The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 'WWE Raw 2'.
Slow, unresponsive and boring. It feels like a chore to play and it makes me glad that I have a PS2 with Smackdown 4 and the possibility of Smackdown 5. It actually feels slower than the first despite what reviews say. Graphically its gorgeous, one of the most stunning games to date, fantastic character models and a real life like feel to them.
*Struggles to compliment the game outside of the visuals*
I am completely with Sav on this one, its utter guff to be honest and I am glad its just a rental as I would be kicking myself having paid £30 for this! A few problems I have encountered so far:
1. Turned Xbox on to receive damaged disc error despite it being completely free of anything. Did it two more times and it finally worked.
2. Setting up Table to put opponent through is streesful and completely disatisfying. Tried and tried to put opponent through using Rock Bottom and when I lined it up and did it the table didn't break. The only let down with the tables in Smackdown is that you can only put them through it with 4 moves and the opponent has to be on the table, I was under the impression that in RAW 2 you could do any move and so far I have managed to put them through using a boring fishermans suplex.
*YAWN*
3. Trying to get tables etc from under the ring is a nightmare, you press the white button and nothing happens. Keep trying and within 5 minutes you might have some luck.
4. Trying to get weapons, tables etc into the ring from the outside. Once again an absolute nightmare. Pressing black makes him drop it and even though the guides say you need to be in the middle of the ring it still doesn't work.
5. Shockingly slow game engine, very unresponsive and very annoying.
6. Poor layout of controls, whoever laid the control shceme out should be shot.
There are more problems with the game than I have noted down but I will list them as they arrive. So far absolutley gutted.
Avoid!
*Struggles to compliment the game outside of the visuals*
I am completely with Sav on this one, its utter guff to be honest and I am glad its just a rental as I would be kicking myself having paid £30 for this! A few problems I have encountered so far:
1. Turned Xbox on to receive damaged disc error despite it being completely free of anything. Did it two more times and it finally worked.
2. Setting up Table to put opponent through is streesful and completely disatisfying. Tried and tried to put opponent through using Rock Bottom and when I lined it up and did it the table didn't break. The only let down with the tables in Smackdown is that you can only put them through it with 4 moves and the opponent has to be on the table, I was under the impression that in RAW 2 you could do any move and so far I have managed to put them through using a boring fishermans suplex.
*YAWN*
3. Trying to get tables etc from under the ring is a nightmare, you press the white button and nothing happens. Keep trying and within 5 minutes you might have some luck.
4. Trying to get weapons, tables etc into the ring from the outside. Once again an absolute nightmare. Pressing black makes him drop it and even though the guides say you need to be in the middle of the ring it still doesn't work.
5. Shockingly slow game engine, very unresponsive and very annoying.
6. Poor layout of controls, whoever laid the control shceme out should be shot.
There are more problems with the game than I have noted down but I will list them as they arrive. So far absolutley gutted.
Avoid!
Page:
From the brief moments I had playing No Mercy if I remember rightly the engine was more like Wrestlemania on the Cube in terms of speed. Definitley not as slow or unresponsive as the one in RAW 2.
There hasn't been a decent wrestling game since WWF something or other on the Mega Drive. Maybe that's just because I don't like wrestling that much.. Apart from the women....
It all went downhill when it became WWE anyway.
It all went downhill when it became WWE anyway.
Hedfix wrote:
> 2. This thread is supposedly about "First Impressions" yet
> you've already written off the game.
One last thing. I have played and finished the first RAW and played this one for a couple of hours. Its enough time to realise that there isn't a magic cure for poor games development and even if there was this game is in need of some serious help.
> 2. This thread is supposedly about "First Impressions" yet
> you've already written off the game.
One last thing. I have played and finished the first RAW and played this one for a couple of hours. Its enough time to realise that there isn't a magic cure for poor games development and even if there was this game is in need of some serious help.
Thats about the only 2 sites on the net which gave it a decent undeserving score. Remember IGN's review for the first RAW? 9.2? That tells you all you need to know on that side of things.
