Support NeoGAF

[A Link to the Past]

Do we have a review from someone confirmed to be a skilled veteran in XCOM, Fire Emblem, and Valkyria Chronicles? I need someone with real insight, not just "this is weird and hard"

The GameSpot reviewer Austin Walker expressed his fandom for both VC and XCOM

 

[Dice]

The GameSpot reviewer Austin Walker expressed his fandom for both VC and XCOM

Hmmmm... he seems to know what he's talking about, lamenting the lack of interesting risks to take, driving it into a cautious drudge rather than something dynamic. That's what I'd say about other IS games compared to XCOM.

 

[Josh5890]

Yup. Gamespot still loves to crap on Nintendo

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yup. Gamespot still loves to crap on Nintendo

Well, what's your opinions on the review? Does it sound like he is just trying to shit on the game?

 

[Sorta Maximus]

Have to say it's a pass for me based on art style, level of interest, having other similar games in my pile of shame, and review scores.

 

[Reset]

Yup. Gamespot still loves to crap on Nintendo

So you already beat the game?
What do you think the game deserves.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Yup. Gamespot still loves to crap on Nintendo

Yup. Overly invested fanboys still love to offer terrible responses in review threads.

 

[nephilimdj]

Even the gamexplain video could barely find anything positive to say, its the longest 9mins of that guys life.

 

[Overside]

Mixed reviews have quickly become the most telling sign of a game I will find enjoyable.

Games that get 10's across the board, are so simple and easy to comprehend they can immediately be digested and understood in full, as a reviewer rushes through them to check the boxes to make the deadline. And they arent mentally stimulating for me at all.

Games that get bad scores across the board, are typically just bad.

Games that get low scores and high scores, means theres something some reviewers picked up on and 'got' that others never did with their limited rushed time with the game, which generally means they have more depth to them.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Yup. Overly invested fanboys still love to offer terrible responses in review threads.

And just in case anyone is perplexed as to why I would offer such an obviously adversarial and frankly bad post, the answer is to make clear my frustration with how review threads in general often play out. I would also point out that I made this post as an alternative to the more simple approach of "banning for shitposting."

 

[Hugstable]

And just in case anyone is perplexed as to why I would offer such an obviously adversarial and frankly bad post, the answer is to make clear my frustration with how review threads in general often play out. I would also point out that I made this post as an alternative to the more simple approach of "banning for shitposting."

I agree, the amount of discrediting and "oh this review site hates so and so console" has been getting a bit much recently.

 

[Josh5890]

Well, what's your opinions on the review? Does it sound like he is just trying to shit on the game?

So you already beat the game?
What do you think the game deserves.

Yup. Overly invested fanboys still love to offer terrible responses in review threads.

So I'm a fanboy? I'm just making a point through my observations that Gamespot generally gives lower scores to Nintendo games than the rest of the gaming journalists. It seems like the majority Nintendo game is rated lower on Gamespot than Metacritic. My comment was made at the website in general, not one reviewer.

To me it feels like the reviewer is beating up the game for it's story and characters. When I first saw this game, I took it as a comical game. I'm not expecting a great storyline or character development from this game. I've played the demo and I can agree that the some of the gameplay mechanics are flawed but from my little trial, I don't see this as a bad game.

This game isn't really on my radar, not at launch anyway. Unless this game blew the world away (and judging by the mixed reviews it won't) I'm going to wait for a $20 sale or something to pick it up.

 

[Dice]

Games that get low scores and high scores, means theres something some reviewers picked up on and 'got' that others never did with their limited rushed time with the game, which generally means they have more depth to them.

If they complete all the missions in the game, how could they not understand the game enough? For instance, the guy who wrote the Gamespot review seemed to criticize it for being too basic in design as he blasted through the missions in 30 hours. Was he "missing something" about it that he was supposed to utilize to make it more complicated for himself than it wanted to be naturally? Seems to me it's more likely he understands strategy games and maybe the game is relying on player ignorance to mix things up and make things seem more interesting than they are.

 

[Josh5890]

And just in case anyone is perplexed as to why I would offer such an obviously adversarial and frankly bad post, the answer is to make clear my frustration with how review threads in general often play out. I would also point out that I made this post as an alternative to the more simple approach of "banning for shitposting."

Well I don't want to be banned from Gaf since I do enjoy coming here daily. I probably should've elaborated my original post rather than one sentence. I will try to do better in the future to contribute to the threads.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Well I don't want to be banned from Gaf since I do enjoy coming here daily. I probably should've elaborated my original post rather than one sentence. I will try to do better in the future to contribute to the threads.

