I rarely make threads ripping on other sites reviews, because they are one persons opinion but the Links review at IGN just baffles my mind and their scoring system leaves me scratching my head.
They give the game a 7.5 which is not a bad score but when you compare it to the other two golf games Tiger Woods (Xbox) and for grins Mario Golf (GCN) it leaves me scratching my head. It scored lower the Mario Golf TT which got an 8.0? I played Mario Golf TT and it is no Links. Not only that Mario which has less courses and no online play got the exact same score as Links for lasting appeal? TW 2004 got a point higher which I can't completely argue with because of the amount of options, modes and courses. Of course there are a few of us who will never see that lasting appeal as we tire of hitting every shot on the fairway and hit 18 GIR even with a low rated player. Of course Links will have downloadable courses and unlike the TW version of Xbox has online play.
Now each review was done by different reviewers but for cripes sake if you are going to have a rating system show some consistency.
For example you have graphics
Links
7.0 Graphics
A consistent 30 fps framerate, crisp textures, but the overall look, animations, lighting, art, could have been better.
TW 2004
8.0 Graphics
Tiger still looks great and runs at 60 frames per second without much slowdown. True life courses are strikingly similar in the game. No major improvements, however. Still no 16:9 support.
Mario Golf TT
8.0 Graphics
Pretty. Varied locales, detailed character models, fluid animation, and extras like reflective water and individually bladed grass. Sometimes jerky camera and framerate.
-------------
So many things he misses in the review it is not even funny. I guess Links excellent ball physics do not factor into the equation as he completely leaves that part out. Hopefully Fran will go back to reviewing Gamecube games.
Memo to Microsoft if you want IGN to give you a higher score next year either add more BLING-BLING or change the game to having popular Xbox characters.
How about...
Links 2005: The Covenant Club... using all the characters from Halo...
My favorite quotes from the review...
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
You choose your base player (if you choose one of the few pros, you have limited options), change shirt colors, shoes and skin tone, but it doesn't do much to make the "custom golfer" feel like you. You can change things like ball logos to give them more style, but it's inadequate for all the custom player modes were seeing in today's videogames. The lack of something like a Pro Shop to spend your cash in is also underwhelming.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
It is a friggin golf game not Barbies Doll House. Once again I would like to thank EA for spoiling the easily amused with excess bling-bling. For a first year titles I have no major complaints other then leaving out the ability to model your player like Top Spin offered (simply an example of a first year title with that option).
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
So, while three settings of difficulty are appreciated, there just isn't enough flexibility to make advanced feel truly different than beginner.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Holy cow he must be a god with the analog stick. The difference is night and day from beginner to advanced. Does not even mention the fact that when you bump up the levels things change, for example the terrain/lie has more affect on the ball the harder the level, smaller assistance on the greens, etc. This guy must have barely touched the advanced mode or if he did he took forever to bump up his attributes to get it to the point. Would love to play this guy with freshly setup characters and no mulligans with wind on advanced. Let's see him hit every fairway then.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Putting tends to be stiff. The developers seem to have crafted the power meter and tied the physics right into it. Whether you're on Beginner or Advanced, putting is always rigid.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Stiff and Rigid? Or you just suck at putting in a game where a tiny bit of skill is involved as the full swing affects the putt, including the pace of which you move it, unlike the console version of TW.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
It delivers an average amount of courses for play. There are nine professional courses, a modest number, but many of them won't be interesting to the audience Links 2004 tries to cater to.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Average compare to what? That is more courses then any Hot shots game ever delivered. Also 8 of those are REAL Courses with only one fantasy course. Plus we have the downloadable ones coming down the road.
If I recall correctly the first TW on the PS2 had a whopping 3 courses and the sequel had 6 or so (too lazy top look the second one up so correct me if I am wrong).
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I was counting on getting my simulation golf fix from Links, but what we have instead is just a solid, but average first entry into the more forgiving world of arcadey golf gaming.
--
But its style, complete with Matrix-style bullet-time effects on good shots, puts it in a different realm than Links originally set out to explore. Which is going to be sad for any Links fan to see.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Make up your mind Fran do you want the Bling-Bling or have them stick strictly to the old postcard look of the Links games. This was a console golf game review right? Are you penalizing the game for catering to what they feel a console gamer wants? I guess we are playing different games because other then the Matrix style effects it's physics feel pretty "sim" to me, especially for their first attempt in a fully 3D enviorment and their first console game.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Texturing quality is a step above the competition (Tiger Woods) and so is player modelling, but the overall visual package is made somewhat run-of-the-mill due to the art execution.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
A step above? If so then it was a step taken by a Sasquatch. I guess the last part of the sentence was your way of conveying how TW was deserving of a higher score in this department? Appreciate you not spending too much time boring us with a valid explanation.
Bah enough ranting from me... I am working on a comparison review of both games (Xbox versions of both) and hopefully will have it by next week. Don't take all the TW bashing the wrong way, it does serve a purpose for the console gaming community. Just had to use some of it's flaws when showing how distorted the Links review was.
TW 2004 on the PC is still the best of the batch, as the mouse swing gives far greater ability to simulate a golf swing and is especially well done on the touch shots like putting and chipping. Links though has found a way to make the analog swing work far better then what we have seen from EA's camp in the console market.
