![]() |
Ikaruga Review - Printable Version +- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net) +-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42) +--- Thread: Ikaruga Review (/showthread.php?tid=522) |
Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 14th April 2003 http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/ikaruga/index.html Sounds as good as we've been hearing for quite a while... I really want this game! Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 14th April 2003 The DC version is a lot of fun, and the GC version is supposed to be the same. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 14th April 2003 You have it for DC? Yeah, its very similar, with some small additions... and given how few shooters come out these years (I know that the PSX got a decent number of them, but the one that the N64 got just wasn't enough!), and I love the genre, so... Oh, and I really hope that this game sells well. It deserves to... though it probably won't, given how it will mostly just appeal to hardcore gamers. We'll see. Anyone getting it soon? Its supposed to come out in a few days... Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 14th April 2003 Yeah. Ikaruga Review - Great Rumbler - 14th April 2003 I am so getting this game!! Ikaruga Review - big guy - 14th April 2003 oh if only i had money.... Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 14th April 2003 Yeah, me too... I don't have any... Ikaruga Review - Dark Jaguar - 14th April 2003 I'll need to find a way to tilt my TV on it's side for it's TV tiltin' arcade moniter simulating mode. That'll be great, except my TV is that pyramid shape that doesn't like being put on it's side. I'll need to lean it up against the wall and rest the front against something heavy or built into the TV stand (hammer and nails and a couple blocks of wood for the latter if it comes to that...). Not a single one of you needs to tell me it's a minor feature or that it's still pefectly playable in that arcade mode only it's a side scroller! I'm aware of that! It's called a joke, and of course I also actually do want to do it, just not nearly as much as the intensity of the above paragraph would indicate. Silly Billy... Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 14th April 2003 Yeah, it'd be very cool to see it with the TV tilted on its side... I'll have to try it sometime... but not often, because of how tough it would be to do that with the TVs I have access to... Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 http://cube.ign.com/articles/393/393040p1.html Gamespot's review is better. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 Why, because they gave them a slightly higher score? Just keep in mind that these are the guys that gave Cubivore an 8 for graphics and Serious Sam the GOTY award. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 No, not the score... though I like Gamespot's more. I mean the review itsself... Gamespot's is just better written... Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 I don't think so. Those guys couldn't write themselves out of a paper bag. If writing out of a paper bag was possible... Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 Have you read both? If not... If you have, I'll say more. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 No. But their reviews are always off so I won't bother. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 It is incredibly stupid to say that the review is bad if you haven't read it. Quote:Anyone who appreciates what makes a truly great game should be able to recognize Ikaruga for its elegant design, aesthetic beauty, and sheer challenge. - Greg Kasavin Quote:April 09, 2003 - The days of fast-paced shooters are long gone. We old school gamers must face the sad reality that some of our favorite genres aren't financially viable mediums for publishers. We remember when a good shooter was about as common as a side-scrolling platformer. How we miss those simple days. Nothing could beat spending all your lunch money on the newest arcade game -- back when quarter munchers were just a single quarter, not three or four. Read. And then try to say the IGN one is better. You'd be lying. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 Ign's review is structured better and is nice and short, while gamespot's reads like an essay. But if you like that then whupee. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 IGN's is both short and wasting space... it spends almost as much time on stuff that really doesn't matter to the game as it does on the game itsself and as a result is less in detail about the game... and in places it is very juvenile. I know they are trying to be "funny" but its not humorous and really isn't right for reviews like this... Quote:We don't care if every ship is either black or white or that the passing scenery isn't as bright as Fran's glow-in-the-dark Underoos (the ones with the streak mark) because they look very cool. Enemy aircraft come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from gigantic bosses to tiny fighters. The player controlled ship also has a better, more space-age appearance than the Galaga-reject from Radiant Silvergun. Ooh, great part of the review here! Yup! Isn't that quality? The Gamespot review on the other hand is a detailed analysis of the game and explains in detail how the game works and how its good... something IGN does not effectively do... and it also tries to say that the game is both great and not just for hardcore gamers... another thing IGN doesn't even start to think about. Its just written several times better and is of a significantly higher quality as a review text... it is both a great review and a good read. IGN's is neither. IGN needs to learn how to write reviews... but I don't hold out much hope, given how they've always been not too good there... Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 Ooh, they made on little joke! God forbid!! ![]() Gamespot's review is a lot like ign's except for the fact that ign doesn't take five paragraphs to explain the simple gameplay. They just take longer to explain everything. That's not what I would call a good review. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 I just get the impression from IGN's review that they both don't respect their audience and think that they need to make it simple and off topic for people to want to read the review... not true or appreciated... And the fact that Gamespot's reads more like an essay and doesn't stoop to infantile humor, insulting the audience, glossing over details to make it simpler, and the unprofessional and excessive amounts of the review unrelated to the game are all very good things. And I'd consider this a textbook case of why Gamespot's reviews are higher quality and many times more professional than IGN. Gamespot reads like a article from a magazine about a game. IGN reads like a article on a fansite about a game... it just doesn't have that same level of quality or polish... whether I disagree with Gamespot or not, they almost always have the reviews done very well so even if I do disagree with their conclusions, they are well presented... IGN CAN do that, but they sure don't do it very often. Ikaruga Review - Great Rumbler - 16th April 2003 *WARNING* Arguement in progress! *WARNING* Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 No one else has an opinion? Just arguing with OB1 gets tiring... :) Ikaruga Review - Great Rumbler - 16th April 2003 ...EGM's review is better than IGN's or Gamespot's. :) Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 EGM reviews are two sentences long at most. Somehow I doubt that compares... :) Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 We're talking about video games here ABF, not fine art. Gamespot tries their best to sound smart and sophisticated but just trips over their own wordiness. It's quantity over quality with them. They're also compltely humorless. IGN usually adds just the right touch of information and humor, and all of the big games they review get five-to-eight pages each. Ikaruga simply isn't as huge of a game as something like Wind Waker. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 But I don't like IGN's "humor"... the only thing it does is wastes space and makes the reviews not as good... and Gamespot IS smarter and more sophisticated and professional... Oh, and both of those reviews were 2 pages long. Gamespot must just use longer pages... Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 Dude, you are so wrong. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 You actually find IGN funny? And think their professionalism and quality rivals Gamespot? ![]() Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 They're often funny and IGN is a much better site than gamespot is. You seem to be mistaking professionalism with seriousness. Just because Gamespot is unfunny does not mean that they're more professional than IGN. And the layout of gamespot is very unprofessional. Everything is poorly organized and cluttered, and the design is terrible. Their inane scores also show just what a joke they are. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 Um, OB1, what is truly funny here is that you seem to have decided that because they gave one game a score slightly higher than it deserved you will hate them forever... while IGN does that stuff CONSTANTLY and you laugh it off... And IGN is almost never funny... Oh, and what's so bad about Gamespot's layout? I think its good... And I completely fail to see how any thinking person could prefer IGN's insulting and juvenile stuff to Gamespot's reviews. As I said in chat to Dark Jaguar, IGN is insulting their audience with their comments (in this review)... (in general, not exact quotes) "its for the hardcore"... "Yes, I actually will buy this game for some reason"... "only hardcore, oldschool gamers will like this. Most people will hate it". I call that INSULTING THE AUDIENCE. It is NOT respecting the intelligence of the reader. It says "you have no hope of liking this game. Here, here's a dumb joke to make you happy". And that is NOT something I want to be told in a review. I like it when the reviewer respects my intelligence and IGN doesn't even begin to do that. Evidently you fall into the trap they want you to -- "hey, I'm hardcore! I'm in the minority! I can handle this! HARDCORE! YEAH!" ![]() (ripping off DJ's comment with that last part since he said he won't comment in the thread) Sorry if I prefer my reviews to try to actually be a good explanation of the details of the good and bad points of a game in a respectful manner. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 What the fuck? You've really lost it, ABF. Even though I hate the term, IGN is right when they say that only the "hardcore" will like the game. Most gamers will dislike it. Remember that most gamers are the casual players that made Sony #1 in this business. They're the reason why Metroid Prime didn't sell well but the overhyped Halo sold like crack. And Gamespot has made more than just one mistake. They repeatedly give great games bad scores and shitty games good scores. They cater to the crowd of gamers who think that if a game has a lot of hype surrounding it then it must be bad. They give several underhyped and crappy games good scores so that a bunch of stupid people will think that they're more honest than everyone else. Does that ring a bell with you, ABF? Hmm? Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 No, because I happen to agree with their scores more often than not... Everyone thinks they are in the "minority"... "I don't care what anyone else says I think this!" ... well often that opinion is actually popular... in this case I wouldn't say popular, but I also wouldn't say that it takes hardcore shooter fan gamers to like this game like IGN says. Quote:Like many space shooters, Ikaruga was first released in arcades, though it never saw the light of day on this continent. After the surprising success of last year's Dreamcast port, a GameCube version was announced, but only for Japan. Months later, publisher Infogrames confirmed that Ikaruga for the GameCube would be released in North America and Europe as well, as an arcade-perfect translation with a couple of new gameplay options not found on the Dreamcast. This is a game with an established cult following and one that just as easily might not have made it to these shores. It's almost as if Treasure, Ikaruga's distinguished developer, deliberately tried to limit its audience to a core group of enthusiasts. That's perhaps not as absurd an idea as it might seem, since Ikaruga is truly a shooter fan's shooter. It follows many of the genre's 20-year-old conventions, and you'll find it very challenging even if you've been playing games of this sort all your life. If you have, then the game's classical design and its high level of difficulty will also happen to be two of the things you'll like best about it. Yet even those who aren't particular fans of space shooters would undoubtedly appreciate a lot of what Ikaruga has to offer. Quote:Fans of space shooters owe it to themselves to play Ikaruga, a game that was designed both to impress their sensibilities and to challenge every ounce of their being. Yet anyone who appreciates what makes a truly great game should be able to recognize Ikaruga for its elegant design, aesthetic beauty, and sheer challenge. Make no mistake--it's not nostalgia for a bygone era of gaming that makes Ikaruga so appealing. Rather, it's that Ikaruga takes 20 years of great ideas in game design and somehow manages to put an entirely new spin on them, not for novelty's sake, but for the sake of making a game that's both familiar and utterly unique. Quote:A bit confusing at times, Ikaruga isn't the traditional shooter. It's not the type of game that can be played without devoting 100-percent of one's mental strength to deal with the trials within. Similar to rhythm-action games, it's definitely not the type of game that is played during a conversation. Quote:Without a doubt, this is a better game than Radiant Silvergun. For one, Ikaruga takes itself far more seriously with no "The Price is Right" music or campy anime characters spoiling the otherwise fast-paced action. I feel more like the Last Starfighter when I play Ikaruga. I think I know which one I like more... though these quotes aren't exactly representative of the reviews, they are close enough for this post. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 Let me just make a quick run through a few of their "quality" reviews. -Castlevania: SotN for the PSX gets an 8.9. Pretty good, right? But then they give the inferior Castlevania: CotM for the GBA a 9.6. Great game, but not as good as SotN. Worse yet is their score for Castlevania: HoD, which is much better than CotM and just about as good as SotN. They give that a measly 8.2. -They give Mario Kart 64--one of the best racing games ever made--a 6.4!! They also give the super-awesome Diddy Kong Racing a 6.6. What a shitty site. -They give San Francisco Rush--a very, very poor racing game--a 7.1. The next Rush games get better but the scores get lower. Rush 2 gets a 5.1 from them. -F-Zero X--the best N64 racer--gets a crappy 7.5. And what did they say was wrong with it? That it lacked soul. If that doesn't make you lower you head in shame then I don't know what will. Shall I continue? Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 Quote:No, because I happen to agree with their scores more often than not... Oh yes it does. Why do you think these kinds of shooters never sell very well? You're also a huge hypocrite because Gamespot even said something similar in their review: Quote:It's almost as if Treasure, Ikaruga's distinguished developer, deliberately tried to limit its audience to a core group of enthusiasts. That's perhaps not as absurd an idea as it might seem, since Ikaruga is truly a shooter fan's shooter. That's pretty much exactly what IGN said, albeit in a more roundabout way. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 Hey, I never said I agreed with them all the time, just that even when I do disagree at least their reviews are solid and don't usually mark games down for no apparent reason... sometimes personal opinion does seem to count too hard, and some of those are good examples... I could add a few too... Rush 1 a 7.1? Not a bad score for that game... its a solid arcade racer. But each Rush game after that should be a big jump over it. But Rush 2 got a 5.1... at least 2049 got a 7.5, but still, I'd give it 9.2 at a minimum... I guess they just dislike racing games on N64... which seems clear when you look at the consistent bad scores for the great N64 racing games -- Mario Kart 64, DKR, and Rush 2049 all got scores under 7 but were easily well over a 9 (especially Rush 2049... I LOVE that game! It's easily the N64 game I play the most these days...) in my opinion... same with F-Zero X and its 7.5... that one should have been near 10. I guess they hate arcade racing games. So yes, I'd give Rush 2049 a mid 9 and Rush 2 probably a high 8 or low 9 and DKR a high 8, probably, and Mario Kart just below that (docked for its bad single player mode), and they score them lower. It is strange that its so consistent... Cruis'n USA too (well not a 9, but they don't deserve 4's and 5's!, but every review of that trilogy of racing games I read was bad so that's just my opinion it seems... As for Hydro Thunder, that got a fairly low review too and was also a very good racer. Given those scores, how did Excitebike 64 get a 8.8? It is kind of odd... And Ridge Racer 64 gets a 8.4 and is called "one of the best racing games on the N64"??? I guess that they just have bizarre taste in racing games... I rented that one once and was glad I did because it certainly wouldn't have been worth my money... Oh well... they do most genres well... And most of this is just taste. They clearly don't really like kart racing or futuristic/arcade racing that much... and I love those types of racers, with futuristic/arcade racing games being one of my favorite genres of console games... Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 But they aren't supposed to be comparing these games to realistic racers like Gran Turismo. If none of the reviewers like arcadey racers then they should just stop reviewing them. They give these awesome games a bad name. And Rush 1 sucked. You can barely even turn the cars. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 What's weird is that almost all of them get bad scores, then Excitebike 64 and Ridge Racer 64 get mid 8's... strange. Yeah, I've never liked their N64 racing game scores much... same with the modern Gauntlet games... but the reasons they give those games bad scores seem a bit more evident than why IGN gives strange scores (not mentioning review quality...)... more consistent? :) Also, I never said that the fact I think their reviews are better quality and more trustworthy and consistent means that I always agree with them or anything, or think they are right all the time... I just think that their reviews are well done and usually not subject to the kinds of silly things that IGN marks games down for all too often. I don't understand the F-Zero X score at all, but the Rush one I can see for someone who doesn't especially like arcade/futuristic racing games, or likes specific kinds of them best, or something... Oh, and as for Mario Kart, it doesn't deserve to be hit that hard, but the fact that the single player game is pathetically easy does hurt it. DKR though makes no sense... it has a great single player game so its weaker multiplay shouldn't hurt it nearly that much... do they just hate kart racers too? And for every one of those low racing game scores there's a Ikaruga that shows their quality... or Majora's Mask. :) Oh, and I haven't played Rush 1 all that much, but I wouldn't think it'd be THAT different from Rush 2 and 2049, both of which are great racing games... and as I've said before, 2049 is, IMO, easily the N64 game I play the most (I still play it regularly), and after F-Zero X is the second best racing game on the system... IMO of course. But my stand on arcade racers is shown pretty clearly when you note that 8 of my 26 N64 games are arcadish racing games... Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 16th April 2003 You just contradicted yourself there. First you say that you disagree with their crappy N64 racer reviews and then you say that they don't mark down games for stupid reasons like ign does. I'd say that giving F-Zero a 7 because it doesn't have enough "soul" is a lot more stupid than any reason IGN has ever used. So :shake: And Rush 1 was a lot like the other games except for the fact that the cars controlled like barges. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 16th April 2003 I'd have to read the full F-Zero X review to really see... I wouldn't base a review impression on the tagline and score... so I'm not sure what the reasons are. But the score is admittedly quite low. Oh, and is there really that big a difference in turning between Rush and Rush 2? Oh, and Rush 2 deserved a lower score in some ways because of the very poor graphics... Ikaruga Review - Private Hudson - 17th April 2003 I got sick of reading this arguement some time ago, but from what I did read, I agree wholeheartedly with ABF. :) IGN are hacks. Gamespots reviews are generally far more proffessionally written, and are actually interesting to read. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 17th April 2003 Pfft, what do Australians know. You guys like, have sex with sheep and stuff. And there is a huge different between car handling in Rush 1 and 2, ABF. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 17th April 2003 Well if even he can see that (and Dark Jaguar too...), I'd say your position is in trouble OB1... :) Oh, and why would there be such a big difference between Rush 1 and 2? The difference between 2 and 2049 isn't as huge (well, unless you use Extreme handling in 2049, which has no equilivant in 2... and is VERY hard but worth it to get that speed boost...)... odd. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 17th April 2003 My position is in trouble? What position? You mean my position on not liking that shitty site known as Gamespot? ![]() And I said that the car handling is very different between Rush 1 and the other two games. The last two handle the same. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 17th April 2003 Rush 2 handles like Rush 2049 in standard handling, but Rush 2 has no handling option like 2049, so 2049's Advanced and Extreme handling options are quite different and more challenging than Rush 2's. Have you really played 2 and 2049 much? Remember, unlike Rush 1 and 2, in 2049 you have to unlock almost everything... Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 17th April 2003 I have Rush 2049 for the DC (much better than the N64 version, BTW :P ) and I used to have Rush 2. I'm talking about defaults here, ABF. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 17th April 2003 Well I've been using Extreme handling for a year or more now, and switched to Manual (for that speed boost...) a few months ago, in 2049... and as I said I play it more than anything else on the N64. I still haven't unlocked one of the engines, too... you need 6000 miles (in standard races on the odometer) for the final engine... and since restarts (you know, when you restart or quit a race because you didn't do well enough) don't count towards your miles, I have a LONG way to go... I'm not much above 2000 miles (since I got the 2000 mile, second-from-last engine not too long ago)... I've also gotten well over 2 million stunt points... almost 3 millon, actually, I think. Oh, and the F1 is the best. :) And the only feature difference between Rush 2049 N64 and DC is that DC has two obstacle course tracks while N64 has just one. Ikaruga Review - OB1 - 17th April 2003 The DC version also looks a million times better and runs at a smoother framerate. Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 17th April 2003 Both true, I'd expect (though the framerate is usually just fine, it does slow down a little bit every so often, especially in 3 or 4 player multiplayer)... but not things that really affect gameplay much... Though if I had a DC I'd be sure to buy the game. Ikaruga Review - Private Hudson - 17th April 2003 Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon You could probably find one for about $20 second hand these days. What's stopping you? Ikaruga Review - A Black Falcon - 17th April 2003 The fact I only have $30? :) Oh, and I played some multiplayer Rush 2049 today. Yeah, it has definite framerate issues in multiplayer... 3 or 4 player mode anywhere (sometimes and especially in 4 player) and 2 players on track 6 especially have issues... track 6 really does slow down too much in 2 player mode... |