Rugby Challenge Reviewed In Psm2 Magazine...

[Titan]

Poor review, probably less than 100 words in total. They claim that "in just ten minutes you'll be scoring tries with ease".

Bottom line: "RC2006 is extremely accessible, yet just too straightforward".

 

[St Helens RLFC]

Farce. Completely incorrect.

 

[Coco]

Err the review was probably written by somebody that hates rugby and is a total FIFA fanatic. If they don't see stunning awesome graphics they don't give it a good review and they probably don't give a toss about gameplay.

it defiantely deserves more than 60%...

Coco

 

[lazy_chesnut]

Originally posted by Coco@Dec 19 2005, 05:51 AM
it defiantely deserves more than 60%...

What, like 64?

 

[Coco]

Originally posted by lazy_chesnut+Dec 18 2005, 06:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lazy_chesnut @ Dec 18 2005, 06:44 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Coco

@Dec 19 2005, 05:51 AM
it defiantely deserves more than 60%...

What, like 64? [/b]

Yah, something like that

I really think it should have got more than 64%! The review was probably written by someone who's never played a rugby game.

Coco

 

[Flamingo]

yeh they usually are!

 

[knowsleyroader]

I would like to think the opinions given by lox, sthelens and myself ( there was someone else but i cant remember his user name was it something boy ? appologies to him ) should be a little more trustworthy than those of a reviewer who probably just had the game dumped in his unsuspecting and potentially uninterested lap.

Everyone has to make up their own mind and im sure some will like it and some wont, although I tend to think a lot more will like it than dont like it in RC2006 case.

With regards to most online reviews, I would take them with a pinch of salt. RL2 got 9/10 FFS

 

[ZoMbIeAsRtOnAuT]

Most videogames magazines are a joke these days..
ACE, Big K, "Golden era" C+VG..where are you????!!???

 

[funksoulbrother]

Originally posted by knowsleyroader@Dec 18 2005, 08:03 PM
I would like to think the opinions given by lox, sthelens and myself ( there was someone else but i cant remember his user name was it something boy ? appologies to him ) should be a little more trustworthy than those of a reviewer who probably just had the game dumped in his unsuspecting and potentially uninterested lap.

A little more yes. But you guys have given the last couple of rugby games great reviews and in the end they turned out to be disappointing games. I hope its not more of the same?

 

[knowsleyroader]

Originally posted by funksoulbrother+Dec 19 2005, 09:17 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (funksoulbrother @ Dec 19 2005, 09:17 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-knowsleyroader

@Dec 18 2005, 08:03 PM
I would like to think the opinions given by lox, sthelens and myself ( there was someone else but i cant remember his user name was it something boy ? appologies to him ) should be a little more trustworthy than those of a reviewer who probably just had the game dumped in his unsuspecting and potentially uninterested lap.

A little more yes. But you guys have given the last couple of rugby games great reviews and in the end they turned out to be disappointing games. I hope its not more of the same? [/b]

Did I give RL2 a great review ??? I must have missed that one. What I did do is give an open ended review on the little I did play of the game as I felt it unfair to condem it in such a short space of time.

I think I remember giving R2005 a good review and its still a game I play. Yes it does have some glaring errors but it also showed much promise also.

I also remember giving R2004 a stinking review which I still stand by and im sure most would agree with.

Feel free to try and dig up my reviews and info as I do admit to forgeting what I wrote exactly and you could be lucky and find something in them that will bite me on the ass.

What you also have to take into account is that when lox and I do get an opportunity to play an upcoming product, we tend to have had far less time with the game than magazine reviewers so that has to be taken into account.

As I have said in the past with RC2006, I think its a fantastic play from the time I had with it, but I cant really comment on its lastability or AI over a period of time as we didnt get to play for an extended period.

Anyway feel free to take my reviews or views on a game with a pinch of salt, merely trying to offer an opinion ( usually in advance of any others being offered ). Its certainly never been intended that it be taken as a definitive opinion, just one of.

 

[Trev@Swordfish]

Originally posted by funksoulbrother@Dec 19 2005, 09:17 AM
A little more yes. But you guys have given the last couple of rugby games great reviews and in the end they turned out to be disappointing games.

I'm not building a case here for you to buy our game - you guys will all make your own decisions.

I just wanted to say that the reason we allowed Knowsleyroader to come along and review the game with Locksley was that he hated WCR. That was a big plus for us as it then gave a good considered opinion on whether our game had moved on.

In the end it was a mistake as it meant we had to pay him more in bribes to get a good write-up.

Lox was much cheaper.

BTW, I am just kidding.

 

[knowsleyroader]

Originally posted by Trev@Swordfish+Dec 19 2005, 10:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Trev@Swordfish @ Dec 19 2005, 10:58 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-funksoulbrother

@Dec 19 2005, 09:17 AM
A little more yes. But you guys have given the last couple of rugby games great reviews and in the end they turned out to be disappointing games.

I'm not building a case here for you to buy our game - you guys will all make your own decisions.

I just wanted to say that the reason we allowed Knowsleyroader to come along and review the game with Locksley was that he hated WCR. That was a big plus for us as it then gave a good considered opinion on whether our game had moved on.

In the end it was a mistake as it meant we had to pay him more in bribes to get a good write-up.

Lox was much cheaper.

BTW, I am just kidding. [/b]

All very true. Lox will say pretty much anything for a decent sandwich.... Me ? Im not so easily bought ... It took a sandwich and a quality bag of crisps for me to turn in my review

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

yes..and the fact i had a knife to your throat....











btw...im not joking

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by knowsleyroader@Dec 19 2005, 07:03 AM
With regards to most online reviews, I would take them with a pinch of salt. RL2 got 9/10 FFS 

Rugby League 2 got 9/10 because those were Australian reviews and the profile of Rugby League in NSW and Qld is larger than life and most people follow a team in the NRL, so those Aussie reviews were always bound to be kind. The situation in the UK is totally the opposite, the profile of soccer is massive and any other sports media (especially rugby league/union) is actively assulted by the hooligans who follow the "beautiful game".

 

[kaftka]

Also, and this is just a mere theory, but a theory by someone of my calibre is nothing but fact. Therefore this is no ordinary theory, but, in actual fact, actual fact that can not be disputed in any way, shape, or form, unless done so in a joking manner such as taking the ****, therefore accepting it is fact, but in fact portraying it as a theory, which it originally was, but, because I can say nothing but facts, unless I am joking, an actual fact.


[edit] Oh yeah, perhaps because soccer is considered more working class than rugby over there, and games appeal to the mainstream working class, therefore games magazines are run by working class people, therefore they never have a rugby game liker because no one there likes rugby, therefore they give unfair reviews...Unless they are paid out by EA.
In other words, f*** the System.

Yours Merrily,

kaftka

Sincere Christmas.

 

[Wally]

F@#k you Kaftka.

 

[kaftka]

Oka- Wait. I'll check my schedule.

 

[..::ERIC::..]

Can you kill yourself now or do you have to wait for me to do it for you?

 

[TheBokke]

Originally posted by ***an@Dec 19 2005, 02:49 AM
Poor review, probably less than 100 words in total. They claim that "in just ten minutes you'll be scoring tries with ease".

Bottom line: "RC2006 is extremely accessible, yet just too straightforward".

Normally these reviews mean nothing as the people who usually review them have no idea about rugby at all!!

The worring thing is that even if he knows nothing about rugby and says it is to easy is a bit heavy as the guys who normally review them give them bad reviews because they just can`t get to grips with controls never mind all the rugby laws!!

Lets hope he was only allowed to play on easy difficulty. This is going to be my only worry with RC 2006 as WCR was way to easy and one dimensional.

 

[ZoMbIeAsRtOnAuT]

Nah Kaftka, most UK games journalists are bitter English Grads' slumming it in video games journalism until the post of staff writer or errand boy vacancy appears in one of our many lads mags or music papers.
As for the working class bit, most of them are called Tarquin and have at least two hyphens in their surnames, so I think that rules that theory out