Page 1 of 1
Two Quake 4 reviews
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:30 pm
by Eraser
Gamer Within 9.2/10
Eurogamer 7/10 (and they call it a smallish 7 as well)
Many reviewers throw their low score on the fact that Quake 4 brings nothing new to the table. I don't think that should weigh in as heavy as many reviewers let it. It might not bring new stuff to the table, but it executes all the tried game mechanics so well that a higher score than a 7 should be in order IMO (an 8 at least).
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:33 pm
by MKJ
7 is still above average
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:37 pm
by R00k
IMO, it's very rare for a developer to release a game that has all the technical eye-candy of Q4, and still make it so goddamned fun. That's where it scores in my book, because of the SP game. The multi is great too, but I can see why it wouldn't get the best scores - Q3's didn't either, but the mods and maps will be coming for it soon enough.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:41 pm
by Eraser
MKJ wrote:7 is still above average
Not really IMO. 8 is above average. 7 is average. 6 is still decent. 5 is bad and 3 or 4 is really bad.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:43 pm
by o'dium
Quake 4 really did fucking amazing, i cant believe just hwo much fun it was. I was hooked from the first second until the end... Well, the end boss at least. Kinda went downhill there
It doesn't do anything new. But it doesn't everything (apart from driving) perfectly.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:53 pm
by shiznit
It doesn't really matter to me, I enjoyed the single player and the multiplayer is pretty good also.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:53 pm
by Eraser
o'dium wrote:Well, the end boss at least. Kinda went downhill there
Please don't spoil anything but when things go downhill after the end boss, that's because the game is er.... over, right?
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:02 pm
by R00k
I posted, but I couldn't tell if you were really wanting to know something, or if you were just being sarcastic toward odium, so I deleted it.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:04 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
lame with the decimals. why don't they just extend it to 1/100th's if they're going to be that stupid.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:07 pm
by Eraser
R00k wrote:I posted, but I couldn't tell if you were really wanting to know something, or if you were just being sarcastic toward odium, so I deleted it.
good
it was a sarcastic comment
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:07 pm
by R00k
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:lame with the decimals. why don't they just extend it to 1/100th's if they're going to be that stupid.
LOL, you
would come in and criticize their method of notation.
7.2 is like a 72 on a high school exam - game reviews shouldn't be that specific?
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:08 pm
by Eraser
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:lame with the decimals. why don't they just extend it to 1/100th's if they're going to be that stupid.
lol yeah... the half life fanboys would go like oooooh Half-Life 3 scored a 9.865 and Quake 5 scored a 9.864 so HL3 is waaaay better!
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:35 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
R00k wrote:+JuggerNaut+ wrote:lame with the decimals. why don't they just extend it to 1/100th's if they're going to be that stupid.
LOL, you
would come in and criticize their method of notation.
7.2 is like a 72 on a high school exam - game reviews shouldn't be that specific?
that's exactly my point. if you're going to be so definitive, then screw a "1-10" rating and go 1-100. people generally use decimals in rating systems because they can't make up their mind which way they want to go.
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:37 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
Eraser wrote:+JuggerNaut+ wrote:lame with the decimals. why don't they just extend it to 1/100th's if they're going to be that stupid.
lol yeah... the half life fanboys would go like oooooh Half-Life 3 scored a 9.865 and Quake 5 scored a 9.864 so HL3 is waaaay better!
indeed they would.