what's their problem?

[phoenix7785]

have any of you read the reviews punisher got? i've read several different reviews and they all just bash this game. what the hell? punisher is a great game and it's only $10. do these critics expect $60 quality? i love cod4 and i don't like many other fps's but punisher is awesome. i hated KZ2 & cod5 and i thought cellfactor was gonna be cool but everyone just plays the same old run & gun crap. yes "run & gun" is fun sometimes but there should be some kind of strategy too which is what punisher gives us. there are actually hiding spots in this game which makes people think twice about running around shooting everything. i like a variety of different types of games in fps's. sometimes i like to run & gun, sometimes i like to just camp out and snipe, and sometimes i just don't care if i even get a kill. punisher has good graphics, excellent level design, a wide range of weapons although it's missing some of my favorites like grenades & sniper rifle and great gameplay, the button layout is almost exactly the same as my button layout on cod4. i have to complain about the very slow melee attack. i've found it to be quicker to just change weapons. anyway, this game deserves much better ratings than what it got. i would give it a 8 out of 10 even comparing it to disc based fps's. after some patches to fix the problems and some DLC this game could easily be a perfect 10. on a scale of 1-10, what rating would you give punisher?

[Darth Moose]

Don't let the reviews get to you, as long as you enjoy the game thats all that matters. I used to be a huge comic book addict, mainly marvel, mostly xmen, but I love this game, the lag kills it and makes it frustrating for me to play. Out of all the online games I played, this is by far the most horrid laggy online out of all of them.

[phoenix7785]

the reviews bother me cause i depend on them to choose a new game. if i had not of bought it because it was punisher i never would have bought it because the reviews are so bad. yet everyone gave gta4 a perfect 10. if this was the 80's they would have gave it a 10, but it's not and they want to compare everything to something else they played instead of what makes the game fun. they're complaining because it only takes an hour to 90 minutes to complete story mode? look at all the other fps's that cost $60 and only take 5 or 6 hours to beat. they're saying that up close it looks like ps2 graphics. REALLY? maybe they should adjust their tv settings cause on my tv it looks like nothing less than HD. they say there's only a handful of levels? look at just about any other downloadable game, how many levels do they got? if they do have alot then they're probably short. i bought some games because they got good ratings and alot of them suck you know what (like noby noby boy). i mean come on, based on the reviews they say noby noby boy is better than punisher. these critics need to put their helmets on, get back on the short bus and go home. their reviews are worthless and all they seem to care about is making the good games look worse and the bad games look better.

[Mike12888]

Don't let the reviews get to you, as long as you enjoy the game thats all that matters. I used to be a huge comic book addict, mainly marvel, mostly xmen, but I love this game, the lag kills it and makes it frustrating for me to play. Out of all the online games I played, this is by far the most horrid laggy online out of all of them.

Because of the terrible review scores from the most trafficed sites (IGN- 4.2/10, gamespot-4.5/10) nobody will buy the game and it will die very quickly, review scores matter.

[razkazz]

The game still sold over 5,000 copies (I'm assuming from the # of people on the leaderbords) that's pretty good, right? I just hope bad reviews don't effect the release of future DLC.

[Darth Moose]

Because of the terrible review scores from the most trafficed sites (IGN- 4.2/10, gamespot-4.5/10) nobody will buy the game and it will die very quickly, review scores matter.

Thats your opinion, I myself don't rely on reviews, I look a gameplay video's or ask a friend before I decide. Though once I play a game and enjoy it i'm curious of how it was reviewed.

[phoenix7785]

Thats your opinion, I myself don't rely on reviews, I look a gameplay video's or ask a friend before I decide. Though once I play a game and enjoy it i'm curious of how it was reviewed.

it's not really his opinion. review scores do matter alot. take gta4 as an example. thousands of people went out & payed $60 for this game because of the reviews and gta4 is probably the biggest flop since the ps3 was released. i can't even sell my copy because all the game stores are overstocked with it. yet this game got a perfect 10 by many websites & magazines. these poor critics are killing some of the great games out there and i don't want punisher to go down as another one of the most under-rated games of all time. asking a friend is really the only option cause watching videos of gameplay doesn't always give you the info you need about a game and 5000 copies is obviously not enough cause it's incredibly hard to find a descent online match to play.

