I liked ALL of the game you listed (except Soul Calibur IV, didn't play that).
So I think it's just you.
Metroid Prime 1 is tedious as hell.
I played it last year in the MP Trilogy, it was so slow it was painful to play.
You know, it could have been better by just introducing teleports between save points (for example) to make it faster, but naah. Let's just have the pumped graphics.
I managed to beat it in... 3 months I think. I couldn't play more than 15 minutes in one sitting.
ALL MY OPINION THOUGH.
Yep, the first half of the game is awesome, but the rest of the game is not that good. It also feels unpolished, and it gradually becomes less hilarious.
I was a bit disappointed in the end, it could have been much, much better.
No More Heroes 1 is a really good game, but the sequel's kinda bad IMO.
The gameplay is better, but it felt totally uninspired to me, the story is rubbish.
It has lost his own soul. It was a let down for me.
Totally agreed on ZoE2. It's one of the best game I've ever played on a Playstation system.
I've also played ZoE1, but it's nothing compared to its sequel.
I'm so glad that there will be the HD collection, the series deserves it.
Ok, I get your point. Maybe I've just seen the game in a different perspective.
I didn't give much attention to the non-battling moments, as they are just some sort of map in my opinion.
I'm not really a nostalgic fan of the old FF era, so i liked the game. It's not a masterpiece, but I sure had fun playing it.
I agree.
I mean, Exdeath from FFV doesn't even have face, it's just a messed up bunch of monsters. I don't get why they put it in the list.
Sonic Heroes wasn't bad, by any means. It was a fun game.
Honestly, I think that 2/10 for the "gameplay" is a bit harsh.
If you don't like the cinematic and linear approach of the game, you could give it a 5.
It's not that different from FFX.
LOL Yeah, I was actually thinking they would give it another 8.5.
Anyway, is this the first review of the game? God, that's early for IGN standards.
IMHO you've been a little harsh on some points, but I have to agree with the review.
I think the graphics are pretty good for a sandbox game. I'd give it at list an 8/8.5.
"... not so great when you're shooting guys in the face."
Which is... 1% of the game? More or less?
Aaaaaaaand here's another one! 8.5!
I'm starting to think IGN's keyboards have only the numbers 5 and 8 remaining, for some reasons. Since 5.8 is too low, they decided to give every game an 8.5.
That would explain everything.
DON'T CLICK.
Low scoring for hits. Keep walking. Nothing to see here.
@starchild
Actually I think that those "soft shadows" appear less realistic than the sharpened ones in the PS3 version. So, I don't think it's a plus for the 360.
And did you look at the screenshots? The SSAO makes the difference all over the place, while there are just two or three spots where the 360 textures look better.
It's not a "flawless victory", but the PS3 wins in the graphic department IMHO.
...
... are you referring to GTA IV or some other game?
In this game, textures look pretty much identical. In the comparison I can see two spots where they look better on 360.
Wow, this was unexpected.
I thought this was a tie when I saw the performances, but I have to agree with LoT. The SSAO makes the PS3 version look a lot better.
And it's all in one disc.
And it has exclusive DLCs.
I can't wait to get it tomorrow!
I seriously hope you've been sarcastic.
If not, I'd be really worried for your mental sanity.
@PhearR3dx
I'm not a graphic expert or anything, but MAYBE the 360 is just missing "some" shadows, and not every single shadow.
Try to take a screenshots of the same part of the game that LoT took, and make the comparison.
I mean, I trust LoT a lot (lol). I don't think they would come out with bullshots or anything like that.
In Europe it's 149,90€ (which is like $215), and all we got more than the normal collector's edition is a goddamn trunk.
AND I'm still preordering it. I'm such an idiot.