The keyboard thatI'm using ucks honestlky. It skips a fucking letter evry 3 words and the backspace key is fucking broken.


Also IT WASNT SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY

Do you even PAY ATTENTION to the reviews? Matt Cassamassina basically said if all you have is a Wii, The Conduit is a great choice, but if you have other consoles, there's nothing groundbreaking.

And what's with this whole "It's a generic game so i don't care" bullshit come from? It's fucking goddamn 2009, EVERYTHING has basically been done already. If you find me ONE game with something "unique" I can find something eerily similar to that. Does that mean the game is bad? No. Does that mean the devs took no time to make it different? No.

As for the ASE, it was originally just going to be a small gimick, but it turned into a major gameplay element. There's Storm Scarabs that are invisible so you must use your ASE to charge them and disrupt their shielding, there are Ghost Mines which you must detonate with the ASE. There are hidden "keys" which when all are charged open the door, there are many secret discs and message scattered throughout the game (for those who actually care about the back story) and it also has its own Multiplayer mode called ASE Football where the person who holds onto it longest wins. Don't tell me that doesn't make the game unique in its own way. Also, just so you know, they've said the game is basically split 50-50 between Single-player and Multiplayer. I have been pwning some massive n00bs with A FUCKING PISTOL. It's the greatest game I've played in 6 months. It's better than Mirror's Edge and Fallout 3. I've been seriously playing the shit out of it. I have beaten campaign 3 or 4 times and have about 147 XP in Multiplayer (just started today).

... what the fuck, I posted here earlier and now somebody's (Assy) deleted my post.

Here's an interesting quote from Shokio on The Conduit:



For anyone who doesn't know, Shokio is a youtube user who got his hands on the game's manual far before release and has shot down numerous claims that hyped the game. I'd say he's a fair guy.

if he considers The Conduit to fall under this category, then he contradicts himself as the multiplayer would according to his logic be generic.

if he doesn't consider The Conduit to be generic (which I believe he does), then he has never played an FPS in his life.

I haven't played an FPS in months (the only thing close to that would be Battlefield Heroes which is a third person shooter and I will probably check out Battlefield 1943 when that comes out.). the only ones that can hold my interest are Call of Duty (although that one is pretty generic with the exception of the leveling system that every game in existence now has copied.), Unreal Tournament and Quake (the latter two aren't generic as the twitch FPSes as I like to call them are a dying breed on par with platformers.). this is because most of them are the same. the reason I'm asking what makes The Conduit so good is because this is a forum for a website based around the Wii. if this was a forum based on a website based around the Xbox 360 I could ask what makes Halo so good. (it's mindless fun in small bursts.)

Quake? As in Quake 1? Wow, I just read about Quake in an old book called Game Architecture and Design (great book btw) and they said it got negative reviews because they focused on graphics and not enough on Gameplay and then Quake II fixed all those problems.

Review scores are so arbitrary and opinionated that I think they should be banned. What ever happened to just having fun? Also in GA&D they called back to when the C64 and Sinclair where the major gaming PC platforms and how the Master System and NES were considered for the expanded audience. Boy, when "hardcore" gamers find out that all consoles are for the expanded audience and that most of all devs can make a lot more money creating games that appeal to the mass-media, they'll be pissed. The book also cites the reason why there's a new Madden, FIFA, NHL, etc. game every year. They're made for sports fans and mass-media who don't usually or always buy games. It even goes so far as to talk breifly about violence in video games. Man, Edge sure was childish back in '99. If you want I can send you scans of all those pages.

Quake Live. it's basically Quake 3 which is arguably the best version and the best thing is that it can run on almost any computer that's been created in the last 10 - 15 years.

I hate to break your bubble, but you're the one who brought up the argument that I don't pay attention to reviews and right now all you're doing is destroy your own arguments.

*golfclap*

If my defence I said review SCORES.

I've been playing the Conduit for the past 3 three days and while I do think it is a godd, 8.5ish game, people are right, it is a tad generic. It's not as good as Metroid Prime 3 and even games its better than (Red Steel, Medal of Honor Heroes 2) to me, had some more style, even though MOH was a brown WWII shooter...okay maybe not that one but still.

There's a reasomn why i picked Madworld over this as my game o show for comic con and i still think Madworld>Conduit. It seems to me that High Voltage SoftWare, much like Microsoft, has no style and its shame because everything else about the game is so well done. That's why I want other more stylish companies to start licensing the quantum 3 engine. Companies more like Nintendo...or Apple.

Assie's right though, review scores can fuck off

about bloody time someone gave me a real answer.

and it doesn't matter if you said review scores, Assy. you brought up reviews, stood behind that argument and then started critisizing it.

I don't see what people have against review scores. they're there for people who don't have time to read/watch a long review. I do think that they've gone a little insane over the last few years (6 - 7 is considered "average", 8 - 9 is considered "good" and 10, the highest score possible, is there for "great" games. 1 - 4 are seldom to never used.), but they exist for a reason. there is literally nothing to be upset about with them.

Review scores do have their purpose my problems with them though are
1. they create useless comparisons between vastly different games creating more fanboy arguments
2. i find it hard as a reviewer myself to assign a number to an experience

I see where you're coming from. maybe using this scale could help (what the scores should be based off of):

1 - Unplayable/Abysmal (Superman 64)
2 - Very Poor (I can't even come up with an example here.)
3 - Bad (Sonic '06 or Black Knight, perhaps?)
4 - Below Average (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Incest)
5 - Average (Sonic Unleashed*)
6 - Above Average (Madworld*)
7 - Good (Retro Game Challenge)
8 - Great (every Ace Attorney game, Professor Layton and the Curious Village)
9 - Excellent (Rhythm Tengoku Gold (Rhythm Heaven))
10 - Perfect (Braid, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.)

included examples based off my own opinion within parentheses for added tastiness.

* these are on 5.5, really.

God, now I feel like making a really long rant on why the top games on this list are incredible...

oh right, The Conduit! yeah, it's a game.

unless High Voltage announce a sequel is already in the making from now until the start of 2010, I will probably pick it up eventually anyway just out of curiosity.

The examples are EXACTLY why scores need to fuck off. More specifically MadWorld and Twilight Princess.

Also, Stan has helped me out on reviews in the past that I never got around to doing. Wanna know what he says? "Review the game on its own merits." And for the record, I was doing a review for Dave Mira BMX, a horrible game.

following that same logic, it's not the scores that need to be banned, but reviews. do you even know what a recomendation is?

Saying a game is "alright" and giving it a 5/10 are two different things. The score provides an opinionated scope which causes more controversy than needed.