To be clear, the aim isn't to single you out. Your's was just the most recent in a trend I'm honestly extremely tired of. If you think that this is just about having an ax to grind against Nintendo fans, I might direct your attention to something like reactions to The Order reviews wherein people are convinced that journalists have it in for Sony. That's equally egregious.

The main thing I like to argue is that even if a site's reputation isn't stellar, that doesn't automatically mean THIS (and I mean "this" in the general sense referencing whatever game we are talking about) review is bad. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if you're not willing to respond to the critique in good faith, then don't respond at all.

Regardless of whether or not it's one's intent, "Site X has an agenda" never comes across like you may hope. Ultimately, you may be right, but it's a difficult claim to prove and invariably comes across as a lazy, emotional maneuver to try and make a score one doesn't like go away.

 

[Josh5890]

To be clear, the aim isn't to single you out. Your's was just the most recent in a trend I'm honestly extremely tired of. If you think that this is just about having an ax to grind against Nintendo fans, I might direct your attention to something like reactions to The Order reviews wherein people are convinced that journalists have it in for Sony. That's equally egregious.

The main thing I like to argue is that even if a site's reputation isn't stellar, that doesn't automatically mean THIS (and I mean "this" in the general sense referencing whatever game we are talking about) review is bad. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if you're not willing to respond to the critique in good faith, then don't respond at all.

Regardless of whether or not it's one's intent, "Site X has an agenda" never comes across like you may hope. Ultimately, you may be right, but it's a difficult claim to prove and invariably comes across as a lazy, emotional maneuver to try and make a score one doesn't like go away.

I can see your point. I pretty much went into the site ready to call out Gamespot if their score was less than 6ish. I'm actually more often than not indifferent as far as review scores are concerned but for some reason I started picking a fight tonight.

At the end of the day everyone, journalists and gamers, are entitled to their opinions. There will always be disagreements. I like this site since it seems (at least compared to IGN and Gamespot when I used to go there) most of the posts here are civilized and constructive. There is crap here like everywhere else but I tend to see more good than bad on Neogaf. Like I said I will try to be more respectful.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Currently at a 75 on Metacritic.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/3ds/code-name-steam

Honestly these review scores were a little below what I was expecting. CNS looks like a really fun game. I was expecting somewhere in the 80-86 Meta range

 

[Jintor]

Damn, these scores are all over the shop

 

[OuterLimits]

Damn, these scores are all over the shop

To an extent, but mainly because of the really low score from Gamespot. Besides that, two reviews are in the 6 range, but the majority are 7.5 to 8. With also a 9 from the Toronto Sun.

Granted, perhaps this may be a love it or hate it game similar to Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn?

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

To an extent, but mainly because of the really low score from Gamespot. Besides that, two reviews are in the 6 range, but the majority are 7.5 to 8. With also a 9 from the Toronto Sun.

Granted, perhaps this may be a love it or hate it game similar to Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn?

Plus some of the positive reviews don't appear on MetaCritic either. It's not nearly as mixed as some people seem to think

 

[tim.mbp]

Do you get graded on how long it takes to complete a mission/battle or the total kills per mission/battle?

 

[RagnarokX]

Even the gamexplain video could barely find anything positive to say, its the longest 9mins of that guys life.

Eh... he was mostly positive and most of his negatives were minor...

His negatives:

• Little character development
• Slow enemy phases
• Characters repeating phrases was mildly annoying
• Some maps had aliens gain too many reinforcements
• No way to directly challenge friends online
• Tournaments cannot be set on the day you make them

His positives:

• Plot is a lot of fun
• Very strategic scouting and positioning
• Each character has very unique weapons
• Overwatch
• Subweapons and boilers
• Unit stats don't really change as you play and the game is purely about strategy in your choices of units and tactics
• Fun multiplayer modes
• Game is incredibly balanced: challenging without being overwhelming
• Varied missions with constant stream of new enemies.
• Emphasis on vertical gameplay
• Turrets and tanks
• Comic book styling
• Sound design

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

Little character development

This was my biggest worry, I was hoping in the full game the characters would evolve past simply being "Famous Literary Character".

 

[ZeroX03]

Any of the reviewers able to test amiibo functionality?

 

[Beelzebufo]

Will listen to the Gamexplain view later. It's interesting that a lot of the scores are mediocre and that's the best score I've ever seen them give something.

Edit: Oh, it's Derrick? Meh. He always gives games way higher scores than I think they deserve. I learned my lesson with Kirby Triple Deluxe.

