Nintendo Power gave Conduit 2 a 7.5.
Before the flaming party begins (or continues in this case), I highly suggest you actually read the review.
Here are the links to some scans that I found (I did not scan them myself, so I apologize for the strange angles):
Part 4: http://i53.tinypic.com/14kzeh1.jpg
Part 5: http://i55.tinypic.com/9sy079.jpg
Part 6: http://i54.tinypic.com/xmncia.jpg
Part 7: http://i56.tinypic.com/5u222x.jpg
Part 5: http://i55.tinypic.com/9sy079.jpg
Part 6: http://i54.tinypic.com/xmncia.jpg
Part 7: http://i56.tinypic.com/5u222x.jpg
Now once you've read that, you'll notice there are only a couple things that Nintendo Power criticized in Conduit 2: Cheesy voice acting, only semi-epic moments in the single player campaign, and "set pieces" (AKA scenic location, etc). Nearly everything else they mentioned was positive. First of all, the first two may or may not be true, but although I abstain from flaming this review, I can honestly say that is pushing it. In fact, Nintendo Power went as far as to promote their own recent wii fps (Goldeneye 007) for superior set pieces (scenery). Having played GE thick and through, I can honestly say there is not a single level scenery that is more gorgeous and awesome than that of the very first in Conduit 2: the oil rig. That's JUST the first level. Clearly its just a biased marketing push, but let's disregard that for now.
Everything else that was in the review that criticized the game, were very simple minor details that don't even relate to the actual gameplay. If minor game details like that are the biggest flaws, how can the game be rated a 7.5? Everything else in the review points to an 8.5 to a 9. The simplest explanation, quite honestly, is because Nintendo Power, which can alter / affect Conduit 2's overall score by influencing other critics, WANTS Conduit 2 to fail. The motive is simple: less Conduit 2 sales, more Goldeneye 007 sales. This is a likely explanation, but other possible explanations include a harsher reviewer who might have given the Conduit (the original) a 6 (in comparison to the 8 that it got) to compensate for why Conduit 2's score was a half point below the original.
What are your thoughts? Please leave them in a comment below. :)
I regularly read Nintendo Power and I can honestly tell you they aren't biased. Their reviews maybe a bit negative or positive, but the score is usually what they thought of the game. For example, Mario Sports Mix got an 8.0, even though the review implied a 9, or 9.5. Also, they rate sequels on how much better it is than the original, not on how good it is overall. For example, the original Scribblenauts got a 9.0, while Super Scribblenauts got an 8.5, despite the fact that they admitted in the review that it was better in every way. They said the reason for such.... reasoning is they rate on improvement; had Super Scribblenauts launched first, they would have given it a 9.5. But since it came after, they had to weigh it next to the original and see if it justified another purchase.
ReplyDeleteRant aside, what I'm trying to say is if you like FPS's and/or the first game, get the second. Don't let a 7.5 (which is good, and just half under an 8.0) dissuade you from a purchase.
Finally, Nintendo Power doesn't get any profit from more GoldenEye sales so I highly doubt that even crossed the reviewer's mind as he wrote the review. And don't forget GoldenEye is a huge nostalgic experience, so the reviewer probably holds it a little higher up for that reason alone.
I think that it is a very fair review. Except for the score, it should be an 8/10, from what they said. Nintendo Power scores low on a lot of games, when others, like IGN, org Gametrailers, score much higher.
ReplyDeleteDon't be so paranoid. The guy rated the game because he played the story mode and didnt care about the multi.
ReplyDeleteSend him hundreeds of mails requesting a better explanation of the score and better description of the actual selling poing of the game.
@abujaffer:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I suppose under the context of rating the sequel as a sequel (and therefore by default rating it lower) makes some sense, it is not the right place for it in the videogame critic industry. Honestly, to do so makes no sense, and only calls for other critics to give it an average critic appeal below that of the first game, which was a 69 on metacritic. Is it acceptable for everyone in the videogame industry to think Conduit 2 is better than the first and then give an average critic appeal of 64 to Conduit 2? Certainly not.
To be honest I think they are being too harsh on the game no matter what I still remember game trailers user score is 9.3
ReplyDeleteACtually, you are close with the GE 007 conspiracy. Examine the whole magasixe ( I haves it) and many 3DS games have high scores, even very bad ones that have low score from every other reivewer (Steel Diver, Rayman, SPlinter Cell). THe kkey was to boost 3DS game sales and not give a fuck for Wii games. The eivewer for Cnduit 2 sucks ass. And also Activision indirectly bribes reviewers, giving them swag and gameplayin parties (where reviewers are invited play the game early for review and treated to food, women, etc.). Then Goldeneye 007 is connected to Activision and Nintendo, and N Power stared as an unprofessional advertisementfor Nintendo Games an was first published by Nintendo. The review is very bad in that it does not give dteails on AI, Suit Upgrades, Character Customisation, not much on the level design,branching levels, HUB world, weapons, achievements, the balancing in the multiplayer, Invasion, splitscreen, peripherals, voice chat, etc, the rest of the game?
ReplyDeleteNP:"I like The Conduit better than Conduit 2 because in The Conduit, there aren't bosses, or cutscenes during levels, or as many weapons or locations. It supports fewer peripherals, and doesn't do split screen. That's why I'd rather play The Conduit."