Conduit 2 vs. Golden Eye

#31PUNCHOUT1116Posted 10/2/2013 8:21:09 AM
NoWeight2Great posted...
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.


Hey man, how are the squats coming?
---
If you believe in Jesus Christ, have accepted Him as your Lord and Savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.
#32NoWeight2GreatPosted 10/2/2013 9:42:29 AM
Coming on great mate!!

Really working those GLUTES and QUADS!!
---
RIPPED RICK
#33PUNCHOUT1116Posted 10/2/2013 10:20:21 AM
NoWeight2Great posted...
Coming on great mate!!

Really working those GLUTES and QUADS!!


Nice!!! Those crates give good support too.
---
If you believe in Jesus Christ, have accepted Him as your Lord and Savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.
#34__CSNPosted 10/2/2013 10:33:26 AM
TBH I don't see why you shouldn't be bothered by the UAUs. They spam, make worthless topics, make some of the most ironic statements on the interwebs, and even smarter board members are following their path. GameFAQs desperately needs a minimum age of 15. It wouldn't solve all of our problems (I.E., Cmo and the creepy old furry) but it would make this place a lot more pleasant. That's why I like Ari (R.I.P.) and the TETards so much. Because their posts aren't "i gots a quickscopz3s on an AFC Ford, what now, b****?".
---
The Filthy __KaZuaL__
#35DarxWingDuckPosted 10/2/2013 12:49:20 PM
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
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.


i'm not saying there's no validity to comments at all, but you are in fact, trying to explain away the discrepancy between the reviews and your own personal opinion on that matter, i really don't see how you can argue that... i was just trying to point out that reviews really don't mean anything to any of us at this stage of both these titles. they've been released for ages and are opinions of them are what they are. if you say C2 is better, so be it.

also, i agree that GE had all the hype on it's side upon release (certainly much greater than C2), however, i disagree that you think the reviewers were star struck and naturally gave it ratings higher than it deserved. you write as though this is some understood fact. it's not (hence my "explaining it away" statement).

BUT, as the TC decided to go to the reviews to try and prove that the masses have determined C2 is decisively better than GE, i saw it was only fair show that his post was inaccurate/incorrect. obviously, the reviews declare GE is better game... that was a poor foundation to build a case for C2 being better than GE, agreed?

on a personal note, several players i know from GE picked up C2 when it was released. i think all but maybe 1 person came back to GE because they enjoyed GE more. it's certainly fair to say some will like C2 better, but i haven't seen anything to prove that any majority of people feel C2 is better than GE.
#36PUNCHOUT1116Posted 10/2/2013 12:56:25 PM
DarxWingDuck posted...
CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
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.


i'm not saying there's no validity to comments at all, but you are in fact, trying to explain away the discrepancy between the reviews and your own personal opinion on that matter, i really don't see how you can argue that... i was just trying to point out that reviews really don't mean anything to any of us at this stage of both these titles. they've been released for ages and are opinions of them are what they are. if you say C2 is better, so be it.

also, i agree that GE had all the hype on it's side upon release (certainly much greater than C2), however, i disagree that you think the reviewers were star struck and naturally gave it ratings higher than it deserved. you write as though this is some understood fact. it's not (hence my "explaining it away" statement).

BUT, as the TC decided to go to the reviews to try and prove that the masses have determined C2 is decisively better than GE, i saw it was only fair show that his post was inaccurate/incorrect. obviously, the reviews declare GE is better game... that was a poor foundation to build a case for C2 being better than GE, agreed?

on a personal note, several players i know from GE picked up C2 when it was released. i think all but maybe 1 person came back to GE because they enjoyed GE more. it's certainly fair to say some will like C2 better, but i haven't seen anything to prove that any majority of people feel C2 is better than GE.


I personally enjoyed both games, but this community kept me more on the C2 side of the fence. Lol I was actually bashed here at one point in time due to the fact that there were aspects of GE that I wouldve loved to see in C2.
---
If you believe in Jesus Christ, have accepted Him as your Lord and Savior, and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.
#37Hu1kSmAshPosted 10/2/2013 3:47:16 PM
__CSN posted...
TBH I don't see why you shouldn't be bothered by the UAUs. They spam, make worthless topics, make some of the most ironic statements on the interwebs, and even smarter board members are following their path. GameFAQs desperately needs a minimum age of 15. It wouldn't solve all of our problems (I.E., Cmo and the creepy old furry) but it would make this place a lot more pleasant. That's why I like Ari (R.I.P.) and the TETards so much. Because their posts aren't "i gots a quickscopz3s on an AFC Ford, what now, b****?".


RIP Ari?

He's active every day from where we speak.
---
SOTD: "I will bring this board back. Those who oppose will be crushed between my thighs. I am unstoppable." -Punch
#38Hu1kSmAshPosted 10/2/2013 3:49:44 PM
Same here, Punch.

I enjoy both games and visit both boards.

My main account is xXAISPXx in case nobody noticed.
---
SOTD: "I will bring this board back. Those who oppose will be crushed between my thighs. I am unstoppable." -Punch