 

[Draxal]

To be clear, the aim isn't to single you out. Your's was just the most recent in a trend I'm honestly extremely tired of. If you think that this is just about having an ax to grind against Nintendo fans, I might direct your attention to something like reactions to The Order reviews wherein people are convinced that journalists have it in for Sony. That's equally egregious.

The main thing I like to argue is that even if a site's reputation isn't stellar, that doesn't automatically mean THIS (and I mean "this" in the general sense referencing whatever game we are talking about) review is bad. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if you're not willing to respond to the critique in good faith, then don't respond at all.

Regardless of whether or not it's one's intent, "Site X has an agenda" never comes across like you may hope. Ultimately, you may be right, but it's a difficult claim to prove and invariably comes across as a lazy, emotional maneuver to try and make a score one doesn't like go away.

I'm just generally critical of reviews now, because if they don't match the reviewers' preconceived notions they just fall apart, and his review seems to be very nitpicky.

I'm not so much critical of the reviewers themselves, they just don't have the time to fully dedicate themselves to the games and the pay sucks for these reviews.

I'd much rather trust gaming enthusiasts as they find some flaws/boons and there's more of a consensus.

If they complete all the missions in the game, how could they not understand the game enough? For instance, the guy who wrote the Gamespot review seemed to criticize it for being too basic in design as he blasted through the missions in 30 hours. Was he "missing something" about it that he was supposed to utilize to make it more complicated for himself than it wanted to be naturally? Seems to me it's more likely he understands strategy games and maybe the game is relying on player ignorance to mix things up and make things seem more interesting than they are.

Well, for example he said there was no way to know if an enemy was in overwatch, but a user claimed that their eyes changed color and it's fairly obvious. Mind you I have no way of verifying the truth until after the game is released, but sometimes reviewers miss these things.

 

[Orniletter]

To an extent, but mainly because of the really low score from Gamespot. Besides that, two reviews are in the 6 range, but the majority are 7.5 to 8. With also a 9 from the Toronto Sun.

Granted, perhaps this may be a love it or hate it game similar to Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn?

I think it's more of "good but flawed" game where the flaws are a huge turn off for some people, but most agree that there is a great game underneath.

I still think the GameSpot review is kinda crappy (not because of the score, those are whatever, but his complaints are....eh.... )

And Radiant Dawn is a "love it" game, get your facts straight, OuterLimits

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

I had no idea this game had online stuff...there's a Tournament Mode?

In the meantime, well, I made these out of boredom:

 

[Toxi]

I had no idea this game had online stuff...there's a Tournament Mode?

In the meantime, well, I made these out of boredom:

I was not ready for that punchline.

 

[Effect]

This was my biggest worry, I was hoping in the full game the characters would evolve past simply being "Famous Literary Character".

Always figured the character development was the development the characters went through in the works they're taken from. True they're public domain but would one want to try putting them through another character arc?

Which does bring up something I've been wondering about. How true are the characters to those portrayals? At what point in those stories are the personalities taken from? For example the Lion I would assume is taken from post-fight with the witch in Wizard of Oz and has his courage based on the clips of him talking.

 

[Zonic]

I had no idea this game had online stuff...there's a Tournament Mode?

In the meantime, well, I made these out of boredom:

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

Do you think this'll be up on the ESHOP at midnight?

Suddenly I'm really looking forward to this. I'm off all week, so may as well give it a shot.

 

[chrominance]

Finally played the demo, and it's not immediately off-putting. Yeah, the enemy turns are long, but for whatever reason I didn't find it that annoying. It helps that it's a handheld, I think. Obviously can't comment on "too many alien reinforcements" and the various story-related issues, but I think I'll hang onto my pre-order, or at least sit on it for a while before I decide whether to return it.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

One thing I really wanna know is if there are any more playable characters left, can anyone who reviewed the game say if there is?

I thought we knew all of them back when that poster came out, but just last week we saw that Calipha character is in.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Do you think this'll be up on the ESHOP at midnight?

Suddenly I'm really looking forward to this. I'm off all week, so may as well give it a shot.

If you glance at the eShop, you'll get your answer. It says available at midnight. All retail stuff is available at midnight.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Always figured the character development was the development the characters went through in the works they're taken from. True they're public domain but would one want to try putting them through another character arc?

Which does bring up something I've been wondering about. How true are the characters to those portrayals? At what point in those stories are the personalities taken from? For example the Lion I would assume is taken from post-fight with the witch in Wizard of Oz and has his courage based on the clips of him talking.

