• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Black: GameSpot Review

snatches said:
What about Chronicles of Riddick? LOLZ

Nice comparison actually. I like COR. Its actually innovative in it's design. I'm doing things that I don't normally do in a FPS. It has a good story. It's technically very sound.

Black has one of three. No sale.
 
gigamex said:
Nice comparison actually. I like COR. It's actually innovative in it's design. I'm doing things that I don't normally do in a FPS. It has a good story. It's technically very sound.

Black has one of three. No sale.

Ya I love the game too.

The joke is that Jet works for Starbreeze (dev team for COR) and that game is

1) Short

2) Lacks multiplayer

So his comment was a little bit of self ownage.

I loved COR. Hoping for a sequel some day.
 
gigamex said:
Nice comparison actually. I like COR. It's actually innovative in it's design. I'm doing things that I don't normally do in a FPS. It has a good story. It's technically very sound.

Black has one of three. No sale.


Chronicles of Riddick was awesome.

Easily the best Xbox only FPS of this gen.

No question.
 
phonte said:
Chronicles of Riddick was awesome.

Easily the best Xbox only FPS of this gen.

No question.




i loved The Chronicles of Riddick, fantastic game, but easily the best xbox only fps of this gen. How bout halo or halo 2. I realize from you're previous posts ur not a fan of halo 2, and i guess you arent crazy about halo 1, but its a matter of personal taste. Theres room for improvement, but the gameplay in halo is incredibly solid, its single player mode is longer than riddick, and you can't neglect its multiplayer modes, which give it life waaayyy beyond anything COR is capable of. You could argue maybe that Chronicles has a more innovative, varied single player experience, but the best xbox FPS of this gen, no question? Thats saying an awful lot, considering you have Brothers in Arms in the mix even if you dismiss halo and halo 2, which you shouldnt imo.
 
my bad, forgot that BiA isnt an xbox only, still tho, saying COR is the best exclusive FPS on xbox is saying quite a bit.
 
dante786 said:
i loved The Chronicles of Riddick, fantastic game, but easily the best xbox only fps of this gen. How bout halo or halo 2. I realize from you're previous posts ur not a fan of halo 2, and i guess you arent crazy about halo 1, but its a matter of personal taste. Theres room for improvement, but the gameplay in halo is incredibly solid, its single player mode is longer than riddick, and you can't neglect its multiplayer modes, which give it life waaayyy beyond anything COR is capable of. You could argue maybe that Chronicles has a more innovative, varied single player experience, but the best xbox FPS of this gen, no question? Thats saying an awful lot, considering you have Brothers in Arms in the mix even if you dismiss halo and halo 2, which you shouldnt imo.


honestly, i just found both games to be antiseptic in their gameplay, the most recent installment especially.

i don't care for the setting, the storyline, or the gameplay -- which can be best described as plodding monotony.

i know people give the ai high marks, but i didn't see anything, even on the highest level, that changed my opinion of the series.

like i said earlier, i KNOW i'm in the minority..halo is just one of those series i don't get.

its brevity and the lack of an online component notwithstanding, chronicles of riddick shames the halo series.

it's just an awesome game.

i wish they were making a sequel to it.

BTW, i haven't played half-life 2 for the xbox, so that's why i rank chronicles of riddick as my alltime fav fps for the system.
 
Musashi Wins! said:
:lol This is the, "It's a FPA" defense, refined and updated.
Sorry no, since you can track back through several Black topics at this point and see that I've been of the opinion this would be a rental at best for me for awhile now. I'd just prefer to try and better characterize the game and its motives than simply backlash on the hype like too many are doing. I certainly think the characterization I made is more accurate than your presumption that, never having made an FPS before, Criterion was very likely to have come up with something "archaic" like this, even though several other less skilled dev teams who have no previous FPS experience themselves were able to adhere to the contemporary archetype and expectations for FPS in their first example of such a game.

Maybe, just maybe, it has less to do with underperforming and rather deliberate intent to try something different? Like I said, that should have been apparent from almost the beginning, when all the closed door demonstrations focused so strictly on the shooting and *never* played up major expectations for deep AI, multiplayer or the like.
 