They give the game a 7.5 which is not a bad score but when you compare it to the other two golf games Tiger Woods (Xbox) and for grins Mario Golf (GCN) it leaves me scratching my head. It scored lower the Mario Golf TT which got an 8.0? I played Mario Golf TT and it is no Links. Not only that Mario which has less courses and no online play got the exact same score as Links for lasting appeal? TW 2004 got a point higher which I can't completely argue with because of the amount of options, modes and courses. Of course there are a few of us who will never see that lasting appeal as we tire of hitting every shot on the fairway and hit 18 GIR even with a low rated player. Of course Links will have downloadable courses and unlike the TW version of Xbox has online play.
Now each review was done by different reviewers but for cripes sake if you are going to have a rating system show some consistency.
For example you have graphics
Links
7.0 Graphics
A consistent 30 fps framerate, crisp textures, but the overall look, animations, lighting, art, could have been better.
TW 2004
8.0 Graphics
Tiger still looks great and runs at 60 frames per second without much slowdown. True life courses are strikingly similar in the game. No major improvements, however. Still no 16:9 support.
Mario Golf TT
8.0 Graphics
Pretty. Varied locales, detailed character models, fluid animation, and extras like reflective water and individually bladed grass. Sometimes jerky camera and framerate.
-------------
So many things he misses in the review it is not even funny. I guess Links excellent ball physics do not factor into the equation as he completely leaves that part out. Hopefully Fran will go back to reviewing Gamecube games.
Memo to Microsoft if you want IGN to give you a higher score next year either add more BLING-BLING or change the game to having popular Xbox characters.
How about...
Links 2005: The Covenant Club... using all the characters from Halo...
My favorite quotes from the review...
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
You choose your base player (if you choose one of the few pros, you have limited options), change shirt colors, shoes and skin tone, but it doesn't do much to make the "custom golfer" feel like you. You can change things like ball logos to give them more style, but it's inadequate for all the custom player modes were seeing in today's videogames. The lack of something like a Pro Shop to spend your cash in is also underwhelming.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
It is a friggin golf game not Barbies Doll House. Once again I would like to thank EA for spoiling the easily amused with excess bling-bling. For a first year titles I have no major complaints other then leaving out the ability to model your player like Top Spin offered (simply an example of a first year title with that option).
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
So, while three settings of difficulty are appreciated, there just isn't enough flexibility to make advanced feel truly different than beginner.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Holy cow he must be a god with the analog stick. The difference is night and day from beginner to advanced. Does not even mention the fact that when you bump up the levels things change, for example the terrain/lie has more affect on the ball the harder the level, smaller assistance on the greens, etc. This guy must have barely touched the advanced mode or if he did he took forever to bump up his attributes to get it to the point. Would love to play this guy with freshly setup characters and no mulligans with wind on advanced. Let's see him hit every fairway then.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Putting tends to be stiff. The developers seem to have crafted the power meter and tied the physics right into it. Whether you're on Beginner or Advanced, putting is always rigid.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Stiff and Rigid? Or you just suck at putting in a game where a tiny bit of skill is involved as the full swing affects the putt, including the pace of which you move it, unlike the console version of TW.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
It delivers an average amount of courses for play. There are nine professional courses, a modest number, but many of them won't be interesting to the audience Links 2004 tries to cater to.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Average compare to what? That is more courses then any Hot shots game ever delivered. Also 8 of those are REAL Courses with only one fantasy course. Plus we have the downloadable ones coming down the road.
If I recall correctly the first TW on the PS2 had a whopping 3 courses and the sequel had 6 or so (too lazy top look the second one up so correct me if I am wrong).
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I was counting on getting my simulation golf fix from Links, but what we have instead is just a solid, but average first entry into the more forgiving world of arcadey golf gaming.
--
But its style, complete with Matrix-style bullet-time effects on good shots, puts it in a different realm than Links originally set out to explore. Which is going to be sad for any Links fan to see.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Make up your mind Fran do you want the Bling-Bling or have them stick strictly to the old postcard look of the Links games. This was a console golf game review right? Are you penalizing the game for catering to what they feel a console gamer wants? I guess we are playing different games because other then the Matrix style effects it's physics feel pretty "sim" to me, especially for their first attempt in a fully 3D enviorment and their first console game.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Texturing quality is a step above the competition (Tiger Woods) and so is player modelling, but the overall visual package is made somewhat run-of-the-mill due to the art execution.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
A step above? If so then it was a step taken by a Sasquatch. I guess the last part of the sentence was your way of conveying how TW was deserving of a higher score in this department? Appreciate you not spending too much time boring us with a valid explanation.
Bah enough ranting from me... I am working on a comparison review of both games (Xbox versions of both) and hopefully will have it by next week. Don't take all the TW bashing the wrong way, it does serve a purpose for the console gaming community. Just had to use some of it's flaws when showing how distorted the Links review was.
TW 2004 on the PC is still the best of the batch, as the mouse swing gives far greater ability to simulate a golf swing and is especially well done on the touch shots like putting and chipping. Links though has found a way to make the analog swing work far better then what we have seen from EA's camp in the console market.
Comment