The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 'Conker Live & Reloaded'.
Just read the review of Conker: live and reloaded and I feel like crying.
Apparently, the update on what could be the greatest game of all time, features little, to no update at all. The issues regarding the swimming and slow pace at the start are still there. There are no new sections and in fact some have been removed because they weren't that good in the first place. What happened to improving them Rare?
And apparently the multiplayer too is heavily lacking and that the N64's multiplayer modes were superior.
So what is exactly the point in me getting this game?
Gee RARE, thanks a bunch.
Apparently, the update on what could be the greatest game of all time, features little, to no update at all. The issues regarding the swimming and slow pace at the start are still there. There are no new sections and in fact some have been removed because they weren't that good in the first place. What happened to improving them Rare?
And apparently the multiplayer too is heavily lacking and that the N64's multiplayer modes were superior.
So what is exactly the point in me getting this game?
Gee RARE, thanks a bunch.
Page:
i always thourght the original conker was a bit shoddy.
I'm sorry but I feel that the game is absolutely superb. So many have been complaining about it though - I'm just gobsmacked.
Yes, I know there was a lot of hype behind it, but what you have got in one whole package is a superb re-make of an acclaimed classic, and a fantastic multiplayer with varied modes and exceptional gameplay.
The multiplayer is so good with mates, and still great without. Just try to appreciate it without the hype.
Yes, I know there was a lot of hype behind it, but what you have got in one whole package is a superb re-make of an acclaimed classic, and a fantastic multiplayer with varied modes and exceptional gameplay.
The multiplayer is so good with mates, and still great without. Just try to appreciate it without the hype.
Strafio wrote:
>
> Well, I reckon I'll enjoy it when I play it.
> It's just that a multiplayer based game coming from Rare...
> Well, I guess we were perhaps expecting a little too much. :-)
>
It's fair to say it's the new RTCW, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Cutting out the four player was a bit naughty, and apparently it's
> not so good for quick-ish fights because you have to get into it and
> get some basic mastery of the game before you can get a good game
> going.
> According to the reviews atleast. :-)
The basic functions of each class are good and are fairly 'pick up and play' there's a lot of additional complication tht can be accessed along with the basics but the basic functions do the job and it's balanced in such a way that someone using the basic fuctions is just as likely to do well as the people using the more complicated ones. Personally I've barely touched upon the more complicated elements and I'm kicking ass.
Currently games build up quickly online and offline you can play 2 player multiplayer with a load of bots.
> Yeah, although apparently you need atleast 8 for a half decent game.
> It would've been nice if it had catered better for smaller games (for
> when you can't find the players or when you feel like a more
> "personal" game).
Like RTCW the game really isn't designed for that. Unlike the original this is a more focused multiplayer and not a 'jack-of-all-trades' approach. Getting 8 people doesn't take long at all and for the "personal" games they've made sure there's a 'private match' function.
Some of the levels would be suited to 2 vs 2, particularly the ice level.
> All sounds good, only the reviews made it sound like most weapons
> were a bit useless as people running around with Bazooka's pwned
> everything too easily. Perhaps they'll release some patches to even
> things up.
> Then again, maybe the reviews over exadurate a bit.
> I won't have a proper opinion until I've played it. :-)
I think there's some exaggeration going on really. The Bazooka's are the easiest thing to kill with but when someone wielding a bazooka comes up against someone who's skilled in another class the battles really do even out.
Savatt was saying in the xbox forum that he doesn't have trouble with the bazookas it's the sword guys that the people he plays with find troublesome and then there's the snipers...
No patches are needed really since hosts can turn off any class-types they don't want people to use.
>
> Well, I reckon I'll enjoy it when I play it.
> It's just that a multiplayer based game coming from Rare...
> Well, I guess we were perhaps expecting a little too much. :-)
>
It's fair to say it's the new RTCW, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Cutting out the four player was a bit naughty, and apparently it's
> not so good for quick-ish fights because you have to get into it and
> get some basic mastery of the game before you can get a good game
> going.
> According to the reviews atleast. :-)
The basic functions of each class are good and are fairly 'pick up and play' there's a lot of additional complication tht can be accessed along with the basics but the basic functions do the job and it's balanced in such a way that someone using the basic fuctions is just as likely to do well as the people using the more complicated ones. Personally I've barely touched upon the more complicated elements and I'm kicking ass.
Currently games build up quickly online and offline you can play 2 player multiplayer with a load of bots.
> Yeah, although apparently you need atleast 8 for a half decent game.
> It would've been nice if it had catered better for smaller games (for
> when you can't find the players or when you feel like a more
> "personal" game).
Like RTCW the game really isn't designed for that. Unlike the original this is a more focused multiplayer and not a 'jack-of-all-trades' approach. Getting 8 people doesn't take long at all and for the "personal" games they've made sure there's a 'private match' function.
Some of the levels would be suited to 2 vs 2, particularly the ice level.
> All sounds good, only the reviews made it sound like most weapons
> were a bit useless as people running around with Bazooka's pwned
> everything too easily. Perhaps they'll release some patches to even
> things up.
> Then again, maybe the reviews over exadurate a bit.
> I won't have a proper opinion until I've played it. :-)
I think there's some exaggeration going on really. The Bazooka's are the easiest thing to kill with but when someone wielding a bazooka comes up against someone who's skilled in another class the battles really do even out.
Savatt was saying in the xbox forum that he doesn't have trouble with the bazookas it's the sword guys that the people he plays with find troublesome and then there's the snipers...
No patches are needed really since hosts can turn off any class-types they don't want people to use.
Hedfix wrote:
> Fair do's if you've done your research, read more than one review and
> decided it's not your sort of thing.
Well, I reckon I'll enjoy it when I play it.
It's just that a multiplayer based game coming from Rare...
Well, I guess we were perhaps expecting a little too much. :-)
> Personally as a game for
> quick-ish fights I'd have thought it'd be your sort of thing.
Cutting out the four player was a bit naughty, and apparently it's not so good for quick-ish fights because you have to get into it and get some basic mastery of the game before you can get a good game going.
According to the reviews atleast. :-)
> It
> really is an extension of the better game modes found in RTCW, sure
> there isn't any new single player (aside from the offline
> multiplayer) but it's basically the better modes from Conker 64
> redesigned with 16 player matches in mind.
Yeah, although apparently you need atleast 8 for a half decent game.
It would've been nice if it had catered better for smaller games (for when you can't find the players or when you feel like a more "personal" game).
> Plus there's flamethrowers and incendary grenades which I thought
> would be right up your barn, er street...
All sounds good, only the reviews made it sound like most weapons were a bit useless as people running around with Bazooka's pwned everything too easily. Perhaps they'll release some patches to even things up.
Then again, maybe the reviews over exadurate a bit.
I won't have a proper opinion until I've played it. :-)
> Fair do's if you've done your research, read more than one review and
> decided it's not your sort of thing.
Well, I reckon I'll enjoy it when I play it.
It's just that a multiplayer based game coming from Rare...
Well, I guess we were perhaps expecting a little too much. :-)
> Personally as a game for
> quick-ish fights I'd have thought it'd be your sort of thing.
Cutting out the four player was a bit naughty, and apparently it's not so good for quick-ish fights because you have to get into it and get some basic mastery of the game before you can get a good game going.
According to the reviews atleast. :-)
> It
> really is an extension of the better game modes found in RTCW, sure
> there isn't any new single player (aside from the offline
> multiplayer) but it's basically the better modes from Conker 64
> redesigned with 16 player matches in mind.
Yeah, although apparently you need atleast 8 for a half decent game.
It would've been nice if it had catered better for smaller games (for when you can't find the players or when you feel like a more "personal" game).
> Plus there's flamethrowers and incendary grenades which I thought
> would be right up your barn, er street...
All sounds good, only the reviews made it sound like most weapons were a bit useless as people running around with Bazooka's pwned everything too easily. Perhaps they'll release some patches to even things up.
Then again, maybe the reviews over exadurate a bit.
I won't have a proper opinion until I've played it. :-)
Dringo wrote:
> Mickey Speedway US what???? Made by EA wasn't it. RARE would never
> make such crap and Nintendo would never dream of publishing it :).
slap slap!!
Dringo.... Dringo.... Wake up!
Mickeys Speedway USA was Rare i'm afraid and it was a complete joke of a game! Utter waste of time and money! If this was the future of games from Rare then it explains why Ninty got shot of them! LOL
> Mickey Speedway US what???? Made by EA wasn't it. RARE would never
> make such crap and Nintendo would never dream of publishing it :).
slap slap!!
Dringo.... Dringo.... Wake up!
Mickeys Speedway USA was Rare i'm afraid and it was a complete joke of a game! Utter waste of time and money! If this was the future of games from Rare then it explains why Ninty got shot of them! LOL
Dringo wrote:
> Mickey Speedway US what???? Made by EA wasn't it. RARE would never
> make such crap and Nintendo would never dream of publishing it :).
It was made by Rare ^_^
> Mickey Speedway US what???? Made by EA wasn't it. RARE would never
> make such crap and Nintendo would never dream of publishing it :).
It was made by Rare ^_^
Mickey Speedway US what???? Made by EA wasn't it. RARE would never make such crap and Nintendo would never dream of publishing it :).
Yeh. Banjo Kazooie was a brilliant game. The worlds were so well designed and there was just enough in each.
Tooie I thought, as Dringo does, that there was just too much to remember. It was added extras for the sake of added extras! doh!
Just not interested in Rare anymore i'm afraid. I want to remember them for the great stuff they produced on the N64 - Banjo, Goldeneye, Joanna, Conker, Diddy etc etc!
We dont talk about Mickeys Speedway USA - utter pants
Tooie I thought, as Dringo does, that there was just too much to remember. It was added extras for the sake of added extras! doh!
Just not interested in Rare anymore i'm afraid. I want to remember them for the great stuff they produced on the N64 - Banjo, Goldeneye, Joanna, Conker, Diddy etc etc!
We dont talk about Mickeys Speedway USA - utter pants
The levels were too big, far too many things to collect, throwing new moves in that can only be used for a few puzzles.
What happened to the simple yet addictive and deep platformer from Kazooie? It became a colectaphon with new moves to remember endlessly.
A bit like DK64, only worse.
What happened to the simple yet addictive and deep platformer from Kazooie? It became a colectaphon with new moves to remember endlessly.
A bit like DK64, only worse.
Dringo wrote:
> Banjo Threeie... Better not mess it up like Tooie.
>
> Kazooie was a marvelous game.
EH!?
I always personally thought tooie was much more fun to play...
> Banjo Threeie... Better not mess it up like Tooie.
>
> Kazooie was a marvelous game.
EH!?
I always personally thought tooie was much more fun to play...
Page: