Viking: Battle For Asgard Comments by Kristan Reed

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!

It's like Chromehounds all over again.
Well, you're not getting away with it this time buster!

/Rips off shirt
/kicks over Krudster's desk

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

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...

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.

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

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.

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????????

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?

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.

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.

@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.

@ darren

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

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...

"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 :)

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

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

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.

@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

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...

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.

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

@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". :?

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.

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.

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...

@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.

@ 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.

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.

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? ;)

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

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.

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?)

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... :(

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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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?

> 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

@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

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.

"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.

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.