The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Went along to GAME after school today and got this great little sequel...
It's much improved on the first in almost every way. Everything looks much nicer of course, but there are also the new environmental hazards like the namesake Avalanches, Buildings collapsing, animals, other skiers etc... On top of this, there are more features and maps, although I don't think there are as many characters as before (used to be 6 I think, now there are 5).
But the gameplay has been vastly improved. Although it feels similar to the original with a damage bar etc, it feels much faster than most other snowboarding games (and its very noticable :P) and also has a lot tighter controls. Along with LAN play, this seems like a great game, although I think I need a bit more time to get used to it before I start to compare it to SSX3 and to the original in terms of overall quality.
Still, you should get it, definately (also, it comes with 250 stars, meant that I now have 4,500 stars exactly for the Zelda disc)
What do you people think?
It's much improved on the first in almost every way. Everything looks much nicer of course, but there are also the new environmental hazards like the namesake Avalanches, Buildings collapsing, animals, other skiers etc... On top of this, there are more features and maps, although I don't think there are as many characters as before (used to be 6 I think, now there are 5).
But the gameplay has been vastly improved. Although it feels similar to the original with a damage bar etc, it feels much faster than most other snowboarding games (and its very noticable :P) and also has a lot tighter controls. Along with LAN play, this seems like a great game, although I think I need a bit more time to get used to it before I start to compare it to SSX3 and to the original in terms of overall quality.
Still, you should get it, definately (also, it comes with 250 stars, meant that I now have 4,500 stars exactly for the Zelda disc)
What do you people think?
Page:
Edgy wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> I'm not saying this is my opinion - because it isn't - but literally
> every review I've read has added to my disappointment.
>
> GamesTM - 4/10; "Ok-ish game spoilt by sloppy 3D makeover"
>
> GamesTM obviously didn't play any previous worms titles. They started
> off sloppy but were excellent - as is Worms 3D
Actually, they compared it to the older versions. One of their points against it was the addition of depth and strategy which heavily contradicts the series' famously accessible charm. What they were saying that converting the game to 3D could have worked, but it wasn't done properly.
> The Times - 1 Star; "3D setup and controls ruin potentially fun
> game"
>
> The controls are the best I've experienced in a console worms game to
> date! If anything, its the distancing that they have a problem with -
> they can't master it, so they don't bother with it.
They said the camera was poor, and firing weaponry with which you need to judge trajectory was a pain. Once again - the transition to 3D just didn't work.
> NOM - 68%; "Not bad, but too complicated" &
> "Garbage. Waste of time."
>
> NOM only like simple games. Hardly a reliable source.
You can't discount their opinion like that. Similar to many others, they feel the overcomplication ruins the pick up and play feel to worms. And considering NOM usually rate higher than is necessary, a 68% from them isn't as good as it seems.
> Maverick42 wrote:
> I'm not saying this is my opinion - because it isn't - but literally
> every review I've read has added to my disappointment.
>
> GamesTM - 4/10; "Ok-ish game spoilt by sloppy 3D makeover"
>
> GamesTM obviously didn't play any previous worms titles. They started
> off sloppy but were excellent - as is Worms 3D
Actually, they compared it to the older versions. One of their points against it was the addition of depth and strategy which heavily contradicts the series' famously accessible charm. What they were saying that converting the game to 3D could have worked, but it wasn't done properly.
> The Times - 1 Star; "3D setup and controls ruin potentially fun
> game"
>
> The controls are the best I've experienced in a console worms game to
> date! If anything, its the distancing that they have a problem with -
> they can't master it, so they don't bother with it.
They said the camera was poor, and firing weaponry with which you need to judge trajectory was a pain. Once again - the transition to 3D just didn't work.
> NOM - 68%; "Not bad, but too complicated" &
> "Garbage. Waste of time."
>
> NOM only like simple games. Hardly a reliable source.
You can't discount their opinion like that. Similar to many others, they feel the overcomplication ruins the pick up and play feel to worms. And considering NOM usually rate higher than is necessary, a 68% from them isn't as good as it seems.
I was very dissapointed in Worms 3D. VERY.
And I loved all the other Worms games. Use to play them online all the time and Multiplayer with friends/family.
Actually, my whole FAMILY were dissapointed in Worms 3D. So there you go.
And I loved all the other Worms games. Use to play them online all the time and Multiplayer with friends/family.
Actually, my whole FAMILY were dissapointed in Worms 3D. So there you go.
Maverick42 wrote:
> I'm not saying this is my opinion - because it isn't - but literally
> every review I've read has added to my disappointment.
>
> GamesTM - 4/10; "Ok-ish game spoilt by sloppy 3D makeover"
GamesTM obviously didn't play any previous worms titles. They started off sloppy but were excellent - as is Worms 3D
> The Times - 1 Star; "3D setup and controls ruin potentially fun
> game"
The controls are the best I've experienced in a console worms game to date! If anything, its the distancing that they have a problem with - they can't master it, so they don't bother with it.
> NOM - 68%; "Not bad, but too complicated" &
> "Garbage. Waste of time."
>
NOM only like simple games. Hardly a reliable source.
> I'm not saying this is my opinion - because it isn't - but literally
> every review I've read has added to my disappointment.
>
> GamesTM - 4/10; "Ok-ish game spoilt by sloppy 3D makeover"
GamesTM obviously didn't play any previous worms titles. They started off sloppy but were excellent - as is Worms 3D
> The Times - 1 Star; "3D setup and controls ruin potentially fun
> game"
The controls are the best I've experienced in a console worms game to date! If anything, its the distancing that they have a problem with - they can't master it, so they don't bother with it.
> NOM - 68%; "Not bad, but too complicated" &
> "Garbage. Waste of time."
>
NOM only like simple games. Hardly a reliable source.
Was it not obvious he was replying to the original post and therefore talking about 1080 Avalanche?
er-no wrote:
> Auf deutsch wrote:
> Hrmm...
>
> *scratches head*
>
> Well it is, look at the games engine compared to its rival SSX 3,
> which has stupidly long courses and is in actual fact, after you get
> past the initial 'wow' factor... boring.
It's rival is SSX3? Hrmm...
Well, anyway, look at the reviews, the SSX3 reviews have been consistently better than the Worms 3D ones, which have been, to say the least, erratic
> Auf deutsch wrote:
> Hrmm...
>
> *scratches head*
>
> Well it is, look at the games engine compared to its rival SSX 3,
> which has stupidly long courses and is in actual fact, after you get
> past the initial 'wow' factor... boring.
It's rival is SSX3? Hrmm...
Well, anyway, look at the reviews, the SSX3 reviews have been consistently better than the Worms 3D ones, which have been, to say the least, erratic
S-Scopeh wrote:
> Oh and in no way it is as good as the old days..
If you are reffering to Worms 3D...
It is as good as normal Worm games. easily.
> Oh and in no way it is as good as the old days..
If you are reffering to Worms 3D...
It is as good as normal Worm games. easily.
Auf deutsch wrote:
> Hrmm...
>
> *scratches head*
Well it is, look at the games engine compared to its rival SSX 3, which has stupidly long courses and is in actual fact, after you get past the initial 'wow' factor... boring.
> Hrmm...
>
> *scratches head*
Well it is, look at the games engine compared to its rival SSX 3, which has stupidly long courses and is in actual fact, after you get past the initial 'wow' factor... boring.
Hrmm...
*scratches head*
*scratches head*
Its superb :)
S-Scopeh wrote:
> Tried the PC demo its alright.. sound effects are funny as hell
> although the camera is quite awful at times.
I wish the aiming wasn't so tricky on the PC demo (no doubt it's like that on the full version)
> Tried the PC demo its alright.. sound effects are funny as hell
> although the camera is quite awful at times.
I wish the aiming wasn't so tricky on the PC demo (no doubt it's like that on the full version)
Page: