I am Turok!!!

[Darth Ruinus]

Has anyone here picked up Turok? I played the demo and it was pretty awesome, and I hear the reviews have been good.

[Death from the Sea]

not yet, I am still enjoying Call of Duty 4... hell I started play COD4 before I was really done with HALO3 but when I go back to H3 the control schemes are so different I play like a tard.

[Jon]

I picked it up. Probably the worst game purchase I've ever made for my 360. It's just dire imho, the control system feels clunky, the graphics look dated, the story seems to have been rebooted and the game is just generally boring.

Though, I did get it off the back of Call of Duty 4, which I'm still addicted to on LIVE, so maybe my standards have been set high, but that's no excuse.

[Vendetta]

Demo was blah, reviews are blah. There are no excuses right now for buying deeply mediocre FPS games unless you've completed Orange Box fifteen times and are the world champion at Call of Duty 4.

Also, Wimpiest. Shotgun. Ever.

[DaveJB]

Judging by the demo, it's at least better than the unholy mess that was Turok: Evolution, but pretty average overall, IMO. What really annoyed me was the fact that you couldn't seem to move more than five steps without a couple of raptors springing out from absolutely nowhere and tearing you to shreds.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

It has it's problems... But every FPS has at least a few things it could have done better...

Two-ish weapons seems to be the new defining limit to on hand weaponry. Which is always going to create problems, as some fun weapons may not be worth taking. The Bow is usually good enough for sniping situations, so the sniper rifle is really left behind... The shotgun, and it's dino-fetish flare is also over useful. (The bow takes up it's own fourth slot, and the knife has it's own dedicated slot as well.)

Combat... is combat. I only messed around on normal, where it's kinda hard to die unless you get surrounded, or one of the dinos that possess them decide to use their OHKO attack. (So far the T-Rex & crested raptor are the only ones.)

The dinos are terribly annoying, pounching and knocking you on your ass, or biting you from three feet out of their jaw range... The people are stupid... loosing track of you if you fake them out on a flank. (They actually go back to unaware if you do it sometimes...)

Some of the other weapons seemed interesting... but since you could only carry two at a time, (And appearently dual weild both no matter what they are.) most didn't seem too effective for the slot they occupied. I ended up with the Shotgun & Pulse Rifle 90% of the time after I got it. And that's only because I picked up a sniper rifle to see what it could do.

It is a total reboot it would seem... With only the dinos and bows pointing to the old games. Though I wonder if they're gonna go anywhere with those climbing raptors...

I don't really want to see how quickly the raptors shread you on Hard or Hard+, since they are cheapness incarnate.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sorry for the thread necro, but I think Yahtzee's review summed up what is wrong with most modern FPSs, especially console ones.

[Zixinus]

Sorry for the thread necro, but I think Yahtzee's review summed up what is wrong with most modern FPSs, especially console ones.

Wouldn't that better deserve its own tread then necro one that has little to do with the game? Even the video has little to talk about the game itself and more of a rant in general.

[Ford Prefect]

On the upside, Turok does have RON PERLMAN and Powers Booth in it. I realyl want to get it, but I know I will regret it.

[Darksider]

I agree with every one of the problems listed in the zero punctuation review except the one about the regenerating health.

I think it keeps the gameplay going more smoothly when you don't have to constantly backtrack or desperatly search for a health pack.

[Stark]

Wouldn't that better deserve its own tread then necro one that has little to do with the game? Even the video has little to talk about the game itself and more of a rant in general.

Remember, regen health is bad... but not when Crysis or COD4 do it.

[Darksider]

Remember, regen health is bad... but not when Crysis or COD4 do it.

meh. I think he gave Crysis a pass on some of it's faults because he was too busy drooling over the obscenely awsome graphics and visuals.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I played it, and, well as much as i like Zero Punctuation i think i'll actually list some pros and cons here as opposed to a rant about FPS games...

Weapons:
Pro--several weapons are very useful and make the game easier in many places: the flamethrower is excellenta gainst dinos and bugs and it's napalm launcher is fucking murderous; the pulse rifle is an excellent gun--good power, stun grenades, kills quickly, huge ammo clip--and i lament that HL2 had no such weapon; the bow is essential through most of the game as a sniper's weapon.

Con--the sniper rifle, minigun, stick-bomb launcher and pistol are all useless. Once or twice the minigun comes in handy in caves or tight places, fighting dinos and such, but only a little.

Pro--the knife can basically render most dinos harmless, as a well honed trigger finger (ironically, considering it's a knife) allows you to effectively one-shot-kill their asses. I found i rarely used guns on dinos, just whipped out my switchblade and did my best pimp impression as i cut they (sic) asses.

Pro--the RPG is much better than the one in HL2...that's all i need. It gives you more ammo, the homing feature isnt some asinine laser guided crap, and it kills enemy gunships with one hit. Thank you sir, may i have that in HL3?


Enemies:
Pro--most are well meshed out with a smattering of weaker, light infantry and heavy infantry with miniguns and flamethrowers, and the dinos have a rather nice variety despite being generally the same overall.

Con--those huge komodo dragons are murderous. I hate them.

Pro--the final battle with Kane is awesome. They should do more of those, period.

Con--the final final battle, with the TRex, is murderous. I hate it.

Con--the bugs are just rediculous. I mean come the fuck on. No they never stop spawning in, either, i managed to hold out quite a while once before i nearly ran out of ammo and realized they never stop coming.


Graphics:
Pro--textures look pretty nice, generally. Lots of atmosphere, lots of interesting uses of cover. The cover feels more naturally placed than, say, Gears of War, where there were just concrete blockades in random buildings for no reason or something.

Con--lots of small glitches; unless you're an OCD tool it wont bother you but it probably will be jarring to tech-fiends who just blew through Crysis's environs.


Controls:
No real problems here. Controls were tight, the button arrangement was good, very well thought out i'd say. They made use of all the buttons and did so in a way that made the controler layout quite efficient, IMO.


Gameplay:
Con--story was too far removed from the original i think, it was rather jarring.

Pro--at least they kept Turok as a Native American, for a moment i was afraid he'd end up some random blonde soldier like they have in most games.

Pro--i found i actually liked the characters a bit, and in fact i found them less...quirky and annoying than some characters in other games.

Pro-I liked that they have Turok speak, i'm sick of playing as mute, emotionally dead killbots.

Con--i hate this "only two weapons" thing, it's really quite silly. I can understand if it were COD or Medal of Honor, which take place in the real world...but if the conceit of the game is that i have to accept dinosaurs, giant bugs, cyborg mercenaries and laser pulse rifles then i doubt SOD will be very stretched if you allow me to carry more than a scant handful of weapons. By that same token, i do bemoan the death of health bars. I mean really, again, how "realistic" is it that all soldiers in the future have a mutant healing factor?


Overall...
It's a competent shooter, with, for perhaps the first time IMO, competently integrated stealth elements (i.e., optional ones) and thank Christ all-mighty it doesnt have any escort missions. I actually enjoyed it far better than any of the previous Half-Life games, despite the less stellar story, because it seemed to be more...i dunno, appropriate, i guess. I dont know why everyone says "mouse and keyboard" controls work better on FPS games, frankly i never could get used to them myself, too unnatural IMO. A control pad is more compact, more intuitive. Yhatzee is dead wrong about it being hard to aim i had no problem at all, i think it's just cause he's played very few FPS games personally; my girlfriend, who rarely plays FPS games, says that about games even with insanely tight controls like Half-Life.

8/10...they could have done better if they kept the original story, but otherwise, it was one of the better FPSes i've played recently.

[Darth Ruinus]

I've heard that people complained about the aiming too, but I also heard that has to do with the fact that it doesnt have any type of auto aim available, which is pretty cool in my opinion.

[Stark]

meh. I think he gave Crysis a pass on some of it's faults because he was too busy drooling over the obscenely awsome graphics and visuals.

My, what a critical and rational source of information this is. If I thought YOU were saying Crysis had 'obscenely awsome graphics and visuals' and that that made up for shit or fuck, I'd have to say something mean.

18, better watch out, actually providing information isn't the way of Nerd Reviews. I mean you weren't even up on your soapbox! You were also far too consistent. All I want to know is 'is it better than Jericho'.

[Darksider]

meh. I think he gave Crysis a pass on some of it's faults because he was too busy drooling over the obscenely awsome graphics and visuals.

My, what a critical and rational source of information this is. If I thought YOU were saying Crysis had 'obscenely awsome graphics and visuals' and that that made up for shit or fuck, I'd have to say something mean.

To paraphrase his review, he said something along the lines of "my inner reviewer was jumping up and down inside my head telling me that the levels were repeatative and the vehicles sucked, but the game was so damn beautiful i just stopped caring".

crysis is pretty damn good-looking to be sure, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the vehicles are useless, and the plot dialog is bad, really really bad.

[Stark]

Well that was kinda my point: the Yahtzee effect is visible in any reviewer/nerdbox blogger as they become popular. I mean, Crysis doesn't really look that awesome (it's pretty, but has glaring crapness and isn't worth the grunt it needs) but somehow that's enough to offset everything else. That's fine for regular fanboys, but when your saleable quality is being harsh for 2 months until becoming less negative and more blogger, it's a bit different.

[Darth Ruinus]

Well that was kinda my point: the Yahtzee effect is visible in any reviewer/nerdbox blogger as they become popular. I mean, Crysis doesn't really look that awesome (it's pretty, but has glaring crapness and isn't worth the grunt it needs) but somehow that's enough to offset everything else. That's fine for regular fanboys, but when your saleable quality is being harsh for 2 months until becoming less negative and more blogger, it's a bit different.

Sounds alot like the Halo reviews if I remember right. Most of that game was repetitive run shoot run shoot, but it got good reviews cuz its multiplayer is fun. I never saw how one aspect of the game suddenly makes the whole thing great.

[Stark]

Nor, indeed, has Yahtzee, as demonstrated in his Halo3 review. This attitude is quite absent of late.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Halo 3 was ok, i wouldnt call it "repetitive". It wasnt, like, Shawshank Redemption: the Official Movie Game...but it wasnt Daikatana. I think a lot of people expected way too much of Halo 3. I'm not saying we should have no expectations at all, but some people enjoy a game, then when they hear of the sequel they internally hype it to outrageous levels that will never be possible in the actual product.

But i think people wanted the game to be some kind of mystical godsend that would cure mankind's ills. Everyone was like "Dude, OMG, it's gonna' cure CANCER and reverse Global Warming!"

And then it came out and everyone went "Dude, this sucks, it's just a normal, fairly competent shooter! I wanted Jesus to descend from Bungie and personally Baptise my son, what gives!!!"

I'm not saying it's a perfect 10 game (that would be BioShock, which just sexed my mind) but it's a good game, really, if we're gonna' be honest about it.

[Covenant]

Nor, indeed, has Yahtzee, as demonstrated in his Halo3 review. This attitude is quite absent of late.

He's utterly failed us bitter shells of men, and given far too little coal-black nuggest of hate to fuel our Rage Engines. Honestly, if I wanted to hear about all the good qualities of a game, I'd go read an actual review, which is more than likely to prance across most titles like it's the best thing ever. Rarely do you read actual reviews that dig into a game and say it's poorly made.

The advantage of these snarky pundit-types is that since they're either unpaid, or paid for the spiteful color of their reviews, they can't really lose advertisers or industry support the way a magazine can, so they can really afford to play up the shittiness of a game.

Being balanced is great but I almost believe that balance is difficult in a game you either like, or do not like, and those two experiences can be divested of quality very quickly. The Crysis review is a good example. Also, I liked Manhunt. That right there should call into question my taste in gaming, even if I can (and do, I believe) deliver an honest and reasonable review of a game based on merits and flaws without a nod towards personal experience.

So barring actual quality reviews, any sort of personal-opinion review should focus primarily on the cruddier points of it so that there's a sort of karmic balance of game reviewing going on. For a snark-reviewer to give their seal of approval is fine, and maybe they should do a 'rating' system upfront where they say what most people give it, what they'd give it and briefly (sentence or two) why, and then dig into the aggrivating aspects you aren't likely to see in a magazine or other review-laden location.

You could stop calling them reviews and call them critiques.

And BioShock, for the record, was nice eyecandy and plot but had quite the weak shooter aspect behind it. Perfect 10 my ass!