That review was bs imo. The reviewer sounds like he hasnt played ace combat before. For some reason the storyline and sound got criticised and the sound department got a low score. These have been the core elements of AC from the start, and the main reason the previous titles scored high 8's to low 9's. The reviewer also criticised the sound being "overdone" without going into details. I dont understand, were the explosions too loud, was the music too epic? He also complained about, get this, there being unexpected twists in the mission that werent mentioned in the briefing before the mission! He was moaning about the fact that these unexpected twists/surprises in the battlefield (which should be praised!) rendered his aircraft useless in some situations - well thats what happens in real life, things in war dont go according to plan. He said stuff about his bomber being useless against air targets - thats true but it would bne lethal against ground units. Ace combat 6 missions will be huge with tonnes of land, sea, air targets - sadly theres no real world aircraft that can be devastating against all these targets. Fighters will struggle against ground forces, attackers will struggle against fighters, thats how it is. He also said that the missile alarm going off was irritating (thats what happens in air combat games) - that alarms meant to stop you from getting your *** shot down, if he flew better maybe he wouldnt be such a hot target. Overall, some really invalid claims against the game. Some of the IGN reviewers are simply incapable of delivering good reviews. I mean they had seperate reviews for the flight stick bundle and the regular version and he said that playing with the stick was "THE WAY" to play the game, and he said it made the game even more enjoyable - shouldnt that mean a higher rating. Both reviews got an 8.4.
The only valid negative claims were the ones criticising the fact that theres no clans and perhaps the multiplayer menu setup screen.
I personally think the score should have been around 8.8, as the reasoning in the review for most of the part, was weak. But yeah, thats why i dont really care too much about reviews - theyre subjective to personal opinion - thats why its not uncommon to see some sites rate games 20% above or below other review sites - this even happens between IGn and gamespot, so they dont count for much. I think hype has a lot to do with it as well, ive read information about how sometimes reviewers give games very high scores because its been hyped so much, even though they dont think it deserves it (this was an article relating to either halo 1 or 2). For example on metacritic, half the reviews gave halo 3 a perfect 100% even though they said it had some flaws.
The reader review was only an 8/10. Gay. Screw these guys, I'm going to go beat AC4 again before this comes out just because the last mission is owner.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin Wong
Holy damn, you made me happy oxford. I ****ing love your comparison. I'm so impressed!!! That was just the key word to describe to the total domination.
haha, i read the review again. First time ive seen this criticised in any AC game
"And you never run out of ammo, because the war is on your shoulders and you absolutely need to blow up every last thing on your radar, even if it is a radio tower on your home turf. The story doesn't really make sense. The giant flying manta ray looking enemy base you fight certainly doesn't either. But it doesn't matter, because you're in an F-22A that has over 200 explosives hidden somewhere on it and it controls just like you always dreamt it would…even if that isn't totally realistic."
Why the **** is he mocking the superweapons, the 200 missile thing ... he obviously has NEVER played any other AC game. NO videogame is 100% realistic, if it was it would be boring. Imagine getting given 6 missiles, a limited supply of fuel, having no overpowered opponents. Boss fights are common in a lot of games. I didnt see any reviewer complain about halo having some unrealistic weaponary, alien enemies, dropships etc, i mean it would be bs if videogames were so realistic that tehy felt ordinary.
anyway...I don't understand namco's business strategy, surely multiplatform would be the way to go if you want to make the most money (tonnes of ps3 owners dont have a 360 and love AC). They said they started making the game before the ps3 was out and thats their reason for it not being on ps3. Why dont they just port it over. There is some speculation (by fans, that doesnt count for much) that perhaps they will announce a ps3 version after a couple of months after the 360 version is released. Some people claim that namco wouldnt want to announce a ps3 version right now as it may hinder 360 sales. If they say "a ps3 version will come in a few months" people will then wait for that version of the game instead of running to the store and emptying their wallet at launch. I think its wishful thinking, but i hope a miracle happens and the ps3 version is released - i cbf waiting till ace combat 7 (2+ years). I think its cruel of namco to say "We wanted to release an AC game as fast as possible and the 360 was the only console we could develop for as the ps3 wasnt launched" - they are neglecting their supporters who dont happen to have a 360 and have been buying their games for years and years.
I wasn't going to play this because my plate is full . So my friend who flies planes acts like this game is the 2nd coming of Christ and is getting himself a copy of the game and one for myself , which I can't turn down.
Linear Mode