[Mike5GSR]

anyway, this game deserves much better ratings than what it got. i would give it a 8 out of 10 even comparing it to disc based fps's. after some patches to fix the problems and some DLC this game could easily be a perfect 10. on a scale of 1-10, what rating would you give punisher?

I want to like this game but I'm not giving it an 8/10 like you...especially compared to a disc based FPS. Look...I don't expect much from a $10 downloadable game...there's a reason it's at that price point. It's unfair to directly compare it to a AAA title. So with that caveat, that's why I'm not so harsh on Punisher.

I still like the old style gameplay...reminds me of Duke Nukem 3D without the verticality. I would not call finding a camping spot strategic though. This is by no means a tactical game. There's just no killcam or replay to discourage camping. I understand reviewers complaining about the gameplay style, because shooters have indeed moved on.

I definitely agree with the story bashing. The story(I used that word loosely) is horrible. It has no context to the actual levels, is poorly directed and therefore poorly voiced, and doesn't even make sense...most times even panel to panel. I've been collecting comics since 1991. I'm not expecting Frank Miller or Chris Claremont caliber work, but those comic panels do nothing but hurt this budget game.

For the single player bashing:
I understand those poor reviews as well. With 4 small levels what do you expect? I don't mind bot matches...Unreal Tournament 3 is one of my favorite games ever. That game is a simple story linking together arena style bot matches to each other. Zen should have included all their skirmish maps in the story mode. Maybe they didn't want to make more horrible comic panels in between. Maybe they didn't want to get reviewed poorly for repetitive gameplay. So the story mode is short and neither innovative or memorable.

Besides their bots are really stupid. I'm not expecting UT3 level A.I. or Killzone 2 bot intelligence for $10, but their A.I. is weak. Duke Nukem 3D weak. The character animations are also very weak. The art direction for the characters makes them all look like melted plastic action figures...except maybe for Microchip. I also have the same complaint for Bioshock but at least their animation and articulation was far superior.

Technical weaknesses:
The audio is just bad. I'm not complaining about the voice acting...which is really bad(Silver Sable), but I do think Barracuda is funny. I'm talking about their sound mixing and audio channels. You can't tell if you've walked over an item pickup if another sound effect is playing. The announcer can't say more than one sentence when picking up more than one item. It also has poor directional audio.

Graphically I'd agree this is a good looking game, but not great. Kudos to Zen for supporting 1080i output. This is a 720p native game but it's obvious this game is being engine rendered at a sub-HD level...my guess is around the 500 vertical pixels level. There's bad edge-aliasing on the weapons and even the characters...look at Silver Sable in the character selection menu. I'm not complaining about texture pop-in because that's an Unreal Engine trait. Punisher's bloom lighting is annoying and obscures your line of sight.

This game is no graphical powerhouse and I don't expect it for a non-AAA title. The game makes many sacrifices for memory management: The draw distance is short keeping the levels small...also eliminating the need for a sniper rifle. Ammo is unlimited so they don't need to track or render weapon drops and ammo boxes. The number of weapons is small even though they have upgradable levels. Texture resolution is average for a Unreal Engine game. There's not a lot of normal mapping to mask that issue.

The lag...it's a multiplayer focused game and...well...we all know. Can't blame reviewers for bashing that. Only 8 players and lag even without item persistence...or even 8 total players. Zen deserves bad feedback for their online performance.

Don't be so critical on reviewers. They have an opinion like you. They list the aspects they don't like. I love Killzone2 which you don't. I call that a strategic FPS, but you think Punisher is...that boggles my mind. Even Warfare mode in UT3 is far more strategic. Being able to camp isn't strategy.

Reviewers have a different reference level for games. Innovation and technical prowess are rewarded...not making a nostalgic gameplay Unreal Tournament mod. I'd be pissed if a reviewer gave Punisher an 8/10 when Killzone2 is a 9/10. Killzone2 has a real story campaign, real-time cutscenes, superior character and weapon animations, superior audio, 32 player online(plus item persistence, turrets, aerial bots, proximity mines, mounted guns), different classes with interchangable secondary abilities...and I haven't even mentioned graphically superior in EVERY way.

So that's making a $10 vs. $60 comparison. Problem is reviewers and myself won't give a good score for 1/6th of good game even for 1/6th of the price. It will take more than a cheap price. I still had fun with Punisher for a very short time...waiting to see if this online patch happens...then I'll come back.

