Next level gaming review is up

[ATrillionaire]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

Not to flame, but I see all of you talking about how good a review this one is. I think it's because Drive got a reasonably good score. But I want to know what makes this reviewer more credible to you. The people who are looking forward to this game base their anticipation on what they called GREAT GAMEPLAY from Drive 2003.

Yet the reviewer says,
"Last year, I really grilled Inside Drive 2003. In fact, I gave it a 67 for lack of online play and a pretty flawed graphic and gameplay engine."

Now all the Drive lovers would agree to disagree with the reviewers opinion of a FLAWED GAMEPLAY ENGINE in 2003, cause after all, that's what Drive players love about it, right?

So back to my early question....what makes the reviewer more credible now????

[margan]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

I just thought the review had more depth to it than Gamezone. The guy made some good points and backed them up. I wasn't much into Drive 2003, either. So maybe the improvements made will hook me also. Of last year's crop I liked 2k3 the best, but this year its not as good IMO. So I'm looking at drive with more interest.

And as far as the review, NLGaming knocked Drive last year for not having the gameplay enhancements as the others (free-style, pass out of a shot, ect.) but this year it does.

[margan]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

I just thought the review had more depth to it than Gamezone. The guy made some good points and backed them up. I wasn't much into Drive 2003, either. So maybe the improvements made will hook me also. Of last year's crop I liked 2k3 the best, but this year its not as good IMO. So I'm looking at drive with more interest.

And as far as the review, NLGaming knocked Drive last year for not having the gameplay enhancements as the others (free-style, pass out of a shot, ect.) but this year it does.

[margan]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

I just thought the review had more depth to it than Gamezone. The guy made some good points and backed them up. I wasn't much into Drive 2003, either. So maybe the improvements made will hook me also. Of last year's crop I liked 2k3 the best, but this year its not as good IMO. So I'm looking at drive with more interest.

And as far as the review, NLGaming knocked Drive last year for not having the gameplay enhancements as the others (free-style, pass out of a shot, ect.) but this year it does.

[Klocker]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Not to flame, but I see all of you talking about how good a review this one is. I think it's because Drive got a reasonably good score. But I want to know what makes this reviewer more credible to you. The people who are looking forward to this game base their anticipation on what they called GREAT GAMEPLAY from Drive 2003.

Yet the reviewer says,
"Last year, I really grilled Inside Drive 2003. In fact, I gave it a 67 for lack of online play and a pretty flawed graphic and gameplay engine."

Now all the Drive lovers would agree to disagree with the reviewers opinion of a FLAWED GAMEPLAY ENGINE in 2003, cause after all, that's what Drive players love about it, right?

So back to my early question....what makes the reviewer more credible now????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is what I said in response to the GameZone review:
------------------------------------------------
this review or my dislike for it has nothing to do with my desire for ID to be a good game. the review was flimsy, poorly thought out, poorly executed and lacked substance. It did not even touch on many of the basic elements of the gameplay.

I give that kind of poor excuse for a review about 2 seconds worth of thought when deciding to buy a game.

The NLGaming reviews on the other hand are well described and thoughtful and it sounds as though they spend more than 20 minutes trying the games.
---------------------------------------

Anyone who can not tell the difference between the two writing/reporting styles or the depth of the reviews, has got their f*n b*y goggles on.

IMO

[Klocker]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Not to flame, but I see all of you talking about how good a review this one is. I think it's because Drive got a reasonably good score. But I want to know what makes this reviewer more credible to you. The people who are looking forward to this game base their anticipation on what they called GREAT GAMEPLAY from Drive 2003.

Yet the reviewer says,
"Last year, I really grilled Inside Drive 2003. In fact, I gave it a 67 for lack of online play and a pretty flawed graphic and gameplay engine."

Now all the Drive lovers would agree to disagree with the reviewers opinion of a FLAWED GAMEPLAY ENGINE in 2003, cause after all, that's what Drive players love about it, right?

