Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

[Graphik]

LINKAGE

[Graphik]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

Every campaign mission is basically a completely flat, linear obstacle course of sorts in which enemies will routinely pop up and start firing on you using small arms and, occasionally, frag grenades or rocket-propelled grenades.


Ouch.

Now he's got me questioning this game. I probably still will get it, I'm just gonna grab CoR first.

BTW, this is the same guy who reviewed Riddick this morning.

[Graphik]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

Every campaign mission is basically a completely flat, linear obstacle course of sorts in which enemies will routinely pop up and start firing on you using small arms and, occasionally, frag grenades or rocket-propelled grenades.


Ouch.

Now he's got me questioning this game. I probably still will get it, I'm just gonna grab CoR first.

BTW, this is the same guy who reviewed Riddick this morning.

[Graphik]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

Every campaign mission is basically a completely flat, linear obstacle course of sorts in which enemies will routinely pop up and start firing on you using small arms and, occasionally, frag grenades or rocket-propelled grenades.


Ouch.

Now he's got me questioning this game. I probably still will get it, I'm just gonna grab CoR first.

BTW, this is the same guy who reviewed Riddick this morning.

[Graphik]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

OK, I got exactly what I was looking for. A positive and a negative review that basically told me the pros and cons of the game. I just wish I got something negative for Riddick as it does seem like a sleeper hit but I have'nt hear anything negative so far besides the gameplay time.

Oh well, that guy who reviewed FSW must did'nt like it at all. All he had were negative comment after negative comments and so on. Still, something does'nt quite add up with the reviews I've seen thus far today. Why is GS the only site to downplay FSW??

[Graphik]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

OK, I got exactly what I was looking for. A positive and a negative review that basically told me the pros and cons of the game. I just wish I got something negative for Riddick as it does seem like a sleeper hit but I have'nt hear anything negative so far besides the gameplay time.

Oh well, that guy who reviewed FSW must did'nt like it at all. All he had were negative comment after negative comments and so on. Still, something does'nt quite add up with the reviews I've seen thus far today. Why is GS the only site to downplay FSW??

[Graphik]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

OK, I got exactly what I was looking for. A positive and a negative review that basically told me the pros and cons of the game. I just wish I got something negative for Riddick as it does seem like a sleeper hit but I have'nt hear anything negative so far besides the gameplay time.

Oh well, that guy who reviewed FSW must did'nt like it at all. All he had were negative comment after negative comments and so on. Still, something does'nt quite add up with the reviews I've seen thus far today. Why is GS the only site to downplay FSW??

[Erv]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
OK, I got exactly what I was looking for. A positive and a negative review that basically told me the pros and cons of the game. I just wish I got something negative for Riddick as it does seem like a sleeper hit but I have'nt hear anything negative so far besides the gameplay time.

Oh well, that guy who reviewed FSW must did'nt like it at all. All he had were negative comment after negative comments and so on. Still, something does'nt quite add up with the reviews I've seen thus far today. Why is GS the only site to downplay FSW??

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

A 7.7 is a "good" game(I PERSONALLY take it as a C+), but in order for you to overlook the problems mentioned you probably have to have some special relation/interest in the title or have little expirience with the genre as a whole making you oblivious to some issues. In the end, I'd take Gamespot view before IGN's because Greg K. to me is much more mature and professional than anyone from IGN xbox where they go on bitching about the multiplayer in Riddick which is dumb.

[Erv]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
OK, I got exactly what I was looking for. A positive and a negative review that basically told me the pros and cons of the game. I just wish I got something negative for Riddick as it does seem like a sleeper hit but I have'nt hear anything negative so far besides the gameplay time.

Oh well, that guy who reviewed FSW must did'nt like it at all. All he had were negative comment after negative comments and so on. Still, something does'nt quite add up with the reviews I've seen thus far today. Why is GS the only site to downplay FSW??

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

A 7.7 is a "good" game(I PERSONALLY take it as a C+), but in order for you to overlook the problems mentioned you probably have to have some special relation/interest in the title or have little expirience with the genre as a whole making you oblivious to some issues. In the end, I'd take Gamespot view before IGN's because Greg K. to me is much more mature and professional than anyone from IGN xbox where they go on bitching about the multiplayer in Riddick which is dumb.

[Erv]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
OK, I got exactly what I was looking for. A positive and a negative review that basically told me the pros and cons of the game. I just wish I got something negative for Riddick as it does seem like a sleeper hit but I have'nt hear anything negative so far besides the gameplay time.

Oh well, that guy who reviewed FSW must did'nt like it at all. All he had were negative comment after negative comments and so on. Still, something does'nt quite add up with the reviews I've seen thus far today. Why is GS the only site to downplay FSW??

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

A 7.7 is a "good" game(I PERSONALLY take it as a C+), but in order for you to overlook the problems mentioned you probably have to have some special relation/interest in the title or have little expirience with the genre as a whole making you oblivious to some issues. In the end, I'd take Gamespot view before IGN's because Greg K. to me is much more mature and professional than anyone from IGN xbox where they go on bitching about the multiplayer in Riddick which is dumb.

[NINJAK2]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

Despite this well thought out review, I still plan to pick this game up. He pretty much said upping the difficulty level makes for a much more challenging game in regards to A.I. resistance and that is probably what I will do. I certainly respect his opinion, but some of the gripes he had like not being able to go into a lot of buildings were being a little picky. As far as the comment about having to flush the enemies out from cover repeatedly doesn't really seem that bad of a problem. What else should they do, fire from the middle of the street with no cover?

I think a lot of his frustration came from playing a fairly open ended CoR and then switching to a streamlined FSW with a distinct fairly linear way on how to play it. He was certainly more a fan of the first style of play which I can completely understand. I will still play the game and judge for myself.

[NINJAK2]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

Despite this well thought out review, I still plan to pick this game up. He pretty much said upping the difficulty level makes for a much more challenging game in regards to A.I. resistance and that is probably what I will do. I certainly respect his opinion, but some of the gripes he had like not being able to go into a lot of buildings were being a little picky. As far as the comment about having to flush the enemies out from cover repeatedly doesn't really seem that bad of a problem. What else should they do, fire from the middle of the street with no cover?

I think a lot of his frustration came from playing a fairly open ended CoR and then switching to a streamlined FSW with a distinct fairly linear way on how to play it. He was certainly more a fan of the first style of play which I can completely understand. I will still play the game and judge for myself.

[NINJAK2]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

Despite this well thought out review, I still plan to pick this game up. He pretty much said upping the difficulty level makes for a much more challenging game in regards to A.I. resistance and that is probably what I will do. I certainly respect his opinion, but some of the gripes he had like not being able to go into a lot of buildings were being a little picky. As far as the comment about having to flush the enemies out from cover repeatedly doesn't really seem that bad of a problem. What else should they do, fire from the middle of the street with no cover?

I think a lot of his frustration came from playing a fairly open ended CoR and then switching to a streamlined FSW with a distinct fairly linear way on how to play it. He was certainly more a fan of the first style of play which I can completely understand. I will still play the game and judge for myself.

[Grondar]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
Every campaign mission is basically a completely flat, linear obstacle course of sorts in which enemies will routinely pop up and start firing on you using small arms and, occasionally, frag grenades or rocket-propelled grenades.


Ouch.

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

To be fair, that is the nature of combat..

You avoid getting shot, and shoot at opponents in the hopes of killing them.

I am not sure what else he wanted.. Did he expect the locals to invite him to a pick up game of hoops in a side-street between fights?

Basically, you locate the enemy, find cover, and then strategize to kill them before they kill you.

To me, it sounds like he is looking for a different type of game than Full Spectrum Warrior.

His gripe is like saying NBA Live is a mediocre game because all you do is run up and down the court for 4 quarters, shooting a small ball at a larger hoop.

The nature of combat should not be a negative of a game. If you break anything down to a minute level, it is going to seem mundane, even stupid; so I don't agree with his point at all.

In the training mission alone, you do more than just trade volleys with enemies. I've called in a mortar strike, rescued a wounded soldier, and successfully flanked an enemy so that while he fired on Alpha, Bravo shot him in the back.

To make the argument that he does, he seems to have entered the game with pre-conceived notions of what he expected, and when he got something different, he blamed the game and not his skewed expectations.

Once again, the game is a war simulation. In war, you hide behind cover, and you strategize to kill the enemy. So, yes, if you take it down to a bare bones level, you are going through an obstacle course and dodging bullets, while shooting at enemies..

Either way, FSW simulates it well, and I don't consider that to be a negative thing at all.

I read this guy also reviewed Riddick, and I am going to do some assuming myself, and assume he enjoys FPS's and their pace more than he does FSW and a slower, strategizing game. Furthermore, the fact that he reviewed FSW after playing and reviewing a faster paced and more action-oriented Riddick, and the fact that he gave it such a glowing review, makes it clear to me that he likes that genre a lot more than the genre FSW is a part of.

I didn't read anything in his Riddick review about it being a game where you just run around aimlessly shooting different looking monsters, looking for doors, and occasionally buying a pack of cigarettes.

Therefore, I consider his opinion to be skewed, and he isn't giving FSW a fair shot. If he has to resort to breaking the game down to the bare bones structure of urban combat, then that says to me that the game does a great job of recreating it. If he doesn't like that, then it isn't for him; but that doesn't mean it isn't for everyone.

I would ask him one question.. And that would be, what more does he want? Maybe he would like to be able to have mini-games that allow you to play hoops with the friendly locals, and wash their cars for extra munitions, but unless he states this, and how the game could have been improved, it's just sour grapes to me.

You don't have to like a game, but when you are writing a review that many people will read and respect, it helps to present valid arguments and gripes, and not complaints that address the nature of reality, and not the game itself.

[Grondar]

Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
Every campaign mission is basically a completely flat, linear obstacle course of sorts in which enemies will routinely pop up and start firing on you using small arms and, occasionally, frag grenades or rocket-propelled grenades.


Ouch.

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

To be fair, that is the nature of combat..

You avoid getting shot, and shoot at opponents in the hopes of killing them.

I am not sure what else he wanted.. Did he expect the locals to invite him to a pick up game of hoops in a side-street between fights?

Basically, you locate the enemy, find cover, and then strategize to kill them before they kill you.

To me, it sounds like he is looking for a different type of game than Full Spectrum Warrior.

His gripe is like saying NBA Live is a mediocre game because all you do is run up and down the court for 4 quarters, shooting a small ball at a larger hoop.

The nature of combat should not be a negative of a game. If you break anything down to a minute level, it is going to seem mundane, even stupid; so I don't agree with his point at all.

In the training mission alone, you do more than just trade volleys with enemies. I've called in a mortar strike, rescued a wounded soldier, and successfully flanked an enemy so that while he fired on Alpha, Bravo shot him in the back.

To make the argument that he does, he seems to have entered the game with pre-conceived notions of what he expected, and when he got something different, he blamed the game and not his skewed expectations.

Once again, the game is a war simulation. In war, you hide behind cover, and you strategize to kill the enemy. So, yes, if you take it down to a bare bones level, you are going through an obstacle course and dodging bullets, while shooting at enemies..

Either way, FSW simulates it well, and I don't consider that to be a negative thing at all.

I read this guy also reviewed Riddick, and I am going to do some assuming myself, and assume he enjoys FPS's and their pace more than he does FSW and a slower, strategizing game. Furthermore, the fact that he reviewed FSW after playing and reviewing a faster paced and more action-oriented Riddick, and the fact that he gave it such a glowing review, makes it clear to me that he likes that genre a lot more than the genre FSW is a part of.

I didn't read anything in his Riddick review about it being a game where you just run around aimlessly shooting different looking monsters, looking for doors, and occasionally buying a pack of cigarettes.

Therefore, I consider his opinion to be skewed, and he isn't giving FSW a fair shot. If he has to resort to breaking the game down to the bare bones structure of urban combat, then that says to me that the game does a great job of recreating it. If he doesn't like that, then it isn't for him; but that doesn't mean it isn't for everyone.

I would ask him one question.. And that would be, what more does he want? Maybe he would like to be able to have mini-games that allow you to play hoops with the friendly locals, and wash their cars for extra munitions, but unless he states this, and how the game could have been improved, it's just sour grapes to me.

You don't have to like a game, but when you are writing a review that many people will read and respect, it helps to present valid arguments and gripes, and not complaints that address the nature of reality, and not the game itself.