Transformers: War for Cybertron Review for PlayStation 3 - GameSpot

Of course that's bullcrap. The users rated it 9.2

They say there is lack of visual variety in gameplay, not enough ammunition, tedious boss fights, bad AI both friendly and enemy, and transformations are integrating into gameplay poorly.

First of all, Cybertron is a metal world not like earth at all. You're not going to find white sand beaches and lucious dense rainforest. You're going to find metal and... not much else.

I can kind of agree with the ammo thing from what I can see in the playthrough but that is a minor issue. Learn to pick up dropped weapons?

Boss fights since the Mario 64 days have been known to be tedious. You get some special ones here or there but they have traditionally been dogde some attacks while maybe destroying some essential objects then hit them while they're vurnerable rinse and repeat. WFC doesn't have anything too frustrating it seems.

How well did you score Halo, CoD, or any other hot game out there? Not to bash it, but Halo 3 had the dumbest friendly AI and you normally found them getting in your way more than helping you. In CoD all they do is shoot in the general direction of the enemies but don't get many if any hits. At least in WFC your friendlies have the potential to kill enemies or damage them greatly. There not there to play the game for you, just to help out with the little stuff. If they're complaining about enemy AI how smart do you want it to be? Headshot every time? You'd rage about it being too good then...

How can you say that transformations are integrated poorly. Sure they aren't really used for that much transport in single player but their weapons can be incredibly helpful especially againt the big guys with shield and the turret guys. In multiplayer they basically ARE the game.

So to the point, I'm not convinced Gamespot knows what they're talking about. It's ok to not like the game but the stuff they're complaining about is basically regular procedure with the popular titles these days. If you don't like it maybe it's time to pull out the old Atari or SNES.

 

Enemies don't drop weapons, just energon shards which only refill special abilities, not even health.

 

Well, they did start the whole Eight Point Eight meme. Gamespot tends to be quite harsh at times. I'm learning to take reviews with a grain of salt because they are, after all, in the business of attracting readership and this may sometimes (even if it's not necessarily this particular review) prompt controversial measures on their part.

 

We'll they're wrong about the lack of visual variety and vehicle modes. Each level in the game does have it's own feel with a lot of visual cues unique to that level in particular. And the vehicle modes are very smoothly integrated with one button transformations that don't interrupt gameplay and are useful at a number of junctions. However the other points are quite valid for this game.

Gamespot has the worst crew of reviewers to exist on the net. I'm certain they rarely make it through the tutorial for most of the games that they play. That would explain why they didn't think transformations were integrated properly, they probably couldn't figure out how to use them so they gave up on it.

The complaint about visuals is a prime example of how a gamespot reviewer will just make things up when they can't think of any real reasons to dislike the game. They also have a habit of reporting glitches that don't exist, framerate drops and screen tearing that doesn't happen, or even flat out lying and saying something doesn't work when it does.

 

I've never run into the ammo problem. If I'm low there's usually an ammo crate in the next area or an enemy drops an ammo chip when they die.

The AI stuff is bull. I've been killed by AI plenty of times. My AI teammates function the same way most other big name AI companions do. Shoot at the enemy enough to mostly wear them down or, in some instances, kill them. If they AI was sophisticated enough to completely evade you, kill you with headshots or have your teammates kill everyone before you even get a shot out then no doubt that would be the problem for them instead.

Bosses are, again, the same as most other big games. Shoot the weak spot - dodge attack - shoot the weak spot. If it followed God of War and made it a quick-time event, again, it probably would have been a complaint saying it's old and derivative.

As for the transformations they're probably saying that because they aren't used to the stick transformation. Therefore it was "Integrated poorly into the game".

 

yes they do. the larger brutes sometimes when they explode drop energon cubes, so there is your health.

also the larger ones that have like the double turrets or whatever on the backs carry large guns. once killed you can pick them up and use them. and believe me it is useful.

also no problem with running out of ammo. sure i did a few times but you just got to look for it. worse case i transformed and used up that ammo, or went to my special abilities and melee.

gamespot does suck. havent gone to the site in years because of BS like this. but again i play a game because i want to, not because what anyone else says.

i thought the boss fights were pretty fair. yeah rinse and repeat but it takes a few tries to get a pattern down, which is what a game is about figuring out how to defeat them, not just run in and shoot and few times and push a few buttons at the right time for a cinematic affect.

 

So wait, when WFC gets good reviews it's "AWESOME YES BEST GAME EVER" but when it doesnt it's "bleh they dont know what theyre talking about"

loool people need to accept that ultimately this is just a dumbed down gears of war with robots to 'em, its us creaming all over this game, but to the real critics this is just another unreal engine push off.

 

I think a 6,5 is too harsh - although I think a 9 IGN gave it is too generous, as well. Still, I enjoy reading Gamespot reviews, because they sometimes point out flaws that other sites don't seem to do - one game in perticular that they've been flamed for was Zelda: Twilight Princess, which scored pretty low for a Zelda game..but when I was finished playing it, i think I actually agreed with the reviewer's points (although I would have given it a somewhat higher score).

WFC is an awesome game, especially if you're a TF fan like us, but I think it has a couple of points that stop it from being a 'triple A' title:

-gameplay is rather repetitive: alot of shooting, which is rarely interrupted by other types of gameplay - although they've certainly tried by giving the player some driving parts and turret parts. It's mostly go to the next chamber and shoot everybody..which, mind you, is fine, but maybe could use a bit more refinement for the sequel.

-not alot of variation in the level looks..of course, it's an entire planet made out of metal but I'd like to see the creators try to make the differences a bit greater next time. Maybe it's partly to blame the gritty color palette..I've certainly seen alot of varying locales that looked great, from energon waterfalls to train stations to data library..but they were all presented in the dull palette, so they didn't really stick with me.

-The enemies are a bit too generic compared to the main characters..its understandable that they do not want to make them look just as personalized as the core cast, but most of the enemies are very, very, very blocky and plain.

-I only had a couple of instances in which I was out of ammo, which made it impossible to take a strong enemy out, but for most part, unless you are REALLY bad at aiming, you will be able to switch between your two weapons, alt mode weapon, and grenades, and live through a battle to get the ammo refills.

-finally there could be some tweaks to the cinematics, storytelling and music. Again, they're definitely not bad (maybe the music is too dull in places, although I did find some music in the game during battle that rocked), but they could add to the difference.

I think High Moon is VERY close to making a game that has the same kind of impact of the super titles on the market now, it just needs a bit more refinement..in the end, I'd rate WFC a solid 8 to 8,5 - there's definitely nothing to be ashamed of, really.

Just my opinion.

I think this is a fair statement. Although gameplay is of course not 100% the same, I think High Moon would do good to compare WFC with Gears of War 2 and look what touches Epic did that make GoW2 the better game. MIND YOU, that doesn't mean they have to copy everything that game is doing, or that they should introduce badass scary muscular marines, but it should provide enough pointers on why that game is better and more refined.

Unfortunately, it's almost never that easy..you also have to take into account the budget of the game, the people working on them, the focus, etc. There are alot of studios filled with talented people that potentially could create a tripleA title, but lack the resources to do so.

In any case, like I said before..I feel WFC is definitely a game to be proud of if you've worked on it. There's really nothing terribly wrong with it..in fact it's pretty awesome. Unfortunately in games, there's alot of black and white opinions going on still..'if it's not the best, it sucks'. That's understandable since games are expensive, so people would rather have the best, but I'm pretty damn glad I spent my money on WFC.

 

The reviewer is a Go-Bots fan.

 

Reviews are opinions.

I think the single player is grand as a transformers fan. As a gamer I find the campaign lacking, short, and a step back in the way games have been designed as of late. I would definatley put the campaign in the 6 range.

Mp is what brings the game up to the 8 range to me, but again its an opinion. I love the competative MP in WFC but I can see how others will simply hate it.

Most of the people on this forum have a vested interest in Transformers. I doubt most reviewers and the mass public care as much as we do.

 

The review is written by a bunch of nit-picking, smarmy guys who feel like they know more about games than everyone else.

for example:

"For instance, even though this is a cover-based shooter, you cannot actually snap behind objects, "

I sseem to recall the designers saying this was not a cover based shooter. Do your research, moron

""More troubling is the ammunition, or lack thereof. Every gun you fire in your humanoid or vehicle form (except for jets) requires ammo, but your bullets are depleted far too quickly, forcing you to spend time scouring the environment for replenishment rather than busting up bots.""