So back to my early question....what makes the reviewer more credible now????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is what I said in response to the GameZone review:
------------------------------------------------
this review or my dislike for it has nothing to do with my desire for ID to be a good game. the review was flimsy, poorly thought out, poorly executed and lacked substance. It did not even touch on many of the basic elements of the gameplay.

I give that kind of poor excuse for a review about 2 seconds worth of thought when deciding to buy a game.

The NLGaming reviews on the other hand are well described and thoughtful and it sounds as though they spend more than 20 minutes trying the games.
---------------------------------------

Anyone who can not tell the difference between the two writing/reporting styles or the depth of the reviews, has got their f*n b*y goggles on.

IMO

[Klocker]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Not to flame, but I see all of you talking about how good a review this one is. I think it's because Drive got a reasonably good score. But I want to know what makes this reviewer more credible to you. The people who are looking forward to this game base their anticipation on what they called GREAT GAMEPLAY from Drive 2003.

Yet the reviewer says,
"Last year, I really grilled Inside Drive 2003. In fact, I gave it a 67 for lack of online play and a pretty flawed graphic and gameplay engine."

Now all the Drive lovers would agree to disagree with the reviewers opinion of a FLAWED GAMEPLAY ENGINE in 2003, cause after all, that's what Drive players love about it, right?

So back to my early question....what makes the reviewer more credible now????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is what I said in response to the GameZone review:
------------------------------------------------
this review or my dislike for it has nothing to do with my desire for ID to be a good game. the review was flimsy, poorly thought out, poorly executed and lacked substance. It did not even touch on many of the basic elements of the gameplay.

I give that kind of poor excuse for a review about 2 seconds worth of thought when deciding to buy a game.

The NLGaming reviews on the other hand are well described and thoughtful and it sounds as though they spend more than 20 minutes trying the games.
---------------------------------------

Anyone who can not tell the difference between the two writing/reporting styles or the depth of the reviews, has got their f*n b*y goggles on.

IMO

[margan]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Klocker2 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Not to flame, but I see all of you talking about how good a review this one is. I think it's because Drive got a reasonably good score. But I want to know what makes this reviewer more credible to you. The people who are looking forward to this game base their anticipation on what they called GREAT GAMEPLAY from Drive 2003.

Yet the reviewer says,
"Last year, I really grilled Inside Drive 2003. In fact, I gave it a 67 for lack of online play and a pretty flawed graphic and gameplay engine."

Now all the Drive lovers would agree to disagree with the reviewers opinion of a FLAWED GAMEPLAY ENGINE in 2003, cause after all, that's what Drive players love about it, right?

So back to my early question....what makes the reviewer more credible now????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is what I said in response to the GameZone review:
------------------------------------------------
this review or my dislike for it has nothing to do with my desire for ID to be a good game. the review was flimsy, poorly thought out, poorly executed and lacked substance. It did not even touch on many of the basic elements of the gameplay.

I give that kind of poor excuse for a review about 2 seconds worth of thought when deciding to buy a game.

The NLGaming reviews on the other hand are well described and thoughtful and it sounds as though they spend more than 20 minutes trying the games.
---------------------------------------

Anyone who can not tell the difference between the two writing/reporting styles or the depth of the reviews, has got their f*n b*y goggles on.

IMO

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[margan]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Klocker2 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Not to flame, but I see all of you talking about how good a review this one is. I think it's because Drive got a reasonably good score. But I want to know what makes this reviewer more credible to you. The people who are looking forward to this game base their anticipation on what they called GREAT GAMEPLAY from Drive 2003.

Yet the reviewer says,
"Last year, I really grilled Inside Drive 2003. In fact, I gave it a 67 for lack of online play and a pretty flawed graphic and gameplay engine."

Now all the Drive lovers would agree to disagree with the reviewers opinion of a FLAWED GAMEPLAY ENGINE in 2003, cause after all, that's what Drive players love about it, right?

