if you've ever read a GS review, you should have known to expect lower than a 6.0. It uses not wiimote functions, no wifi, no multiplayer. Only solid gameplay and story. Whcih doesn't cut it for wii according to them. I love thsi game adn will play it 5 times over, accounting for at least 200 hours, but thats me. Goten_king

The third Phoenix Wright/Ace Attorney game managed to get a 7.5, despite having no new gameplay or visuals really when compared to the previous game. So while I wasn't expecting anything awesome from GS, I thought it might get a 7.5 to 8.5.

I dont know, the story issue is important to me, i really like the epic story that PoR got, and i prefer something bigger than just 4 stories with different characters and no relation between them, is obvious that the visuals, gameplay and improves doesn't matter in this kind of games, but the story have to be their most important issue. I dont know about this game, GS really kill my hype for it.madsnakehhh

That's not what the story's like, believe me. I believe one person compared it the LOTR books, and how the focus shifts to different locations and characters, but it's all part of the same overall story.

So...it doesn't have wii's greatest feature aka motion controls.

It doesn't have wii graphics.

It has last gen controls, last gen graphics and could be done on a last gen console. Other than the technical fact that this IS a this gen game, what makes it a this gen game? Held to the standards of last gen, it's probably pretty good. Held to this gen's standards, it's a 6.

manningbowl135

But the standards don't automatically change drastically from gen to gen regarding things like gameplay, music, and the like. I mean, the Legend of Zelda had only minor motion controls and slightly improved GC graphics, yet got an 8.8 on the Wii.

Actually, as far as graphics go, when it was released in Japan it was one of the better looking Wii games around, but that's more due to the fact that so many early Wii games had horrible graphics.

Posted this elsewhere, figured I'd post it here too.

Well, maybe I should take the time to better describe my issues with the review. First, some background, I am a fan of the series, and I have not yet played this game. So you might think I'm not in a position to judge at all. However, I do have a very good knowledge of the game, including the entire story, as I was the unfortunate victim of spoilers when trying to find out info about the game after it was released in Japan. So I think I am fairly qualified, but you can take what I say with a grain of salt if you want to.

First, regarding story, well, unless they completely and utterly botched the implementation of it, it's awesome. One of my favorite stories in any game, and a great tribute to those who noticed all those little side details and unanswered questions in PoR. Also, every single other person I've heard about has liked the story overall, even if they had some issues with parts of it. Laughable, terrible,and deserving of the bad story merit? Well, since I haven't experienced it completely for myself, I'll refrain from more comments on story.

Second, regarding graphics and presentation, while neither is anything awesome, they are actually improved quite a bit from PoR. RD is also a in a genre that's never been known for it's great graphics. I really can't complain too much about the review's comments on them, because they aren't that great, but I think it would be a mistake to penalize the game too much for them.

Regarding difficulty, I think they may have overstated how hard it was, and bashed it too much for this. Yes, the easy mode in RD is apparently tougher than the normal mode in PoR... but that's largely due to the confusing way difficulties have changed from the Japanese versions. The "easy" mode is really the Japanese normal mode, from what I understand. Perhaps this was a mistake, as it gives a false impression regarding difficulty compared to the US Fire Emblem releases. People who handled normal mode in PoR might think they are in for the same experience in the "normal" mode in RD.I can't fully comment on difficulty, but I think most people with experience with the Fire Emblem games haven't had too much trouble if they played on "easy." And since this is a sequel, I don't think it's too horrible if it's a bigger challenge than it's previous entry.

Regarding lack of Wii features, well, Mii integration would make no sense. Online would be hard to do in a game like Fire Emblem. It might be possible, but does anyone know of any Strategy RPGs with a good online mode that really added to the game? Maybe if the single-player game wasn't so massive, lack of online would be a bigger complaint. And as for lack of pointing or motion, the only thing you could add to Fire Emblem that wouldn't drastically change the game would be pointing to move units and select menu items. Would be nice as an option, but not a huge thing. I mean, if Advance Wars Duel Strike had forced you to use the D-pad to move units, would it have really been that bad a thing?

Great now all the fanboys are going to call it a flop no matter what. monkeysrfat

Sadly, by SW standards, it is a flop, as I'm fairly sure it was hyped AA, or at least A. Grr. Makes me glad I don't take SW too seriously. Still, I'm secretly hoping that tomorrow the review will be replaced by an 8.0 score with a big "it was all a late April Fool's joke" comment. :D Or maybe we discover that GS's been hacked and that's not the real review? Doubt either will happen though. :cry:

Hey Mad, you post was longer than the review it's self.

I have played the game, I own it. And I, along with every other review site and poster that has played the game, disagree with Gamespots review.

Id give it a 9.0, second highest ive ever scored a game.

Then again, im half way thought, not done with it.

My biggest complaint with the reveiw is the weak story emblem, I mean, why didn't Mario Galaxy or Halo 3 get that? Because they are high budge popular titles.

tman93

Well, as for the actual emblem, it states that they only give that to games where story is a big focus. So that's why Galaxy wouldn't get one.

Now, that doesn't explain why the reviewer thought the story was laughable and terrible, though. I know story quality can be subjective at times, but still...

The thing that really stings is the headline right next to the score saying "With a terrible plot and an unforgiving difficulty level, Radiant Dawn is best left alone by anyone but the most hardcore of strategists." While I am fully aware of FE being a niche franchise, to say only strategy fanatics should buy the game is unacceptable.

...I could understand a score in the 7s and warnings to new comers that the game is difficult, but for a major review site, the largest in fact, to blatantly say "dont buy this game" when everyone other site and publication has generally praised it or at least acknowledged its good qualities despite its niche following is disturbing.

enduin

I agree pretty much. I posted the below in another thread, decided to post them here too.

Well, maybe I should take the time to better describe my issues with the review. First, some background, I am a fan of the series, and I have not yet played this game. So you might think I'm not in a position to judge at all. However, I do have a very good knowledge of the game, including the entire story, as I was the unfortunate victim of spoilers when trying to find out info about the game after it was released in Japan. So I think I am fairly qualified, but you can take what I say with a grain of salt if you want to.

First, regarding story, well, unless they completely and utterly botched the implementation of it, it's awesome. One of my favorite stories in any game, and a great tribute to those who noticed all those little side details and unanswered questions in PoR. Also, every single other person I've heard about has liked the story overall, even if they had some issues with parts of it. Laughable, terrible,and deserving of the bad story merit? Well, since I haven't experienced it completely for myself, I'll refrain from more comments on story.

Second, regarding graphics and presentation, while neither is anything awesome, they are actually improved quite a bit from PoR. RD is also a in a genre that's never been known for it's great graphics. I really can't complain too much about the review's comments on them, because they aren't that great, but I think it would be a mistake to penalize the game too much for them.

Regarding difficulty, I think they may have overstated how hard it was, and bashed it too much for this. Yes, the easy mode in RD is apparently tougher than the normal mode in PoR... but that's largely due to the confusing way difficulties have changed from the Japanese versions. The "easy" mode is really the Japanese normal mode, from what I understand. Perhaps this was a mistake, as it gives a false impression regarding difficulty compared to the US Fire Emblem releases. People who handled normal mode in PoR might think they are in for the same experience in the "normal" mode in RD.I can't fully comment on difficulty, but I think most people with experience with the Fire Emblem games haven't had too much trouble if they played on "easy." And since this is a sequel, I don't think it's too horrible if it's a bigger challenge than it's previous entry.

Regarding lack of Wii features, well, Mii integration would make no sense. Online would be hard to do in a game like Fire Emblem. It might be possible, but does anyone know of any Strategy RPGs with a good online mode that really added to the game? Maybe if the single-player game wasn't so massive, lack of online would be a bigger complaint. And as for lack of pointing or motion, the only thing you could add to Fire Emblem that wouldn't drastically change the game would be pointing to move units and select menu items. Would be nice as an option, but not a huge thing. I mean, if Advance Wars Duel Strike had forced you to use the D-pad to move units, would it have really been that bad a thing?

[QUOTE="nintendofreak_2"][QUOTE="blahzor"]

From the way i understand things, its not that gamespot is terrible uncredible(though they, like any other, have made some contradictions ie MP3 review) but that their rating system focuses on suggesting games for more "casual" people. There was a thread from not long ago about Jeff Gerstmann's views on this.. he said something along the lines of scores being for people who don't know much about games, and being indicitive of the money value of said game to the average gamer.. therefore not meant for the hardcore gamer. A game could be amazing, and still get a poor score at gamespot. This is why using scores to determine the SW winner is wrong.

blahzor

Ah fair enough!

However; this is why we need to read the review and consider what the reviewer has to say. things should never be so black and white when it comes to whether a game is "good" and the extent to which.. which is where system wars seems to fail

The problem is, I don't even agree with what the reviewer has to say, so. I have yet to experience the game for myself, though, so maybe I'm being unfair, but I do know a lot about the game so I think it's fair to comment on some things. Not to harp on one comment, but the guy's view that the benifits of Mii integration in a Fire Emblem game should be plainly obvious is quite odd to me. Even online would be hard to properly integrate, and pointing controls wouldn't make a huge difference, though it would be nice as an option.

I also don't understand how anyone can say the story is that bad. I've unfortunately had certain parts of it spoiled for me, and from what I've heard, unless the somehow completely botched the implementation of it, it's a very good story. And most other sites and user impressions have complemented the story, so I just don't understand.