The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena (Xbox 360)

Comments

• 
  MSUSteve

  4/15/2009 7:00:52 PM

  @GusMastrapa: Yep. That seems to sum it up quite nicely.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  4/15/2009 6:21:19 PM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  So really what Tom was saying was with his score was "don't buy this game if your decision hinges on the quality of Assault on Dark Athena."

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/15/2009 5:45:00 PM

  @GusMastrapa: "Here's the thing, Steve. No matter what we talk about in your review there's almost always somebody who comments, "You didn't mention x." That's because there's no way to write an all encompassing review. I can't speak for Tom, but that's why I'm trying to attack games criticism from a different angle -- go with a thesis (an underlying point) and try to be creative, informative and entertaining when supporting it. This approach leaves orphans, but the final result is a better piece of writing.
  
  Part of the work we have to do in support of that writing is to help encourage readers to broaden their idea of what a 'review' or game criticism can be."
  
  The Crispy writers' constant striving for something different is what keeps me coming back, along with the great discussions I have here. So I'm fully on board Gus. I just think leaving out huge chunks of content from even a mention in the review doesn't jibe with making a recommendation about whether or not the entire thing is worth one's time. I'm not talking about forgetting to mention how awesome the solar flares are in the game, ya know? With a game like this, the simple fact is that it's three distinct pieces of content and for a review to give the entire thing a fair shake it needs to discuss all three. Of course that's assuming the review has any component of consumer reporting, which I said earlier. Despite Crispy's "Buy, Try, Fry" trichotomy, (I think I just made up a word) I'm starting to realize that making a purchase recommendation for a consumer is fairly low on the priority list for a Crispy reviewer. And that's awesome. So I guess I'm just hung up on the fact that the recommendation was not to buy the game without reviewing 2/3 of the content.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  4/14/2009 2:46:39 AM

  @GusMastrapa:
  
  Gus I get what you are saying here but I think you mentioned multiplayer because you know that it is a very important part of this particular game. But do I agree that every game deserves to have all of its various bits examined so that you please everyone? No.
  
  When I write a review I have a big picture in mind - what are the most important things readers need to know about this particular game? What do I take away from the experience? That's what I focus on.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  4/14/2009 2:08:58 AM

  You know what? Yeah. I'd be perfectly happy reading a review of Call of Duty 4 that said nothing about the multiplayer. Because there's enough going on with the game on both sides to merit explorations.
  
  I just went back to my review of Call of Duty 4 for The Onion A.V. Club and was disappointed to find it the kind of review you want. Half dedicated to single player, half to multi. And I was barely able to cram in anything interesting about either.
  
  Here's the thing, Steve. No matter what we talk about in your review there's almost always somebody who comments, "You didn't mention x." That's because there's no way to write an all encompassing review. I can't speak for Tom, but that's why I'm trying to attack games criticism from a different angle -- go with a thesis (an underlying point) and try to be creative, informative and entertaining when supporting it. This approach leaves orphans, but the final result is a better piece of writing.
  
  Part of the work we have to do in support of that writing is to help encourage readers to broaden their idea of what a "review" or game criticism can be.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  4/14/2009 1:56:10 AM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  Lots of people chose not to review Peggle when they reviewed The Orange Box.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  4/14/2009 1:42:07 AM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  Steve, to be fair any reviewer worth his salt knows that a key component of any COD game is multiplayer and would cover that in a review. I'm not sure the same holds for this game.

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/13/2009 1:33:00 PM

  @GusMastrapa: So then a review of CoD4 that utterly failed to mention the mutiplayer aspects would be okay with you Gus? I'm not saying that every review needs to read like a tech spec sheet (*cough* Gamespot) but to completely ignore big chunks of content seems wrong. Of course, that's assuming a reviewer wants his review to have any element of consumer reporting. If not, hell, review only the font used in the manual if that's what tickles your fancy.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  JasonMcMaster

  4/13/2009 1:27:08 PM

  I hit the 4 hour mark that Tom mentioned. Yeesh it does take a turn for the worse.

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  4/13/2009 12:47:40 PM

  See, I disagree. The review should cover everything the critic thinks is worth mentioning. Because a review that covers EVERYTHING on the disc would be unreadable and missing the point.

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/13/2009 9:07:22 AM

  @GusMastrapa: I agree with regard to The Orange Box and GOTY awards. But reviews of the Orange Box, like reviews of any game, should take into consideration everything that's offered on the disc. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be for a developer to read a review of his game that doesn't take into account everything that was offered on the disc? What if I had reviewed Call of Duty 4, but decided that because I don't play MP, I was just going to ignore that and only discuss the SP? Would it be fair for me to make a recommendation on the entire package in those circumstances? I certainly don't think so.
  
  I couldn't care less about the score Tom gave Riddick, despite his attempt to place my comments in with those made by morons that hyperventilate over scores less than a 7.0. I didn't make the game and have no vested interest in its success. My only point was that a review of a game, ANY game, should be a review of everything included in the game, for better or for worse. I'm frankly surprised that I have to defend that point of view.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/13/2009 8:49:19 AM

  @TomChick: As usual, you view a legitimate comment in the worst possible light, casting aspersions on, in this case, my intelligence in your response. You should get some sort of form that you can copy and paste to save some time.
  
  The text of the review is what's most important. But if the review purports to make a recommendation on the whole product, then the reviewer should actually play everything that's offered. That was my point and that's not a specious argument. That's not even an argument focused on the score itself. You didn't play any of the MP component. You perhaps sampled Butcher Bay. Those are both big portions of the entire package. To essentially ignore huge chunks of content and at the same time make a recommendation regarding the entire package is wrong.
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  GusMastrapa

  4/11/2009 11:16:02 PM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  The argument you're making reminds me of the problems I had with reviews of The Orange Box. That package was marketing. A bundle of many excellent games. A great value -- one price for multiple things. Just like a Happy Meal is a great value because you get a hamburger, a drink, fries and soft drink. I took issue with The Orange Box getting "game of the year" awards because it was really three games. It was like giving the Happy Meal the hamburger of the year award.
  
  Anyway, I'm not sure where I was going with this whole analogy except to say that all we care about here is hamburgers.
  
  Tom spends his review talking about the hamburger he thought mattered.
  
  Did that make sense?
  
  Also, I'd give my left nut to go back in time and murder the person who invented review scores.

  Reply »
• 
  TomChick

  4/11/2009 10:12:10 PM

  Lovely, so the argument is about the *rating*? Good lord, MSU, you'd think I gave the game a 6 or something. Or that I had some effect on its Metacritic score. Frankly, I'm happy to talk about the text, but I find it pretty stupid to argue about the rating given Crispy Gamer's system.
  
  I wrote exactly as much about Escape from Butcher Bay as I intended. If you can't deduce from what I wrote whether or not you should get Assault on Dark Athena, then either you fail at reading or I fail at writing. Don't try to make some specious argument based on the difference between a "Fry It" or a "Try It".

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  4/9/2009 2:36:49 PM

  Maybe Athena is so bad that it overshadows the rest of the package? Maybe talking about Butcher's Bay (again) is not important because it is still awesome?
  
  That's my guess. And for the record i'm buying it to have Butcher's Bay on Xbox 360. My Xbox gave up the ghost a long time ago.

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/9/2009 2:07:28 PM

  @CG-Prophet: Hell, from the reviews I've read, the new part (Dark Athena) isn't particularly good. I take no issue with that. All I was saying is that everything on the disc should be reviewed if one makes a recommendation as to whether or not someone should buy that disc.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  4/9/2009 1:56:05 PM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  Some sites (did we? I don't recall and i'm too lazy to look) did just that. My point is that maybe this new part isn't all that good (I have only played the demo and enjoyed it for the record). If it were by its lonesome it would it hold up?
  
  I get what you are saying and Tom sends a mixed message in the comments by saying the only way to play Butcher's Bay on Xbox 360 is to buy this game..
  

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/9/2009 1:11:47 PM

  @CG-Prophet: To me those questions are moot, at least inasmuch as Tom's review is a review of the entire Dark Athena package. I don't have to worry about what the package would be like without Butcher Bay or the MP component because it contains both of those things. The game is what it is. It doesn't seem fair to me to only review a third of the content, but to then make a recommendation to not buy the entire package. I have no problem with reviewing only the Dark Athena content, but then it shouldn't be presented as a review of the entire package and certainly should not purport to tell a consumer not to buy the game. Again, to me this would be like reviewing only the Episode 2 content in console version of The Orange Box.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  4/9/2009 12:57:06 PM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  Seriously though, I don't know if I agree with you or not. Should the remastered version of Butcher's Bay have an impact on what Tom thinks of this allegedly new game? Should this new game be an expansion pack? If you take that wonderful game out of the equation does this product stand on its own?
  
  
  What do you think?
  

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/9/2009 11:54:41 AM

  @CG-Prophet: Ha ha! Not only because it's a repost from Qt3, but because I expressed similar opinions in the comment thread following Jones' review of Killzone 2.
  
  

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  4/9/2009 11:48:02 AM

  @MSUSteve:
  
  Steve I find your comment to be too derivative of your previous work.

  Reply »
• 
  MSUSteve

  4/9/2009 11:42:42 AM

  Please forgive this re-post from Qt3, but it expresses my feelings on the review accurately, so I couldn't see any good reason to rewrite it.
  
  It seems a little irresponsible to me to review a game and not talk about huge chunks of the content. If the Dark Athena review is framed as a review only of that content, then it's fine, but when the review scale is "Buy It," "Try It," and "Fry It," it doesn't make a lot of sense. There is no way to buy Dark Athena without buying Escape from Butcher Bay and the included multiplayer features. To recommend one "Fry It," which presumably means don't "Buy It," without reviewing the entire product doesn't seem particularly fair. Would it be fair for one to review The Orange Box without even mentioning Half-Life 2, Episode 1, or Team Fortress 2? I certainly don't think so.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Prophet

  4/9/2009 5:48:03 AM

  @saintpale:
  
  Have you played it?
  
  

  Reply »
• 
  SwiftRanger

  4/9/2009 3:22:33 AM

  "Unfortunately, buying Assault on Dark Athena seems to be pretty much the only way to play it these days, as it's not backwards compatible on a 360."
  
  There is still the PC version of the original game which was superior in every way, must be lying somewhere around @ budget price.
  
  Now, the PC version of Assault on Dark Athena on the other hand seems to be bloated with DRM of the dark ages it seems... :(

  Reply »
• 
  saintpale

  4/9/2009 3:17:30 AM

  @CG-Gabe:
  
  If you loved the first one, the new one is great, poop on this review.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  JasonMcMaster

  4/8/2009 1:39:00 PM

  @CG-Gabe:
  
  me too, man. Loved the shit out of the first one.

  Reply »
• 

  Bawk!
  Bawk!

  CG-Gabe

  4/8/2009 10:20:39 AM

  Kind of bummed by this review. I was a big fan of the first game. I'll be checking it out anyway, but with less anticipation.

  Reply »
• 
  TomChick

  4/7/2009 8:34:30 PM

  Mr. Bangkay, Escape from Butcher Bay seems to holds up surprisingly well for an "old" game. Unfortunately, buying Assault on Dark Athena seems to be pretty much the only way to play it these days, as it's not backwards compatible on a 360.

  Reply »
• 
  unangbangkay

  4/7/2009 7:22:16 PM

  So, would this be a "Buy It" if I had neither an original Xbox or a 360?

  Reply »

Want a new look on the discussion?
» Take It to the Forums

Leave a Comment