theebenthusiast
Neo Member
NWR review updated. I gave it a 7.5: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/review/39827/code-name-steam-3ds-review
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Code Name: S.T.E.A.M | Review Thread
- Thread starter Sendou
- Start date
TheMoon
Member
Please fix the sidebar that says the game has 1-4 player mp.
Maintenance
Member
* First party and etc, third party like Atlus and Capcom (Monster Hunter), not so.
-----
Any word on the multiplayer? How long until this is out on the eShop?
TDLink
Member
1 hour now
TheMoon
Member
Should be midnight EST. So in about an hour unless I'm mistaken.
I think I'm gonna post the OT now, though. I need to go to bed.
What do you want to know about multiplayer?
Maintenance
Member
Thank you.
Thanks. I heard about tournaments, but I want to know if the MP is co-op or versus, the rest I'll try to find online.
TheMoon
Member
Code Name S.T.E.A.M. |OT| is live: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1009627
Online is versus. Like the demo says. It's 1v1 death match (last man standing) / medal battle (timed) and ABE Battle (mech vs mech brawl)
Maintenance
Member
Ok, thanks.
TwiztidElf
Member
This game has rare cult classic written all over it.
mgs2master2
Banned
Kinda like Valkyria when it first came out, Now its on PC and everyone loves it. Hope this gets the same treatment. (got my copy wednesday and It is very fun and great. Difficulty fluxuates quite a bit, and the enemy movement gets slow at times. Other than that, a very solid game)
3.5 from McElroy (polygon) http://www.polygon.com/2015/3/13/8212587/code-name-s-t-e-a-m-review-off-the-rails
It's really fascinating that the same frustrations are mentioned in the positive and negative reviews. It really is up to the person.
It's really fascinating that the same frustrations are mentioned in the positive and negative reviews. It really is up to the person.
Locamotable
Member
The fact that reviews are so divided is making me want to pick it up more and see for myself.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Valkyria wasn't a smashing commercial success, but I think it's erroneous to act as though it was critically divisive. The reviews were good right out of the gate, and I remember the game having no shortage of fans here when the PS3 version released.
spazchicken
Member
Hmmm...
Also:
For the record, I'm not saying that reviews are pointless and I understand these are three different people. Still doesn't make the vast gaps in their scores and opinions and less silly though.
I'm also wondering what would have pushed it over the edge to that .1 in the IGN review. That one track didn't have quite enough bass? That eagle emblem wasn't quite gold enough?
Steve Youngblood
Member
What is even remotely silly about different people having different opinions about something?
This is a weird sentiment that seems to rear its ugly head in review threads every once in a while. It's even more prevalent with games that generally get really good reviews. You see people saying that the outlier is just doing it out of spite or to get attention. The possibility that the reviewer is just offering their honest feelings on the game isn't even mentioned. I wonder if it's in part because of Metacritic and how they assign one score for each game potentially affecting our judgement of the legitimity of invidual reviews. Whether that be subconsciously or not.
The view of the game really circles around one factor: Is not having a feature, a feature? The positive reviewer acknowledge, that not having a map or a limited view, is the true challenge of the game. It makes the overwatch feature much more dangerous, since there many more blindspots and you have to be careful. You also have to position your characters to get the best view on the battlefield. The game actually wants you to split up.
I also have a theory, why Intelligent Systems chose a comic-style for the game. In the movement phase of the enemies you can keep track, where they are moving or if they are moving at all. This helps to know, if they could be in overwatch-mode, since they would have enough steam to go into it.
Since you can't see your opponents all the time, you at least can hear them. But what if, the players doesn't has the sound turn on? That's why the spell out the sound effects, which of course reminds everybody of old comic books. XIII was another game, which used the effect to help players understand the imports of a sound. This is also why, the properly didn't want to have the enemy turn to be too fast, even if there weren't moving (what could still be important hint).
DannyDanger
Member
Still don't understand how you can review a game you didn't finish
Basileus777
Member
The text of the review explains it pretty well.
DannyDanger
Member
Basileus777
Member
Not finishing one mission doesn't make much of a difference. They played enough to judge the game and articulate their opinion. It's not like they played a few hours and gave up.
I honestly think the game is average from what I've seen in the demo, so I'm not that far removed from their review (they were way too harsh on it though). However a reviewer should try and see everything what they're reviewing has to offer: imagine doing a review for a movie having only seen half of it, or reviewing an album before listening to all the songs. Nobody in the entertainment world does this, only game critics get away with this, in any case he should be sorry to its readers because he didn't complete it, he should certainly not gloat about it or be a dick about it.
So professional.
BTW why does every single stupid thing from Polygon end up being Gies or Kuchera's fault? Incredible.
Basileus777
Member
I doubt there was anything in the last bit of the game that would have changed the reviewer's opinion of the game. Disliking that opinion is fine, but I don't think not completing the last mission is particularly relevant. The comparison to films is hollow as films are short and not interactive.
Adam Tyner
Member
It's somewhat common to read DVD / Blu-ray reviews where writers don't actually listen to audio commentaries in their entirety or (especially) watch multiple cuts of movies. Listening to an album or watching a movie rarely takes north of 25 hours, for what it's worth.
Honestly, I have zero problem with this particular example. He sunk 26 hours into the game, toughed it out to the next-to-last encounter, and devoted 4 hours to a miserable battle that wasn't going anywhere. Do you really think anything after that point would've turned anything around for him, or is it just on principle? He was upfront about not finishing it, after all.
I absolutely agree that it's ideal for a reviewer to finish a game, but this is kind of like berating a restaurant reviewer for not eating the last couple bites of a meal that made him want to retch.
I vehemently disagree. If you're reviewing a product it's your duty to see everything that it has to offer. Maybe not 100% the game, but at least reach some developer-intended conclusion. Without that you are not entitled to a proper opinion about the game.
You can still write a review, but I won't read your review to the end.
So how did you come to a conclusion that reaching 100% is not required to properly review a game? It's still content I'd imagine most reviewers never see and thus really can't have an opinion on it.
old manatee
Banned
I don't see what the problem is. The review states that he didn't finish the game. It isn't like they are trying to pull a fast one. :/
Basileus777
Member
I'd agree with you in most cases, but if a reviewer gets 95% through a game and doesn't finish it because of frustration, I don't much care. That person has played enough to form a basis for their opinion, which is really all what reviews are.
US Gamer had a really shitty review last year where the reviewer played like 3 hours of a game before giving up and giving it a horrible score, and that pissed me off, so I know where you are coming from.
Most games have a minimal intended end state that is rather obvious.
If he didn't even like it enough to want to finish it, that should tell you the score is going to be low. It's not like a game of this type is suddenly going to drastically change at the end.
Intended being the key word here. It doesn't mean you can't properly review a game even if you never reach it. It only becomes an issue if it's not disclosed in the review. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide what kind of importance you want to put on the review in question.
I'm not saying the ending would have changed his opinion of the game, however reviewing a game isn't only about giving a general opinion (overall positive / negative / mixed), it's also about giving information on the subject matter. If he had finished the game, he could've added something like: "the ending partially redeems the cliche story", or "the ending is subpar and obvious just like the rest of the plot". Additional informations for the reader are always a good thing.
Also, as I said, being a dick about it doesn't paint the reviewer in a very professional light.
Also, as I said, being a dick about it doesn't paint the reviewer in a very professional light.
I agree with this. I'd at least like a completely informed opinion on the entire game's main campaign/story mode. It's good that they disclosed this info at least.
Imagine if reviewers stopped playing MGS4 before the end missions/cutscenes of the main campaign lol
Edag Plata
Banned
I was looking for "Didn't finish a game" in their ethics policy. Couldn't find anything.
Shit is shit. The game isn't going to magically undo time itself and fold past chapters back on themselves so that oh wait they were actually great.
I love this post.
You don't even read their reviews but second hand information about this one has made you so angry you'll no longer trust a site you've never read in the first place.
To be fair, he probably read at least a couple paragraphs at some point, so he gave them a fair shake.
Yes, actually all review threads should lead with the bad scores >_>
SporeCrawler
Member
hmm too bad. I am still hoping for a WiiU version with better graphics and better AI.
It might have been reviewed better, atleast reviewers would have avoided sitting through that last shite cutscene.