Oh and the quotes were in reply to your thrown in quotes "taken from elsewhere" as you put it.
Anyway I am off to bed as I do not wish to continue arguing. I get the feeling that you think I am doing this on purpose. Most of its is because I am angry at how good it could have been but none the less I haven't seen you defend the in game glitches and problems (there are lots of them) although lets be honest, you can't defend shoddy programming in the first place.
Oh and the quotes were in reply to your thrown in quotes "taken from elsewhere" as you put it.
Anyway I am off to bed as I do not wish to continue arguing. I get the feeling that you think I am doing this on purpose. Most of its is because I am angry at how good it could have been but none the less I haven't seen you defend the in game glitches and problems (there are lots of them) although lets be honest, you can't defend shoddy programming in the first place.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Now you are making yourslef look like a d*ck. RAW 2 is a terrible game
> which is jus**t a plain rip of the firs**t RAW which borrowed from all
> the poor wres**tling games made before it.
Hang on you've got Smackdown and RAW series' confused again.
Its a dire game although I
> should have expected this response from someone who raves about
> Whacked and similar s**tyle games...
>
> *Sniggers*
You don't really play games with friends I seem to remember. Poor you.
*Sniggers*
>
> I bet you haven't even played Smackdown 4 or a PS2 for that matter.
> If the bes**t wres**tling game is on the PS2 then I will praise it as I
> would if it was on the Xbox.
Unfortunately it's a retarded sub-par version of a good wres**tling game. Jus**t because your attention span is too short to enjoy the simulaton s**tyle of RAW 2 over Smackdown doesn't mean Smackdown is actually any good, it jus**t appeals to your short attention span.
>
> RAW 2 isn't a decent game, its one of the wors**t which I have played
> this year and this is despite approaching it with a positive
> attitude. Oh and seeing as though you are breaking a blood vessel
> over a below average game I will explain the marathon joke...
>
> Hell in a Cell I was outside with Goldberg and I ran at Undertaker
> trying to perform sphere (yes outside of the ring even though the
> s**tupid kn*bs who developed the game have s**topped players from going
> up the ramp) but I missed him. For a minute I thought it was a game
> with a decent engine and I was thinking "sh*t he is going to
> make me pay for that". About 7 seconds later (the time it took
> him to move over to me from about 1 meter away) he went to grapple me
> (the grapples are hilariously slow) and he missed which took another
> 7 seconds for him to recover. It was so poor I burs**t out laughing.
I'm not sure we're playing the same game here at all.
>
> Laugh is all you can do at a game that plays this bad.
Yes but we're talking about RAW not Smackdown. Jees do I have to remind you AGAIN? :D
Taking it
> seriously would take someone who doesn't mind playing average to poor
> games.
Once again you're overly qualified for that on your Smackdown experience.
I'd say Smackdown fell into the 'very poor' category. Simplis**tic and unfulfilling.
But like I say,
Enjoy Smackdown. :P
> Now you are making yourslef look like a d*ck. RAW 2 is a terrible game
> which is jus**t a plain rip of the firs**t RAW which borrowed from all
> the poor wres**tling games made before it.
Hang on you've got Smackdown and RAW series' confused again.
Its a dire game although I
> should have expected this response from someone who raves about
> Whacked and similar s**tyle games...
>
> *Sniggers*
You don't really play games with friends I seem to remember. Poor you.
*Sniggers*
>
> I bet you haven't even played Smackdown 4 or a PS2 for that matter.
> If the bes**t wres**tling game is on the PS2 then I will praise it as I
> would if it was on the Xbox.
Unfortunately it's a retarded sub-par version of a good wres**tling game. Jus**t because your attention span is too short to enjoy the simulaton s**tyle of RAW 2 over Smackdown doesn't mean Smackdown is actually any good, it jus**t appeals to your short attention span.
>
> RAW 2 isn't a decent game, its one of the wors**t which I have played
> this year and this is despite approaching it with a positive
> attitude. Oh and seeing as though you are breaking a blood vessel
> over a below average game I will explain the marathon joke...
