Print

[Joergen]

Well I'd have to agree. If a developer cannot utilise any of power of a new system but charges 10 or 20bucks more for the same game you should smack them for it, hard, this applies to all releases of a next gen launch lineup. The ones that dont make the new console look good dont deserve a high score.

Add to this the fact that all the previous tony hawk games have supported 720p on the Xbox1 but this is the FIRST ONE that doesnt, the evil plot starts to emerge. They've just dumbed down the xbox1 version to make the x360 version look that much better, because it needs all the help it can get.

[Carlo210]

Also, it's Jeff Gerstmann. He always has something up his butt.
The only reviewer I trust is Greg Kasavin. Go Greg!  
Gamespot is my favorite gaming websie when it comes to reviews and videos. We all have our opinions on them, but if you actually think a 'website' writes reviews and articles, you're wrong. Yes, they publish them, so I'm sure that since they've actually played the game, and since Jeff Gerstmann is a successful Gamespot journalist, the mediocre rating for American Wasteland holds some water for a next-gen launch title. One of the main reasons that the game scored crappy for looking just a little bit better than the Xbox 1 version, and I say it's a pretty good reason too.

It's funny, one of 1UP's journalists gives out a mediocre review about a critically acclaimed game called KAMEO and no one minds, but when "gamespot" gives out a mediocre review about a game that wasn't all that critically acclaimed in the first place, and probably isn't all it could be and may not be a justifiable Xbox 360 title (while fine for Xbox1), everyone goes "Gamespot suxxx!".

I've never liked that Jeff Gerstmann, though.

Greg Kasavin is the journalist I trust - Jeff Gerstmann can suck an egg. Don't get me wrong, those "I have crappy speaking skills, so I'll read my video review straight off of a sheet of paper" journalists can suck an egg too, but while it's lodged far up my ass.

[darkblizzard]

Gamespot is spot on. Wasteland is a piece of shit since all they did was port it over. They didn't even bother to fix all the bugs or fix the fudged up textures. Since Xbox isnt as good as 360, all the bad spots of Wasteland are hidden but when you launch it up in 360 it's an awful piece of work.

** Thumbs Down for Wasteland **

[jizzlobber]

exactly!

this is the xbox 360, if I see a bunch of ps2 ports i'll be very pissed off.
it's a next gen console and it's a last gen game.

[Natsocube]

It's pretty much the same as all the other "SHITE" Tony Hawk games, It put's X360 to shame, it's no more graphically advanced or more enjoyable. Thumbs down for the Tony.  

[atomheartmother]

Yeah its kinda odd as remember tony hawk 2x how they made it special for xbox why not THAW360 that has the same effects? Ohh well htey are all the same anyway.

[Ballz2TheWallz]

heh heh




hey m_hael, wtf is going on in activision

[Weem]

haha yeah that game sucks so much what do you expect?

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(Joergen @ Nov 18 2005, 06:04 PM)

Well I'd have to agree. If a developer cannot utilise any of power of a new system but charges 10 or 20bucks more for the same game you should smack them for it, hard, this applies to all releases of a next gen launch lineup. The ones that dont make the new console look good dont deserve a high score.

[SonnyMarrow]

There hasn't been a good Tony Hawk game since the original. I think the only one that ever impressed me was the GBA one. Graphics always suck, gameplay is always the same. I agree with the review as well... if you are buying a game for a next-gen system you don't expect it to look like ass, which it does.

[m_hael]

I'm assuming that everyone commenting on the x360 version has played it and thus has a right to comment on how it looks "soooo bad"... oh sorry did I step on a few toes there?

I'm not allowed to divulge the actual improvements made over the xbox version however I can tell you they are there and its a LOT more than simply rendering to 720p. Play them side by side and you'll see... I would however recommend that you don't comment until you see them side by side or at least play the x360 version.

regarding the gameplay - the game sells Millions of copies every year based on its gameplay... similar to madden.

regarding the reviews - any reviewer that values his reputation would be worried at the comments being made. People should probably note that the value in a game is in its playability (tetris isn't shiny or gritty or realistic, yet its the most played game in the world), in my opinion this should make up over 75% of a review... sadly reviwers (and graphics whores) are more bothered about effect X ... if you want shiny things or realistic looks go see a movie.

[incognegro]

m_chael,


With all due respect, I think the gist of the review is not just the graphics but the overall package. Now if your gonna charge the consumer more money for a title thats availabe cheaper on other systems then there is got to be something in place to justify the higher price. Now as a part time journalist that reviews games every now and then, I couldnt recommend someone buy THAW for the 360. They should just get the xbox version. Simply because you dont get any extra value for the extra money; theyre no significant improvements to warrant it being called next gen. You basically get the same game as the xbox version with a 720p option and a few graphical glitches.

They were just saying that you could get the same game and a better value if you just got one of the current gen versions.

Now the same cannot be said for other 360 launch titles so naturally THAW is gonna get the shorter end of the stick.

[m_hael]

What about someone who does not have any of the other platforms.. then in order to play THAW on xbox it would cost around $200... should the xbox 360 verison be persecuted because of this... no... an LP costs more than a CD...does that mean the review for LP's is ALWAYS worse... no.

ALL 360 games are going to be at the pricepoint ATVI set for THAW... it is therefore unfair to judge "value" and compare to other platforms unless ALL 360 games that are xplat get the SAME treatment; they didn't.

and again - you would see the improvements made if you ran xbox & 360 side by side... but that might be fair and balanced and this is america so we wouldn't wanna do that.

ps - my name is not michael.

[Joergen]

m_hael: Arent you employed by said company? So if our views are too harsh and unfair then your views are biased by a vested interest in the product in question.

Designing a game for the biggest cash cow (the PS2 naturally, 450mhz, 16MB ) which unfortunately happens to be the lowest common denominator, and then selling it as a next gen title (3.2GHz, 512MB) is your right as a free market enterprise. But we the public have the right to demand more. Fortunately for your business model most of us do not.

Your comparison to Tetris fails in that Tetris was revolutionary and original, and they didnt make a new Tetris game twice a year for 50 bucks a pop for 6 years in the running. To me TH has not been overhauled since it first appeared on the PSX (and actually was revolutionary and pioneering) so many years ago, and I can only wonder how many more years you can milk it without closing your doors for a couple years to build it all from scratch.

[m_hael]

QUOTE(Joergen @ Nov 20 2005, 08:00 PM)

m_hael: Arent you employed by said company? So if our views are too harsh and unfair then your views are biased by a vested interest in the product in question.