that there are shed loads of ways that a game can go a bit wrong, more ways than I have fingers and toes even.


In other news, Call of Juraez was indeed rather fun.

@systems The team kill achievement is still there, but you dont have to kill a team member to get it. So they actually fixed it.

A 6 ? after playing the crappy demo I would not even have given this a 3.

The characters all appear to be covered in some form of plastic, the graphics have a old tech feel and it feels no different to play than games of a few years ago.

I might buy it one day if I see it in a bargain bin for less than a fiver.

""This is exactly the sort of moronic americanized bollocks that is transforming the Xbox 360 from capable multi-genre powerhouse with potential, to niche action shooter exclusive bellend-box."

And said this many times and I say it again, the "360 is but a shooter box" is an urban myth. I'm playing but RPGs for 2 months, and Lost Odyssey is almost here.

@miiiguel - Yet Turok will probably shift far more copies on the 360 than Lost Odyssey will so it would ultimately just reaffirm that the Xbox 360 really *IS* the console of choice for shooting fans. The fact that they sell well is the reason why we get so many of the bloody things in the first place. RPGs are still a rarity on the 360 with just five released in 27 months compared with, what, 40+ first and third person shooters!!! ;)

Oh dear. Why don't they just remake the first two? You know, the ones that were actually great, classic games? Used to be among the best console FPS ever, right up until TimeSplitters on PS2 came out. Sigh

I thought Turok was utter utter tosh. Not just the dreary design, sludgy controls and pants story/characterisation, but yet another godawful implementation of the greatly overrated unreal engine.

Infinity ward need to license the CoD4 engine, and fast!

Hmmm. Hardly surprising, although it sounds like it might be good for a larf. One for the bargain bins, when it inevitably reaches sub-£20 within a few months.

Timeshift, which also got 6/10, is WAY more fun then Turok, judging by an hour or so I've spent playing the latter.

No cerebral bore?

Say it ain't so!

@Coughthulu

The problem is too easy for the tester, imagine u spent weeks playing the same game.. they know every inch of the stage. For them passing the save point is a walk in the park. Also, good game tester is hard to find and game company don't always listen to their feedback because of deadline and costs.

I signed up for an account just so I could comment on how well written this story was. All the wit and charm I love Eurogamer for, without letting it take over the flow of the story. Well done!

was expecting a 6 as i read the review.
spot on eurogamer?

I played the original Turok on the N64 just yesterday, and it was still better than the demo of this I played on Live. o_O

Did they bring back the homing braindrill? Used to be my fave.

Edit: No cerebral bore. What the hell!

Ha! i fucking knew it!

This is exactly the sort of moronic americanized bollocks that is transforming the Xbox 360 from capable multi-genre powerhouse with potential, to niche action shooter exclusive bellend-box.

Ignorance. It's what's for dinner.

It also suffers - as I think the IGN review mentioned - from ridiculous little tactical foibles.

Take the spider tank mini-boss. Out it comes. You, being the reasonably seasoned FPS-er that you are, sneak into cover and take a long look. Going to need an RPG of some kind for this one. So back you go to the RPG enemy that you just raped, but his infinite supply of ammo has, er, finitised. And you can't get past the spider tank to get more ammo. You just can't. YOu run. It shoots you. You fall over. By the time you're back on your feet, it's shooting again. It's not frustrating in that COD online goddam it, how did you nail me you spawny mother******. It's frustrating in that "this, right here, is a pointless pointless mini-boss that is giving me conniptions out of all proportion to what eventually turns out to be the answer". And what's the answer? That you run past it as it appears and don't look back until you hit the ammo. Yawn, and yawn again.

The sea-serpent boss is a load of old pants as well.

Still, knifing the human enemies is satisfying and the weapons can be quite rewarding. 5.5 / 6 sounds about right. And the £30 I paid is about fair, but then I am extremely wealthy.

Once again I find myself at odds with the Eurogamer opinion.

Having played the game for a little over 4 hours now ( on Normal ) I have to say it's been a very enjoyable experience with a few wonderful one liners. i.e as Turok first finds the Tech Bow in a cryo tube amidst the wreck of a burnt out space craft, having just fought through lots of badguys and dozens of dinosaurs his companion glibly announces " Nice weapon, if we were fighting Custer".

A nice touch to a game that so far feels well balanced, has middling AI, looks great on a 42 HD Panny, and sounds wonderful through surround sound. Overal I would have awared this a 7, and advised people that if they liked previous Turok games, they would like this.

Yet again Eurogamer and many of it's readers prove that they are missing the point, that the games are supposed to be fun.

It seems that a game gets one bad review and all the other reviews tag along so as not to appear out of touch with their rivals, be it online or in print , apparently thinking it cool to slate good games, and for the love of god, we can never be enthusiastic about the medium we are writing about can we ?

Turok on Xbox 360. It's fun.