You are not signed into a user account. Please return to this page once you are signed into your free account for additional options.
Title: Boot the door locks!
Posted: September 30, 2006 (06:29 PM)
Ironically, I had to rush to get this review done. I don't think it turned out all that bad, though.
Title: I inflicted 1337 damage!
Posted: September 01, 2006 (08:41 PM)
Posted: August 27, 2006 (08:32 PM)
I need to stop writing these competition entries at the last minute. It's stressful!
Title: I stole this idea from Zig, who in turn stole it from Sho.
Posted: August 20, 2006 (10:19 AM)
Atlantis no Nazo (NES)
That game isn't listed on HG for some reason. But this one is:
Title: Devil May Cry 3.
Posted: August 09, 2006 (11:16 AM)
I got my hands on the PC version of DMC3, and man is it a piece of shit port. The FPS dips more severely than the elevator at Disney's Tower of Terror. Apparently, my PC can perfectly handle Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, but a PS2 game with mediocre graphics is too much for it; either that, or Ubisoft produced this port on autopilot.
For those who want to play the PC DMC3 on your 360 gamepad, forget it. As of now, the button mapping is laughable. (It might improve for the US version, but I wouldn't cross my fingers.) In order to get the game to properly work with my state-of-the-art gamepad, I had to download a load of patches and drivers and programs. Even after all that, the camera stick still doesn't work; but at least Dante's movement isn't mapped to the right analog stick anymore. That's how dumb the button mapping is.
The game itself is alright. Definitely an improvement over part one, but it still suffers from some of the same problems the original did. Boss battles are still boring, and although some form of camera control has been implemented, there are still areas where you can't manipulate the camera. What gives, Capcom?
In conclusion, don't bother with PC ports of Japanese games. Few are done correctly, and you can probably get the console version for cheaper anyways.
Posted: July 27, 2006 (05:41 PM)
Posted: July 23, 2006 (01:19 PM)
I really biffed it this week. My Zelda I bash was torn apart by judges, and now Team Janus is tied for third with Team Emp.
I thought that particular review was the best possible entry I could have picked for this week. I was also considering New Ghostbusters II and Gremlins 2, but I don't think those would have fared any better; both feel too much like my Back to the Future, which barely won the first round.
In retrospect, I think I should have put in some extra effort and submitted something new. Either that, or I should have edited my Zelda I and polished it up. Either way, I take the blame for my team losing. Instead of being lazy, I should have given this round my all.
This week I'm going to focus my energy on reviewing Mickey Mania and making it the best work I've ever submitted to this site. I'm not going to guarantee that it'll sweep whoever they pit me against next week, but it will be better than anything I've submitted in the last month.
Also, I vow to edit my Zelda I review someday and improve upon it; because that game deserves a proper bashing.
Title: A request.
Posted: July 19, 2006 (10:24 AM)
To any brave soul who has a GameFAQs account and is willing to risk getting moderated, could you please relay to following message from me to Sailor Bacon in the general Review Contributor board (under the topic "How is this review considered trolling?", if it isn't closed yet):
Damn, Bacon; you are full of it.
My comparisons aren't inane; I drew them to illustrate how poorly the game has aged.
You admit you didn't even play 3/4 of the game. This in and of itself will get a review rejected.
BS. I'll let a couple of quotes speak for themselves.
I don't believe that's true. I've read reviews before that admit to only playing "most" of the game. If it is true, then that's a dumb rule.
From Ashy the Second:
My Soldiers: Heroes of World War II review was posted even though I admitted I couldn't beat a single mission.
Even if you put those aside, my Metroid review acts as hard evidence that this reasoning is utter bull. The truth is, your bias in favor of the original Zelda is clouding your judgement.
I'll admit that the "fat" comment was kind of pointless (but fun); but if you would have actually used that little thing called "reading comprehension", you'd realize that the word "handicapped" is referring to how Link could only move and attack in four directions.
I think a lot of people here would agree there are reviews posted on this site that are written much more poorly than mine; hell, even my seven year-old niece would cringe at some of the stuff that's hosted here.
No, we aren't hosting your attempt to troll the game, sorry.
I know; Honest Gamers is.
The next time you step down from your high horse, Bacon, make sure you put a little more substance into your argument. Nothing is worse than an authority figure who clearly contradicts himself before his subjects.
I would do it myself, but Sailor Bacon suspended my posting privelages while I was typing this response up. He must have forseen that I would post an intelligent counterargument to his...
Title: RARE LOBSTER.
Posted: July 19, 2006 (09:40 AM)
Title: Spaceworlder's GameFAQs B.O. report.
Posted: July 19, 2006 (08:41 AM)
Yesterday, timebombtown's Castlevania: Circle of the Moon review opened. Conservative estimates predicated it would make an opening of 15 hits, matching up with the reviewer's Metroid. It actually performed above expectations, scoring an opening of 22 hits. Meanwhile, timebombtown's other review raked in a solid nine hits to raise its total gross to 62. (It's weekly average has risen to 20.)
Analysts predict that both reviews will enjoy a solid weekend, possibly breaking the 100 point.