Well Alan Moore did that with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and people seemed to like that. Course I don't think anyone can really compare with Alan Moore.

 

[TheMoon]

One thing I really wanna know is if there are any more playable characters left, can anyone who reviewed the game say if there is?

I thought we knew all of them back when that poster came out, but just last week we saw that Calipha character is in.

The character select screen has 12 slots (going by the demo) and enough room for 4 more vertical ones to be taken up by any activated amiibo. We know about 10 characters so far. Safe to say two of them are still under embargo and will have to be discovered by players.

Thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't looked closely at that screen before. I'll add it to the OT.

 

[WarpathDC]

But but but if comes with a majoras mask pin

 

[Overside]

If they complete all the missions in the game, how could they not understand the game enough? For instance, the guy who wrote the Gamespot review seemed to criticize it for being too basic in design as he blasted through the missions in 30 hours. Was he "missing something" about it that he was supposed to utilize to make it more complicated for himself than it wanted to be naturally? Seems to me it's more likely he understands strategy games and maybe the game is relying on player ignorance to mix things up and make things seem more interesting than they are.

I do of course wish it was a perfect flawless system, rather than a generally reliable rule of thumb.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

Henry, John, Tom, Tiger Lilly, Lion, Scarecrow, Randolph, Queequeg, Fox, and Calipha are the ten we know of then I think.

I'm guessing we might see Tin Man then to fit with the other two Oz dudes, although he might be redundant since John has the "tin man" going on. Maybe Dorothy is also in alongside him for the whole party.

I'm also wondering if Lincoln becomes a playable character at one point beyond his mecha.

12 isn't too bad, I guess. I'd love to see more, but I guess unlike Fire Emblem with loads of characters this game is made so each individual character is more focused, so a smaller number is a positive.

If you glance at the eShop, you'll get your answer. It says available at midnight. All retail stuff is available at midnight.

Sorry, that was a stupid question.

Now I gotta decide to go physical or digital. I feel like I'd never get around to this game much if it's physical, since other games like Monster Hunter stay so comfy in the game slot...but I also have a GameStop Gift Card to use...

Only 8390 blocks too, so I have plenty of room too...

 

[Blunoise]

So is anyone doing an OT. I can't wait to get this tmmrw

 

[semiconscious]

Hmmmm... he seems to know what he's talking about, lamenting the lack of interesting risks to take, driving it into a cautious drudge rather than something dynamic. That's what I'd say about other IS games compared to XCOM.

i also loved both vc & xcom. the s.t.e.a.m. demo greatly disappointed me for exactly the reason you mention: if you can't actually see the enemy (which i couldn't 90% of the time), you can't actually strategize. the game's not so much an srpg as it is a klunky, turn-based cover shooter. which's not what the other 2 games were, at all...

so, yeah, i can easily understand his disappointment: the game's neither a true srpg or a good cover shooter. it's more the worst of both jammed together. how they could've thought limiting players to a third-person view only was a good idea astonishes me...

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

Ok, just saw you can see in the Game Trailer review our 11th character at one point...

Spoiler

I was right, it's Tin Man.

Guessing 12 will either be Dorothy or Lincoln

 

[TheMoon]

12 isn't too bad, I guess. I'd love to see more, but I guess unlike Fire Emblem with loads of characters this game is made so each individual character is more focused, so a smaller number is a positive.

Well, 16 technically (amiibo).

So is anyone doing an OT. I can't wait to get this tmmrw

->

Thanks for bringing it up, I hadn't looked closely at that screen before. I'll add it to the OT.

Me.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

I don't have any Fire Emblem Amiibo.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I don't have any Fire Emblem Amiibo.

That should be a smiling emoticon. Amiibos are dumb.

 

[Grakl]

That should be a smiling emoticon. Amiibos are dumb.

ur dumb

 

[Steve Youngblood]

ur dumb

We'll settle this after school.

 

[BassForever]

Not surprised to see the reviews for this game are all over the place, it seems like the kind of game that if you fall into it's niche you'll probably love but if you don't you'll probably hate it.

Also I'm still waiting for the Fire Emblem Amiibo to not be impossible to find Nintendo come on I wanna go full FE team in this game :[

 

[fernoca]

Getting this tomorrow digitally and not at midnight.

Turned out the 32GB card on the 2DS only had 400MB remaining, and there's stuff I haven't downloaded yet. Got a 64GB card, but need to format it first, then transfer everything. Oh well.