The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Xiii'.
I'm not supposed to be playing games right now to be honest. I'm pretty bust with my Uni-work, 1080 is great, True Crime is very enjoyable but really I can't play the game without feeling guilty. The comes along XIII,
You know that feeling Goldeneye had, that feeling you can't put your thumb on but made the game the legend it is. Yes Halo and Perfect Dark are technically better than it in EVERY WAY but Goldeneye had a special feeling that just made it surpass anything that has come to rival it. Well XIII has that same feeling.
The problem is the game's loading times are 30 seconds long and there are a lot of them. But with nice graphics, clever extras, a good feel to the weapons, a splash of comedy, a fantastic storyline, David Duchovny voicing the lead character and some nice flash backs.
You can't imagine how satisfying smash a chair over someone's head is or plating a pane of glass between the eyes.
FANTASTIC!
You know that feeling Goldeneye had, that feeling you can't put your thumb on but made the game the legend it is. Yes Halo and Perfect Dark are technically better than it in EVERY WAY but Goldeneye had a special feeling that just made it surpass anything that has come to rival it. Well XIII has that same feeling.
The problem is the game's loading times are 30 seconds long and there are a lot of them. But with nice graphics, clever extras, a good feel to the weapons, a splash of comedy, a fantastic storyline, David Duchovny voicing the lead character and some nice flash backs.
You can't imagine how satisfying smash a chair over someone's head is or plating a pane of glass between the eyes.
FANTASTIC!
Page:
It all depends on what kind of games you like. I generally agree with Cube's opinion; most people (and magazines) I've seen say Reign of Fire is a big lump of crap. Cube gave it 8/10, so I got it. I may not agree completely with their opinion (that the human missions are dull and the dragon missions are the highlight), but I agree that it's a great game.
It's gone downhill of recent, but I still regard it as the best Nintendo magazine. I was gonna subscribe to GamesTM instead, but the video/cheat discs swayed my decision.
It's gone downhill of recent, but I still regard it as the best Nintendo magazine. I was gonna subscribe to GamesTM instead, but the video/cheat discs swayed my decision.
I'm just a little tired of this now.
I like GamesTM. A lot, in fact. I have tried several magazines over the years and this has been the best suited to me. They also seem to have almost exactly the same taste in games as I do, which is really rather fortunate. I have read every issue quite thoroughly, and one of the best things I have found is that they really are unbiased. Yes, in seems that if you glance over their previous issues it seems that, in general, their opinion is that the GameCube is the best console. But then again, that is a justified opinion which has not been swayed by anything other than it's quality selection of games. I too think the GC is the best console, yet I am still an impartial gamer. In retrospect, I've never found them to give an opinion on a game that they have then not argued and backed up.
From experience, the majority of people on this site I have spoken to hold the magazine in high regard. True, Hefix, you may disagree with their reviews - but does that mean they are not to be trusted? It certainly doesn't make GamesTM a bad magazine, but what is trust when opinion is concerned? Can you ever truly trust a critic's verdict? No, you can't. And it's because GamesTM focus reviews on the game's description and analysis (rather than score) that I find them so good.
So that's what I think. I don't, however, see the irony in saying they like to enjoy games - because they obviously do.
I like GamesTM. A lot, in fact. I have tried several magazines over the years and this has been the best suited to me. They also seem to have almost exactly the same taste in games as I do, which is really rather fortunate. I have read every issue quite thoroughly, and one of the best things I have found is that they really are unbiased. Yes, in seems that if you glance over their previous issues it seems that, in general, their opinion is that the GameCube is the best console. But then again, that is a justified opinion which has not been swayed by anything other than it's quality selection of games. I too think the GC is the best console, yet I am still an impartial gamer. In retrospect, I've never found them to give an opinion on a game that they have then not argued and backed up.
From experience, the majority of people on this site I have spoken to hold the magazine in high regard. True, Hefix, you may disagree with their reviews - but does that mean they are not to be trusted? It certainly doesn't make GamesTM a bad magazine, but what is trust when opinion is concerned? Can you ever truly trust a critic's verdict? No, you can't. And it's because GamesTM focus reviews on the game's description and analysis (rather than score) that I find them so good.
So that's what I think. I don't, however, see the irony in saying they like to enjoy games - because they obviously do.
Maverick42 wrote:
. GamesTM give objective opinions on games
Now this is the problem. No one has an objective opinion... not matter how hard you try someone always prefers A over B. In my philospophy of literature lessons they were discussing the cannon (the best books of the past) and how it is unfair as it is the wealthy professors who choose it and these books represent their preferences and lifestyle and not lets say Africans or lower classes. They claim these people should be totally 'objective' but that is really impossible, these people are not africans and thusly cannot claim what is good or bad. And the lectuerer asked so should they admit they are subjective and just get on with it. At least that way we know where we stand.
I totally agree with this, like my 'lost it' post, why try and be objective when you're not? Why not just come out and say your point of view and leave others to dispute it. Games TM may try and be objective but you look, they have a preference.
. GamesTM give objective opinions on games
Now this is the problem. No one has an objective opinion... not matter how hard you try someone always prefers A over B. In my philospophy of literature lessons they were discussing the cannon (the best books of the past) and how it is unfair as it is the wealthy professors who choose it and these books represent their preferences and lifestyle and not lets say Africans or lower classes. They claim these people should be totally 'objective' but that is really impossible, these people are not africans and thusly cannot claim what is good or bad. And the lectuerer asked so should they admit they are subjective and just get on with it. At least that way we know where we stand.
I totally agree with this, like my 'lost it' post, why try and be objective when you're not? Why not just come out and say your point of view and leave others to dispute it. Games TM may try and be objective but you look, they have a preference.
Maverick42 wrote:
>
> GamesTM is the more interesting, and their reviewers actually tend to
> enjoy games.
Oh, like me then.
> Why always focus on the negative?
'Ironing'.
>
> GamesTM is the more interesting, and their reviewers actually tend to
> enjoy games.
Oh, like me then.
> Why always focus on the negative?
'Ironing'.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> I've heard Games TM are not be trusted.
>
> From everyone except you.
>
> Are you joking?
>
> Whereas I can back my statement up, you seem to have plucked that out
> of the air.
Go back and read what people have said in the xbox forum every time you try to defend gamesTM's opinions.
GamesTM give objective opinions on games and focus
> reviews on the actual description rather than the score. The majority
> hold them in high regard and they rarely, if ever, give out an unfair
> verdict.
Like I said: 'from everyone except you'.
'Plucked out of the air'? I think not.
> Hedfix wrote:
> I've heard Games TM are not be trusted.
>
> From everyone except you.
>
> Are you joking?
>
> Whereas I can back my statement up, you seem to have plucked that out
> of the air.
Go back and read what people have said in the xbox forum every time you try to defend gamesTM's opinions.
GamesTM give objective opinions on games and focus
> reviews on the actual description rather than the score. The majority
> hold them in high regard and they rarely, if ever, give out an unfair
> verdict.
Like I said: 'from everyone except you'.
'Plucked out of the air'? I think not.
Mattribute wrote:
> I flicked through 1 issue of Gtm - It's like EDGe for people who like
> high scores
Well that's a testimony to the reliability of your account - 'flicked through an issue'? As a multi-console owner, I have owned copies of both Edge and GamesTM and I would say they were quite different.
GamesTM is the more interesting, and their reviewers actually tend to enjoy games. Why always focus on the negative? And that's not to say they give high scores either - they call 5 the average so an 8 is highly regarded.
I think I lost my last ounce of respect for Edge when they gave Double Dash 5/10. Ha.
> I flicked through 1 issue of Gtm - It's like EDGe for people who like
> high scores
Well that's a testimony to the reliability of your account - 'flicked through an issue'? As a multi-console owner, I have owned copies of both Edge and GamesTM and I would say they were quite different.
GamesTM is the more interesting, and their reviewers actually tend to enjoy games. Why always focus on the negative? And that's not to say they give high scores either - they call 5 the average so an 8 is highly regarded.
I think I lost my last ounce of respect for Edge when they gave Double Dash 5/10. Ha.
Hedfix wrote:
> I've heard Games TM are not be trusted.
>
> From everyone except you.
Are you joking?
Whereas I can back my statement up, you seem to have plucked that out of the air. GamesTM give objective opinions on games and focus reviews on the actual description rather than the score. The majority hold them in high regard and they rarely, if ever, give out an unfair verdict.
> I've heard Games TM are not be trusted.
>
> From everyone except you.
Are you joking?
Whereas I can back my statement up, you seem to have plucked that out of the air. GamesTM give objective opinions on games and focus reviews on the actual description rather than the score. The majority hold them in high regard and they rarely, if ever, give out an unfair verdict.
Hedfix wrote:
> Was I replying to Rickoss? No.
>
> Is Mav a fool? Yes.
>
> Why would I be saying someone who hasn't actually PLAYED XIII on Live
> cannot fathom it's multiplayer depths?
>
> It was a general statement, I thought I'd set out my opinion.
Ok, a mis-understanding. But I think we were both to blame here. You're statement "If you can't fathom it's depths then quite frankly: poor you." is completely ambigious and easily read as something aimed at Rickoss.
What's more, you added "I was talking about Live play" as an afterthought which I missed. Likewise, I shouldn't have reacted so rashly and quickly. You don't have to go jumping out of your tree and calling me a fool.
> Was I replying to Rickoss? No.
>
> Is Mav a fool? Yes.
>
> Why would I be saying someone who hasn't actually PLAYED XIII on Live
> cannot fathom it's multiplayer depths?
>
> It was a general statement, I thought I'd set out my opinion.
Ok, a mis-understanding. But I think we were both to blame here. You're statement "If you can't fathom it's depths then quite frankly: poor you." is completely ambigious and easily read as something aimed at Rickoss.
What's more, you added "I was talking about Live play" as an afterthought which I missed. Likewise, I shouldn't have reacted so rashly and quickly. You don't have to go jumping out of your tree and calling me a fool.
They're my two favourite's, too. Amazing. Just completed a fairly long level but forgot to save. Why the hell doesn't it have an auto save? If you die/fail, you can't save, so you have to retry, wait for it to load, then save it. Gah!
Did you play that asylum level? And what about the SPAD camp level?
Beautiful.
Beautiful.
Page: