Quake 4 PC Gamer Review - Not Very Good ... - Articles Posted by: Bluehair on 10-10-2005 @ 11:59
This News Item has been viewed 6,010 times
If you happen to catch the December issue of PC Gamer US which should be available on the shelves shortly, you'll read inside a rather disappointing review of Quake 4, especially if you were awaiting this game eagerly. Simply put, they give it a modest 70%, bashing it for its old-school gameplay, being short and bot-less. Kinda surprising for a magazine that had awarded DOOM 3 a whooping 94% last year.
Here's a snip:
Over the course of its 15-year existence, developer Raven Software has been pushing the boundaries. It raised the bar (or lowered it, depending on your view) for hyper realistic gore with Soldier of Fortune and went where no developer had gone before with Star Trek: Elite Force - not just one of the best Trek games ever made, but also one of the best shooters released in 2000. One of its few non-shooter efforts, X-Men Legends, has become the best selling X-Men game ever. And no list of Raven winners would be complete without its collaborations with id Software, most notably the Heretic and Hexen franchises.
So why is it that Quake 4, Raven's recent teaming with id, plays it very, very safe? A solid shooter, it's nonetheless a throwback to a time before Half-Life and Half-Life 2, Call of Duty, and Far Cry - an era in shooters when all you needed was a big gun and an even bigger boss monster to aim it at. And unlike other Recent "retro" shooters like Painkiller and Serious Sam, Quake 4 doesn't offer inventive level designs, unique flair, or a budget price tag.
But there is one boundary it pushes: How much you're willing to pay for a 10-hour retread campaign and bot-less Quake III-style multiplay.
Highs - Loads of action; gruesome visuals; Q3DM17 with Doom 3 graphics
Lows - Uninspired gameplay; Stroggification plot twist goes nowhere; no multiplayer bots.
Bottom line - This old-school shooter suffers from a lack of 21st-century game design.
yeah, this is very dissapointing... the reviws and the game.
im sick of magazines giving reviews based on expectations - uninspired gameplay doesnt mean boring or bad gameplay for everyone. And why the f*** would you want bots in multiplay??? (those autofill cs:s bots ***** me off anyway)
#4 - 10-10-2005 at 16:33
jacoblebeau From: (Québec, Saguenay) Joined: March 20th, 2005 Posts: 84
critics sucks. They says bull*****. Don't care about them
#5 - 10-11-2005 at 05:09
Bluehair From: Joined: August 5th, 2002 Posts: 316
All these complains could have been given to Doom3 easily. Still they gave it 94%.
Conclusion - reviews suck, based mostly on hype and current humour of the reviewer. While it's certainly disappointing for Q4 to get 70%, I recommend we all play a demo or sth before we decide whether or not to buy it.
#7 - 10-11-2005 at 08:50
Kalia From: (Cullowhee, North Carolina) Joined: August 30th, 2004 Posts: 9
I like my 20th century style gaming. I love you Q3 MP.
#8 - 10-11-2005 at 11:44
Ripper20 From: (Scotland,UK) Joined: February 23rd, 2005 Posts: 153
Sometimes reviewers are....rubbish....*SIgh* I hope it is not as bad as they said.
I dunno how they could have given Doom 3 a 94% it was the worst multiplayer game i've seen in recent years.
The majority of servers could not even run it do to lag and constand connection interrupts.
I tried to get into D3 multiplayer a few times, then just played the Single Player for a bit and put the game on the shelf.
I'm not sure how much stock I put in this Quake 4 review. I guess we will have to see.
Doom 3 was a total waste of money as a multiplayer game in my opinion.
I'm honestly tired of magazines, websites, and G4TV rating games by comparing them to others. Quake 4 is a returning saga from Quake 2, you are supposed to get the feel of the retro shoot em up. If you want to compare and contrast things to each other, than you shouldn't rate things in the gaming industry. Try your luck with reviewing the actual hardware itself, it actually makes sense to compare and contrast. Games are for entertainment purposes, and of coarse you will get the same from games; yes, most, if not all games, have something innovative about them, but, guess what, they have the same aspect, you have a gun, and you shoot. You build a city and protect it, and I could go on. But, I'm done ranting about game reviewers.
When posting comments, you must follow these rules:
No "Yay I got First Post!" posts, no exceptions and no matter what other content the post has!
No Pornographic Material. Any sexually oriented imagery or links to such content will not be tolerated.
No Warez or Illegal Software. This includes linking to software, posting about it, and suggesting to get it.
No Cursing or Swear words. We encourage you to use our comment sections as a forum to debate files, news, etc., but please use proper adjectives to express yourself. We will not tolerate abuse upon another member or author.
No Attacks / Retaliation of any kind against a member, or group of members.
Please do not advertise for other sites or forums here.
Maximum of 3 smileys per regular member.
The high interactivity of this site should be considered a luxury, not a right. If you cannot follow these simple rules, you can and will be warned or banned from the comments, site or the entire network for any period of time. Now enjoy yourself and behave!