[razkazz]

One thing that's bothering me is all the hype and rave reviews for Battlefield 1943. I bought it, and it also lacks a real singleplayer, has really weak graphics for a PS3 title, suffers from lag, has only one game mode, like 5 weapons, and no unlockable items. I definitely prefer No Mercy and it's $5 less. I'm more of an old-school arena shooter fan, so maybe it's just me, but Battlefield is also like a stripped down Warhawk. With only more fun gunfights in it's favor over that game. I'm surprised there's such a huge difference in the reception of Battlefield and No Mercy.

[GPA Kevin]

I played Battlefield on the Xbox, but I assume it's mostly the same as the PS3.

It doesn't have texture pop-in for one thing, and the environments are beautifully detailed. It features vehicles and destructible buildings. There's great balance between character classes. The rocket launchers are restricted to one character class and feature limited ammunition (3 shots and you're out.)

That doesn't mean that everybody's going to have more fun with it. It's a very strategic "capture the flag" game with huge maps, where No Mercy solely is about close quarters gunplay. It's not the same experience. No Mercy is definitely the game to choose for Quake/Unreal Tournament/Duke Nukem fans.

But apparently they're having server issues too, so No Mercy and Battlefield are sort of in the same boat on that one.

[Mike12888]

One thing that's bothering me is all the hype and rave reviews for Battlefield 1943. I bought it, and it also lacks a real singleplayer, has really weak graphics for a PS3 title, suffers from lag, has only one game mode, like 5 weapons, and no unlockable items. I definitely prefer No Mercy and it's $5 less. I'm more of an old-school arena shooter fan, so maybe it's just me, but Battlefield is also like a stripped down Warhawk. With only more fun gunfights in it's favor over that game. I'm surprised there's such a huge difference in the reception of Battlefield and No Mercy.

Battlefield suffers from lag? I just got my play 30 games trophy and have had no lag, at all. Punisher on the other hand is a lagfest in anything with more than 4 players, and is a buggy disaster. There are 12 weapons (I think) in the game, and 3 different melee weapons. Although no unlocks, there's a deeper ranking system, challenges, and a better trophy list (IMO).

As a big fan of arena-style (UT) shooters, I am loving Punisher nonetheless, but it seems like no other UT fans bought the game! IDK if everyone in One Man Army is lagging but me, but with the exception of a few good players, people are terrible. I've had more than ten 40-0 games, and have nearly a 7.5 KDR, with as very little amount of quits.

Battlefield on the other hand, is a lot more of a challenge (I can barely ever get much over a 2.0 KDR).

The classes work perfectly, the graphics are great, the environment destruction is comparible to that of Red Faction Guerilla, and the framerate handles great for a 12v12 game.

Even though it's $5 more than Punisher, it's still considered a PSN game.

You say it's a stripped down version of Warhawk. Warhawk is a TPS, and BF is a FPS, the gameplay is really just all-around completely different. Infact the only similarity I can find it the fact that you can drive tanks and fly plains. But that was in Battlefield 1942, which came out in late 2002, long before warhawk.

Besides, If you'd like to talk "stripped-down versions" Punisher is pretty much a bad UT mod.

[badazzsecdef_m3cHz95_IsMe]

Not reading them posts up there, but from what ive seen the complaints are small maps and graphics. And short story. THE GAME WAS A PSN DOWNLOAD! FOR $10.00! It wasnt a very big download, it was cheap purchase, and there is still hope for larger maps via DLC. As far as short story, well its an online multiplayer, it's long enough to learn the controlls and get on your feet unlike Battlefeild 1943 wich has no story mode. And Battlefeild is boring from what ive played, very slow start, no offline play to warm up the graphics are not much better IMO from a distance it looks like a saturday mrning cartoon with all the little flags and what not floating around. and i have still yet to figure out how to zoom, WTF i picked sniper and theres no Zoom?!?

[razkazz]

^ L1 is zoom, I couldn't figure it out at 1st either lol. The sniping is extremely frustrating though, it takes 2 shots to kill someone and between each shot you fire there's a reload animation that takes a couple seconds, giving your victim plenty of time to find cover. I guess I'm just not into Battlefield's style of gameplay, the darn 30 minutes free deal got me. Driving around for a couple minutes between firefights just gets boring to me, No Mercy is a blast.

[Alucard_156]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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 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 half-@$$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]

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 half-@$$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]

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.

[slitwrist1134@yahoo.com]

I'll just chalk it all up to haters.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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 ;]