The solution to that is simple, don't run around shooting like a moron. I learned that the hard way the first time I played it and after that i learned how to play smart. For people who are supposed to be "Experts" on games who know so much more than the rest of us, this is a pretty ignorant/asinine statement to make.


""""There are never any instances in which you must strategically flip between forms to stay alive, and the brief pause between transformations makes hightailing it away from a bad situation rather awkward. Instead, your vehicle forms are just slightly more nimble versions of your humanoid bodies, and the lack of clever implementation makes this feature feel tacked on to the standard shooting. ""

Umm, yeah there is. When you run out of the aforementioned ammo, you can switch to vehicle mode and have a new supply. Also, when playing with characters like Breakdown whose strength is their speed, it is almost vital to transform, especially during times like when you fight Omega and have to quickly get to the batteries.


"""The world of Cybertron is fully realized, bringing the planet of robots to life. The purple-hued atmosphere feels like an alien world, and the odd structures and twisting pathways add to this idea that you are not from around these parts. The visuals may elicit a bit of awe when you first fire up the game, but that sense of wonder is quickly lost when you trudge through the same environments for a dozen or more hours without any variety."""

Uhhh, Cybertron is supposed to be metal. Sorry you missed the lush waterfalls and fabulous white sand beaches.


---->There's more, but I'll leave it at that. I'm not getting defensive just 'cuz it's a TF game, I am sick of "critics" who just nitpick and hate everything, whether it's games, movies or whatever. This moron must have spent 5 minutes playing the game, as i am convinced that if he would have played longer, he would have seen the errors in what he wrote.

F-U Gamespot.

 

you know what this thread needs? 2 great reviews from hiphopgamer! (i bookmarked the site after that awesome crazy long interview was posted)

Review 1

Review 2

 

I've stopped reading GS a long time ago and, like someone mentioned earlier, it's just their opinion of the game. Giantbomb gave the game a 3 out of 5 for similar reasons. (Link) It'd have been nice to see a 3.5 or 4 from them, but I guess for that it'd had to have been totally groundbreaking. Neither scores are going to affect my enjoyment of the game. (as soon as I fix my PC grrrr...)

 

Opinions are opinions.. and a 6.5 would make more sense if ROTF didn't get a 7 or 7.5...
In my opinion.. also.. I believe you run out of ammo in this game as a design choice to force you to melee (which is how most of the fights go in the cartoon) in boss fights and places where guns are pretty much a must, there's usually a room full of guns and ammo before you enter the fight.... <shrug> wtf?! I just hope the review doesn't scare people off the fence of buying or even renting this game-that would be a shame. I think MOST who tried it will like it... While it's not a 9 out of 10 game, it succeeds at being a fun game. I thought that's what games were supposed to be, not violence simulations for 14 year olds addicted to redbull ....(not that there's anything wrong with that)

 

See, now this is a good review. Doesn't kiss the game's feet, but gives it credit it deserves. All I'm disappointed about is the fact that they pointed out flaws that every game that has come out since like 2006 has had.

 

BUt you know what's really great? Even the non-fans are flaming this review. Go onto GameFAQs' forum and you can see a TON of people are loving the game and many have said they didn't really want to buy it until word of mouth and media opened them up to it.

 

This reminds me why I never liked Gamespot. They gave Diddy Kong Racing a fucking 6.5!

 

I don't agree with most of the reviews points, but I will agree that the friendly AI can be absolutely terrible at times. I had it happen way too often that my teammates just kept standing in place and didn't follow me, or shoot at the enemies.

 

So...even though the multiplayer is more or less copied from Modern Warfre 1/2 (weapon selection, perks, killstreaks, modes etc.) they gave it a 6.5. I don't get it...in my opinion it's even better then CoD because it encourages teamply through the scientist class as well as some abilities (barrier, the perk that adds an ammo dispencer to the sentry).

Also, Modern Warfare 2 had the same graphics as Modern Warfare 1...which sucked.

 

Haven't played this game yet. I won't be able to get for another week, but this review won't make me hesitate in getting the game. I never take game ratings serious.