I should really play Riddick one of these days. It was really untill this generation that I get into FPS....that and I suffered from 3D motion sickness for good long while.
 
cant argue with ur opinion, since it is your opinion, i just love halo and think it can't be totally ignored when discussing the best FPS's on the xbox, but chronicles of riddick is unquestionably a great game. Getting back to black it's been downgraded over time for me, was a must buy once upon a time, now maybe a rental if i can afford the 5 bucks in between all the sick games that must be purchased this month.
 
phonte said:
honestly, i just found both games to be antiseptic in their gameplay, the most recent installment especially.

i don't care for the setting, the storyline, or the gameplay -- which can be best described as plodding monotony.

i know people give the ai high marks, but i didn't see anything, even on the highest level, that changed my opinion of the series.

like i said earlier, i KNOW i'm in the minority..halo is just one of those series i don't get.

I don't love either Halo games. I believe it is somewhat over-rated. I think the multi-player though hits a nice sweet spot. It's kind of what I always wanted Unreal to be for me but never was. It's arcadey but not silly arcadey. I think it was the console successor to GoldenEye in that it hit at the right time and had the right mix of action.

The series probably takes itself too seriously and so does it fans but I think there is still an above average game there at it's core.


But then my favorite shooter isn't even really a shooter and that's Deus Ex. The shooting part of that game is actually the weak spot but I would love to see a more action oriented game but with that level of depth. Unfortunately most likely won't happen on a console.
 
gigamex said:
I don't love either Halo games. I believe it is somewhat over-rated. I think the multi-player though hits a nice sweet spot. It's kind of what I always wanted Unreal to be for me but never was. It's arcadey but not silly arcadey. I think it was the console successor to GoldenEye in that it hit at the right time and had the right mix of action.

The series probably takes itself too seriously and so does it fans but I think there is still an above average game there at it's core.


But then my favorite shooter isn't even really a shooter and that's Deus Ex. The shooting part of that game is actually the weak spot but I would love to see a more action oriented game but with that level of depth. Unfortunately most likely won't happen on a console.


Deus Ex owns.

Supposedly, S.T.A.L.K.E.R will give us something in a similar vein, only this time with great fpSHOOTER mechanics.

Deus Ex 2 sucked beyond belief..almost impossible to grasp that it was from the same team.
 
kaching said:
Maybe, just maybe, it has less to do with underperforming and rather deliberate intent to try something different? Like I said, that should have been apparent from almost the beginning, when all the closed door demonstrations focused so strictly on the shooting and *never* played up major expectations for deep AI, multiplayer or the like.

I hear your point but I tend to still think they just failed to make a good game or even failed with their ideas on "gun porn".

The first problem is that the game looks realistic. So there is an expectation for that realism to be backed up by somewhat realistic actions. Not that the game should strive for ghost recon or anything at all like that but when it looks like a modern day military shooter, you kind of expect a higher breed of intelligence at work.

It's certainly archaic in it's design but not in a good way. Old school design is often skill based or extremly hardcore. Look a really tough arcade shooter like House of the Dead. Instead Black for the most part is quite easy and doesn't require very much skill. It's not like your going to replay levels to get a higher hit % and unlock some cool trophy or something. So they practice old school with only the bad parts and none of the good.

The story is so bad, yet it really acts like its doing something good and artistic. The tone should have been more over the top and bad-ass. If it's a pop-corn game then deliver me a pop-corn story that will be suitable in style. Instead it's all artsy and "cinematic".

Basically if they were going for old school, they didn't go old school enough imo or they didn't really understand old school for what this genre is. Burnout is very retro imo. Burnout feels like where arcade games would be if they really still existed. Black on the surface is probably going for a similar aesthetic but they failed to reach it on nearly every level and the no multi-player eliminates what was a lot of the fun in arcade games of this type.
 
phonte said:
Deus Ex 2 sucked beyond belief..almost impossible to grasp that it was from the same team.

I didn't think it sucked but in comparison the orignial it is such a dissapointment that I can understand the opinion.

They should have split the series up. Deus Ex for the PC and Snowblind for the consoles and kept them in the same universe. That would have been interesting and I would have been able to have my cake and eat it too. I think the economic realities forced them to aim at a game that was neither fish nor fowl, console nor PC, and they got caught not satisfying anybody. Very unfortunate. I was never more sad than when they folded realizing the next Deus Ex game I play maybe 10 years down the road or maybe never at all.
 
Black blows Killzone out of the water. It is actually a fun game, just too short and flawed. Killzone was just pretty to look at (when it was not having weird LOD or texture problems)
 
gigamex said:
I hear your point but I tend to still think they just failed to make a good game or even failed with their ideas on "gun porn".
That's fine, I don't have a problem with complaints about the game framed within the right context.
 
kaching said:
Sorry no, since you can track back through several Black topics at this point and see that I've been of the opinion this would be a rental at best for me for awhile now. I'd just prefer to try and better characterize the game and its motives than simply backlash on the hype like too many are doing. I certainly think the characterization I made is more accurate than your presumption that, never having made an FPS before, Criterion was very likely to have come up with something "archaic" like this, even though several other less skilled dev teams who have no previous FPS experience themselves were able to adhere to the contemporary archetype and expectations for FPS in their first example of such a game.

Maybe, just maybe, it has less to do with underperforming and rather deliberate intent to try something different? Like I said, that should have been apparent from almost the beginning, when all the closed door demonstrations focused so strictly on the shooting and *never* played up major expectations for deep AI, multiplayer or the like.

I wasn't attempting to insult you, or infer you were doing damage control. I thought you were being sarcastic and found it funny. I don't think the games intent was to have great AI and I don't think a lack of multiplayer is a major issue if the core game is fun. On the other hand, good multiplayer can semi-rescue a single player game that sucks (ie. PDZ). That said, Black feels archaic because it's an update of the earliest form of shooters, which consist primarily of funneling through areas killing all in sight. It's just more fun because it looks and sounds better. If you've played a few other shooters, it will also seem shallow. Most people on GAF have probably played too many games period ;) So it's easy to see it's flaws. But there are some fun moments in this one. And that shouldn't be looked over because the pendulum has now swung the other way.
 
Black is meant to be a fun arcade style game.

Think of something like Gradius in a FPS context.

You are meant to replay the levels on harder difficulty setting.

One play through only nets you something like 30% game completion.

Black is great fun, how can anybody not enjoy playing through this game.

It is not meant to be Half Life or Halo.

I can't believe you are comparing Black to these games.

That would be like comparing Burnout to GT4, Forza or TOCA.

Is the core game mechanic in Black well released? Yes, this game creates the most fun gunplay ever had in videgames. Compared Black, stuff like Halo or Half Life is practically antiseptic, where is the destruction, where is the BANG.

You guys take games too seriously. The stories in most games are crap. The level design is weak (Even Halo has boring repitition in the middle stretch.) Black is lean and mean like a good arcade game should be.

I hope the casual gamers lap it up.
 
I am a little surprised at the score. This is a game that they hyped up like True Crime and then when all is said and done, it gets an average grade.
 
Prine said:
PDZ>Black

i knew it!

As much as I dislike PDZ (single player), I'm gonna have to agree with Prine on this one. Actually I'd say most FPS's > Black with the exception of Killzone
 
Nick Laslett said:
You are meant to replay the levels on harder difficulty setting.


Playing it on a harder difficulty setting actually makes the game unfun. It doesn't really make it difficult (just need to use more cover since you can't 'carry' health packs). It's unfun cause you have to do stupid, pointless objectives that go out of your way to complete missions. You can't beat a level in dark ops unless you complete every objective, and the objectives are almost like 'collect-a-thons'.

Criterion should just stick to what they do best: Burnout
 
Yuck, I'm very much disappointed in these scores. Doesn't sound awful by any means, but I was really hoping for a triple A title here. It certainly looked like it was going to be.
 
Solid said:
BUT BUT YOU CAN BLOW SHIT UP!1 FOR 5 HOURS!

TEH GUNS ARE TEH STARS


PRESS R1 FOR TEH EXCITEMENT


DOOOO ITTT NOWWWW


OMFG THERE ARE MULTIPLE PATHS

INSTANT REPLAYABILITY
 
EDGE magazine gave Black an 8 out of 10.

Criterion’s ability to make the technology and design of modern games seem harmonious is a significant strength in an industry where few can pull it off. It twiddles the knobs of RenderWare with uncanny insight into when to fake and when to calculate, and Black is a fiery example of what can result. It isn’t subtle, nor is it as sophisticated as some would wish for, but it nonetheless leaves a sizeable crater in a landscape where even HD titles struggle to leave an impression.

Whatever...
 
Nick Laslett said:
Yes, this game creates the most fun gunplay ever had in videgames. Compared Black, stuff like Halo or Half Life is practically antiseptic

Your Criterion/EA check is in the mail. Well done. Bravo. :lol
 
gigamex said:
Your Criterion/EA check is in the mail. Well done. Bravo. :lol


heh..he's not far off with halo.

from the impressions i've gathered from friends, black is a viscerally gripping, albeit short, romp that never loosens its hold on you until the very end.

halo is the exact opposite, imo.

i know u said that halo online was great, but i was so turned off by halo 2's matchmaking that i didn't really give that component much of a shot.
 
gigamex said:
Your Criterion/EA check is in the mail. Well done. Bravo. :lol

He might have gone a bit overboard, but after seeing Black all other FPS/action games look like they lack intensity. GRAW for example looks awesome, but the gunplay looks terrible, the simple act of firing the weapon looks so lame.
 
Pedigree Chum said:
He might have gone a bit overboard, but after seeing Black all other FPS/action games look like they lack intensity. GRAW for example looks awesome, but the gunplay looks terrible, the simple act of firing the weapon looks so lame.


usually in FPS games the AI and the skill of other players is what makes a game intense to me. If the AI sucks then the intense feeling wont last.
 
Pedigree Chum said:
He might have gone a bit overboard, but after seeing Black all other FPS/action games look like they lack intensity. GRAW for example looks awesome, but the gunplay looks terrible, the simple act of firing the weapon looks so lame.

I disagree but I've kicked this dead dog enough in this thread. I'm willing to bet in 6 months Black will never be mentioned again practically until the inevitable sequel PR march begins. Ultimately that's the real problem rather than any specific complaint. It simply isn't memorable for a variety of reasons. I'm guessing people will still be fondly remembering other FPS's in that time.
 
Kabuki Waq said:
usually in FPS games the AI and the skill of other players is what makes a game intense to me. If the AI sucks then the intense feeling wont last.

Agreed, but I'm sick of FPS where the weapons have no intensity...it needs to end.
 
Pedigree Chum said:
He might have gone a bit overboard, but after seeing Black all other FPS/action games look like they lack intensity. GRAW for example looks awesome, but the gunplay looks terrible, the simple act of firing the weapon looks so lame.

Pretty much why I want this. I've played the Halos, the Dooms, the milarity ones like Ghost Recon/Socom, so on and so on. Now I'ill like to try for a different experience. All the crazy mayhem in Black with it's destruction and what not is what I like to see more of in Next Gen titles, but it's nice to see a taste of it a gen earlier.
 
Pedigree Chum said:
Agreed, but I'm sick of FPS where the weapons have no intensity...it needs to end.


err what do you mean? the ghost recon and R6 series have some great sound effects when you shoot someone. IT seems really realistic.
 
I'm having deja vu all over again, after Killzone.

All this is doing is driving home to me how much the Halo games really did right. For all the grief they get, those games have really defined what makes a great console shooter, and nothing has measured up yet.
 
I am 22% in and its already taken me over 6 hours, I guess if you run around guns blazing not caring about getting hit you can finnish it faster but where is the fun in that?
 
Do you remember?

The demo session I was in was filled with Euro journalists (mostly German, judging from the accents) who clearly had their laundry list of stunningly boring questions prepared. "How many levels?" to which Alex responds "I don't know, we haven't finished it yet. One thing I can tell you though is that this is running on PS2, it's not video, and we're only running at 50% of what we can do graphically, and 30% of the whole game. You're not going to buy this game in February and wonder what the fuck happened. You're not going to look at it and wonder why a bunch of levels were taken out. Or why it doesn't have a proper ending. There won't be any talking plants."
Edit: Gek, the % measures the secondary objectives. You can end the game with a 30% if you want.
 
Top Bottom