Conduit 2 vs. Golden Eye

#21DarxWingDuckPosted 10/1/2013 8:00:59 PM
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
First off.

Reviews are not a very good means of measuring even at the best of times, But Con2 in particular has a number of things going against it.

First off, Con2 got slammed hard by reviews. Nearly all of them praised it as being better than the original, but being a sequel, criticisms came quick, and reviewers were not as forgiving.
( Which is normal, and natural, but puts the game at a disadvantage to the long awaited namessake of one of the greatest console FPS made )

Also a problem was the small number of reviews it got.
Con2 received a few reviews which were... really nothing more than unprofessional, childish attacks. Saying things that were factually wrong, reveling basically all the spoilers, and of course taking the time to plug your own amazon bookstore.

Now, this happens to some extent to many games, but... Its effect is reduced the more reviews you get.

But I think the major problem when looking at reviews for Con2 is actually this:

Few of the reviewers even played multiplayer.
And... We all know single player wasn't pretty.

As well as the fact that, The game is drastically different from launch, thanks to its innumerable updates.
At launch the game was unstable, both in multiplayer, and single player, that's been almost completely fixed. There used to be a pretty bad spawn glitch, which is now extremely rare. and all these things, which are not insignificant.
And on top of that, the gameplay has been much improved as well, not just improving balance changing damage variables and such, by actually changing the way certain weapons and perks work. ( to the point where the in game descriptions aren't even accurate anymore )


So, if you want to look at reviews, and compare. What you actually want to do is look at fan reviews, and cut off all the reviews that were made within a week or two of launch.


1- i can already tell you haven't even bothered to check the reviews, because most reviews will rate the off line and on line play separately. in fact, i don't believe i have ever read a review for an online fps that did not rate the online game play.

2- i'd be willing to bet that every single online game created has had patches since their initial launch... it's not like C2 is the first or the last for that matter. patches are intended to improve the game play, so online fps should be better after some time.

3- again.. it's just silly to think everybody who reviewed this game had an axe to grind. they didn't, the reviews are what they are. gamerankings got their rating from using 41 reviews from different sites and magazines... it's definitely a fair rating, like it or not.

4- just about EVERY fps is a sequel of some sort... good lord how many bond titles are there now? this is a moot point.

5- i'm not going to ask the fans because, obviously, their opinions are biased. i mean really? go to the C2 message board and ask which is better... then i'll go to the GE message board and ask which is better... then i'll go to the MW3 board and ask which is better... i think you get my point. i see what you're saying about getting the details from the people who actually play the game, but there's no sense trying to explain away all the reviews on this game... they are what they are, take them for what they're worth. either you like the game or you don't.
#22TMac987654321Posted 10/1/2013 8:16:02 PM
TMac987654321 posted...
Combat in C2 = jumping around spraying incredibly inaccurate guns at each other or trying to blow each other up.

Combat in GE = very precise aiming; most confrontations last 2 seconds at most. Goldeneye is much faster paced and reliable in terms of how much it takes to kill someone. I've played long enough that I can actually shoot a certain amount of bullets into people and move to another target before getting the +5xp.

Conduit 2 is more of a party game in my opinion, while GE is much better for competition. We've had hundreds of clan wars, while you guys seem to need to set 50 different rules for each one. A standard GE war is "52-54 ban best of 7 TC"

I saw somebody say no voice chat? We Skype, no problem. Who wants to talk to random squeakers?

We also have RTM's. nuff said

---
T-Mac
MK NIGHTWOLF
#23CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 10/1/2013 8:31:27 PM
I haven't checked the reviews recently, no.
But I know for a fact that many of the launch Con2 reviewers did not play multiplayer. I remember this distinctly because I had not purchased it yet, and had to wait for online reviews.

Most games might have patches, but not all of them have game breaking glitches at launch.
Regardless, I wasn't saying Con2 was the ONLY game that should have its launch week reviews tossed. I think that's good practice in general with games that recieve significant updates.

I just looked at the gameranking reviewers, and it seems that they did not include the reviews to which I was referring. So apparently they agree with me.

007 was pitched, AND received as being a very unique and independent game, throwing back to the 64 classic. It was given special status.

I'm not saying "Ask the fans with polls". I'm saying refer to reader reviews, instead of professional reviews. Reader reviews aren't going to be comprised soley of reviews from devout fans. And while the reviews are generally going to be a little higher, they will be higher for both games you are comparing. And we're not concerned with the score, we're concerned with the comparison, and this I believe provides a better comparison.


I'm not explaining away anything.
The review scores are just numbers, and they don't mean anything unless you understand the context.
A perfect example is what I said before, MANY conduit 2 reviews had comments saying how much of an improvement it was over the original, and yet they gave con2 much harsher scores than they gave Tcon.
If such a large score discrepancy can exist between Tcon (72), and Con2(66), while the reviewers are openly admitting that Con2 is an improvement in almost every way. Then you can bet that this information is important when comparing Con2 and 007.
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656
#24CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 10/1/2013 10:43:53 PM
TMac987654321 posted...
TMac987654321 posted...
Combat in C2 = jumping around spraying incredibly inaccurate guns at each other or trying to blow each other up.

Combat in GE = very precise aiming; most confrontations last 2 seconds at most. Goldeneye is much faster paced and reliable in terms of how much it takes to kill someone. I've played long enough that I can actually shoot a certain amount of bullets into people and move to another target before getting the +5xp.

Conduit 2 is more of a party game in my opinion, while GE is much better for competition. We've had hundreds of clan wars, while you guys seem to need to set 50 different rules for each one. A standard GE war is "52-54 ban best of 7 TC"

I saw somebody say no voice chat? We Skype, no problem. Who wants to talk to random squeakers?

We also have RTM's. nuff said


The two games are very different styles.

Also, having fewer shots to kill does not make the game faster paced. There is much more action and pace to a FPS besides the number of bullets fired.

What makes a game feel fast paced for me is, the number of decisions you make per second, the number of actions you have to make per second, and how many tasks you are doing at one time.

So a game where it takes one bullet to kill, it took a single button press. a single decision, and then... Im left trying to find somebody else. Meanwhile that person I killed got sent to waiting to re-spawn that much more quickly.
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656
#25NoWeight2GreatPosted 10/1/2013 11:18:19 PM
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
First off.

Reviews are not a very good means of measuring even at the best of times, But Con2 in particular has a number of things going against it.

First off, Con2 got slammed hard by reviews. Nearly all of them praised it as being better than the original, but being a sequel, criticisms came quick, and reviewers were not as forgiving.
( Which is normal, and natural, but puts the game at a disadvantage to the long awaited namessake of one of the greatest console FPS made )

Also a problem was the small number of reviews it got.
Con2 received a few reviews which were... really nothing more than unprofessional, childish attacks. Saying things that were factually wrong, reveling basically all the spoilers, and of course taking the time to plug your own amazon bookstore.

Now, this happens to some extent to many games, but... Its effect is reduced the more reviews you get.

But I think the major problem when looking at reviews for Con2 is actually this:

Few of the reviewers even played multiplayer.
And... We all know single player wasn't pretty.

As well as the fact that, The game is drastically different from launch, thanks to its innumerable updates.
At launch the game was unstable, both in multiplayer, and single player, that's been almost completely fixed. There used to be a pretty bad spawn glitch, which is now extremely rare. and all these things, which are not insignificant.
And on top of that, the gameplay has been much improved as well, not just improving balance changing damage variables and such, by actually changing the way certain weapons and perks work. ( to the point where the in game descriptions aren't even accurate anymore )


So, if you want to look at reviews, and compare. What you actually want to do is look at fan reviews, and cut off all the reviews that were made within a week or two of launch.

You said 'first off' twice.

That's illegal.
---
RIPPED RICK
#26NoWeight2GreatPosted 10/1/2013 11:19:02 PM
To the OP.

We aren't trying to ruin your board. We're just saying hi.
---
RIPPED RICK
#27CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 10/1/2013 11:22:13 PM
NoWeight2Great posted...
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
First off.

Reviews are not a very good means of measuring even at the best of times, But Con2 in particular has a number of things going against it.

First off, Con2 got slammed hard by reviews. Nearly all of them praised it as being better than the original, but being a sequel, criticisms came quick, and reviewers were not as forgiving.
( Which is normal, and natural, but puts the game at a disadvantage to the long awaited namessake of one of the greatest console FPS made )

Also a problem was the small number of reviews it got.
Con2 received a few reviews which were... really nothing more than unprofessional, childish attacks. Saying things that were factually wrong, reveling basically all the spoilers, and of course taking the time to plug your own amazon bookstore.

Now, this happens to some extent to many games, but... Its effect is reduced the more reviews you get.

But I think the major problem when looking at reviews for Con2 is actually this:

Few of the reviewers even played multiplayer.
And... We all know single player wasn't pretty.

As well as the fact that, The game is drastically different from launch, thanks to its innumerable updates.
At launch the game was unstable, both in multiplayer, and single player, that's been almost completely fixed. There used to be a pretty bad spawn glitch, which is now extremely rare. and all these things, which are not insignificant.
And on top of that, the gameplay has been much improved as well, not just improving balance changing damage variables and such, by actually changing the way certain weapons and perks work. ( to the point where the in game descriptions aren't even accurate anymore )


So, if you want to look at reviews, and compare. What you actually want to do is look at fan reviews, and cut off all the reviews that were made within a week or two of launch.

You said 'first off' twice.

That's illegal.


First off, You're illegal!
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656
#28F0CPosted 10/2/2013 1:10:24 AM
500?
---
PSN: F-0-Cer
GE: F-0-C
#29NoWeight2GreatPosted 10/2/2013 4:43:33 AM
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
NoWeight2Great posted...
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
First off.

Reviews are not a very good means of measuring even at the best of times, But Con2 in particular has a number of things going against it.

First off, Con2 got slammed hard by reviews. Nearly all of them praised it as being better than the original, but being a sequel, criticisms came quick, and reviewers were not as forgiving.
( Which is normal, and natural, but puts the game at a disadvantage to the long awaited namessake of one of the greatest console FPS made )

Also a problem was the small number of reviews it got.
Con2 received a few reviews which were... really nothing more than unprofessional, childish attacks. Saying things that were factually wrong, reveling basically all the spoilers, and of course taking the time to plug your own amazon bookstore.

Now, this happens to some extent to many games, but... Its effect is reduced the more reviews you get.

But I think the major problem when looking at reviews for Con2 is actually this:

Few of the reviewers even played multiplayer.
And... We all know single player wasn't pretty.

As well as the fact that, The game is drastically different from launch, thanks to its innumerable updates.
At launch the game was unstable, both in multiplayer, and single player, that's been almost completely fixed. There used to be a pretty bad spawn glitch, which is now extremely rare. and all these things, which are not insignificant.
And on top of that, the gameplay has been much improved as well, not just improving balance changing damage variables and such, by actually changing the way certain weapons and perks work. ( to the point where the in game descriptions aren't even accurate anymore )


So, if you want to look at reviews, and compare. What you actually want to do is look at fan reviews, and cut off all the reviews that were made within a week or two of launch.

You said 'first off' twice.

That's illegal.


First off, You're illegal!

Your fashion sense should be illegal.
---
RIPPED RICK
#30JmyWhsprsPosted 10/2/2013 5:24:02 AM
My brother said GE > C2.
---
FC: 2072-1579-5145 [Chief Operator]NNID:JmyWhsprs, [GE] JmyWhsprs, 56-JmyWhsprs