>
> Hell in a Cell I was outside with Goldberg and I ran at Undertaker
> trying to perform sphere (yes outside of the ring even though the
> s**tupid kn*bs who developed the game have s**topped players from going
> up the ramp) but I missed him. For a minute I thought it was a game
> with a decent engine and I was thinking "sh*t he is going to
> make me pay for that". About 7 seconds later (the time it took
> him to move over to me from about 1 meter away) he went to grapple me
> (the grapples are hilariously slow) and he missed which took another
> 7 seconds for him to recover. It was so poor I burs**t out laughing.
I'm not sure we're playing the same game here at all.
>
> Laugh is all you can do at a game that plays this bad.
Yes but we're talking about RAW not Smackdown. Jees do I have to remind you AGAIN? :D
Taking it
> seriously would take someone who doesn't mind playing average to poor
> games.
Once again you're overly qualified for that on your Smackdown experience.
I'd say Smackdown fell into the 'very poor' category. Simplis**tic and unfulfilling.
But like I say,
Enjoy Smackdown. :P
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Thats about the only 2 sites on the net which gave it a decent
> undeserving score. Remember IGN's review for the first RAW? 9.2? That
> tells you all you need to know on that side of things.
Yep, the only thing that stopped me playing RAW was RAW 2.
Good old IGN.
>
> Oh and the quotes were in reply to your thrown in quotes "taken
> from elsewhere" as you put it.
Taken from the other RAW thread. Now I'm worried aobut your memory let alone your attention span. :D
>
> Anyway I am off to bed as I do not wish to continue arguing. I get
> the feeling that you think I am doing this on purpose.
Nope. I am struggling to comprehend your liking for Smackdown as you struggle to comprehend my liking for the RAW series.
Most of its is
> because I am angry at how good it could have been but none the less I
> haven't seen you defend the in game glitches and problems (there are
> lots of them) although lets be honest, you can't defend shoddy
> programming in the first place.
The don't ruin the game. Try going back and reading what TGM said about No Mercy. Despite it's 'saving problems' he still plays it.
I will still be playing RAW 2 a year from now. That is the mark of a good game, bugs or no bugs.
> Thats about the only 2 sites on the net which gave it a decent
> undeserving score. Remember IGN's review for the first RAW? 9.2? That
> tells you all you need to know on that side of things.
Yep, the only thing that stopped me playing RAW was RAW 2.
Good old IGN.
>
> Oh and the quotes were in reply to your thrown in quotes "taken
> from elsewhere" as you put it.
Taken from the other RAW thread. Now I'm worried aobut your memory let alone your attention span. :D
>
> Anyway I am off to bed as I do not wish to continue arguing. I get
> the feeling that you think I am doing this on purpose.
Nope. I am struggling to comprehend your liking for Smackdown as you struggle to comprehend my liking for the RAW series.
Most of its is
> because I am angry at how good it could have been but none the less I
> haven't seen you defend the in game glitches and problems (there are
> lots of them) although lets be honest, you can't defend shoddy
> programming in the first place.
The don't ruin the game. Try going back and reading what TGM said about No Mercy. Despite it's 'saving problems' he still plays it.
I will still be playing RAW 2 a year from now. That is the mark of a good game, bugs or no bugs.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> From the brief moments I had playing No Mercy if I remember rightly
> the engine was more like Wrestlemania on the Cube in terms of speed.
> Definitley not as slow or unresponsive as the one in RAW 2.
Once again it seems like we are playing different games.
> From the brief moments I had playing No Mercy if I remember rightly
> the engine was more like Wrestlemania on the Cube in terms of speed.
> Definitley not as slow or unresponsive as the one in RAW 2.
Once again it seems like we are playing different games.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Smackdown 4 is an infinitely more enjoyable game, I seriously doubt
> you have played either 3 or 4 and the latter is considerably
> different from other Smackdown games.
They actually did the unthinkable and managed to make the Smackdown engine worse by slowing down the gameplay. The one thing that simplistic arcadey excuse for a wrestling game was that the speed went with the arcadey approach.
