what's their problem?

[Syon]

Did that UT mod cost $10? Was it cheaper if you didn't want the crappy non-sensical comic panels abusing a comic book license? Did that mod knock the player count down to 8 and still add a bunch of lag?

Hahaha, no no, nothing like that. It's just the gameplay itself is somewhat similar ;]

[Mike5GSR]

Did that UT mod cost $10? Was it cheaper if you didn't want the crappy non-sensical comic panels abusing a comic book license? Did that mod knock the player count down to 8 and still add a bunch of lag?

[Syon]

Hi there, people. I just downloaded this game late at night and it's really cool. Well might be because I'm a big fan o Frank but either way this game is ok and those reviews (IGN, Gamespot) are bashing it very unfair... The gameplay reminds me an Unreal Tournament mod called Tactical Ops. Dunno if any of you play it but basically it's the same thing.

[phoenix7785]

There's the difference between you and I. I'm not basing my score on the fun factor. That's just a single criteria in my own review score...but the most important one at that. I'm considering other aspects like the presentation, technology, gameplay mechanics, story(if applicable) and anything innovative. All of these, of course, directly influence the fun factor which make the game worth playing or not.

Since they influence the fun, that's why Punisher's weaknesses drive my score way down. I can't have fun with this game online...it pisses me off rather than entertain me. I love the Unreal Engine and I love arena shooters...I even love cheap...but that's pretty much the only reason I tried Punisher.

I'm not expecting bug free games in this era. That's just not going to happen. Consoles are far too complex and have too many capabilities. You can't be 100% bug free and have the product ready to sell this hardware generation. But with fixed platforms it is definitely easier to polish your code than making a PC game supporting different CPU's, GPU's, API's, and OS's.

Fun isn't my only criteria but it's also the most subjective...that's why I don't reference a fun score. I can't stand playing RPG's...I am not a fan of inventory management and menu sifting. Those kinds of games will never be fun to me. Although the cutscenes and summons in Final Fantasy games are top notch...I do appreciate those. That does not mean RPG's are not good games...just not fun to me. I love racing games, but now it's only Gran Turismo. If you can't get your physics and graphics up to par with GT:5Prologue then I don't care. Didn't like Project Gotham, Forza, Grid, Dirt and Need for Speed is a joke...I ran through a city track on Most Wanted without using the brakes. I'll leave my arcade racing exclusively to Mario Kart...graphically inferior in every way but super fun.

As for Battlefield:1943...I agree I do think mixing abilities between the classes would be awesome. I wish I could use the M1 Garand and have the satchel charges instead of the grenades.

That game is such an oddity for me. I hate WWII games with a passion...except Wolfenstein. Been sick of the concept even before Medal of Honor was popular. I hate old weapons. COD4 only reinforced my perception of why old weapons suck. I watched my friend play BF:1943 on his Xbox 360 and I still had no interest. Told him I didn't even want to try it. He took a smoke break outside and I jumped into his match so it wouldn't auto-kick him from the round. Been hooked ever since.

DICE managed to turn me. I have respect for the M1 Garand, M1A1 Thompson and Japanese Type 5 and Type 100 guns now. Their art direction is awesome. It minimizes the weaknesses of the Frostbite engine with thier presentation. Graphics are crisp and the draw distance is very far(but no 1080i support on PS3). The beaches, hills and trees are beautiful. The sound design is awesome...positional audio is incredible as well as the sound effects themselves. I hate control point gameplay but the huge levels and game mechanics make it fun for me. I can play the game so many different ways. I love their bonus point systems for Defender, Savior, Avenger and Kill or Capture Assists.

That game isn't perfect. PS3 mic chat still doesn't work right. Stupid sniper rifles always reload 5 bullets even if you shot only 1. They also greatly underestimated demand at launch and didn't have the server capacity. I started playing days after that was resolved anyway. Taking everything into consideration I'd give BF:1943 a solid 8/10...that would be even higher if I could use the mic chat with my PS3 friends. They'd do even better if they had some good single player bot matches for training. So that's quite an accomplishment for DICE despite me hating WWII era games, they have no story mode or cutscenes, one gametype, and only 4 levels(effectively 3, since I don't care about Air Superiority). BF:1943 got me to stop playing Killzone2, UT3 and Resistance2 for a while...they did a good job.

you know .... i like you man, i don't have anything to say now. your debates are absolutely brilliant and even tho i don't agree with your ratings technique you make very good points. love your taste in racing games tho. nothing and i mean nothing compares to gran tourismo. GT has made me turn my back on arcade racers but i did really enjoy midnight club 3 & i still play burnout paradise. i'm surprised we gave 1943 the same score. here's what i think. i think you rate games startings with a perfect 10 and deduct points for the bad areas of the game where i start with 0 points and add points for all the good things. this would result in very different rating scores. anyway, you have successfully shut me up lol. good job. if you wouldn't mind i would like to put you on my psn friends list. my psn id is phoenix7785 please send me a friend invite. maybe you could show me the ropes on resistance 2. i just got it yesterday but i played the first game til i got cod4.

[[email protected]]

I'll just chalk it all up to haters.

[Mike5GSR]

There's the difference between you and I. I'm not basing my score on the fun factor. That's just a single criteria in my own review score...but the most important one at that. I'm considering other aspects like the presentation, technology, gameplay mechanics, story(if applicable) and anything innovative. All of these, of course, directly influence the fun factor which make the game worth playing or not.

Since they influence the fun, that's why Punisher's weaknesses drive my score way down. I can't have fun with this game online...it pisses me off rather than entertain me. I love the Unreal Engine and I love arena shooters...I even love cheap...but that's pretty much the only reason I tried Punisher.

I'm not expecting bug free games in this era. That's just not going to happen. Consoles are far too complex and have too many capabilities. You can't be 100% bug free and have the product ready to sell this hardware generation. But with fixed platforms it is definitely easier to polish your code than making a PC game supporting different CPU's, GPU's, API's, and OS's.

Fun isn't my only criteria but it's also the most subjective...that's why I don't reference a fun score. I can't stand playing RPG's...I am not a fan of inventory management and menu sifting. Those kinds of games will never be fun to me. Although the cutscenes and summons in Final Fantasy games are top notch...I do appreciate those. That does not mean RPG's are not good games...just not fun to me. I love racing games, but now it's only Gran Turismo. If you can't get your physics and graphics up to par with GT:5Prologue then I don't care. Didn't like Project Gotham, Forza, Grid, Dirt and Need for Speed is a joke...I ran through a city track on Most Wanted without using the brakes. I'll leave my arcade racing exclusively to Mario Kart...graphically inferior in every way but super fun.

As for Battlefield:1943...I agree I do think mixing abilities between the classes would be awesome. I wish I could use the M1 Garand and have the satchel charges instead of the grenades.

That game is such an oddity for me. I hate WWII games with a passion...except Wolfenstein. Been sick of the concept even before Medal of Honor was popular. I hate old weapons. COD4 only reinforced my perception of why old weapons suck. I watched my friend play BF:1943 on his Xbox 360 and I still had no interest. Told him I didn't even want to try it. He took a smoke break outside and I jumped into his match so it wouldn't auto-kick him from the round. Been hooked ever since.

DICE managed to turn me. I have respect for the M1 Garand, M1A1 Thompson and Japanese Type 5 and Type 100 guns now. Their art direction is awesome. It minimizes the weaknesses of the Frostbite engine with thier presentation. Graphics are crisp and the draw distance is very far(but no 1080i support on PS3). The beaches, hills and trees are beautiful. The sound design is awesome...positional audio is incredible as well as the sound effects themselves. I hate control point gameplay but the huge levels and game mechanics make it fun for me. I can play the game so many different ways. I love their bonus point systems for Defender, Savior, Avenger and Kill or Capture Assists.

That game isn't perfect. PS3 mic chat still doesn't work right. Stupid sniper rifles always reload 5 bullets even if you shot only 1. They also greatly underestimated demand at launch and didn't have the server capacity. I started playing days after that was resolved anyway. Taking everything into consideration I'd give BF:1943 a solid 8/10...that would be even higher if I could use the mic chat with my PS3 friends. They'd do even better if they had some good single player bot matches for training. So that's quite an accomplishment for DICE despite me hating WWII era games, they have no story mode or cutscenes, one gametype, and only 4 levels(effectively 3, since I don't care about Air Superiority). BF:1943 got me to stop playing Killzone2, UT3 and Resistance2 for a while...they did a good job.

[phoenix7785]

I rate it on the "problems" because that's how a review should be. Good developers don't release a game full of "problems". They "fix" them before it gets released. You get rewarded for having a "polished" game. You do not get rewarded for potential.

You release an online multiplayer game...you better better make sure the "online" works. There will be no rewards for [email protected]$$ing or almost finishing a game. How did Punisher's online even pass Sony certification? SCEA just playtest this game at some 8 person LAN party? Maybe they used the same testers who gave the go-ahead on Socom:Confrontation...an earlier(and on-going) online nightmare.

Zen fixes the online issues...my score goes up. Zen patches in a coherent story, better animations, and voice acting...the score goes way up. However, it would just be a different game at that point.

Or I can buy older AAA games new for $20 retail and suddenly Punisher's value isn't so appealing. I bought another copy of UT3 and Gears1 recently.

Or I just keep playing Battlefield:1943. 4 more matches till I get my 100 match trophy. WWII games suck and so do old guns...but DICE has made dropping someone with the M1 Garand very satisfying. Nothing beats detonating satchel charges on a tank.

i agree that all the problems should be fixed before releasing a game and they must have had idiots testing the game but i still don't agree with rating a game based on it's problems because all games no matter how good it is has problems. no game is perfect, at least i haven't seen one yet. i always rate a game depending on how much fun it is. i could give a 2D sidescrolling a perfect 10 if it's good enough. i don't give a crap about innovation or graphics. that's not what makes a great game. to this day i still give final fantasy 7 a perfect 10, yea it looks like lego men and the sound sux really bad but i still get hooked everytime i play it and i've beat the game over 10 times. mmmmmmmmm satchel charges on tanks....my favorite. i just wish you could mix/match weapons to different classes or do some kind of customization. what rating would you give battlefield? think i would give it a 8 or 8.5 if they would give us some kind costomization with the weapons and some more maps i'd give it a perfect 10.

[Mike5GSR]

I rate it on the "problems" because that's how a review should be. Good developers don't release a game full of "problems". They "fix" them before it gets released. You get rewarded for having a "polished" game. You do not get rewarded for potential.

You release an online multiplayer game...you better better make sure the "online" works. There will be no rewards for [email protected]$$ing or almost finishing a game. How did Punisher's online even pass Sony certification? SCEA just playtest this game at some 8 person LAN party? Maybe they used the same testers who gave the go-ahead on Socom:Confrontation...an earlier(and on-going) online nightmare.

Zen fixes the online issues...my score goes up. Zen patches in a coherent story, better animations, and voice acting...the score goes way up. However, it would just be a different game at that point.

Or I can buy older AAA games new for $20 retail and suddenly Punisher's value isn't so appealing. I bought another copy of UT3 and Gears1 recently.

Or I just keep playing Battlefield:1943. 4 more matches till I get my 100 match trophy. WWII games suck and so do old guns...but DICE has made dropping someone with the M1 Garand very satisfying. Nothing beats detonating satchel charges on a tank.

[phoenix7785]

^^It'd be pretty weird for No Mercy to get no DLC considering there's a Downloads option on the main menu. And they've announced that they're working on the patch, it's only been a week & a half and Zen doesn't have all the resources of a big developer. The tournaments section is further proof that they intend to continue support for the game.

Also, in regards to No Mercy not deserving an 8 because Killzone 2 got a 9 and their scores should be way different, what about the other PSN games that get high scores? It's known that they aren't on par with $60 games, PSN games are in their own league and shouldn't be compared to full price games while being reviewed.

i agree and the reason i say i compare it to disc based game is because if you take away 5/6 of a full priced disc based game you'd get about as much as you get in punisher. and mike how can you rate it on the problems it has which can all be fixed? i don't worry about things like lag or slow match making anymore cause it can all be fixed. however you get what you pay for and punisher is only $10. and all of you saying punisher ir better than battlefield, i also have battlefield and it's a whole different kind of shooter. they should for any reason be compared to each other. also in 1943 they didn't have really "cool" weapons. battlefield is so addicting i can't put it down. and i don't really care for WWII shooters.

[Mike5GSR]

I don't feel it's low. Assuming those game reviewers feel like I do it's the same score I give this game 4/10...it's only that high because it was priced at $10....if this game was $15, I'd give it a 3/10. They were rewarded for being very cheap...a wise choice on Zen's part. They got bonus points for 1080i support from me...even Battlefield:1943 doesn't do that.

However, as is, this game is not deserving of a higher score to me. The online is awful. I wanted to unlock everything but I don't need to get irritated with the slow matchmaking and a lagfest to get there...especially with my 16Meg down/5Meg up connection. So I wait.

The game is multiplayer focused, PS3 exclusive, and Unreal Engine powered. Zen doesn't even have the luxury of using excuses like cross-platforming or engine development weaknesses. They can't even use the excuse of being a new I.P. They got Marvel to license them the Punisher and supporting characters...that alone generates interest.


Other point deductions:
-Bad incoherent story...and ends in unnecessary cliffhanger...WTF for?
-Worse voice acting for that garbage story
-Really weak animations
-Why do they advertise a PhysX splash screen? The ragdolls are lame...does it really use Nvidia's PhysX SDK for the PS3?
-Weapon switch glitches
-Weapon zoom resetting all the time

So anyway, it's got too many flaws to get a higher score currently. It's not fun enough to overlook all the irritations. My local friends won't even buy after seeing it. We all love arena shooters, we all played Unreal Tournament, Quake 2, and Quake 3 in college. Before that it was Doom, Doom2, Rise of the Triad and Duke Nukem 3D in high school. We're the audience Punisher is catering to, but I'm the only one who purchased. Standards have risen.

[razkazz]

You don't think 4.5 on Gamespot & 4.2 on IGN is a little low though? I love arena shooters and they've provided one that I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of for $10. It's obvious neither reviewer spent the 20+ hours it takes to unlock everything. I've gotten my money's worth and had a lot of fun with the game, and I think the average fan of arena shooters and/or The Punisher would feel the same, to me that warrants a 6 or higher. The reviews are literally saying it's terrible and no one will like it, which just isn't true. The user reviews on Gamespot are much more accurate because they actually gave the game a chance. It might not be groundbreaking, but there isn't another online deathmatch game that blends old-school action with weapon upgrades, so it's not completely unoriginal. To me, it's exactly the kind of game I want for $10.

[Mike5GSR]

In reference to Punisher not deserving an 8/10 if Killzone2 is a 9/10:

Remember I said innovation and technical prowess are what reviewers base their scores on. No Mercy has neither. It's not Flower(innovative) and it's not Ratchet&Clank:Quest for Booty(technically proficient)...both well reviewed PSN titles.

I wasn't even limiting my comparison to PSN titles. Ever play Portal? That's a short, cheap, downloadable game. It's basically a Half-Life 2 mod. But it's so well done with innovation in level design and narrative. It deserved its high review scores. It was done by a very small team at Valve. Valve didn't put bad art direction, worse voice acting and ridiculous comic panels in their Half-Life 2 mod. That's the kind of stuff that deducts points from your review score.

So don't make the assumption I'm saying a good review is exclusive to large developers with big budgets.

I made the Killzone 2 comparison because it's a superb FPS. It's a benchmark. You can't put out a technically weak FPS and hope for a good score like phoenix7785 would rate it. He even said, "i would give it a 8 out of 10 even comparing it to disc based fps's".

[razkazz]

^^It'd be pretty weird for No Mercy to get no DLC considering there's a Downloads option on the main menu. And they've announced that they're working on the patch, it's only been a week & a half and Zen doesn't have all the resources of a big developer. The tournaments section is further proof that they intend to continue support for the game.

Also, in regards to No Mercy not deserving an 8 because Killzone 2 got a 9 and their scores should be way different, what about the other PSN games that get high scores? It's known that they aren't on par with $60 games, PSN games are in their own league and shouldn't be compared to full price games while being reviewed.

[Mike5GSR]

I stopped playing this game. I just check back on the forums for updates on a patch for matchmaking and lag.

I don't understand people's hopes for DLC. This is a low-budget game by a small development house. I have a strong belief that No Mercy was also delayed and supposed to be released to coincide with Punisher: Warzone movie. I also suspect it was meant to be a bigger game but budget and time constraints made it what we have now. This is why I believe it's was wisely priced at $10 because of the flak it would have received at anything higher.
Who makes DLC for a $10 game?

I'll come back whenever this patch happens. I'm not holding my breath on it since Zen still hasn't fixed this:

Your submission could not be processed because a security token was missing.

Besides, I moved on to Battlefield: 1943. I absolutely hate WWII games but I tried it at a friend's house and got hooked. 24 players, people aren't skipping all over the screen, weapon drops, turrets, vehicles, huge levels, good art direction and sound design, takes seconds to find a match and most important: I can hit what I aim at! Hmmm...but it's $5 more than Punisher, I'll take it.

[Alucard_156]

6/10

That is my score. It is fun when people are on but it takes forever to get a room with people, lag is annyoing but I don't face that problem a lot. All in all though it is afun game for like 10 dollers I hope there will be a DCL with more chracters from the marvel universe that use guns like nick fury dead pool and so on