So back to my early question....what makes the reviewer more credible now????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is what I said in response to the GameZone review:
------------------------------------------------
this review or my dislike for it has nothing to do with my desire for ID to be a good game. the review was flimsy, poorly thought out, poorly executed and lacked substance. It did not even touch on many of the basic elements of the gameplay.

I give that kind of poor excuse for a review about 2 seconds worth of thought when deciding to buy a game.

The NLGaming reviews on the other hand are well described and thoughtful and it sounds as though they spend more than 20 minutes trying the games.
---------------------------------------

Anyone who can not tell the difference between the two writing/reporting styles or the depth of the reviews, has got their f*n b*y goggles on.

IMO

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[margan]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Klocker2 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Not to flame, but I see all of you talking about how good a review this one is. I think it's because Drive got a reasonably good score. But I want to know what makes this reviewer more credible to you. The people who are looking forward to this game base their anticipation on what they called GREAT GAMEPLAY from Drive 2003.

Yet the reviewer says,
"Last year, I really grilled Inside Drive 2003. In fact, I gave it a 67 for lack of online play and a pretty flawed graphic and gameplay engine."

Now all the Drive lovers would agree to disagree with the reviewers opinion of a FLAWED GAMEPLAY ENGINE in 2003, cause after all, that's what Drive players love about it, right?

So back to my early question....what makes the reviewer more credible now????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Here is what I said in response to the GameZone review:
------------------------------------------------
this review or my dislike for it has nothing to do with my desire for ID to be a good game. the review was flimsy, poorly thought out, poorly executed and lacked substance. It did not even touch on many of the basic elements of the gameplay.

I give that kind of poor excuse for a review about 2 seconds worth of thought when deciding to buy a game.

The NLGaming reviews on the other hand are well described and thoughtful and it sounds as though they spend more than 20 minutes trying the games.
---------------------------------------

Anyone who can not tell the difference between the two writing/reporting styles or the depth of the reviews, has got their f*n b*y goggles on.

IMO

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[OneBadMutha]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

The only thing I didn't like about the review was that he didn't talk about A.I. and team tendancies (which is something nearly every reviewer misses). It was a good review in that it covered vitually everything else. Considering that the guy hated last year's game and doesn't even factor in A.I., then I'm guessing that ID has really improved in a lot of the other areas which should make it a more complete game. All the franchise needs now is some more realistic graphics and a license to help out with the presentation. Either way, it's the sports game that I'm most excited to play right now.

[OneBadMutha]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

The only thing I didn't like about the review was that he didn't talk about A.I. and team tendancies (which is something nearly every reviewer misses). It was a good review in that it covered vitually everything else. Considering that the guy hated last year's game and doesn't even factor in A.I., then I'm guessing that ID has really improved in a lot of the other areas which should make it a more complete game. All the franchise needs now is some more realistic graphics and a license to help out with the presentation. Either way, it's the sports game that I'm most excited to play right now.

[OneBadMutha]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

The only thing I didn't like about the review was that he didn't talk about A.I. and team tendancies (which is something nearly every reviewer misses). It was a good review in that it covered vitually everything else. Considering that the guy hated last year's game and doesn't even factor in A.I., then I'm guessing that ID has really improved in a lot of the other areas which should make it a more complete game. All the franchise needs now is some more realistic graphics and a license to help out with the presentation. Either way, it's the sports game that I'm most excited to play right now.

[Klocker]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

Also, the License presentation side of it does not concern my NEARLY as much as gameplay. Since his review complains about that as one of the major shortcomings and it still gets a good review...I look forward to trying this one out to see if it can knock Live off my shelf.

[Klocker]

Re: Next level gaming review is up

Also, the License presentation side of it does not concern my NEARLY as much as gameplay. Since his review complains about that as one of the major shortcomings and it still gets a good review...I look forward to trying this one out to see if it can knock Live off my shelf.