That that away and it's worse.
>
> Still, stick with the trend of all ignorant gamers and just critisise
> anything that isn't on a particuar platform.
It's got nothing to do with a particular platform and it has everything to do with Smackdown being a simplistic arcadey approach to a genre which is better of with a slower and more strategic approach. Slowing down Smackdown takes away the one thing that was slightly appealing about it's arcadey approach.
That way you can justify
> disasterous games like RAW 2.
Yeah REALLY disasterous with a few bugs which don't exactly ruin the game. OH NO! *Runs to the hills*
Its nice to know I'm not alone though,
> talked to a mate about 1 hour a go and he bought it and took it back
> within the same day.
Great. Shared smugness allround then.
However if you'd got togeather and played RAW 2 you might've found the multiplayer more to your tastes but you don't really do gaming with friends do you Ali?
Considering that RAW 2 has a heavy weighting towards multiplayer and you'll be missing out on all that perhaps you are doing the right thing in returning it. Afterall you're missing out on a lot of the game, so why bother with it?
> Smackdown 4 is an infinitely more enjoyable game, I seriously doubt
> you have played either 3 or 4 and the latter is considerably
> different from other Smackdown games.
They actually did the unthinkable and managed to make the Smackdown engine worse by slowing down the gameplay. The one thing that simplistic arcadey excuse for a wrestling game was that the speed went with the arcadey approach.
That that away and it's worse.
>
> Still, stick with the trend of all ignorant gamers and just critisise
> anything that isn't on a particuar platform.
It's got nothing to do with a particular platform and it has everything to do with Smackdown being a simplistic arcadey approach to a genre which is better of with a slower and more strategic approach. Slowing down Smackdown takes away the one thing that was slightly appealing about it's arcadey approach.
That way you can justify
> disasterous games like RAW 2.
Yeah REALLY disasterous with a few bugs which don't exactly ruin the game. OH NO! *Runs to the hills*
Its nice to know I'm not alone though,
> talked to a mate about 1 hour a go and he bought it and took it back
> within the same day.
Great. Shared smugness allround then.
However if you'd got togeather and played RAW 2 you might've found the multiplayer more to your tastes but you don't really do gaming with friends do you Ali?
Considering that RAW 2 has a heavy weighting towards multiplayer and you'll be missing out on all that perhaps you are doing the right thing in returning it. Afterall you're missing out on a lot of the game, so why bother with it?
*Take that away
Hedfix wrote:
> You've hardly played No Mercy, your view of wrestling games is very
> skewed.
This really does sum my whole stance up.
Coming from a Smackdown background (still very difficult to comprehend) and that you've hardly played No Mercy. Of course you're going to find RAW 2 a little slow compared to something which is based on a simplistic arcade style.
RAW 2 has more depth than Smackdown just as No Mercy did.
I suggest you get yourself a copy of No Mercy and play it properly to see what a game which is trying to simulate wrestling should play like.
Then go back and play RAW 2 again and see how the game mechanics and strategy build upon the foundation set by No Mercy to create a much deeper and thoughtful gaming experience than the Smackdown series.
and stuff the bugs because they really aren't the end of the world, once again I refer you to No Mercy and the respect it has despite the bugs.
> You've hardly played No Mercy, your view of wrestling games is very
> skewed.
This really does sum my whole stance up.
Coming from a Smackdown background (still very difficult to comprehend) and that you've hardly played No Mercy. Of course you're going to find RAW 2 a little slow compared to something which is based on a simplistic arcade style.
RAW 2 has more depth than Smackdown just as No Mercy did.
I suggest you get yourself a copy of No Mercy and play it properly to see what a game which is trying to simulate wrestling should play like.
Then go back and play RAW 2 again and see how the game mechanics and strategy build upon the foundation set by No Mercy to create a much deeper and thoughtful gaming experience than the Smackdown series.
and stuff the bugs because they really aren't the end of the world, once again I refer you to No Mercy and the respect it has despite the bugs.
Page: