-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
OPM UK scores (first BLACK score?)
- Thread starter Solid
- Start date
LiquidMamba
Member
Kobold said:
Why are you giving the game a 4/5 if it doesn't live up to the hype, or better FPS? It doesn't sound that great by what you have said.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
A 4/5 but Mace Griffin is better?!? You need to reevaluate.
The fact that you even like Mace makes me question your judgement...but you you were really smacking down until that comment.
The fact that you even like Mace makes me question your judgement...but you you were really smacking down until that comment.
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
Agent Icebeezy said:
.
Just wait till you fire those guns though, it's pretty sweet. I'm trying to judge somewhat objectively. Although I find it a tad boring, have to factor in that I've played every shooter since Wolf 3D. So I'm pretty jaded when it comes to all this 'supposed' innovative hype.LiquidMamba said:
Most gamers only get to buy a few consoles games each year/month and hardly play everything, so they would enjoy something as this more since it does depict firing a gun very nicely. So I'm not judging it solely on my expert eye that catches EVERY little detail that could've been better in the game (I tend to notice every stupid little thing...). I would not expect most people to notice those. Outside of those details that might annoy me, it's pretty much a Rainbow Six (consoleversion) meets TimeSplitters kind of game that's easy to get into. For hardcore gamers, I personally think it's too repetetive since it offers only a few challenges which get repeated a lot in each of the levels.
Generally it looks pretty polished, nice graphics, very good sounds. The gameplay might be run-of-the-mill, but those production values make it at least a visually and auditory impressive title which can work to make you enjoy the gameplay it offer more.
Therefore, it's not merely a solid title that offers standard stuff, it gives you an exceptional representation of the fire arms you fire and their impact on the level. Myself, i've about had it with that in a few levels after each other when the challenges don't change, but if you don't play it all after each other till the end, which i'm expecting most gamers to do, play a level, do something else, play another level, etc. I'm sure it's a more enjoyable visceral experience. That and the fact that I've seen it all before, except for this exact thing.
That's basically all there is to it, like i've said before. It's the guns and how they fire and leave their mark on the world that' really nicely done. It's not always consistent. Its not the standard gameplay, but the presentation that really makes this game feel like something more then a standard shooter. Anyways hope that makes sense a little. I'll play more tomorrow.
Haha, well at least Mace Griffin was pretty unique in it's variety. Did you even play it? (some nice graphics for it's time, a few awesome levels on a space cruiseship, in a huge ass installation in an astroid, etc.)Musashi Wins! said:
I said I enjoyed it more, not that it's a better game perse. It had a storyline, diverse enviroments and weapons, that's more important to ME then the single gimmick of nice weapon sounds and some destructable enviroments. Which Mace Griffin also had and to some extend each title has it (barrels that explode, walls to collapse).
If you did play it, please let me know what was it's largest ailment outside of just coming out at the wrong time at the wrong place and being too hard in the space combat area's. It was compared to Halo and Halo only, that alone sealed it's faith. Not that it was 'great' in any other respect, but that certainly put the nail in it's coffin.
It's my personal preference, can't argue with personal opinion. (wreviews mainly are still just that, except for the factual running down of features you gotta give your opinion on them...)
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
I remember blessedly little about good ol Mace. I didn't finish it, because it wasn't satisfying to shoot, play or follow the story of (a category I give a bit of leeway to in shooters). It's famous to me for the hollow performance of Rollins if nothing else.
It wasn't overshadowed by Halo by any other reason than Halo is well made where as Mace was generic with equally bland mechanics.
But opinions do differ. Which isn't to say I don't believe your spot on with Black, I just thought that was an odd cross reference.
It wasn't overshadowed by Halo by any other reason than Halo is well made where as Mace was generic with equally bland mechanics.
But opinions do differ. Which isn't to say I don't believe your spot on with Black, I just thought that was an odd cross reference.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
ItsInMyVeins said:I don't believe the 10/10 score is correct either. On the other hand.. I don't think there's any game out there that deserves a 10/10 score
Resident Evil 4 would like a word with you.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
boutrosinit said:
I'd like a word with Mikami so I can knock him upside the head and tell him to drop tank controls already. Sorry, even RE4 isn't a 10/10.
From my impressions of Black so far, I'm willing to call it the God of War of console FPS games. God of War wasn't terribly innovative, it didn't break the fourth or fifth wall or anything like that, it just successfully did what everyone else had already tried. It brought everything about the genre together in a fun and simple package with incredible production values. It might not have been as deep as games like DMC3, but it's an amazing and unforgettable game.
Black is pretty much the same way, and those same comments could actually be made about Black and still apply. It just successfully does what console FPS games have been attempting for years. The sound is amazing, it's exhilarating to play, the graphics are unbelievable, it's incredibly tense, replay value is high simply due to the nature of the game... It's just a very well-done package of what has been attempted many times in the past with mixed results. The 10/10 is debatable, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Black is pretty much the same way, and those same comments could actually be made about Black and still apply. It just successfully does what console FPS games have been attempting for years. The sound is amazing, it's exhilarating to play, the graphics are unbelievable, it's incredibly tense, replay value is high simply due to the nature of the game... It's just a very well-done package of what has been attempted many times in the past with mixed results. The 10/10 is debatable, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Received my copy of the Black demo after buying FFX-2 & Zelda: LOTP from Gamecrazy. Initially, the demo is 5 min short & you toggle between the shotgun & AK-47. It did seem fun but nothing really stands out to make this game a blockbuster. The destructable environments were nice & the gernades were fun- but that was about it.
I like the game, but probably not enough to pay full retail for an FPS that does not really jump out to me. Hopefully after the initial first price drops will I contemplate this purchase.
ps- I doubt, but is an online playable?
I like the game, but probably not enough to pay full retail for an FPS that does not really jump out to me. Hopefully after the initial first price drops will I contemplate this purchase.
ps- I doubt, but is an online playable?
Ninja Scooter
Member
because a game has to have multiplayer to be perfect?
SolidSnakex
Member
Jerkface said:
Not really, a great single player experience should be able to be graded as well as a multiplayer focused game.
SolidSnakex
Member
They didn't leave it out, that'd suggest that it was in the game to begin with. THe game has been build from the start as being a single player game. Considering the majority of gamers don't even play games online, I don't see what the big deal is.
SolidSnakex
Member
It probably would be a factor then, because the game wouldn't be as good. 
GitarooMan
Member
Jerkface said:
I don't think it's weak at all, personally I'd rather most developers focused on single-player more than they do. I don't see any reason every FPS has to have a multiplayer component. I guess the sales will tell whether that's true or not in the market....
No trouble, I just threw that name in there from memory really fast. I wasn't perse comparing the two in a technological way of better or worse in features or expansiveness. I just found it more enjoying, as I found Prince of Persia more enjoying for example.Musashi Wins! said:
I also enjoyed Ghost Recon much more, for example. Which doesn't have that kick to the weapons and some of the asme ailments. Black just doesn't do it for me, but it's no bad gameand does it's one redeeming thing that will make you go 'ohhh cooool', that's why I will apply a score in that region.
On the debate of multiplayer: It's totally irrelevant. Why should a game have to have multiplayer? It's all based on your definition of what a game should be. If you think a game must have multiplayer, then fine, that's what you will measure a game by. If you just want to have fun for your money, how does that factor in multiplayer or not? It doesn't really.
I just played it through, first half on Hard, then the last 3 missions on normal (you have to collect/shoot some hidden crap, and when you dont have enough, you can only play in normal in the next level), it was 5:50 according to the stats screen.
Its not a revolutionary game, but i think its the best of its category on PS2, and its among the best on Xbox (i played through the Xbox version, only 2 levels from the PS2). It looks stellar, the weapons are fantastic (the sounds!), and some of the levels are great. I pretty much hated the last level, but the Asylum, the Bridge and the Forest were awesome.
If you go a bit tactical, its not hard either on Hard mode, at least after you learn where the snipers and the RPG-enemies are. If you play on Normal, you can basically "rambo" through most situations.
The destruction is really different on the different parts of the levels. Sometimes you can only shoot off the paint from the walls, but there is not many things considered heavy cover - with a shotgun you can blast off doors, stone fences, wooden walls. I loved the minefields, where you throw a grenade, and the whole screen blows up, you hear some russian (?) screams, and see some bodies flying.
I'd gave it 9/10, maybe a bit more on the PS2 (not because its better, but on Xbox you have better FPS games). This game screams for coop multiplayer, there were situations where you feel that it would be awesome.
(sorry for my bad english)
Its not a revolutionary game, but i think its the best of its category on PS2, and its among the best on Xbox (i played through the Xbox version, only 2 levels from the PS2). It looks stellar, the weapons are fantastic (the sounds!), and some of the levels are great. I pretty much hated the last level, but the Asylum, the Bridge and the Forest were awesome.
If you go a bit tactical, its not hard either on Hard mode, at least after you learn where the snipers and the RPG-enemies are. If you play on Normal, you can basically "rambo" through most situations.
The destruction is really different on the different parts of the levels. Sometimes you can only shoot off the paint from the walls, but there is not many things considered heavy cover - with a shotgun you can blast off doors, stone fences, wooden walls. I loved the minefields, where you throw a grenade, and the whole screen blows up, you hear some russian (?) screams, and see some bodies flying.
I'd gave it 9/10, maybe a bit more on the PS2 (not because its better, but on Xbox you have better FPS games). This game screams for coop multiplayer, there were situations where you feel that it would be awesome.
(sorry for my bad english)
SolidSnakex
Member
Thanks for the impressions Grath. Sounds like Criterion really did deliver on this one.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Grath said:
You don't have to say sorry! Your english is fine
Be more confident about yourself
Fix The Scientist
Member
rag doll?
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
Questions for those who've played the whole game:
1. I've been looking at the screenshots of the Xbox version, and the environments have a tendency to look dark, dreary, and samey. Is the full game like this 90% of the time?
2. What's the story about here. Set in the future? Present? Who're the enemies supposed to be?
1. I've been looking at the screenshots of the Xbox version, and the environments have a tendency to look dark, dreary, and samey. Is the full game like this 90% of the time?
2. What's the story about here. Set in the future? Present? Who're the enemies supposed to be?
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Sho Nuff said:
(Gropes Sho Nuff)
GotchaForce
Member
Seriously, I know zilch about the story in this game. It's what made Halo so compeling, the characters and the story all made me care about it. If this is just some black ops guy going through his routine, then I doubt this'll be even a 8 for me. I'm sure it'll be the best PS2 based fps ever, though.
kaizoku said:Black does look special, and as a non-FPS fan, I'm actually interested in it. But no multiplayer and dual shock controls??I won't get past the 2nd level with that right analogue for aiming!
Errr ... isn't most people's issue with the dual shock the fact you need to use the left analog stick for moving (or hold the controller at a weird angle if you use the d-pad)?
I'm under the impression that you use the right analog stick for aiming on the X-box in FPS's. Am I missing something here?
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Onix said:
I think more people have a problem with the loose sticks on the DS2. The positioning is fine for me, but the looseness of them makes it hard to aim at times.
You're a sort of rogue Black Ops dude that ignores rules and chases some terrorist through several levels to get back at him for killing some teammates. (or in that general gist). The enemies are his bodyguards and cohorts (seems to have a private army of hockey mask, body armour wearing, swat shield carrying bozo's).Dr. Zoidberg said:
Several levels are dreary like that. Some are really nicely coloured though, vivid sometimes. It depends. Like I said before, some levels are sooooo boringgg. Some are pretty good really, and look nice. (Graveyard mission was sweeet, all the tombstones blowing to bits in the crossfire)
I've finished the game on hard now, I'm statisfied that it's a solid title, but I'm still not 'blown away' in any respects. The destruction is too random and inconsistant to be called a real addition to the overal game maybe, depends per level. I'd much rather remark on the incredible particle effects your bullets create, hazes of dust and smoke which obscure enemies sometimes even.
Anyways, I don't agree with a 9/10 either, which Grath would give. I might just be jaded, but I'm not fooled by this hype, it's just not all that to deserve that (maybe on PS2, yes, but I haven't played any PS2 shooters so far, so can't comment there). On Xbox there ismore engaging titles, if not so visually visceral.
EDIT: You could review this game per level, and get varying scores. From maybe 5/10 till maybe 9/10 for the best one, I think is the graveyard mission. Theres a cool one on the docks, and one in the woods eventually in a farmhouse which is nice. Others have fleeting segments of interest (to me) but are generally pretty boring in how they look as in how they play. (repeating the same challenges over and over..)
EDIT 2: By finishing on hard i've unlocked Black ops mode, which is pretty cool cuz you have unlimited ammo and you get sweet weapons (like M16 with grenadelauncher underneath, etc.), and you have objectives to destroy as much as you can basically.
EDIT 3: Haha! Unlimited ammo + uzi rules.
I think it's sad many of you have no problems with a multiplayer only FPS (UT), but a SP only one automatically receives comments like 'it can't possibly be perfect without it'. Considering how rarely it is to read anyone talking about improvements they'd like to see in FPS multiplayer aside from the bare minimum, it's no wonder the genre is stagnating so horrendously.
And I think it's pretty much a given that if Black had even just the basic multiplayer modes, none of you that have commented would have expressed any disbelief at the score. So I ask, if multiplayer innovation isn't a very large concern (it's seemingly more important that it just exists), why do you guys bother with new FPS's, and not just continue on with your old games?
And I think it's pretty much a given that if Black had even just the basic multiplayer modes, none of you that have commented would have expressed any disbelief at the score. So I ask, if multiplayer innovation isn't a very large concern (it's seemingly more important that it just exists), why do you guys bother with new FPS's, and not just continue on with your old games?
Heian-kyo said:
This is why more people need to play PDZ.
DarkOps mode is fantastic. A nice twist on the Counter Strike formula and has some of the best online team based mechanics. Plus modes like Infection are fun to play too.I agree with you about online FPS gaming though. Most online game modes in FPS are cookie cutter nowadays. Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, Capture and Hold, can't be arsed to play these modes anymore. I find them boring.
I hardly play online FPS games anymore (Besides PDZ), so single player is the focus. I'm glad Criterion focused mainly on single player, because having another fps game with deathmatch or capture the flag mode means nothing to me. It is too bad the single player seems hit and miss.