Ign Review!

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Amerikaner

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,724
508
0
I found it to be a very realistic point of view on the game. While the scores arent that high his reasons for it are totally understandable and I respect the way he presented it and said its not for everyone.

What I dont like though is how bf2 can get an 8.9 and be a much shittier game but I wont get into that. I also feel that all these reviews, not just for RO but everything, dont really explain any details. Its so general. Nobody explains the satisfaction of dropping a guy through your iron sights or watching a body tumble down the mountain with karma physics or the incredible detail on the player models. Instead, its just "the models are very nice". And these people work in journalism for a living?
 

Steve Connors

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 14, 2006
190
0
0
seems like a good review to me, he pointed out some flaws and some good points, like REAL reviewerd do.


My question is was this on the first page or did you have to hunt for it?

 

Steve Connors

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 14, 2006
190
0
0
Amerikaner said:
I found it to be a very realistic point of view on the game. While the scores arent that high his reasons for it are totally understandable and I respect the way he presented it and said its not for everyone.

What I dont like though is how bf2 can get an 8.9 and be a much shittier game but I wont get into that. I also feel that all these reviews, not just for RO but everything, dont really explain any details. Its so general. Nobody explains the satisfaction of dropping a guy through your iron sights or watching a body tumble down the mountain with karma physics or the incredible detail on the player models. Instead, its just "the models are very nice". And these people work in journalism for a living?

remember tripwire can't "pay" them to write a huge 5 page review, however they have to review it, so RO gets a 2 page review with some general comments.

would you rather them not review it?
 

BoltActionJackson

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 20, 2006
173
0
0
Overall I thought it was a decent review. What I don't understand is the sound score. He talks it up big time and then gives it an 8.5. What? Oh well. Props to IGN for being the first major media outlet to do a review.
 

BobCobb

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 24, 2006
289
0
0
Yea, I felt as if the BF2 score was a bit slighted compared to RO. It's obvious that ROOST's sound is equal if not better than BF2's sound. But ROOST only gets an 8.5?

Personally I think the major media outlets all kowtow to companies like EA. Oh well, I don't pay attention to media reviews anymore.
 

smokeythebear

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 21, 2005
2,299
634
113
33
Sheppards house
Didnt search very hard, did you?

Anyway my old post about questionable things they said in the Osfront review

"RO most closely resembles Counter-Strike..."

"You won't encounter the beaches of Normandy, the hillsides of northern Italy, or the bombed-out streets of Berlin."

"There are no dots on the map indicating your guys, or waypoints set by a team leader."
 

Katczinsky42

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 28, 2006
32
0
0
smokeythebear said:
Didnt search very hard, did you?

Anyway my old post about questionable things they said in the Osfront review

"RO most closely resembles Counter-Strike..."

"You won't encounter the beaches of Normandy, the hillsides of northern Italy, or the bombed-out streets of Berlin."

"There are no dots on the map indicating your guys, or waypoints set by a team leader."

searched on words IGN - no results. Thought someone might have posted about it, but wasnt going to spend 3 hours checking out every post with the word "review" in it.
As it says in the first sentence - Apologies if this has already been posted. You can read cant you? Some people...
 

Oberst Freitag

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
329
0
0
Amerikaner said:
I found it to be a very realistic point of view on the game. While the scores arent that high his reasons for it are totally understandable and I respect the way he presented it and said its not for everyone.

What I dont like though is how bf2 can get an 8.9 and be a much shittier game but I wont get into that. I also feel that all these reviews, not just for RO but everything, dont really explain any details. Its so general. Nobody explains the satisfaction of dropping a guy through your iron sights or watching a body tumble down the mountain with karma physics or the incredible detail on the player models. Instead, its just "the models are very nice". And these people work in journalism for a living?
I dont play BF2 but how is it ****ty? Just because its not your cup of tea makes it a bad game?

Seems with all these reviews, no one here is happy if its less that a 10...
 

Maschine Pistole-38

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
683
0
0
34
Oregon
I don't get when he says 'RO helped to inspire games like CoD/BF Series' Yet always compares RO to CoD or the BF games in one way or another. Not only that but it seems like they just booted up the game for 15 minutes and wrote a review.

Well with things like

You won't encounter the beaches of Normandy, the hillsides of northern Italy, or the bombed-out streets of Berlin
RO is based on the Unreal 2.x engine, so it doesn't have fancy bells like HDR, but Tripwire has done an excellent job with texturing, weapon models, and vehicle models.
All in all, I found the continual comparisons to CoD,BF2, and CS quite aggravating and I will wait for a review from other magazines and sites.
 

Katczinsky42

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 28, 2006
32
0
0
His conclusion is so wishy washy, someone who has never played the game and reads this review would probably be more inclined to give it a miss than a try, which is a shame.
 

Amerikaner

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,724
508
0
Steve Connors said:
remember tripwire can't "pay" them to write a huge 5 page review, however they have to review it, so RO gets a 2 page review with some general comments.

would you rather them not review it?

Um critics dont review indie movies with less thought than they would a major motion picture. Thats a crappy argument. There job is to write reviews, period. General comments is trash. Any joe schmo could do that and thats what makes it ridiculous that this guy does it for a living. With that said, I am satisfied with what he did manage to put down.

As far as BF2, no I dont hate on it because its not my cup of tea, i hate on it because its a buggy piece of trash with horrendous graphics and old, rehashed gameplay. 1942 is in my top 5 games ever, but BF2, imo, is complete trash. And I think RO completely deserves an 8.5/10. However, if your going to say that BF2 gets an 8.9 then no, RO deserves at least a 9.5 in comparison to that.
 

shaBAM!

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 12, 2006
32
0
0
I thought that was a horrible review in my opinion. I absolutley hated how he even slightly compared RO to Counter-Strike. It was like the guy didn't play the game thoroughly.

Amerikaner, I don't know HOW you can say BF2 has horrendous graphics. I can understand not liking BF2's gameplay. But saying its graphics suck is just not true.
 

Amerikaner

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,724
508
0
shaBAM! said:
Amerikaner, I don't know HOW you can say BF2 has horrendous graphics. I can understand not liking BF2's gameplay. But saying its graphics suck is just not true.

1140209528_medium.jpg


How are you going to say that that doesnt look horrendous?

Ill be more fair and cite this one too:

1136241976_medium.jpg


Strike of Karkand is arguably the best looking map and thats the best this game can come up with? Ill agree that BF2 has moments of graphical beauty but they are so rare. Its one of those games where the graphics are only good on a certain map with certain lighting and purposely chosen weapons. What bothers me is you have to try to make the game look good, it never always looks good.
 
Last edited:

Deathsai

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 24, 2005
845
0
0
The vehicles are kind of good in BF2. But the player animatons, especially the rag doll deaths, are atrocious.
 

shaBAM!

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 12, 2006
32
0
0
Just out of curiosity, what are your graphics set to? If my mind serves me I can't remember it ever looking that bad. Mind you I haven't played it quite a long time, its long gone from my computer.

920407_20050620_screen039.jpg
920407_20050617_screen007.jpg


But BF2's gameplay never really appealed to me, I always thought the graphics looked great though. Anyways, I respect your opinion.
 

Amerikaner

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,724
508
0
Yeah see I dont even think the screens you posted look good. The first person weapon models are so blocky and poorly done. The lighting is alright but from any considerable distance, the textures go to hell even with antisostropic filtering. You can tell especially in your 2nd pic how bland the textures look. Add to that the fact that the hud is so extremely in-your-face and blocks out way too much of your view. Now I understand that the game also has much larger maps than the average game. However, for the large majority, the game runs poor. Poor graphics + poor performance = failure

But I rest my case, enough BF2 bashing, back to IGN's review. Sorry for derailing this topic.