The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I got NGC editon 74 yesterday and after reading their review of SFA I am outraged by it, I have totally begun to distrust every single Review that they will be posting in the future after I read this certain review. They always try to find something to go on about the game in a non likeable perspective, like it's tedious and it's not really original.
I never really like them since they changed to their big version of the magazine. Also what I find hard to beleive is that they completed the game in 15 hours, that and Eternal Darkness (well it might be possible for ED).
I really hope that they can redeem themselves from this, because the rest of the magazine is good but not the best. I find CUBE to be the best so far, NOM is good because of their walkthroughs and tips section, G-force because of it's free DVD with every issue (hopefully it will have a DVD with Starfox video clips on it).
I never really like them since they changed to their big version of the magazine. Also what I find hard to beleive is that they completed the game in 15 hours, that and Eternal Darkness (well it might be possible for ED).
I really hope that they can redeem themselves from this, because the rest of the magazine is good but not the best. I find CUBE to be the best so far, NOM is good because of their walkthroughs and tips section, G-force because of it's free DVD with every issue (hopefully it will have a DVD with Starfox video clips on it).
Page:
RM18 wrote:
> maddmun wrote:
> agt least most of their reviews are honest. My brothers Ps2
> magazines
> rate 90 percent of games above, well, 90%. Medal Of Honour gets 98%
> as
> well as other games but the highest ever in NGC is 97% and thats
> only
> been given once i think.
>
> In the 'N64' incarnation, the highest score was 98%, awarded to Zelda:
> OOT.
I thought it was 97% thats why i said 97 coz i didn't have an N64 i didn't get the Mag and i just looked at the also made by these guys next to it when i was cheackin the Mario Sunshine Review. Oh well
> maddmun wrote:
> agt least most of their reviews are honest. My brothers Ps2
> magazines
> rate 90 percent of games above, well, 90%. Medal Of Honour gets 98%
> as
> well as other games but the highest ever in NGC is 97% and thats
> only
> been given once i think.
>
> In the 'N64' incarnation, the highest score was 98%, awarded to Zelda:
> OOT.
I thought it was 97% thats why i said 97 coz i didn't have an N64 i didn't get the Mag and i just looked at the also made by these guys next to it when i was cheackin the Mario Sunshine Review. Oh well
I thought their reviews were quite good. But I am very cautious now, they gave Mario 96%, which was crazy, I got bored of it after a week. It is fun and sometimes ingenious but essentially its the same as Mario 64, and rating it higher than the immortal Smash Bros...well...
Protoss wrote:
> I thought their reviews were quite good. But I am very cautious now,
> they gave Mario 96%, which was crazy, I got bored of it after a week.
> It is fun and sometimes ingenious but essentially its the same as
> Mario 64, and rating it higher than the immortal Smash Bros...well...
---
We share very different opinions. I wouldn't call Smash Brothers immortal, because I got bored of it very quickly, while 2 weeks after I got Mario Sunshine I'm still enjoying it massively and I think it'll probably last me until Christmas as well.
> I thought their reviews were quite good. But I am very cautious now,
> they gave Mario 96%, which was crazy, I got bored of it after a week.
> It is fun and sometimes ingenious but essentially its the same as
> Mario 64, and rating it higher than the immortal Smash Bros...well...
---
We share very different opinions. I wouldn't call Smash Brothers immortal, because I got bored of it very quickly, while 2 weeks after I got Mario Sunshine I'm still enjoying it massively and I think it'll probably last me until Christmas as well.
Protoss wrote:
> I thought their reviews were quite good.
Thats what i meant by honest reviewa
> I thought their reviews were quite good.
Thats what i meant by honest reviewa
maddmun wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> Zelda = 98%
> MOH = 98%
>
> Let me see...............hmmmmmm.........somethings wrong
> here.........
>
> Zelda 97% shows how overexagerative PS2 mags are, giving MOH 98%
Too true. When PS2 games are converted to GC they often get worse reviews, look at Agent under fire, it got 88% on PS2 and 70% on GC.
> Cyclone wrote:
> Zelda = 98%
> MOH = 98%
>
> Let me see...............hmmmmmm.........somethings wrong
> here.........
>
> Zelda 97% shows how overexagerative PS2 mags are, giving MOH 98%
Too true. When PS2 games are converted to GC they often get worse reviews, look at Agent under fire, it got 88% on PS2 and 70% on GC.
GnomeKiller wrote:
> maddmun wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> Zelda = 98%
> MOH = 98%
>
> Let me see...............hmmmmmm.........somethings wrong
> here.........
>
> Zelda 97% shows how overexagerative PS2 mags are, giving MOH 98%
>
> Too true. When PS2 games are converted to GC they often get worse
> reviews, look at Agent under fire, it got 88% on PS2 and 70% on GC.
me being the maths freak that i am, have worked out that there is a 1.2571428:1 ratio of that, therefore OOT would get 123.2% (rounded up from 123.1999r) rating in any PS2 mag
> maddmun wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> Zelda = 98%
> MOH = 98%
>
> Let me see...............hmmmmmm.........somethings wrong
> here.........
>
> Zelda 97% shows how overexagerative PS2 mags are, giving MOH 98%
>
> Too true. When PS2 games are converted to GC they often get worse
> reviews, look at Agent under fire, it got 88% on PS2 and 70% on GC.
me being the maths freak that i am, have worked out that there is a 1.2571428:1 ratio of that, therefore OOT would get 123.2% (rounded up from 123.1999r) rating in any PS2 mag
If I remember correctly, a Playstation magazine gave FF8 100%, implying that it was perfect. How stupid is that.
For the information given in the NGC review for Starfox I think it sounded fair, even if very brutal.
Look at it this way, Rare haven't done any RPG's before (not to my knowledge, or that I can remember) and the game had been messed around with quite a bit, i.e. N64 to GC conversion and adding the Starfox characters. It's also very hard to match Zelda in terms of an RPG and it is inevitable that parts won't be 100% original, but NGC mention that a whole score of features were imitated, right down to the health system.
Also don't forget that a lot of Rare's talented workers have left and made Free Radical. Rare have also had problems with an alliance to a major company and a lot of other games were in development, also coming along very slowly. I'm not sure if this had an affect on the development of Starfox, but it could have been the case.
But, I'm definately not going to judge the game until I've played it. For all I know it could be a classic.
Look at it this way, Rare haven't done any RPG's before (not to my knowledge, or that I can remember) and the game had been messed around with quite a bit, i.e. N64 to GC conversion and adding the Starfox characters. It's also very hard to match Zelda in terms of an RPG and it is inevitable that parts won't be 100% original, but NGC mention that a whole score of features were imitated, right down to the health system.
Also don't forget that a lot of Rare's talented workers have left and made Free Radical. Rare have also had problems with an alliance to a major company and a lot of other games were in development, also coming along very slowly. I'm not sure if this had an affect on the development of Starfox, but it could have been the case.
But, I'm definately not going to judge the game until I've played it. For all I know it could be a classic.
I have not read the review, but what did they say?
They basically didn't say one good word, honest. They still gave it 72% though.
Page: