Viking: Battle For Asgard Review

By Kristan Reed Published 31 March, 2008

Helish.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Opening up gaming to the masses is one hell of a double-edged sword. Sure, make games more approachable, with intuitive controls and a steady learning curve. By all means introduce rechargeable health systems and automatically save progress as you go along. Hell, respawn the player into the action if it's feasible in the context of the storyline. Some of our favourite games of recent times have managed all of the above without making us cry. But Viking? It makes us want to swing sharp implements of death around with scant regard.

It takes accessibility to a ludicrous, self-defeating extreme, where playing the game on its hardest difficulty level still allows you to beat most of the enemies simply by stabbing a single button in anger. After a few hours of doing the exact same thing over and over, you'd prefer that the stabbing and anger were directed at the normally reliable Creative Assembly. Instead of lending its strategic prowess to the increasingly crowded hackandslash genre, any semblance of tactical nous is thrown out of the window quicker than you can dismember one of the game's many clueless drones.

It all starts off promisingly enough, with a reasonably engaging yarn with Brian Blessed's excellent contribution ensuring that you won't skip every cut-scene. For the record, it centres around a tussle for Asgard, the realm of the Norse Gods, with goddess Hel none-too-happy about being kicked out for defying Odin. Essentially, the battle has spilled over into the mortal world of Midgard, and Freya, the goddess of love and war, takes it upon herself to make young warrior Skarin her champion. Blessed with immortality, he must save the future of mankind, blah.

'Viking: Battle For Asgard' Screenshot 1

There's no doubting Creative Assembly's ability to render crowds. Shame it's all for show.

Without further ado, you're off trudging around hugely detailed rustic environments, chatting to locals and getting your bearings. Looking for all the world like a Fable-esque re-imagining of Gears of War, there's no denying that Creative Assembly has conjured up a hugely atmospheric, extremely detailed and frequently gorgeous game world, packed with incidental action and vibrant ambience - not to mention rendering insane numbers of characters on screen at once. When it gets into its stride, there's a sense of chaotic battle better than almost any other, as scenes are packed with delicious violence. Gloriously vicious slow-motion dismemberment and buckets of claret are standard-issue throughout, and, given the excellent animation, you can't help but admire the carnage. If that's possible.

Equally encouraging is the openworld approach, which draws initial comparisons with Crackdown for the way it allows players to pick and choose which area you want to liberate next, and how you fancy going about your assault (full frontal or sneak in around the side, for example). With most of the map open to you from the word go, you simply charge off in whatever direction you want, stumble across a village in peril and set about chopping up everyone in sight. If you die, the fact that you're immortal gives you an excuse to simply respawn at one of the nearby Leystones, which are basically portals which also allow you to traverse the island quickly. Once the coast is clear, you free the captives, mop up any stragglers and move on to another point of interest.

'Viking: Battle For Asgard' Screenshot 2

That's a shame. Dismemberment is part and parcel of Viking, but the novelty value soon wears off.

The whole point of liberating each area is to ultimately persuade all the various clans to get behind you for a climactic assault on the map's stronghold. Getting them onside, though, isn't simply a case of freeing them from captivity, but almost always also involves fetch-quests before they'll commit to helping you out. Ungrateful sods that they are, they'll demand you toddle off and find their grindstones and whatnot, which is just one of many ways the game appears to delight in wasting your time.

Fetch-quests we can handle now and then. They help change the pace a little, and give the game a chance to build up the narrative and encourage interaction with the cast. What we can't forgive so easily is how depressingly mundane the combat is, and how little it actually progresses from the early encounters. On the surface, Viking apes the industry-standard light/heavy attack combo system favoured in every game from Onimusha onwards, through Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, God of War and Genji. Scratching the surface, you'll note how few attack combos there really are, and how much success you get from merely mashing the heavy attack button.

You'll also realise that CA has rejected the standard RPG-style upgrade system, even though downed enemies still spew the red orbs we see emerging from dead creatures in every game in the genre. In Viking, these red orbs top up your magic meter, and you have the option to supplement your standard attacks with some fire, lightning or ice if you hold down the right trigger and press the corresponding face button. In terms of upgrading your abilities, that, for whatever reason, comes about by accumulating all the gold that lies inexplicably discarded in all parts of the game world. When you eventually find the battle arena, you're then given the option of buying extra combo moves - providing you can demonstrate your ability to pull them off. Curiously, improving your magic abilities is simply a financial transaction at your local market.

Being kind, you could argue that stripping things out makes the game more accessible to newcomers not schooled in the arcane ways of XP and levelling up. But if anything, forcing players to trudge around buying upgrades rather than earning them feels even more convoluted; it merely rewards players who take time to tediously scoop up discarded gold, and then makes you go to a specific part of the map to do it all.

Putting the abysmal upgrade system to one side, the real Achilles heel of the gameplay is how simplistic the combat is, with almost no substance to the move-set, which relies on simple, one-button or one-two moves sufficient to take down everyone from the most clueless grunt to the game's towering giants. Rule of thumb? Hammer the heavy attack button until they go away - the chances are, the enemy AI will be so dumb, and the collision detection so wayward, that you'll win the day almost by default. The game has a knack of making all this crazed button-mashing look very, very good, so it almost fools you into believing you're a badass, while in reality you're hardly having to do anything involving real skill. That the game lets you get away with this kind of thing on hard mode is unforgivable. Very late on in the game, you do find yourself using the dodge move a little more, but by then you'll have already long since ceased to care.

'Viking: Battle For Asgard' Screenshot 3

Spectacular sights and sounds are the norm - but where's the game?

Elsewhere, the way CA handles the map endgame is curious to say the least, requiring neither combat skill nor any semblance of strategic nous. Having gone to considerable effort amassing an army and summoning a dragon to fight alongside you, you realise that the battles are harder to screw up than they are to win. This foregone conclusion involves little more than beating up one or more brainless giants (via Quick Time Events that a four-year-old would have trouble failing), running though a gaggle of enemies, and then smashing up one or more shaman. While your massed army goes about their business looking useful, you can effectively leave the dirty work to them and head straight for the strange-looking chap without a face surrounded by glowing red pillars. To send him back to wherever he came from, you have to quickly smash up these pillars, while respawning monsters try to carve you to little chunks.

But, as with the rest of the game, so long as you hammer the heavy attack button, the chances are you'll be fine - and if not, no worries, you'll respawn nearby anyway. To make it even less taxing, killing giants and shaman earns you Dragon Runes, which you can spend on sending fiery death on one of your targets. Once you've cleared the area completely, you'll eventually be able to summon your own shaman at a designated spot and bring blue skies and sunshine back to the world. Hurrah. You'd perhaps hope for some sense of achievement, but the more you play, the more you realise that you're just doing the same boring things over and over again across three increasingly large maps. Eventually, after about 16 or so hours, Creative Assembly decides that, yes, the world has been cleared of all evil, you can go now.

After that? Well, you'll be several hundred Gamerscore points richer, for what that's worth, but you're left feeling empty with zero incentive to go back and replay the game, and no multiplayer mode. You'll have hammered your way through hours of mindless, grinding hackandslash, and probably wondered why you bothered at all. The best thing you can say about the game is that it's technically impressive, and the openworld structure is a good idea - but that's it. The game's central purpose seems to be to make dismemberment as easy to pull off as possible, but as soon as that novelty has worn off you're left with a hollow, repetitive experience which quickly loses its initial appeal. With Devil May Cry 4 content to stand still, and Viking failing to build on its initial promise, it's all eyes on Tecmo and Ninja Gaiden 2 to inject some life into the hackandslash genre . For now, save your money.

5 / 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 (222) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • kissthestick #1 4 years ago

    ouch, what a shame, the previews looked alright to me..
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 07:04

  • alimokrane #2 4 years ago

    Quote from review :"For now, save your money."

    I was planning to but thanks.

  • SentientNr6 #3 4 years ago

    Bummer! I really hoped for this game to be good.
    Vikings, blood, hack 'n' slash what would you want more, one might ask.
    Thus thanks for the review. I'll pick it up when it hits the bargain bin.

  • Cannibal #4 4 years ago

    Pity, I actually like Spartan: Total Warrior, it was like God of War Liter

  • Davemanz #5 4 years ago

    It's too bad. Spartan: Total Warrior was alright I suppose, but CA should stick to PC games, because they make top-tier strategy games. Stop distracting yourselves and give me Empire: TW, dammit!

  • Xerx3s #6 4 years ago

    I'm gutted.

  • php_penguin #7 4 years ago

    well thats weird ... my brother bought this game on release day and we've both been quite enjoying it!

    The combat does get repetitive, and the *quests* do get samey at times (eg, you have 2 paths - one has loads of nasties on it, the other one looks like the sneaky route. Choose the sneaky route)...

    The biggest problems with the game are technical - awkward controls compounded by no safety-detection (running upto a cliff without a fence leaves you not falling, but stopping yourself..but if the cliff has a fence, you leap over it to your doom quite happily) and some minor graphical glitches - another month of polish wouldn't have hurt in any way whatsoever. Oh, and the worst camera I have seen in a game for about 5 years (Settlers 2 beats it for "having a camera which shows you something useful";)

    but ... 5/10? C'mon EG you give bigger scores than that to absolute drivel
    Edited by 2 at 31/03/08 @ 07:53

  • Bealsy #8 4 years ago

    Hmmm.... bit of a harsh review. Yeah it's a simplistic game, but isn't that a good thing in this modern day of hardcore gaming? "appealing to the masses" anyone? lol.

    I bought the game and am really enjoying it. 8/10 so far.

  • muscleblade #9 4 years ago

    Having played half way through the game i agree it becomes a little tedious after awhile in the same way that AC did.
    But i disagree with the harsh 5/10 considering the 7/10 for Samurai Warriors 2 and Dynasty Warriors 6. If those are a 7 this should be atleast 7 in my book.

  • Dizzy #10 4 years ago

    Hmmm... harsh. People on my friends list seem to like it a lot more than 5/10. I will get it when it hits the bargain bin then. Saves me some money ;)

  • japstersam #11 4 years ago

    i think this is OK so far, but Skarin has possibly the least character of anyone ever, he just sort of stares straight ahead and lumbers around looking like a bit of a tit all the time...and every NPC in the world that speaks somehow knows who he is lol
    so yeah i'm not impressed but i'll see it through to the end.
    oh, and i didn't find the big battles anywhere near as exciting/interesting as i'd imagined, just kind of awkward...with a bad framerate.

  • drumbaby #12 4 years ago

    They're just giving themselves room to manouver...NG2 will be getting a 7.

  • HSH25 #13 4 years ago

    Hammer the Heavy Attack? Surely that should be the Quick Attack? If you keep pressing the Heavy Attack you'll just get hit over and over, most of the combos are on A (with LB held down).

    Personally I thought that the combat was actually pretty good, held my interest for the entire game, although you will end up using only a hand full of the moves most of the time, there is just enough variety to make it fun.

    As far as I'm concerned this is at least a solid 8, it might even be more. I'd recommend anyone put off by the review should find a way to actually play the game and try it out before dismissing it.

  • DUFFMAN5 #14 4 years ago

    Maybe a bit harsh. I would have thought an easy 6/7.
    I nearly always agree with Kristan's reviews and scoring but not on this occasion. To be fair a lot of the comments are spot on, but I have played a few "broken" games and still got some enjoyment from them, as in Dark Messiah last month.
    I'm enjoying as much as I did with Conan. I'm on the second island. I like the idea of the mass brawls, it would have been nice to have control over your fellow Vikings,but it still works for me.
    I'm no lover of hack/slash games, the setting and historical period have to interest me. On these two points it scores, so it will do until Condemned 2

  • Max_Powers #15 4 years ago

    Shame, I was really hoping for this to be good!

    Roll on GTA IV

  • DoKtoR #16 4 years ago

    snap!

  • TechnoHippy #17 4 years ago

    Personally I thinik the review is a bit harsh, I'm on the third island and still enjoying it a lot.

  • MikeP #18 4 years ago

    I normally agree pretty closely with Kristan's reviews, but not on this occasion.

    Of you course you can just sit and attempt to beat every opponent by bashing a single opponent, much as you can with most fighting games - but given that the game gives you a decent range of moves and tactics you'd be daft to do that.

    It's a 7/10 for me - just over £30 from Woolworths at the mo. At that price I thought it was worth a gamble, and I'm enjoying it so far.


    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 08:45

  • Darren #19 4 years ago

    I completely disagree with the score, I think this game deserves at least 7/10 as I've been hooked on it all weekend so much so that I've spent ten hours playing it to finally reach the third and final level. Yes, it's a very simple game, yes, it lacks depth and, yes, it has it's shares of flaws but I can honestly say that I'm really enjoying this game. It's consistenly entertaining even though I know it's not a classic or anything.

    The adventuring stuff is fun even if amounts to just taking item A to place B but the (mostly) open world design of each of the three islands means it's enjoyable to explore and the atmosphere of the game reminds me a lot of World of Warcraft. It isn't a tough game, even the bosses are fairly straightforward, but that just means it's a game that I can enjoy more rather than get frustrated with part-way through because I can't get any further. The main assaults on the strongholds with hundreds of characters onscreen are exciting even if it is far too easy to just rush up to the Shamens and kill them because the A.I. is so unsophisticated. The developers have added enough variety to the game that it's been keeping me playing it to see what comes next.

    The graphics are good rather than amazing, relying on decent art rather than effects and polygon counts but at least this game runs well on the Xbox 360 without any screen tearing or texture pop-in issues and there's only some slowdown during the impressive large scale battles but it doesn't affect the gameplay IMO.

  • anomagnus #20 4 years ago

    Hmm, i've seen so many different reviews of this game, but i was interested in it, and i couldn't wait for EG's review, so i bought it on Friday.

    My views, this game is an 7.5/8 out of ten. After a weekend of throughly playing it, i immediately dived back in to play it on hard. The game is a lot of fun. It is a hack and slash, so be prepared for a lot of hacking and slashing, which will mean using the same buttons over and over. Yes, that can be boring for some, but you do get plenty of different moves, and the stealth kills do break things up. Dont blame the game, if you decide not to use the combo's.

    Secondly, the game is STUNNING looking. There are some amazing looking locales in this game. Secondly, the mass battles are stand out moments. I'll never forget charging a fortress, while a rain of flaming arrows comes down. Literally as close to LoTR Battle of Helms deep as i have ever seen.

    In terms of negatives, the story is poorly handled. The decision not to have Skarin speak at all is a mistake. Even a few lines of dialogue from him what have helped a little, and the way the story wraps up is poorly done.

    There is some slow down during the mass battles, but this is only centered on the shamans, and the particle effects around their totems. If you use dragons to take down the shamans, you might never see slowdown.

    Some times the sound is borked. In some cut scenes, the sound effects are really muted, which can hurt them a lot.

    Look,all reviews are subjective, but my advice to you is, try it, don't base your decision on this review. I really don't understand reviewers needs sometimes, maybe they get jaded, but this is a very good title, that could have been excellent with a little more work on the story. I know some people have mentioned the camera, but until i read the complaints, i never even noticed there was a camera problem, and i still don't think there is one.

    Seriously, try the game, i've played it and completed it once, and i'm playing through again and it's kinda better the second time around. As the EG preview said, you do feel like a mother f**king hero sometimes.

    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 08:52

  • Les #21 4 years ago

    Not too surprised TBH. I read the ridiculously hyped previews in GamesTM (journalistic standards are low but there is nothing that's much better) and was wondering what amount of cash was parted because what they described did little to warrant the hype. The Creative Assembly are amazing developers when it comes to PC strategy titles (the TW series is only bested by the Civ one IMO) but consoles are a different beast. But it's only their second try if I'm not mistaken...

  • JustcallmeWendy #22 4 years ago

    I think the review is a little harsh 5/10.
    I've been playing Viking all weekend and having a lot of fun doing it.
    at least 7/10

  • barnard666 #23 4 years ago

    Hello Wendy, I saw you had a good gamerscore result from it!

    Anyway, I can't understand why these reviews cant come out on release day or before, I really fancy universe at war, but am waiting for a review.

  • DUFFMAN5 #24 4 years ago

    Look out their is a revolt brewing. Kristan you must reassess the review and score. We demand it!
    The society of, "Viking Is Rad Get It Now"

    Anybody who is buying Condemned 2 (360) fancy a swap with this once you have completed, as long as you complete games very quickly, that is.

  • captainrentboy #25 4 years ago

    ''almost as boring as halo3''
    Ohhh, you bad bastard you, that was a right zinger!....

  • afghan_jones #26 4 years ago

    Way harsh.

    I rented this and its a solid 7/10. Certainly a lot more fun to be had than this review indicates.

    Yeah, it does feel like there arent a lot of moves but you only need to unlock a few to expand your moveset. no idea why the review keeps banging on about 'heavy attack' as its all about the quick attack as far as I can tell.

    Regarding the gold vs exp thing, yes it can be a boit of a pain having to round up gold to unlock things and 'level up' but if you unlocked things based on EXP the game wouldnt work as you could just go into one of the big battles, avoid the shamen and just grind through minions until you ranked up.

    Its certainly not perfect but it is a good laugh, you do feel like a badass and the massed battles are actually pretty amazing really.

    Definitely worth a rental if not a 'buy,rinse,trade' anyway.

    (and yeah, how is this worse than the effete, impenetrable, dynasty warriors games?)

  • krudster #27 4 years ago

    For the record, I completed it, and have rarely been so bored while doing so. It was one of those 'why am I wasting my time?' afternoons. Maybe others will find their appreciation of the game diminishing as I did as they go along. For the first half of the game I did think 6, maybe 7. Mindless enjoyment, etc. But for the game to keep doing the exact same thing over and over just got so tedious.

  • krudster #28 4 years ago

    No, I do mean heavy attack. B button. Over and over and over. Quick attack (A) was useless I found.

  • Mindstorm #29 4 years ago

    trust the review or the comments?

    I think I will give this a try.... EG reviews are loosing their appeal to me lately. I found the forum more informing.

  • Darren #30 4 years ago

    Well I'd rather play a game like Viking BfA than stuff like Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Dark Sector or even Gears of War because I prefer more adventure orientated games and this one reminds me a lot of Fable (18-rated version) and World of Warcraft. For the most part it's retro and could run on the Xbox or PS2 (except with fewer characters in the big battles maybe) but then so was Bully and that wasn't a bad game was it? In fact both Bully, this game and Devil May Cry 4 are my two favourite games of this year and they're all old-school really. None of them are military shooters and for that I'm thankful! LOL

  • cov #31 4 years ago

    This is definitely a marmite game - and not dissimilar to assassins creed - particularly in terms of repetition. However, some gamers like repetition - personally I loved assassins creed and while this isn't quite a good is still a good game and very enjoyable - and in both cases for the same reasons that many reviewers slated creed and which Kristian criticises Viking.

    What does suprise me is that reviewers don't acknowledge that there are a set of gamers who will like games like this for such reasons. Obviously a review is subjective and is scored accordingly but with reviews of both these games there has been a clear sense of frustration, and even a note of glee in then taking the game apart. While reviews should have subjective comments and scored as such they should also attempt to objectively contextualise their points.

    That should be clear from the very varied reactions to creed and this is clearly the same sort of game - games with mechanics that can be frustrating for some gamers but rewarding for others. Not a hard point to make and obvious in games like this.

    This could be down to reviewers syndrome (definitely the case with creed) where a game has to be played through to be reviewed and isn't played to be enjoyed - just get through it and finish to it to write the review. With the result that the subtleties of gameplay are missed and the actual rhythm of the game becomes a burden to playing it.

    So, not for everyone's tastes certainly - and if you don;t like repetitive gameplay/quests its probably a 4. If you do (and liked creed/diablo) then its an 8.

  • DanWhitehead #32 4 years ago

    Expectations surrounding game review scores have been broken for many, many years. Probably because the system was set in place in a more innocent time by people writing as fans and enthusiasts rather than critics. That's how 7/10 became the average score, and "I enjoyed it" became the only argument that mattered. Fact is, 5/10 should be the average score. It's not bad, it's not awful, but it's perhaps too shallow or too derivative - and it sounds like Viking fits that bill.

    But that has nothing to do with an individual's enjoyment, and it's here that things get muddled. See, it's perfectly possible to enjoy an average game - even a bad game, under certain circumstances - but our amusement can't make the game itself any better, only our experience of it.

    That's where our understanding of games criticism has a long way to go compared to more established areas like film criticism - we need to learn to separate Games That Are Good from Games That I Like. Often the two are the same, but in cases like this - games that are nothing special but far from awful - the distinction is important.

    If you go around throwing 7/10 at every game that might provide a weekend's distraction then criticism - that is, actual criticism rather than simply writing about games - is rendered pointless.

  • cov #33 4 years ago

    dan that is too simplistic, a game that I like is a game that is good to me. Okay I concede the point that I can enjoy average games and films, but I am alos often aware they are average. There is a subtle difference with games or even films that you percieve to be good and enjoy that other's don't - this is a typical problem whatever medium.

    I don;t think there is that much difference with film or even book criticism tbh - they have all gone down the same increasingly muddled genre sub genre, five star review route. In terms of theory fo games to theory of film or lit theory yes gaming (and film) has some way to go. Like film, game theory will pick up off (often bad) lit theory.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 09:29

  • DanWhitehead #34 4 years ago

    dan that is too simplistic, a game that I like is a game that is good to me. Okay I concede the point that I can enjoy average games and films, but I am alos often aware they are average.

    But if you are aware they are average, then surely you must understand when they get an average score?

  • afghan_jones #35 4 years ago

    @DanW

    Its true that a lot of people view 7/10 as average and that mathematically 5/10 should really be the average. I think, however, that this stems from the fact that for most people there is only so much time and money they can dedicate to this hobby, and so the automatic reaction is that there are enough games rated 7,8,9,10 to fill my gaming time so why would I ever bother with a 5 or 6 or below?

    I guess for a lot of people '7' is the cut off, the threshold between whether they are prepared to fork over the cash. So '7' probably is 'average' if you were to look at a curve of game sales vs review scores.

  • krudster #36 4 years ago

    Whether it's a five or a six (I was going for the latter for a long time, before the game proceeded to do nothing new for the latter two thirds) doesn't matter. In film parlance, this is a three star game, pretty good, but flawed on a fundamental level. I'm not saying you won't enjoy it. For a while I *did* enjoy it a little bit, but the novelty value of pretty graphics and dismemberment wears very thin the thousandth time you've seen it.

    Tbh, I expected a score backlash on this, because first impressions are pretty favorable. I'd have thought the same thing as many, that it's more of a 7...that is until you play it through as see how it develops, or rather how it doesn't develop.

  • GamesConnoisseur #37 4 years ago

    I enjoyed Bladestorm reasonably well but disliked Warrior Orachi, so I suppose will also feel that the value of my money would not worth purchasing this game but still going to give this a rental go.

  • robo_1 #38 4 years ago

    I've been playing this for the last three days, and whilst it's certainly got it's rough edges, I'm enjoying it. It's a solid 7/10 from me.

  • CaoSlayer #39 4 years ago

    Anyone played Demon chaos?

    Seems similar to this game, that is a button smasher but with lots (up to 65,000) of enemies on screen at once. But at least Demon Chaos had the thing that while you were almost immortal, you had an army and without the normal useless guys you couldn't beat a stage so most the difficult was keeping your men alive.

    Is a shame of score, I liked Spartan total warrior.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 09:42

  • Darren #40 4 years ago

    @Krudster - IMO a totally linear game like Gears of War or Rainbow Six Vegas which has you taking moving and shooting enemies until the end of the game is far more repetitive than Viking. I feel Viking has enough variety in the open world environments to do that, far more than any shooter anyway. There's some adventuring/exploring to do, new enemies are introduced, there's some platforming bits, collecting stuff like treasures as well as all-out combat and stealthy bits, at times it feels almost like a sandbox game. I'm part way through the last level and I'm certainly not bored of it yet. I had to drag myself away from the game yesterday because it was getting late, always the sign of a good game for me! :)

  • TheBiGW #41 4 years ago

    I played this through to completion over the weekend and can honestly say I've not enjoyed a game this much for months. I think the score is extremely harsh - this deserves at least a 7/10.

    Yes, when you look at the combat system in cold logical terms it is fairly simple. But then again, what game isn't?

    I don't usually disagree with reviews on this site but I think this time the game has been scored a bit unfairly. Maybe Kristian had a bad weekend...

  • DanWhitehead #42 4 years ago

    I think, however, that this stems from the fact that for most people there is only so much time and money they can dedicate to this hobby, and so the automatic reaction is that there are enough games rated 7,8,9,10 to fill my gaming time so why would I ever bother with a 5 or 6 or below?

    Aah, but the reason there are enough games rated 7,8,9,10 to fill people's gaming time is because games are still habitually overrated. It's a vicious circle. Sites like Metacritic merely compound the problem - full of 7/10 reviews that describe generic, uninspiring, technically mediocre games - thus cementing the 7/10 cut-off point as the inarguable statistical majority. I've lost track of the number of times I've seem comments denouncing a 6/10 review as wrong because "Metacritic has it at 73%".

  • canoot #43 4 years ago

    Way,way too harsh.

  • MikeP #44 4 years ago

    Krudster, I wonder if part of the issue is that due to deadline/time pressures you have to play something like this continually to get through it?

    For you the repetition issue is going to be right up there, wheras if you're picking it up and playing for an hour or two like most of us that's really not a problem?

  • afghan_jones #45 4 years ago

    Dan,

    I agree that 7 shouldnt be the cut off anf that reviews are naturally warped as a consequence but then arguably, maybe if EG wants to buck this trend of 7 being 'average' it should use something other than a rating out of 10?

  • glaeken #46 4 years ago

    Wow so the game I have been loving all weekend is a 5/10? not seen a review on Eurogamer so wrong in some time.

    It's a solid 8/10 for me so far.

  • Darren #47 4 years ago

    What amazes me is that Koei's Dynasty Warriors 6 got 8/10 and those games to me are less varied and far more repetitive than Viking but I guess at the end of the day it's one person's opinion. Kristian's review does read like a 5/10 game, which is fine, but there will be those of us who disagree with him. It doesn't mean we're right and he's wrong though, just we don't agree with him.

  • krudster #48 4 years ago

    I didn't rush through the game - certainly no more so than any other game. In fact, I finished the whole thing over the course of about six sessions over four days - hardly a rush.

  • Eighthours #49 4 years ago

    As far as I'm concerned this is at least a solid 8, it might even be more.

    HSH25, to quote your good self on Gamesradar: "Its right up there with the likes of Dead Rising and Crackdown as far as I'm concerned as the best games of the generation so far."

    I love the way you moderated your ridiculous hyperbole for this game on here!

  • muscleblade #50 4 years ago

    This has the most review variation ive ever seen on metacritic. 33% on 1up and 95% in Play Magazine. Imo 75%.

  • Les #51 4 years ago

    The argument about review scores is very amusing. :) Like I have been saying many times (I like to repeat myself) review scores are pointless. Just read the damn text (if possible of multiple reviews) and make up your own mind rather than arguing that someone else should change theirs...

  • php_penguin #52 4 years ago

    DanWhitehead: if EG made some form of announcement that it would start normalising it's scores so that 5 was the average, then this would be understandable. If we start seeing a shedload of 5's in the next months worth of reviews, then the score could be forgiven ... but to give it 5/10 based on exaggerations of the games faults, and then to here it defended with "5 is the average, cept it isn't" without seeing any other games getting "re-averaged" seems frickin ridiculous.

  • 3william56 #53 4 years ago

    Mediocre multi platform game review, with no mention of relative 360/PS3 merits..?
    Fast forward to 360 vs PS3 face off #11...

  • symmetry #54 4 years ago

    I can say that I'm half way through the third island and enjoying it immensely.

    Yes it's not the greatest of games, yes it's repetitive. But I'm really enjoying the combat, and I agree with others, you can't just simply mash the heavy attack button when surrounded by a group of hel-spawn all after your blood - you will die pretty damn quickly. You need to block, dodge, look for the openings and harness your powers if things start going badly.

    Also, you don't have to hit the flashing X button to dismember every attacker, and a lot of the time it's best not too, but you do get more magic orbs if you do dismember them. Maybe the reviewer just dismembered everyone and so got mightily bored of it. Other moves are useful, like one which you get on the third island that splatters weaker enemies into flying chunks of flesh and bone, or stun moves to use on shielded opponents.

    So I like it, it envokes more good feelings in me when I play it than bad feelings (which do happen). I think an average game would probaby envoke an equal measure of good and bad feeling, so on that scoring basis I give this a solid 7.

  • anomagnus #55 4 years ago

    As pointed out by others, its shocking that Dynasty Warriors received an 8, and this does not.

    Further to that, as Danwhitehead also pointed out, there is a huge amount of difference between games i like, and games that are good.

    Is this game a stunning step forward in games design? No, it is not.

    Is it a ton of fun, and beautiful to look at? yes it is.

    With a bit more work on the story, and some very light to medium rpg stuff in it (basic dialogue choices, leveling up), it could have been brilliant

    At best, with two or three play throughs, you'll get maybe 30 hours out of it, thats pretty damn good. I'll take it for all its got and trade it, but at least i'll remember it, and say to myself, that was a pretty damn good game.

    As for review scores

    Road fighter got 9% in mean machines

    IS THAT FAIR????????
    Edited by 3 at 31/03/08 @ 10:38

  • stodgypudding #56 4 years ago

    I've got this game and am currently working my way through the first island and I'm a little disappointed. The games not bad and I'll finish it but I had pretty high hopes as I thought Spartan was a great game and expected an evolution of this. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as iirc Spartan was regarded a bit of a flop why would they stick to the same formula?

  • FlamingCarrot #57 4 years ago

    I'd prefer to play something like this than the countless other "next gen" toss currently on sale. But one mans meat is another mans 5 out of ten.

  • Darren #58 4 years ago

    People should remember that this review is one person's opinion of the game and so long as you enjoyed it then does it really matter if someone else thinks it deserves 5/10? As I said earlier I don't agree with Kristan but his review at least makes it clear why he didn't think it was great. That's what a good review should do.

    For me, a good game is one that compels me to keep playing it right through to the end, like Viking seems to be doing so far, I've lost count of the number of games I've played where I've just stopped playing part way through because I got bored or frustrated by it. I like easy games, it means I can finish them, and I also adore open world adventure-type games. In that respect Viking is a good game IMO and proves to me that they don't have to be innovative or necessarily different to grab my attention, just have the right ingredients to keep me playing.

  • Darren #59 4 years ago

    @FamingCarrot - I agree with you completely, I'd rather play a game like Viking that at least feels different on the Xbox 360 than another dreary by-the-numbers first or third-person shooter. I think that's why I've been enjoying Bully and Vikings so much. I hope Viking is successful enough to warrant a sequel then Creative Assembly can take note of the criticisms and make an even better game. This game certainly has me more keen to play Fable 2, not because Viking is awful but because it's a genre I really enjoy.

  • anomagnus #60 4 years ago

    @ darren

    I'd certainly love a sequel, but they seemed to want to shoot that idea in the foot with the ending

  • symmetry #61 4 years ago

    You make a lot of sense there Darren - this game has made me want to play Oblivion again. I may just buy that expansion that came out a while ago...

  • ZuluHero #62 4 years ago

    "Tbh, I expected a score backlash on this, because first impressions are pretty favorable. I'd have thought the same thing as many, that it's more of a 7...that is until you play it through as see how it develops, or rather how it doesn't develop."

    Does any game truly "develop" though? R6V2 (just because its out at the same time) is the same run though corridors, rappel down the side of buildings, and hide and shoot that it is at the start of the game. Condemned 2 (for the same reason), is just about traversing through similar types of environment mostly hitting people with pipes to the ultimate conclusion?

    Maybe I’ve over-simplified, but I the only difference I can see between the three games is the narrative. Don't get me wrong I love a good yarn, but its becoming an increasing worry of mine that if a game doesn't feature a War and Peace plot then it gets marked down 3 points.

    For me Viking (so far) has me enthralled (I’m nearing the ultimate battle on the 2nd island). I love the visuals and the game play; the slow build up to taking over an island (or reclaiming it) and the MMO-lite style quest system. I love the variety of the stealth of getting into a heavily defended encampment by picking of the stragglers with a well thrown axe and freeing fellow Vikings to the interspersed little skirmishes and ambushes all leading to the final build up to the ultimate war. I must admit that the game had me worried as the reviews for it are all over the place (which isn’t particularly helpful to buyers) but I’m sure glad that I went with my gut instinct. It still surprises me by throwing in the occasional PoP (or AC more recently) style sections where you have to climb to the top of a very tall tower, stealth killing all the way. Or the way it takes my breath away if I’m running through a forest at night to suddenly catch a glimpse of a battle group patrolling the roads, thanking my lucky stars that I wasn’t a few moments early (I’ve been on the receiving end of a beating the first time I encountered one! :p)

    I don’t want cumbersome or ‘over-indulged’ combat controls to get in my way of enjoying the game; the simplified combat (to start with) is great and lets you get straight into the killing – and the game builds up the type of enemies wonderfully, making you want to learn new moves from the battle-arena to help. I like the auto-vault and the fluidity of Skarin as he traverses the environment with the minimum of fuss. Sure, there are a few niggles, like if you die you get sent back to your base camp (but any MMO player will tell you that this is not a new concept to them) and the way-stone system negates this with too much problems. Also I’m not a huge fan of RTS games either, so when I first heard about this game I was really worried that I’d have to micro-manage the battles myself and not actually get to do much fighting, but this is not a problem! The amount of tactical input needed is kept to a minimum. In fact the only tactical decision I have made so far is when storming the town on the first island I had to decide whether to call my dragon early and make the early stages of the fight easier or do I make for one of the enemy leaders to build up my dragon runes and kill the second leader with him! Which I have to say makes you feel really empowered! I also love the fact that the dragon circles the battlefield waiting dutifully till it is called.

    Getting back to my point, sure the story might not be amazing, but it fits with the setting and the theme. And you can see that the budget has been spent on making the game fun and visually immersive, rather than on voice actors and storywriters.

    Anyway, as you can tell I really like Viking, and it is the type of game that I needed at the moment. I’m not going to get all pretentious and fanboi-ish and say it should be an 11/10(!!1!), in my eyes it’s still a 7, but as I’m nearing the final isle it’s slowly becoming an 8. Like I said earlier, reviews are all over the place, but I guess that epitomises the type of player, those that get it and those that don’t.

    EDIT - and i can't believe i've just said that R6V2 and Condemed 2 feature 'complex'' plots. Sorry for the terrible examples but hopefully you will still see my point :)
    Edited by 2 at 31/03/08 @ 10:54

  • ozzit #63 4 years ago

    Two uses of the word 'nous' in one review.

    I find that both repetitive and dull... :p

  • Les #64 4 years ago

    This thread is one of the more funny ones in recent times. :) People that like repetitive hack & slash games and are craving for something new are forgiving the cure for their pain its obvious flaws and try to convince the rest of the world that it's actually quite good and should be scored higher...

    Hardcore gamers suffer from an addiction (more so than lovers of movies or literature because of the reward mechanisms in games) and because of this their critical senses are dulled. This and of course the already referred to systematic overrating of games are but two signs of the immaturity of games as a form of entertainment.
    Edited by 2 at 31/03/08 @ 13:06

  • Darren #65 4 years ago

    @ZuluHero - Some nice comments there which I agree with. To me it doesn't matter how good or complex the gameplay is if the atmosphere and immersive factor aren't there and that's one of the reasons I find generic shooters so dull at the moment but love stuff like Condemned 2 and Viking. That said I want an enjoyable experience when I play a game not necessarily a challenge so Viking being easy is not a problem for me, quite the opposite in fact, it's a plus! :D

  • disussedgenius #66 4 years ago

    For what it's worth, I can see why 7 can = average simply because it's actually an achievement to make a good, solid game. The problem is more when average = 85% or more. Really if game criticism is going to get to the film level then a score out of 5 will have to start being used at some point.

    ...until they start giving out half stars of course...

  • Bezzy #67 4 years ago

    Pretty harsh.

    I enjoyed it, and although there's a bunch of niggles, the stand out part for me is the button-less stealth. Really good design, there.

  • BillyBrush #68 4 years ago

    Wow, stealth kills and open wolds don't get you points anymore :o(

    but having such an archaic game that being able to climb a ladder is news - that gets ya points..

    Viking may not be perfect, but it is one million times better than dynasty warriors

  • Darren #69 4 years ago

    @Les - All I can see are people offering their own opinions of the game and just disagreeing with the review, I don't see anyone trying to "convince the rest of the world that it's actually quite good and should be scored higher". :?

  • DanWhitehead #70 4 years ago

    For what it's worth, I can see why 7 can = average simply because it's actually an achievement to make a good, solid game.

    This is kind of what I have a problem with. You can't hand out high marks - and 7/10 is a high mark - just because a game doesn't suck. Being good is the bare minimum a game should aspire to.

  • anomagnus #71 4 years ago

    My major problem with scores like this, is that a great many people will see the score and not buy the game.

    The result, it tanks, and its just more encouragement not to try to be different, and we'll get one more FPS.

    No dont get me wrong, i've played some great FPS's in the past 12 months, the Darkness, Bioshock, Halo 3, CoD, hell even timeshift was fun, but i like variety to, i'd like to have the option of something other than an FPS or RPG.



  • disussedgenius #72 4 years ago

    This is kind of what I have a problem with. You can't hand out high marks - and 7/10 is a high mark - just because a game doesn't suck. Being good is the bare minimum a game should aspire to.

    I think that you could say that being playable is the bare minimum though, which would be a 5. Being good at the same time is something else* (and why game criticism is definitely a different ball game to film imo). Anyway, what do I care? If I had my way there wouldn't be any score on the end. :p

    *Not that Kristan even found it good, mind. But there you go...
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 11:05

  • Darren #73 4 years ago

    @disussedgenius - The thing is though is that people who think the game is worth 7/10 clearly don't think this game is average! LOL

    What does average mean anyway? For me, it's a game that I plod through, neither disliking nor particularly liking it, it's just mediocre with no redeeming qualities at all, it's completely forgettable in other words. That is not how I view Viking though and I'm sure others who like the game enough to deem it worthy of a score higher than 5/10 don't either. As someone else said earlier one man's meat is another's poison so it all ultimately comes down to what you want out of a game and that's why some people love the game and others don't. Obvious really.

  • disussedgenius #74 4 years ago

    @ Darren

    Yeah, that's a fair point as well. If your definition of avaerge = doesn't suck, rather than average = enjoyable then of course that's going to skew things.

  • Canyarion #75 4 years ago

    I love how the developer is advertising with the EG preview, where they were saying that the game made you feel like a blabla hero.

  • Darren #76 4 years ago

    Kristan wrote "Being kind, you could argue that stripping things out makes the game more accessible to newcomers not schooled in the arcane ways of XP and levelling up. But if anything, forcing players to trudge around buying upgrades rather than earning them feels even more convoluted; it merely rewards players who take time to tediously scoop up discarded gold, and then makes you go to a specific part of the map to do it all."

    About this point, I actually prefer that you have to collect gold to increase your magic and combat skills because it offers something different from just killing enemies all the time to "level up". It adds some variety in other words and a bit of adventuring (unless you buy the maps!!!), which considering how repetitive you thought the game was must surely be a plus point, right? ;)

  • anomagnus #77 4 years ago

    the comments as well about buying your advancements were pretty lame

    you can easily get all the money you need without trawling through the entire game looking for pots or bags of gold

    admittedly its a bit ridiculous the amount of money lying around, but no worse than Link busting into peoples houses and stealing their rupees, and no one ever complains about that

  • magicpocket #78 4 years ago

    Wow. I normally fully agree with Kristan's reviews and they have led me to play a few games i wouldnt normally have, but i really dont get this one.

    Viking is a fun game and i loved every minute of playing it through to the end. A definite 8/10 IMO. Everyone else i know who has played it have absolutely loved it.

  • Bust_Nak #79 4 years ago

    Let me get this straight, Eurogamer thinks Viking is worse than DW6 (now with ladders 8/10,) worse than Conan (naked boobs 7/10,) and on par with Beowulf (not entirely a rush job 5/10?)

  • asphaltcowboy #80 4 years ago

    How disappointing! I was really looking forward to this, but I thought there was going to be some army management (a la Total War) mixed in with the individual hand-to-hand combat smash-em-up! A rental perhaps... :(

  • Snarky #81 4 years ago

    The PS3 version of this game has terrible slow down during the big battles. I really can't understand why the developers think that it's all right to release a game so unfinished.

    Also, it's almost impossible to hit the bad guys when you are going down a hill... oh and the sound design in this game feels so empty and crap. For example, I was standing near some mountains but I could hear the waves of the sea! On another occasion I stood underneath a silent waterfall only to hear the waterfall sound later when I was standing half way down the river O_O

    There are a ton of glitches in this game and I find it hard to understand why many reviewers have gave the game an okay score when it's so clearly unfinished.

    Also after I defeated the end boss the game fucking crashed...I feel ripped off right now.

  • DjFlex52 #82 4 years ago

    No one has yet to differentiate why DW6 was awarded an enjoyable 8/10 and Viking is an unsatisfying 5/10.
    There is a need for review scores but there also needs to be some consistency in review scoring...at least from the same game site :)

    It makes you wonder what McCarthy would have rated Viking comparatively to the 8/10 DW6 score he doled out.

  • muscleblade #83 4 years ago

    @Les

    Nobody so far argue that Eurogamer should change their score. They simply state that they disagree wich is a good thing because people might consider trying the game for themselves. If the majority of gamers thinks this is a 7 or 8 then its a huge possibility that others agree after playing the game. Listen to Eurogamer or listen to the gamers - your choice.
    I bought the game days before any reviews where out and therefore had an open mind about it. I liked it.

  • glaeken #84 4 years ago

    Another @Les

    All I see is people who have the game and have played it saying how they think this is worth more than a 5/10.
    It's not exactly a small number of people saying this either. A 5/10 game is really one most people would not even consider buying. Now we can argue the merits of the scoring system all we want but we all know a 5/10 review score is the kiss of death for most people (Ok when I say most people I mean most impressionable people who are silly enough to take review scores as gospel).

    Just the fact it scored the same as Beowulf really does show how something is fairly wrong with this review. It's of course one person’s opinion which is just fine but in comparison to other games in the same genre reviewed on this site the score makes no sense.

  • Darren #85 4 years ago

    @DjFlex52 - You've answered your own question really. Dynasty Warriors 6 was reviewed by Dave McCarthy so he may have given Viking a 7 or 8 and had Kristan Reed reviewed Koei's game it may have only gotten a 5.

    Also, where different people are reviewing games, it's not possible to offer the kind of consistent scores you're referring to since each is obviously subject to personal opinion and everyone is different. The consistency comes from the words of the review backing up those scores and I don't think you can argue that EG's reviews don't do that. You may not agree with them but you can't deny that they do a good job of summing up what a game is about and it's up to you whether you see them as pros or cons.

    This game really needs a demo so people can try it and make their own minds up about it.

  • NthSimulachum #86 4 years ago

    Ooh score wars, yadda yadda yadda. Kristan in his review clearly outlines his grievances with Viking, grievances which others may not find irksome, since they are more forgiving. Taking one man's opinion of a subjective medium and finding offense in it smacks of immaturity. If you truly like Viking's gameplay, why does it bother you that Kristan doesn't?

  • Bust_Nak #87 4 years ago

    > Also, where different people are reviewing games, it's not possible to offer the kind of consistent scores.

    This is not a random blog of people reviewing games, it's a professional site with Editors, part of their job is to make sure the score are consistent. It doesn't matter if a site or magazine constantly overrates or underrates games as long as it is consistent. Consistency is far more important than what 7/10 means to the reviewers, you know to know where they stand inorder for the reviews to be useful. So I think it would be fair to say krudster really thought Viking is only as good as Beowulf.

    One more thing: krudster said "I expected a score backlash on this, because first impressions are pretty favorable. I'd have thought the same thing as many, that it's more of a 7...that is until you play it through as see how it develops"
    The backlash is not coming from people who saw the positive preview then question why the review score doesn't match the first impesssions. It's from people who have played it through and disagree with the score.
    Edited by 2 at 31/03/08 @ 12:38

  • zuul_ #88 4 years ago

    Interesting to see several others having a good time with this game, as so did I. The review has valid points - the 3rd, last isle could have used new gameplay elements (be it just new enemies, new moves etc). Same with the battles - absolutely impressive to see but gameplay wise it's a lot 'eyecandy'. But all that doesn't drag the game down. When I played the game I expected it to get rave reviews everywhere. Wow.

  • magicpocket #89 4 years ago

    If you truly like Viking's gameplay, why does it bother you that Kristan doesn't?

    Because his score is seen by the world and it means the people who dont want to play a 5/10 game wont buy Viking and will ultimately miss out on what is actually IMO a great game that is genuinely fun

  • symmetry #90 4 years ago

    @ magicpocket - Totally agree. If this review had come out on Friday, I wouldn't have bought it, and that is a very sad thought.

  • MaxiSleep #91 4 years ago

    I have to say that the score is simply ridiculous (especially when you look at the scores given to the Dynasty Warriors series). At least a 7, and imho a solid 8. 5 makes no sense whatever.

  • anomagnus #92 4 years ago

    I think we would all agree that Eurogamer is a very respected site, and as such its reviews carry weight with the buying public.

    What people are upset about i think, is that this game has been scored quite low, and as such will encourage people not to buy it, which is unfair.

    The idea of a score is fairly debatable, but in the end, i like to have everything summed up in a score, myself.

    But i do think that a second opinion always helped. I'd much prefer to see dual reviewing.

  • BillyBrush #93 4 years ago

    If you truly like Viking's gameplay, why does it bother you that Kristan doesn't?

    because if someone goes out there and buys Dynasty warriors on a site's reccomendation, they just bought a big ol crock a shit, whereas if they buy this they'd get a pretty capable game, with big battles, stealthy infiltrate the camps bits and a girt dragon buzzing over and leaving a giant shadow trailing over the landscape...i guess it depends how much people read into reviews, Koei don't deserve your pocket money for churning out lazy sequels to bollox hack and slash games, whereas maybe creative assembly do

  • anomagnus #94 4 years ago

    @symmetry

    have to agree with symmetry, there

    had this game been reviewed on friday, i would not have bought it, which would have been a total miss for me

  • mkreku #95 4 years ago

    I don't get it. They give this a 5 with the motivation "It never got better" (or something similar). But they give Bioshock 10, despite the end boss being the worst enemy ever in a game and the way the game just kept dragging on after the twist!? Talk about a game that never got better...

    I don't know, something just feels wrong with this review.

  • MaxiSleep #96 4 years ago

    "If you truly like Viking's gameplay, why does it bother you that Kristan doesn't? "


    I dont enjoy soccer games. However I have no problem seeing that a soccer game might deserve a 10.

    In the same way I cannot see how the overall Viking experience could possibly be a 5, whether you like the game type or not.

    I do believe that just like in film review there is a danger that reviewers who see a lot more films/games then joe public will not engage in the same way with a "blockbuster" and will tend to over score games which dare to be different while undersoring the familiar. EG has wondered down that road before (e.g. Halo 1, Resistance) where looking back I think it is clear that the games were undervalued a tad. Thats fair enough but the gulf here just seams a bit much.

  • hiddenranbir #97 4 years ago

    This is a great good step ahead of TW.

    It's just wrong you praise the same rehashing DW(that hasn't significantly taken any moves forward in over EIGHTEEN releases and not the encouraging steps forward this title has taken from its predecessor. I will continue to support this game, because although it didn't hit the bullseye, atleast it is trying and with each new release we can expect them to get closer. CA aren't ones to settle for hitting the outer ring and staying there.

    7/10 for me. Thankfully metacritic manages to average it all.

    But for the game to keep doing the exact same thing over and over just got so tedious.

    Like every other game. Zzz.

    X was heavy attack. Not B. Combat was great, there wasn't a need to mash a button(DW) and enjoyed expanding my moveset to pick and mix how I cut away at the forces of HEL!

    --
    Was stated earlier this is a prof site -Meant to provide an objective(as possible) review for fans of the genre and potential newbies to it. If kristan just wants to spout off his personal opinion, he can do it here in the commentary boxes with us. Not be the one providing the published article.
    Edited by 2 at 31/03/08 @ 13:19

  • Darren #98 4 years ago

    I must confess that had I only read EG's review of this game a week ago I probably wouldn't have pre-ordered it and would have missed out on a really enjoyable game. Kristan's review made the game sound like a dull slog. I'm kind of glad that I watched 30 minutes of gameplay footage on Gamersyde first as that is what made me buy the game, the reviews from other sites didn't arrive until later.

  • ZuluHero #99 4 years ago

    yeah +1 darren,

    I was waiting for an EG reveiw in ernest, but with hind sight Im just glad we didn't miss out...

  • hiddenranbir #100 4 years ago

    -my bad wasn't sales figures-

    Still, hope is it sells well enough. It will encourage a third game in the series and another positive step forward.

    This was more open than Spartan, so I can only expect the next one to be even more open! My end goal is it resolves to be in the same free campaign scope of Total War. Longshot? Who else but CA could manage that?
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 13:26

  • HSH25 #101 4 years ago

    'I love the way you moderated your ridiculous hyperbole for this game on here!'

    Eighthours, not at all. In my opinion there haven't been many games that deserved more than an 8 so far this generation, as far as I'm concerned this is between an 8 and a 9, while it might not quite be as good as the likes of Crackdown (Game of the Generation so far, not including Wii games of course), its pretty damn close.

  • Les #102 4 years ago

    "All I see is people who have the game and have played it saying how they think this is worth more than a 5/10."

    Most of those posts (at least the subsection that I can read) are trying to convince the reader that the 5/10 is plain wrong. That's all I said. I've stopped complaining about review scores (much) as they're all pointless and subjective. E.g. if you don't like online play much like I do or achievements, you can subtract 1-2 points of most games featuring some form of online play as it's typically all that hardcore gamers (= reviewers) care about. Or you can add a couple of points if the online features were executed poorly.

    Arguing about a score is just futile: It's the opinion of someone else, not yours and as games are a form of entertainment rather than just a technical exercise there are few facts that can be thrown at the opposition. It's all about personal preference.

  • glaeken #103 4 years ago

    I am also glad the EG review was late. It might well of put me off buying this.

  • muscleblade #104 4 years ago

    +2 Darren

    Like i said glad i bought it early or else i probably wouldnt.

  • Crea #105 4 years ago

    Feck I really wanted this, held off for the review and decided against, then read the comments and may just get the damn thing after all.

    Does it have a similiar 'arena' mode to spartan where you can just fight wave after wave of enemies in a big arena? I loved that.

  • DjFlex52 #106 4 years ago

    @DjFlex52 - You've answered your own question really. Dynasty Warriors 6 was reviewed by Dave McCarthy so he may have given Viking a 7 or 8 and had Kristan Reed reviewed Koei's game it may have only gotten a 5.
    Also, where different people are reviewing games, it's not possible to offer the kind of consistent scores you're referring to since each is obviously subject to personal opinion and everyone is different.

    @Darren

    Then maybe I should rephrase my question :)
    When it comes to books, movies and music reviews, there is a consistency in reviewer scores that have not yet evolved in game reviewer scores. Of course, there are exceptions. But other entertainment mediums have found some sort of balance...for instance, you don't have a folk music reviewer critquing a rap album as that skews cumulative scores for it.

    So here it goes....Why is Kristan reviewing a game genre that he clearly has a different point system in his mind compared to McCarthy's point system on the same game site? Thats the consistency factor i'm dwelling on. Who do you trust then unless you know each reviewer's tastes and review scoring trends? Thats alot to ask a gamer to assess since there are so many reviewers.

    At the end of Kristan's review he states "...save your money". To me, that means the game is not worth buying which means that a 5/10 game score says this game sucks. But other reviewers use a 5/10 score as telling you it's an average game. Gamers look at review scores as a quick assessment of the game....or so I thought. There has to be more consistency...somehow...someway :)

  • hiddenranbir #107 4 years ago

    Does it have a similiar 'arena' mode to spartan where you can just fight wave after wave of enemies in a big arena? I loved that.

    Not that I've found. A shame too, since it was really fun!

  • muscleblade #108 4 years ago

    I have no problems with reviewers giving good/ok games 5/10. But then the same reviewers should give really bad games 1 or 2 not 5.
    Im talking about games like Beowulf. If Viking is a 5/10 Beowulf should be a 2/10 max.

  • DjFlex52 #109 4 years ago

    Im talking about games like Beowulf. If Viking is a 5/10 Beowulf should be a 2/10 max.

    + muscleblade

    exactly....Viking 5/10, Beowulf 5/10 and DW6, an 8/10?
    Something's wrong here and it's not about personal opinion and subjectiveness either.

  • gmmonkey #110 4 years ago

    Sounds like battle for ass guard.

  • Darren #111 4 years ago

    I still don't see how you can have a consistent scoring system when different people are reviewing the games and they all have different ideas about what things make a game good/bad. The score at the end is just a number the reviewer thinks reflects the game's good versus bad points, it isn't (as far as I know) calculated scientifically. I don't think I've ever read reviews in magazines or on websites that have been 100% consistent across the board so EG are no exception IMO.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 14:03

  • anomagnus #112 4 years ago

    @ crea

    sorry, no option like that, but if you want something like that, just dont kill that shamans in the city fights, then they keep spawning on you

  • Commando #113 4 years ago

    Not really sure why people are surprised by this low score. It was always going to be a mindless hack and slash affair like dynasty warriors or Ninety Nine Nights.

  • anomagnus #114 4 years ago

    @ commando

    i think the problem is that it is not just a mindless hack and slash

    sure, its no 80 hour, massive rpg, but there is variety and a story (barely), in a very arresting game enviroment, with some lovely effects, and massive set pieces.

    It is a memorable game, which is far more than many i've played.

  • ZuluHero #115 4 years ago

    Not really sure why people are surprised by this low score. It was always going to be a mindless hack and slash affair like dynasty warriors or Ninety Nine Nights.

    Like the DW that got an 8? And the key thing you're missing is that it's not just a mindless hack and slash game. Anyone who has played it will tell you that just wading in hacking and slashing isn't always the way to go. Viking is the type of experience that is made greater by the sum of all its parts, and i for one advocate a new game rather than yet another sequel. Or just another FPS for that... ;)

    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 14:00

  • krudster #116 4 years ago

    If you want to judge it against other reviews of similar games, then consider I also reviewed three Onimusha games, Genji, Ninja Gaiden, Chaos Legion, three God of Wars, Ninety Nine Nights, three Devil May Cry games, and others I've forgotten about.

    I don't think it's even appropriate to bring the KOEI titles into the equation, as they're vastly different games. Viking has far more in common with the other games mentioned, and hence comparing those score is more useful. You're probably correct to assume I wouldn't rate DW very highly, which is partly why we get someone like Dave (who is very much out on a limb in defending them, but each to their own) to review them, rather than someone who actively dislikes those type of games. As it happens, I like this genre a lot, and for a while liked Viking too - just not the absolutely unbelievable degree of mindless repetition involved.

    To further clarify, I'm not knocking repetition - most, if not all games have that, it's *mindless* repetition, which is what we have here, and what I take issue with. One button, thud, thud, thousands of times. The combat does not evolve at all until the very very end, when blocking and barging is called for. If you like that sort of thing, more power to you.


  • Bust_Nak #117 4 years ago

    Speaking of ninty nine nights... A review by non other than krudster (RSI in a box 7/10)

  • krudster #118 4 years ago

    Yes, but far more engaging than Viking :)

  • hiddenranbir #119 4 years ago

    One button, thud, thud, thousands of times.

    I've not done that one bit. I could do it but I'm not required to play it that way. You implicate it's the only way to do so. It isn't. If you played that way, gutted. But it was your own doing, not the game's.

    Speaking of NNN, you seem to compare that to DW. And Viking is in NNN territory...but not in DW's. I'm confused. :(
    Edited by 3 at 31/03/08 @ 14:11

  • ZuluHero #120 4 years ago

    Yes, but far more engaging than Viking :)

    with its *mindless* repetition? ;)

  • Darren #121 4 years ago

    krudster - "Yes, but far more engaging than Viking :) "

    Is not! ;)

    Personally, I found N3 to be far more tedious than Viking, the combat was weak and the environments were extremely dull but, hey, that's just me! It looked pretty at times, cutscenes mostly, but that's about its only redeeming feature as it was otherwise completely forgettable. N3 is definitely a good example of what I'd call an "average" game really.

  • sneetch #122 4 years ago

    Well, I'm glad I read the comments rather than just the review, in general I rate the comments as slightly more important than the review score for games these days; after all the review score is the opinion of one person whereas a large number of posts indicates a level of passionate feelings for the game. I think I'll try this, it sounds like fun to me.

    I think people are putting too much emphasis on the use of the word '"repetitive"; I think the emphasis should be on "hollow" (i.e. in that sentence in the last paragraph "The game's central purpose seems to be to make dismemberment as easy to pull off as possible, but as soon as that novelty has worn off you're left with a hollow, repetitive experience which quickly loses its initial appeal.";) The fact that it's repetitive is pretty much unimportant (nearly all games are basically repetitive) it's the fact that, for the reviewer, the experience feels hollow; that the fun wears out too quickly and the game never "deepens" enough to make you overlook the repetitive nature. Fair enough, I can understand that.

  • muscleblade #123 4 years ago

    I think the xbox360achievements.o rg review was very good and falls closer to my experience with the game.


    [link url=http://www.xbox360achievements.org/review.php?gameID=428
    ]http://ww w.xbox360achievements.org/revie...[/link]




  • HSH25 #124 4 years ago

    Just to clarify what difficulty did you play on, because on Hard there was hardly any mindless repetition in the game.

    Did you not regularly use several different combos? Did you not get enjoyment out of the finishing moves all the way through the game? Did you never come across a group of enemies, take out the first one with a stealth kill (X), quickly take out the easier guys with a standard combo (AAA), use a Rage combo (LB and AAA perhaps) to attack a more powerful guy and then perhaps the jump slam move to break a shield (Y, X) before doing a finishing move (X) when promted. Or some combination of the above.

    Is that what you consider mindless and repetitve? Because I don't like mindless and repetitive games, granted what I've just described doesn't have the depth of Ninja Gaiden and doesn't take huge amounts of thought, but it isn't just slamming the same button over and over either.

  • Darren #125 4 years ago

    @Sneetch - If combat was the only thing on offer in Viking and the game was completely linear then maybe the game would be mediocre. However, this game feels like more of an open world action/adventure game to me and combines stealth and MMO-type quests with exploration and combat for variety. Sure none of it is exceptionally well done but the parts all add up to make an enjoyable and immersive game IMO that is different and less repetitive than the likes of Dynasty Warriors 6 and N3. It certainly feels fresher than most games on the 360, which seem to conform to the over familiar shooting, racing and sports genres so maybe that's why I like it so much! :)

  • ZuluHero #126 4 years ago

    Did you never come across a group of enemies, take out the first one with a stealth kill (X)

    I recently came across groups walking in a single file, which (with timing) is possible to string together stealth kill after stealth kill by waiting for the group to pass and picking off the straggler. And it doesn’t just use the same animation over and over either - each one of Skarin's attacks blends together seamlessly into an almost perpetual state of time slow down as limbs and blood fly everywhere! :)


    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 14:31

  • muscleblade #127 4 years ago

    Krudster did play it on hard but he didnt manage to kill a legion Champion without being hit. I guess thats impossible if you just push the same button over and over. Still a review is just an opinion and Krudster didnt like it so he gave it a 5. Im sure most gamers disagree with him but that doesnt make his opinon wrong - but absolutely misleading.

  • foamy #128 4 years ago

    LOL

  • HSH25 #129 4 years ago

    I recently came across groups walking in a single file, which (with timing) is possible to string together stealth kill after stealth kill by waiting for the group to pass and picking off the straggler. And it doesn’t just use the same animation over and over either - each one of Skarin's attacks blends together seamlessly into an almost perpetual state of time slow down as limbs and blood fly everywhere! :)

    Yeah I managed that a fair few times myself, anyone who can't get enjoyment out of that kind of encounter even on the 4th or 5th occasion shouldn't really be playing this type of game at all.

  • hiddenranbir #130 4 years ago

    The only 'mindless' repetition the game has is the mashing the button to open chests and unlock prisoners.

  • anomagnus #131 4 years ago

    Let me tell you of an epic moment i had in this game

    on the second isle, i was sneaking around, and came across some vikings tied to a pole, guarded by three legion.

    I stealth killed the first, and ran the second through with a sword. The third legion, an archer ran slightly away. Rushing him, i realized, far to late, that one of the stories mega patrols was coming up the road.

    Too late, i committed to a fatality, and the mega patrol rushed me. An epic battle ensued, with a fully charged rage bar, and what can only be described as an orgasmic blood bath ensued. I actually was on the end of my seat, as i thought i could clear the whole patrol.

    Of course, i couldn't, but the point was for a short time, i was death incarnate, and was so bad ass.

    Yea, i died, of course i did, but the point being, this was just ONE small encounter of many epic encounters that will stick with me for a long time.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 14:57

  • BillyBrush #132 4 years ago

    see Shadow of rome, i think that was more engaging than Viking, but N3, not a good example, i'm not sure too many people would agree tbh

  • krudster #133 4 years ago

    Didn't kill a champion without being hit (but probably could if I could be bothered), but I did get a perfect ending - on hard. The achievements don't lie. I killed numerous giants without being hit, and killed the final boss the first time over. I am not good at games :)

  • DjFlex52 #134 4 years ago

    Speaking of NNN, you seem to compare that to DW. And Viking is in NNN territory...but not in DW's. I'm confused. :(

    @hiddenranbir

    You're confused because krudster contradicts himself. He does refer to the Dynasty Warrior series in his N3 review more than once which comes back to my "consistency" argument earlier.

  • BillyBrush #135 4 years ago

    Didn't kill a champion without being hit (but probably could if I could be bothered)

    if you can be bothered at some point one ice attack will do it, that's one of the ones on RT

    interesting fact, if you play SF2 as Honda you can beat the whole game just using hundred hand slap constantly (and a bunch of people on XBL too, but they'll give ya bad feedback)

  • Darren #136 4 years ago

    hiddenranbir - "The only 'mindless' repetition the game has is the mashing the button to open chests and unlock prisoners."

    That's one area of the game I didn't like. While I almost understand hammering B to open a chest (assuming it's supposed to be heavy and Skarin is straining to lift the lid), I cannot fathom out why mashing said button opens gates and unties prisoners: why can't you just press B once and be done with? :?

  • krudster #137 4 years ago

    Of the DW-style games N3 is indeed the only one I've ever got on with. Viking is not a DW-style hack and slash. If you want to be extra pedantic, it's an Onimusha-style hack and slash, which is where this, and most games of this genre got its inspiration from, and so is judged on that basis.

    I probably should have added that to pre-empt the extra nit picking that would ensue from listing similar games.


  • El_MUERkO #138 4 years ago

    shocking review and score, then again it is a krudster review

  • muscleblade #139 4 years ago

    @Krudster

    I dont need to worry about getting the "No Need For Immortality" achievement on hard then.

  • BillyBrush #140 4 years ago

    Actually

    one thing i must congratulate is the braveness of not adding +2 to the game because it is British...cos if it got a 9 we'd prob be on Kristan's back for that...

    you can't win being a game reviewer unless you give every game a 7, which more than enough sites do, and that's a lot worse than sticking ones neck out for us to perform an ice attack on it followed by a QTE

    soo respec due, but you gave this and Tench Z wayyy too low scores mumble grumble

  • sneetch #141 4 years ago

    @Darren

    "If combat was the only thing on offer in Viking and the game was completely linear then maybe the game would be mediocre. However, this game feels like more of an open world action/adventure game to me and combines stealth and MMO-type quests with exploration and combat for variety."

    Sold! Sounding better all the time, if there's a Live demo I'll check it out, otherwise I'll probably just buy it for the weekend.

  • krudster #142 4 years ago

    Stealth? Are you serious? What, wandering around pressing X on command performing one button kills is stealth? So the guy three feet away couldn't hear me slicing someone in two? One time I actually managed to slice up four monsters in a row by pressing a single button four times in succession. I wouldn't call that skillful or cool, it just looked like a broken game to me.

  • HSH25 #143 4 years ago

    Stealth? Are you serious? What, wandering around pressing X on command performing one button kills is stealth? So the guy three feet away couldn't hear me slicing someone in two? One time I actually managed to slice up four monsters in a row by pressing a single button four times in succession. I wouldn't call that skillful or cool, it just looked like a broken game to me.

    Theres just no arguing with that kind of stupidity...its clearly not a 'broken game', thats clearly how its supposed to work and if you can't get any enjoyment out of an encounter like that, then like I said earlier you shouldn't even be playing this type of game, let alone reviewing it.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 15:45

  • PeanutR #144 4 years ago

    I'm glad I got the game before reading this review. Wouldn't have got it otherwise, and I really like it. Who takes Kristian seriously anyway? :p

  • BillyBrush #145 4 years ago

    Stealth? Are you serious? What, wandering around pressing X on command performing one button kills is stealth?

    Erm, well...Yes actually it is

    what would you call it, you know, approaching someone from the rear and performing a one button kill? i'd guess most of the sane world would indeed term that a stealth kill

    it's why the little character control hunches down, that's not a foot impediment made game, it's a lil stealth mechanic. Admittedly it's not splinter cell in this regard...

  • DjFlex52 #146 4 years ago

    I probably should have added that to pre-empt the extra nit picking that would ensue from listing similar games.

    @krudster

    thanks for clarifying, krudster.
    you should already know how nit picky us gamers are ;)

  • FlamingCarrot #147 4 years ago

    Want to talk tedious repetition? Assassins Creed anybody?

  • krudster #148 4 years ago

    Don't you just love the smell of the Internet in the afternoon?

  • Stoatboy #149 4 years ago

    Hmmm, I hope Peter Molyneux isn't reading this - he's put an awful lot of effort into his one button combat system. ;)

    Flippancy aside, the thing I absolutely do not get is if you found using just one attack to battle through the entire game hateful and tedious enough to mark the game down quite so savagely, why the fucking fuck did you not try using some of the other attacks and combos?

    If it really is possible to go through the game using a single attack (which I'm led to believe isn't actually the case, but whatever) then clearly the game is a little flawed - but no more so than an absolute shedload of other games that will also let you beat them using a single move or weapon.

    It seems to me to be a spectacularly stubborn approach to take, and one lacking in even the slightest bit of imagination or desire to engage with the game. It really comes across that you did your utmost to play through in the least enjoyable way you could find, and then concluded that it wasn't very enjoyable. Sheesh! You could probably play through huge swathes of Dead Rising using nothing but the baseball bat and a pistol if you had the sheer bloody-midedness to enjoy it as little as possible, but most people tend to give the rotivator a go from time to time because it happens to be a lot more fun.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 16:10

  • php_penguin #150 4 years ago

    lol PMs one button system is actually like "tap x for fast hit, hold x for big hit" ... and there are no combos... could be kinda button mashy for all the music stuff he has included :(

  • hiddenranbir #151 4 years ago

    I could handle following the opinion of Kristan, if he also wrote the previews. I didn't get that. I got previews from Tom and then Quentin. Why couldn't they follow up their previews with their own reviews? That would make sense if we had this idea that reviews were just personal opinions. Surely it should be representing EG's opinion?

    Besides, if it's just opinion. Can I get my review up on that front page. I'll do it for free, too!

    --------

    Has anyone noticed any significant difference in holding down the X button for a harder slash? It's rather risky if facing lots of guys but does sexy damage.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 16:29

  • japstersam #152 4 years ago

    *some of this post could (maybe) be considered a spoiler if you don't want to read it*

    just wondering if this happened to anyone else playing viking....! :)
    right near the start, on the first island, before attacking darkwater(or something) you're supposed to sneak in and go to that red glowing bit to charge the dragon amulet...
    so you start by going round the back and climbing over the rug-type thing draped over the fence, then you're supposed to sneak up to the red bit stealth-style and charge it, only i got spotted half way there and a shite load of people came after me, only i was sort of behind a fence, so they were sort of funnelled towards me and i killed them all...then when i went to charge the amulet i got an achievement called 'Secretive Rogue' despite attracting the attention of 90% of the people in there :)

    not a moan, just made me laugh :)

    *POTENTIAL SPOILER OVER*

    but yeah generally i'm enjoying this game so far, its been a bit clunky during the big battles but not to being umplayable, and i enjoy the wandering around because the scenery etc looks ace.

  • Darren #153 4 years ago

    @krudster - By stealth I was referring to the parts of the game where you have to sneak around enemy strongholds while actively seeking NOT to engage anyone in order to achieve your objective. Of course, you can sneak up behind someone and kill them that way but for the most part you can reach your targets with minimal kills if you do it properly. That is stealth to me. This is the best way to play because if you're seen and the horn is sounded then you're pretty much dead as you'll be quickly overwhelmed plus Skarin, the fat lout that he is, cannot run fast!!!

  • disussedgenius #154 4 years ago

    I'm just wondering what score Kristan would give Streets of Rage II...

    /dares not dream

  • hiddenranbir #155 4 years ago

    @japstersam

    Same for me, but I only attracted 4 very close to it. I guess the fact you survived was the key. Since even if some guys did go after you, you sorted them out enough. :)

  • anomagnus #156 4 years ago

    @disussedgenius

    i was thinking the EXACT same thing

  • anomagnus #157 4 years ago

    you, it wouldn't hurt EG to have another reviewer take a stab at the game.....

  • symmetry #158 4 years ago

    The stealth is a bit hilarious though as the guards are very blind, deaf and dumb. I mean I'm running along a castle wall making big *clomp* *clomp* *clomp* noises on the wood, dispatching the occasional guard with an axe that makes him howl with pain into the uncaring night, all while wearing this huge massively glowing amulet that just screams *shoot me!*.

    Great fun though :)

  • krudster #159 4 years ago

    Of course I used other attack methods, but found most of them didn't work nearly as effectively. So what are you supposed to do, use varied attacks for the sake of it and get killed, or use the one that works and make progress? Riddle me that.

  • magicpocket #160 4 years ago

    So, we're all in agreement then: it's a game for gamers, not for reviewers.

  • japstersam #161 4 years ago

    @ hiddenranbir
    glad someone else had that! i didn't suddenly become a God and manage to kill them all in some epic battle (as i found out when i tried to go through the front gate), they were all funnelled towards me and came 1/2 at a time, just made me laugh that when almost the whole camp was laying dead after a very noisy/obvious battle i was 'secretive' ;)

  • Triggerhappytel #162 4 years ago

    Shame, I was looking forward to this and it looked like it had made a few improvements to the massive battlefield hackandslash genre, however incremental.

  • Darren #163 4 years ago

    symmetry - "The stealth is a bit hilarious though as the guards are very blind, deaf and dumb. I mean I'm running along a castle wall making big *clomp* *clomp* *clomp* noises on the wood, dispatching the occasional guard with an axe that makes him howl with pain into the uncaring night, all while wearing this huge massively glowing amulet that just screams *shoot me!*.

    Great fun though :) "

    Hehehe. So true, especially the bit about the light which would make Skarin visible from miles away!!! LOL

  • dryden555 #164 4 years ago

    of course streets of rage is an ancient game with ancient gameplay. Great for its time but c'mon. the 5 score seems a bit harsh but other major review sites are complaining about too easy combat and lack of combos too. The text of Eurogamer's review is not completely off base. Thsi game should have been half the price it is selling at.

  • ZuluHero #165 4 years ago

    Thsi game should have been half the price it is selling at.

    /sigh

    I don't know even where to begin....
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 17:05

  • Bust_Nak #166 4 years ago

    Of course I used other attack methods, but found most of them didn't work nearly as effectively.

    The one attack that work all the time? You mean the heavy attack right?

    Assassin, level 2 quick combo. They can't dodge those. Heavy attack is you'll miss.
    Champions, level 2 slow combo. You have a few frames of invincibility at the start of the move. If you land a heavy attack you would still get hit.
    Grunt with shield, jumping shield breaker.
    Twin axe dude, dodge and counter.
    Even with the lowly archer, you are better of using a few quick attack.

    Viking is being marked down by being mindlessly repetitive, yet other examples (far worse offender if I may add) of mindless repetitive games like N3, DW6 are given a higher score because Viking is more like onimusha. So it's ok for DW to be repetitive for being a DW game? Bottom line is Viking is given the same score as Beowulf, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the games are the same quality without hiding behind "it's my opinion so I can't be wrong."

  • glaeken #167 4 years ago

    @dryden555 So a 7-8/10 game for most of us that lasts around 16 hours should be half price?

    I hate to think what price you think they should be selling RSV 2 at in your value scale. I am guessing it would have to come with a free BJ.

  • Crea #168 4 years ago

    That's it. Clearly too many people are having a good time with this game.

    I'm getting it. See if I don't!

    /shakes fist

  • Stoatboy #169 4 years ago

    @Krudster

    I've only briefly played the game, so can't tell how true what you say is. If it is indeed the optimal strategy for beating the game then I'll concede it's more of a problem. Time will tell. Whether it's such a massive problem that the game gets scored quite so poorly I'm not convinced.

    One thing I would say is that I play games to have fun, and often sub-optimal strategies are more fun than optimal ones. I'll pull risky stunts in games that allow me to when there's no need to, I'll use the chainsaw in Doom when I could easily have killed things from afar, I'll use the frying pan in Dead Rising whilst I'm carrying katanas, and I'll use flashy special moves in games when simpler and possibly more-effective alternatives exist. Obviously I'll stop if me twatting around means I'm getting annoyed at making no progress, but if I can make a game more fun by playing WITH it, rather than just playing it I will.

    I've mentioned in another comments thread that went along similar lines that the optimal strategy for life is to drink nothing but water. It's almost always cheaper, better for you, more convenient, more readily available and less effort than any of the other alternatives, but most people go the extra mile because it's incredibly dull not to.

  • Les #170 4 years ago

    "I've mentioned in another comments thread that went along similar lines that the optimal strategy for life is to drink nothing but water. It's almost always cheaper, better for you, more convenient, more readily available and less effort than any of the other alternatives, but most people go the extra mile because it's incredibly dull not to."

    What you're discribing with regards to play tactics is more like adding a little bit of flavour to the water to make it less dull. The drink shouldn't be dull in the first place...

  • NthSimulachum #171 4 years ago

    So if the game is buggy, does that mean there's some flies in the water?


    Mike Giggler, via E-mail.

  • Stoatboy #172 4 years ago

    @Les re: "What you're discribing with regards to play tactics is more like adding a little bit of flavour to the water to make it less dull. The drink shouldn't be dull in the first place..."

    Nope. Life would still be pretty dull if you only drank weak lemon drink instead of water. Each attack is a separate drink. Admittedly only ever drinking draught Theakston's Old Peculiar would be pretty brilliant, if a little impractical.


  • bicky316 #173 4 years ago

    This or Conan?

  • Feanor #174 4 years ago

    "All I can say is I traded DMC4 for this, and I found DMC infinitely more bland, repetitive and tedious."

    That's strange because DMC 4 has a vast amount of weapons and moves, and you are actively punished for not varying which weapons and attacks that you use.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/08 @ 19:00

  • Feanor #175 4 years ago

    "This has the most review variation ive ever seen on metacritic. 33% on 1up"

    That's just Metacritics' interpretation, though. Gamerankings turns a D+ into 55%.

  • Stoatboy #176 4 years ago

    I really enjoyed the bit of Conan I played, but never finished it after getting stuck at a rather tough boss fight.

    Hmm, that's got me thinking - if I could have just mashed the heavy attack button to get past it, I'd have probably got a lot more fun out of the game. ;)

  • bicky316 #177 4 years ago

    I was surprised how much I enjoyed the Conan demo. Considering it's now £17.99 from Play.com it's got me very tempted....

  • anomagnus #178 4 years ago

    actually, one good point brought up, is that the 69.99 euro price tag was a bit steep, it really should have been in around the 55 euro mark

  • Sevens #179 4 years ago

    Casual games. Redundant gameplay for people who are not able, or willing, to use more than one button combined with subpar story-telling. Fable 2's one-button combat is another bad idea.

  • hiddenranbir #180 4 years ago

    Brian Blessed is a great story teller. His storytelling is magnificent.

  • Les #181 4 years ago

    "Casual games. Redundant gameplay for people who are not able, or willing, to use more than one button combined with subpar story-telling. Fable 2's one-button combat is another bad idea."

    With that I don't agree. Subpar storytelling has nothing to do with casual games, just with poor writing skills. As for the one-button combat, that's more difficult. I'm of the opinion that controllers are very poorly designed devices, not really suited to controlling in-game avatars at all. It's just that they were the best that we had until the Wii-mote (which is an improvement but still very limited). Whether using one or four buttons is rather irrelevant, as long as you can make the avatar do what you want. How to do that with one button I can't imagine but who knows, maybe Peter M. has some magic left...

  • Goolz #182 4 years ago

    I guess Sega didn't give you enough money for this review eh?

  • HermitArcader #183 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • BathiBoi #184 4 years ago

    that's a bad score. i bought it nevertheless

  • spookyzombie #185 4 years ago

    I've been really pleased with Viking so far. I'm on the second island and enjoying it so much that I've not given GT5 or RSV2 a look in at all over the last couple of days. 8/10 in my book.

  • Krelle #186 4 years ago

    Why should Krudster have to defend his review? This is just silly.
    The game is a 5/6. (Add a point if you like mindless games and, or LOVE Vikings. Maybe. I dont, so wouldnt know.)

    You dont even pay to read EG. Go read this http://ww w.atomicgamer.com/article.php?i... review, for example, if you really need a high score. Problem solved! Yay!

  • Bust_Nak #187 4 years ago

    5 out of 6? Now that's a score I would go with! That's more inline with people's experience.

  • ZuluHero #188 4 years ago

    "That's strange because DMC 4 has a vast amount of weapons and moves, and you are actively punished for not varying which weapons and attacks that you use."

    That's odd, because Viking has a lot of fighting moves, and you are actively punished for not varying the attack that you use.

    "iWhy should Krudster have to defend his review? This is just silly. The game is a 5/6."

    Because it implies that it is of the same mediocrity of other 5/10 games, which it clearly isn't. A lot of work has gone in to this game to make it what it is. The visuals are amazing, there are no loading screens, everything is seamless, the combat is remarkably solid and allows for creative and FUN fighting, the way Skarin traverses the environment with ease, never asking you to press too many buttons to vault over stuff that gets in the way, stuff that would get infuriating after a while because the devs have tried to make the world look believable by littering it with fences and walls etc. Also the stealth sections are worked in beautifully, allowing you to concentrate on watching patrol patterns so you can kill off most (if not all) of the camp before the alarm gets raised. Even the climbing sections are fun and a nice change of pace to the rest of the game. Add in all the skirmishes and the battles and you can easily see that the game is worth more than a 5/10 TBH i've haven't played a game in a while that tries to do this much. And all the while the game never burdens you with ungainly combinations that leave you with the 'gaming claw'...

    It has clearly been a labour of love for CA and it saddens me when its made comparable with games of a 5/10 calibre...

  • FlamingCarrot #189 4 years ago

    Been playing this for as good few hours now and really enjoy it. I have always found Kristian reviews excellent in general but think 5/10 is not high enough. But the whole thing with reviews is its just one persons opinion, but agree that Eurogamer now has alot of clout in review terms. I enjoy this site so much as, in general, you do get some great debates and a genuine knowledge of gaming from alot of Eurogamers.

  • Krelle #190 4 years ago

    Well, even if I found this game to be absolute dope, I wouldnt go bangin on Kristians low score. If it, in his opinion, is a 5 then there is nothing to do about that. If you enjoy the game and and think its excellent, good for you! But dont try to change someone else opinion/score.

  • Joss #191 4 years ago

    While I respect Kristan's opinion, I think Eurogamer have got it wrong on this occasion. And as has been pointed out already, a professional review is far more than one person's opinion - low scores impact on sales which in turn dictate what projects publishers are willing to finance. If quirky offbeat titles like VBFA fail to sell through, the industry is driven to play safe & we are more likely to end up with shop shelves full of identikit shooters and racers.
    Is nobody else at Eurogamer towers enjoying this game as much as the rest of us? If there are any contenders for a second opinion article then VBFA has surely got to be near the top of the pile.

  • Bust_Nak #192 4 years ago

    I am not really trying to change krudster's opinion/score. Those who decide not to buy the game based on this review are the people whose mind I am trying to change. Eurogamer's reviews do carry a lot of weight.

  • ZuluHero #193 4 years ago

    "But dont try to change someone else opinion/score."

    It’s not even that, people buy games based of review scores and a 5/10 can be damaging to any future prospects that the game might have. Personally I have no problems with that if the game is indeed absolute tosh, but when it isn't expect people to shout shenanigans!

    I think if you read most of the comments though, people aren't trying to force Kristen change his score of the game(i certainly don't), if he did that would go against his journalistic integrity and I would think less of him as a reviewer if he caved in to the masses. But don't expect me to sit idly by and not point out to people how wrong he is! ;)

    The beauty of gaming forums and the fickle community, eh? Don't worry - we still love you Krudster :)

    EDIT: ah Bust_Nak essentially said just that! Sorry..don't mind me, mumble mumble, etc


    Edited by 1 at 01/04/08 @ 09:56

  • BillyBrush #194 4 years ago

    Well played last night and i can confirm the LB+ combos are far more effective and quicker for killing hench than just using heavy attack

    LB + a,a does a five hit combo that seems fairly unblockable, and LB+ x, or jump +x break enemy sheilds in one hit. Obviously the right trigger moves are handy too as they also power up everyone around you in the big battles

    Last night i did the attack on Caldberg and i have to say it was excellent, prior to the big rumble you had to sneak around the castle engaging only small groups of soldiers to get the 2nd dragon amulet (2nd island)...i don't see how you could play this part by running straight through the middle of the castle, unless you wanted a 20min hack with little chance of success

    Bit of a shame really as i think Creative Assembly have made something here that's far better than something like Conan, but alas i'm not sure they'll sell what they probably deserve.

  • Krelle #195 4 years ago

    Nak:
    Thats why one should always check more than one source if your uncertain about buy/rent/not buy. Common sense, right?
    Even if EG is my mainsource of reviews, I do want another take on a game from time to time. Especially if its one of the lesser known EG-reviewers.

    Also, this game has got alot of shit reviews. Its not just EG. Take 1up/ign for example. Say what you want about those websites, but they hardly give such scores even to Tamagotchi spin-offs.

    Naa, its some sort of CA love going aroud here. You people just have a hard time accepting Viking didnt turn out as well as their PC-ware. (No hard feeling. Im gutted aswell. Deffo had high hopes for this one.)

    omg edit x 2
    Edited by 2 at 01/04/08 @ 10:18

  • ZuluHero #196 4 years ago

    Naa, its some sort of CA love going aroud here. You people just have a hard time accepting Viking didnt turn out as well as their PC-ware. (No hard feeling. Im gutted aswell. Deffo had high hopes for this one.)

    Well ive never played a CA game before this one - and you're really missing out on a great game :o)

  • anomagnus #197 4 years ago

    @Krelle

    For me, its hardly CA love, this is actually the first CA game i have ever bought, beleive it or not

    The game is very enjoyable, thats all. I;m on my second run through, trying to do the whole game without being killed on hard.

    Now, just completed the first island on hard without dying, and it was a blast.

    Sneaking through the major enemy cities, before you conquer them is unreal.

    One of the games main strengths, and hasn't really been mentioned, is that game pre loads the ENTIRE island and all the legion forces.

    I've actually felt more immersed in their world that i have done in many RPG's, and found the major enemy cities to be fascinating. You really feel the pressure at all times of discovery, and its amazing to watch them all go through the activities. The fights that break out between some legions, the feasting on corpses, its all a great experience.

  • Krelle #198 4 years ago

    For the record, ive never played a CA game before either. And I did play Viking last week, confirmed it wasnt worth my time (sadly almost no game is these days (Becouse of extreme limit of gaming time, not becouse of bad games(!))).

    Ill be back for more internet arguing tonight.
    Take care~ o/

  • muscleblade #199 4 years ago

    I never played a CA game. But i like this very much.

  • BillyBrush #200 4 years ago

    Also never played a CA game in my life (played spartan demo but that's it)...it's just a surprisingly good game, try it when it's cheap, you might be surprised

  • spookyzombie #201 4 years ago

    Well Metacritic have Viking scored at an average of 7/10 from 19 reviews and Gamespot's average is 7.2 from 13. I honestly think those mean scores are a more accurate reflection of how good this title is.

  • zuul_ #202 4 years ago

    ...to fall into line, I've never played a CA game before, either. And I did not even know the developer was "those Total War guys" before I looked it up ~halfway thru the game out of curiosity.

  • Darren #203 4 years ago

    Viking BfA went in the charts at number 8 so it looks like EG's review came too late to put many people off buying it! :)

  • Crea #204 4 years ago

    I believe the Total War games are developed in the UK Creative Assembly studio, whereas this, Spartan and some of the expansion packs are developed in Australia by the CA studio there.

    I prepare to be corrected on this, though.

  • ZuluHero #205 4 years ago

    "Viking BfA went in the charts at number 8 so it looks like EG's review came too late to put many people off buying it! :) "

    yeah - talk about luck :)

  • hiddenranbir #206 4 years ago

    But the whole thing with reviews is its just one persons opinion

    Except they carry weight and are really meant to represent EG's opinion, not one person's. Otherwise review sites are no different than user blogs.

    It's why Viking was previewed twice, by two different people. The review by a third. If this was all just a matter of personal opinion, it should have been one person following the game from first impressions to final review.

    Besides, opinions I get from my friends. More is expected from a review site.
    Edited by 1 at 01/04/08 @ 12:29

  • ZuluHero #207 4 years ago

    @hiddenranbir - well said :)
    Like I’ve said in a previous post, I myself would have probably been put off from buying it if I read this 'opinion' before the game was released...

    If anything, this whole 'debacle' has made me wonder how many other great games I could have missed, I’m hoping that this is really just an isolated case... As hiddenranbir has said, and probably a few others, it might be worth EG giving games to people to follow from their initial preview up until ultimate release, because as it stands there is no consistency with your articles. ATM your previews (esp with Viking) have lead us to believe that the game would be very good (which it IS, to reiterate ;) but your review now leads us to believe otherwise.

    Unless you are just coping out of previewing games unfavourable just to remain “in” with publishers just so you can get your review copies and/or advertising?

  • HSH25 #208 4 years ago

    Also, this game has got alot of shit reviews. Its not just EG. Take 1up/ign for example. Say what you want about those websites, but they hardly give such scores even to Tamagotchi spin-offs.

    The 1up review is even more of a joke than this one.

    I presume you haven't played this game, it is a very good game, lots of people here and elsewhere say so, I think you'll find that more people like a lot than think its bad or even average. So you can either believe 2 individual people that don't like it and happen to write reviews or the majority of people who've played it. Your choice, but if you don't play it then you are missing out on one of the best experiences of the generation so far.

  • BillyBrush #209 4 years ago

    @Zuluhero

    well you might want to try the 2/10 rated Tenchu Z

    easily the best tenchu game in the series (the one before got 8/10 despite being no where near as good as this and featuring american cops eating doghnuts?), 50 missions though maps are repeated a LOT with different enemy layouts

    and about 30 hours of ace Ninjery...now has a clear stealth kill indicator, and a new window of opportunity when a guard is shocked to see you..

    4 player online co op across all missions (to be fair tho this can be very laggy)

    it's possibly the best 2/10 game in the history of videogames

  • Krelle #210 4 years ago

    Your choice, but if you don't play it then you are missing out on one of the best experiences of the generation so far.
    Wow, from a "solid 7" to that? Everyone on crack tonight? :)

    As I said, Ive played Viking for about an hour. I found it to be a rather nice game. Enjoyed it. Wasnt good enough to hook me thou.
    My personal "problem" (if anyone cares..) these days is that my time with games is limited to about ~4hours / week. (Could probably up that to around 7h if i could stay away from forums etc.) Anyway! This makes it impossible for me to play anything but the absolute cream that is released every month, and I would not have had the time to bother with Viking even if it got an 8/10.

    My time constrains has nothing to do with how good(or bad) the game is, but it still affects my personal opinion in a huge way.

    Sorry for the rant, guys. Its late :x

    edit:
    Billy
    This game? [link url=htt p://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/930036.asp
    ]http://ww w.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/9...[/link]
    Yeah, seems like an f'in masterpiece! Can honestly say I havnt tried it thou. So chances are 52 others were wrong. Lets call for a petition! Re-review Tenchu Z! Nao!
    Edited by 1 at 01/04/08 @ 18:07

  • Bust_Nak #211 4 years ago

    The review has been pushed off the front page now so I guess the replies will die down.

    @ Krelle - well, at least you gave Viking a tried.

    @ Crea - Spartan and Viking are made in the UK studio. Basically the console team is formed from the members of Medieval team.

  • hiddenranbir #212 4 years ago

    Hopefully in the next step it is medievalish...so we can have some sexy cavalry charges! Mounted combat!

  • Crea #213 4 years ago

    @Bust_Nak

    Thanks for the correction :)

  • BillyBrush #214 4 years ago

    @Krelle

    Tench indeed has an average of 57, above the 2 it got here, Edge gave it a 6 which is probably about right, as it's an above average game....not a below average game

    i'm not mooting it as a masterwork, merely saying it's possibly the finest 2/10 game you'd ever play, personally i loved it

  • muscleblade #215 4 years ago

    Tenchu z is extremely underrrated at this site. It is not a great game with high production values, but its genuinly ninjaish and quite entertaining and its very satisfying to get the Ninja 5 rankings. 6/10 at least imo.

  • Krelle #216 4 years ago

    I just cant see why I should bother with anything but great games. There is enough of them already to keep me busy. As most people i will probably never be able to complete my "to play"-list.

    You guys must either:
    Love Ninjas
    Play games 24/7 (or close enough)

  • Feanor #217 4 years ago

    "So you can either believe 2 individual people that don't like it and happen to write reviews or the majority of people who've played it."

    You can make that at least four, because IGN, 1up, Eurogamer and now Gamespot all think the game is below average.

    http://ww w.gamespot.com/ps3/action/vikin...

  • Bust_Nak #218 4 years ago

    Have you read the 1up review? It's not written by the 1up crew. It's real short and doesn't tell you about the game, it said the story is crap, enemy AI surrounds you so it's hard to concentrate on one guy, samey objectives then gave it a D+ and left it at that.

  • Darren #219 4 years ago

    Edge gave this game 6/10 in issue 188 and I think they're the harshest most ruthless magazine when it comes to game's reviews as that's a 7 by lesser magazine and website's standards.

  • muscleblade #220 4 years ago

    @Krelle

    Then your missing out on many fantastic games. The "best" games arent always the most entertaining ones. Playing only the highest rated games is like just seeing movies that are nominated for the Oscars. Oblivion and Mass Effect are very good games but not as entertaining as AoT and Dark Sector imo.

  • Les #221 4 years ago

    "Edge gave this game 6/10 in issue 188 and I think they're the harshest most ruthless magazine when it comes to game's reviews as that's a 7 by lesser magazine and website's standards."

    This logic doesn't really work for an individual title... IGN gave it a 6.8 or something and they usually score games 1-2 points higher than the less terrible sites and magazines so by such reasoning it could really be a 4...

  • Vermillion3000 #222 4 years ago

    Oh cool - we don't have to worry about this stoopid review anymore cos Richard Leadbetter's written a much more accurate reviewlet in the latest Xbox360-PS3 faceoff.

    Hurrah for letting a grown-up have a go!

  • Bust_Nak #223 4 years ago

    Yeah, there was definitly something fishy when the original review says you can get through the game with heavy attack alone.