Madworld Gets a 9/10 via IGN

Reply

acsguitar replied on 03-09-2009 2:24 PM

rated by 0 users

mafafu:

acsguitar:

cheeznrice:

acsguitar:

I mean other then gamers who knows about this?

Does IGN review games?  I'm guessing they knew about it.

Um yes but when you say "BIG GAME" I assume you mean game that has Earth Standing still waiting for release. Like Mario, Zelda, Halo, PETZ

MadWorld is the "Great White Hope" of the Wii: A violent adult game. If this fails hardcore games on the Wii will never happen.

Yea its scary. I'm glad its not a "Waggle" game. BTW I don't Heart IGN or anything but they are quick to turn out reviews which is nice since the game comes out tomorrow and I want to put it on mylist

Reply

cheeznrice replied on 03-09-2009 2:31 PM

rated by 0 users

acsguitar:

BTW I don't Heart IGN or anything but they are quick to turn out reviews which is nice since the game comes out tomorrow

I'll give you that, they do put out reviews (for most games) rather quickly.  In all honesty, I prefer to go to IGN for reviews because they used to do an excellent job at reviewing games while remaining objective and unbiased. 

I don't think txa1265 is far off in his comment about IGN handing out high scores.  GTAIV got a 10.0 and from what I've heard, thought it is a good game, it's far from 'perfect'.

Reply

acsguitar replied on 03-09-2009 2:50 PM

rated by 0 users

cheeznrice:

acsguitar:

BTW I don't Heart IGN or anything but they are quick to turn out reviews which is nice since the game comes out tomorrow

I'll give you that, they do put out reviews (for most games) rather quickly.  In all honesty, I prefer to go to IGN for reviews because they used to do an excellent job at reviewing games while remaining objective and unbiased. 

I don't think txa1265 is far off in his comment about IGN handing out high scores.  GTAIV got a 10.0 and from what I've heard, thought it is a good game, it's far from 'perfect'.

10's are silly and reek of Peer Pressure to me. However, Madworld getting a 9 isn't the same thing.

GTAIV was good but boring MGSIV wasn't a 10 either.

I don't take the reviews 100% serious though so whatever. Its nice to see it get a good score If its an 8 or 9 I'll probably try it. If its getting lots of 6's and 7's I may wait.

Reply

Kameleon replied on 03-09-2009 3:40 PM

rated by 0 users

I remember there was a presale special of this a while ago on Amazon or something. I so totally should have preordered it then.

Reply

txa1265 replied on 03-09-2009 3:49 PM

rated by 0 users

What mafafu said is true about the position this has for Wii gaming - sort of like LittleBigPlanet selling about 12 copies ... it might not have commercial appeal but the critical response from gamers and reviewers alike means possible good things for teh PS3.  It isn't about selling a million - or even getting the usual 'OMG BESTEST EVAR 12/10' from IGN, but gettign good reviews and being seen as a really cool game that folks want to play.

And while I obviously haven't played all of the 2008 games, the ones I *have* played tell me it was the most over-hyped and over-scored, yet underperforming years I can recall ... I mean, where highly flawed games like Fallout 3 and GTA4 can be considered GOTY material?

Reply

acsguitar replied on 03-09-2009 3:53 PM

rated by 0 users

txa1265:

W Fallout 3 and GTA4 can be considered GOTY material?

I get GTA4 but what was wrong with Fallout 3?

Reply

txa1265 replied on 03-09-2009 4:01 PM

rated by 0 users

acsguitar:

what was wrong with Fallout 3?

As a 80% (4/5 or 8/10) game?  Nothing.  As a 95% 'one of the best ever' games, an inexcusable amount.

In general:  The writing is mediocre at best, and cringe-worthy way too often. It has the depth of a teaspoon.  The shooter is not very good as a shooter, the RPG elements are compromised to make skills and perks too easy to max out and therefore make decisions less weighty, and the 'RTwP' is just that, with a targeting system in full 3D to make you think it is 'innovative' ... and it is so unbalanced that it can only be called an exploit.

It is the worst Fallout game ... by far, and a worse post-apoc shooter than STALKER.

Reply

acsguitar replied on 03-09-2009 4:08 PM

rated by 0 users

txa1265:

acsguitar:

what was wrong with Fallout 3?

As a 80% (4/5 or 8/10) game?  Nothing.  As a 95% 'one of the best ever' games, an inexcusable amount.

In general:  The writing is mediocre at best, and cringe-worthy way too often. It has the depth of a teaspoon.  The shooter is not very good as a shooter, the RPG elements are compromised to make skills and perks too easy to max out and therefore make decisions less weighty, and the 'RTwP' is just that, with a targeting system in full 3D to make you think it is 'innovative' ... and it is so unbalanced that it can only be called an exploit.

It is the worst Fallout game ... by far, and a worse post-apoc shooter than STALKER.

No way I see it totally opposite. Fallout had a great interesting Universe to work with. Amazing charecters. Fun and creative RPG elements and was a Decent shooter when you wanted it to be. I think its one of the most memorable and impactful game of the decade.

The amount of depth is Massive. I beat the game with a good charecter then went and made another charecter and started on a completely different path.

Its an RPG/FPS which is not easy to master. I'd give it a 9 out of 10. I ran into 0 problems with the game other then the fact that I wanted to keep playing after the ending.

Reply

mafafu replied on 03-09-2009 4:17 PM

rated by 0 users

acsguitar:

txa1265:

acsguitar:

what was wrong with Fallout 3?

As a 80% (4/5 or 8/10) game?  Nothing.  As a 95% 'one of the best ever' games, an inexcusable amount.

In general:  The writing is mediocre at best, and cringe-worthy way too often. It has the depth of a teaspoon.  The shooter is not very good as a shooter, the RPG elements are compromised to make skills and perks too easy to max out and therefore make decisions less weighty, and the 'RTwP' is just that, with a targeting system in full 3D to make you think it is 'innovative' ... and it is so unbalanced that it can only be called an exploit.

It is the worst Fallout game ... by far, and a worse post-apoc shooter than STALKER.

No way I see it totally opposite. Fallout had a great interesting Universe to work with. Amazing charecters. Fun and creative RPG elements and was a Decent shooter when you wanted it to be. I think its one of the most memorable and impactful game of the decade.

The amount of depth is Massive. I beat the game with a good charecter then went and made another charecter and started on a completely different path.

Its an RPG/FPS which is not easy to master. I'd give it a 9 out of 10. I ran into 0 problems with the game other then the fact that I wanted to keep playing after the ending.

You don't want to go here with txa my friend.

Reply

klip_twings replied on 03-09-2009 4:20 PM

rated by 0 users

mafafu:

You don't want to go here with txa my friend.

QFT.  Asking txa what was wrong with Fallout 3 is almost akin to asking the general community "What are turns?"

Try the following forum search: txa1265 fallout

Reply

txa1265 replied on 03-09-2009 4:21 PM

rated by 0 users

acsguitar:

No way I see it totally opposite. Fallout had a great interesting Universe to work with. Amazing charecters. Fun and creative RPG elements and was a Decent shooter when you wanted it to be. I think its one of the most memorable and impactful game of the decade.

Oh no ... I'm in another Fallout discussion with a console gamer ...

- Fallout 1 & 2 had a depth of writing that included intricate humor and pathos and stuff that actually deserves to be read.  There is a reason that they are regarded in the same breath as Betrayal at Krondor and Planescape: Torment in terms of writing.  No serious person who has been around games since those days looks at Fallout 3 as a serious work of solid writing ... I mean, it is not something Bethesda has ever done well.

- Fallout 1 & 2 had all of the SPECIAL system and skills and perks ... and more, including 'called shots', where you could even target 'eyes' and 'groin'.  Fallout 3 'gimped' the systems to make players more able to 'broadband' a character.  Sure you still specialize to an extent - but each character of mine had a bunch or core skills max'd out way too early and tehn I was just dumping into 'nice to have' things.

- And shooters that take into account your skills *are* hard - look at Deus Ex or STALKER.  But honestly, Fallout 3 is the worst of those games in terms of implementation.  WIthout VATS it wouldhave been brutally bad.  But VATS is poorly balanced.  'Great' games don't have crappy balance.

I am not saying it is a bad game - which is why I said there is nothing wring with it as a 8/10 game.

Reply

txa1265 replied on 03-09-2009 4:22 PM

rated by 0 users

Also - you can reference my 4000+ word review at RPGWatch ...

Reply

toddr replied on 03-09-2009 5:23 PM

rated by 0 users

IGN isn't really the fairest in reviewing wii games, so them giving a 9/10 to a wii game means it must be pretty good.

Reply

acsguitar replied on 03-09-2009 5:41 PM

rated by 0 users

txa1265:

 

Oh no ... I'm in another Fallout discussion with a console gamer ...

 

Excuse me I'm not a console gamer. I have been a PC gamer my whole life. My first new console was a WII and then I got a Ps3 this year.

I played Fallout 3 on the PC.

I have an 8800gtx and an AMD x2 6000. I'm triple booting xp, vista, and 7

I'm a PC guy although I am digging on consoles more now. :)

Reply

txa1265 replied on 03-09-2009 6:16 PM

rated by 0 users

acsguitar:

I played Fallout 3 on the PC.

My apologies - I looked at your profile and the questions / assumtions and 'assumed' ...